Scientific Method - Twelve Logic Steps
as a Methodology of Investigation

      Related pages on The Logics website:

      Child Prodigy
      William James Sidis - When a Prodigy is not a Prodigy
      Type A and B Intelligence

---

      As referenced within several other The Logics pages, for more than one-hundred years it has been well known to Western science that emotions color an individual’s acuity of sensorial perceptions, memory, and capacity for logic (James/Lange et al). As a proponent of Western science might phrase the concept; science has proven the fact that emotions affect one’s ability for observation and logic. If science has accepted the reality that emotions influence observation, then a proponent of Western science must accept as well that specific emotions must be present for correct observation to exist.

      Of the majority of individuals I have met who argue with unreasoned faith in Western science, they have commonly held a contradictory simultaneous belief that human perception is ‘subjective,’ and therefore all human observation is invalid and inadmissible within a scientific observation. As many religious individuals claim their faith is true and yet the individuals do not love their neighbor as their religion teaches, so is it the behavior of hypocrisy for a believer in Western science to not abide by the conclusion of science that correct observation requires human participation and correct human emotions.

      It is not my intention to argue the point related to emotions, but rather it is the reader’s responsibility to investigate and verify the reality for him/herself. It is a simple experiment to choose an item that the reader hates, to observe the item, and then one hour later to write on paper a fullness of description of the thing from memory. Repeating the experiment with an item that the reader most cherishes, the reader should discover that his/her ability to recall details of sensorial perceptions are greatly enhanced when in a positive emotion. Do not take my word for it, nor the word of science, but rather the reader should rely only upon his/her own first-hand experience and verification. Once the verification is completed, then my following words will have better meaning.

      Within the emotion of love, the mind is in perhaps its greatest state of consciousness. Within love, the mind is open to receive sensorial perceptions about the thing being loved and observed. Some individuals with a skill in Zen awareness may experience an enhanced manner of focused consciousness, but the primary differences between love and Zen awareness is that love can be applied to the act of investigating intricacies of an object’s attributes within an investigative observation, whereas the Zen state typically exists within the purposeful elimination of critical analysis. Stable emotions are one of the keys to prodigious intellectual talents, and love is the most desirable emotion for its stability and fluid intensity.

      It is a common and popular ‘scientific’ view that indifference should be given to an object so that an observation might be impartial. While it is a desirable thing to eliminate the biasing of hate and other unwanted frames of mind, indifference itself is a form of hate.

      The modern scientific method is but a portion of the logics-sequencing within the investigation of a thing. Below are twelve primary sequences that a typical Nature-based logic might apply when investigating a topic.

      (1) Which Came First : Nature existed before man. If man no longer existed, Nature would continue to exist. Man did not create Nature, nor did man create any laws of Nature, nor does man have rule over any law of Nature. Nature rules man. Nature is the sole measure of what is real and what is not real. From the beginning through to the end of all analyses, the recognition remains within the mind that Nature existed before man, and all further thoughts are weighed relative to the truth that Nature is chronologically first.

      (2) Foundational Point of Reference for Logic : The mechanism of man’s ability for logic relies on there first being a standard by which to weigh and judge all things. The sole standard that is fixed, unchanging, and verifiable is the system of laws within Nature. Logic can only be correct if it is in agreement with Nature. Any logic not in agreement with Nature is incorrect.

      A religious belief can be logical relative to the teachings of a religious book, but if the book’s teachings are not in agreement with Nature, then the teachings and the logic are incorrect. A mathematical formula can be logical within the language of mathematics, but if the mathematical formula is not in agreement with Nature, then the math and the logic are incorrect. Only when a logic is in agreement with the laws of Nature can the logic be correct. Nature rules logic. As the first principle states Nature came first, so does the second principle harmoniously declare that man-made logics of religions, sciences, and mathematics do not rule Nature.

      (3) Emotional Stability : An elementary definition is that an emotion is the state of a physical body influenced by the effect of an energy/force. Relative to the topic of human life, emotions are the effect of the mind and body reacting in a feedback loop, i.e., a bodily sensorial perception results in a mental recognition of the perception, which results in the mind influencing the physical reaction to the perception, which in turn, the reaction is recognized by the mind which then influences further physical reactions.

      The quality of emotional states directly influence the quality of sensorial perception, the quality of mental recognition of sensorial perceptions, the quality of the mental storage of the perceptions, the quality of applying logic to the memories, and the quality of applying the logic to Nature. Poor quality emotions result in poor quality sensorial perceptions, poor quality memories, and poor quality logic. High quality emotions result in high quality sensorial perceptions, high quality memories, and high quality logic.

      Simply stated, negative emotions are destructive to the mind and body, and negative emotions always produce poor quality observations. Positive emotions are beneficial to the mind and body, and positive emotions always produce the best quality observations. Negative emotions include hate and greed. The positive emotion is love.

      Prior to an act of high quality observation it is necessary for an individual to first possess and express the positive emotion of love.

      (4) Mental State : A healthy mind can choose whether to give interest or disinterest to an observation. A typical individual subconsciously retains a degree of sensorial perceptions regardless of the individual’s interest in the perceptions. The typical human receives over 99.9% of all sensorial perceptions subconsciously, and thus the person’s logic must rely on subconsciously created memories. The individual that is capable of consciously observing sensorial perceptions while the perceptions are in progress, such an individual has the ability to receive and store a much greater quantity and quality of sensorial perceptions, and to retain memories that directly relate to the conscious state.

      It is an error for the typical individual to assume without further evidence that his/her method of sensorial perception is conscious. No individual can conceive of the differences between subconscious reception and conscious reception of perceptions until after the individual has personally experienced both methods and can then compare the differences. For the average individual, it is required that he master at minimum a type of Zen awareness before the individual can recognize the act of conscious observation.

      The highest quality and quantity of observations require the highest quantity and quality of consciousness. Only within the emotional state of love and in the mental state of focused conscious attention is it possible for the mind to increase its capacity for observation.

      (5) Mental Stance : The reason or purpose for an observation dictates the degree and angle of focus of sensorial perceptions. An observation entered into with the sole aim of finding a specific predetermined conclusion will not be focused on the whole, and thus the mind will not recognize the whole. An object’s internal attributes will not be recognized if an observation is entered into with the sole purpose of only measuring the object’s external attributes. Entering into an observation that is based upon a belief that a thing possesses a specific nature, will in turn result in the mind inventing reasons to believe that the nature exists whether the nature exists or not. Entering into an observation while within the view that the observer is not connected to the observed, will result in the observation being mentally interpreted as the perception of a disconnected thing.

      The only mental stance that allows maximum observational quality and quantity is wonder and curiosity accompanied with selfless love.

      (6) Mental History : By what knowledge an individual has acquired in the past, and by what standard of logic that the individual applied to the knowledge, so will the memories influence all present and future knowledge. The belief in an incorrect thing will force all new information to be contorted to fit the established belief.

      To achieve accuracy of an observation, it is necessary for the mind to enter into an observation without belief or disbelief of the object being observed. The desired state of mind is that of observing a thing in the ‘now,’ as it exists in the present, and without biasing the observation with thoughts of pre-established beliefs of how the object may have been interpreted in the past or how the object may exist in the future.

      (7) Sensorial Observation : A thing must be sensorially observed before the thing can be known to exist. The information that the mind receives from sensorial perception becomes the information that the mind stores as knowledge and then later uses as data for the mind to compare to other data. The act of comparing data is a portion of what is called “logic.” Without correct data, the mind cannot perform correct logic.

      Sensorial perception is the act of the mind and body functioning in union to convey and store information about the individual’s environment within Nature. Sensorial perception includes all five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. To gather the maximum quantity and quality of information, all five senses must be used to sense a thing. Merely seeing a thing with the eyes will not provide the mind with information about the thing’s smell, taste, sound, or texture.

      It is a common human error to believe that sight alone is sufficient, and thus, it is common for human logic to base its conclusions solely on data that is limited to the single knowledge of a thing’s visual appearance. Conclusions based on sight alone are always incomplete and in error.

      Through previous sensorial perceptions of an object, the mind can use the stored information to create an estimated concept (mental picture) of what another object might be sensed as. After the mind has sensorially perceived an object’s height, the mind then has stored information of what “height” implies, and the mind can then relate the information to other objects, whether the objects are sensorially perceived or merely communicated by language. Without first sensorially perceiving height, width, and length, the mind cannot perform logic about height, width, and length to derive abstract concepts about shapes and sizes. Due to precious few individuals having given sensorial observation to the perception of shaped duration, it is not possible for the individuals to create four dimensional thoughts, and if words alone were sufficient enough to communicate all knowledge, then all individuals would be capable of thinking four dimensionally. The popular belief as is often promoted by Western science, that a thing can be known solely through the exchange of verbal or written communication, is in error. Also, though two individuals may have sensorially perceived a singular thing, still there cannot be an accurate communication through words because both individuals’ sensorial perceptions cannot be of equal quantity, equal quality, equal emotional state, equal mental stance, nor of an equal point of view. Each individual’s observation is unique, and so is each individual’s definition of a word unique.

      Accuracy of an observation is directly proportional to the individual’s own accuracy of Foundational Reference, Mental State, Mental Stance, Mental History, Emotional State, and acuity of Sensorial Perception.

      (8) Analysis of Sensorial Perceptions : A healthy mind, that is in conscious awareness and curiosity of a sensorial perception, will self-initiate a series of conscious mental comparisons of the present perception to memories of previous perceptions; which is the act of logic. Without interest and curiosity, a portion of sensorial perceptions will be stored as memories, and no further conscious mental activity regarding the perceptions will occur.

      Feeding back to the reason or purpose of the Mental Stance, if there is sufficient reason to pursue interest further, the mind will continue to mentally weigh and judge present perceptions to past perceptions. Without the reason or purpose to pursue the matter further, there will be no conscious analysis of the sensorial perception and neither will the mind progress through this step nor the next.

      (9) Hypothesis : If the Mental Stance has reason or purpose to progress through the Analysis of Sensorial Perceptions stage, the mind can then formulate a guess or belief about what the sensorial perceptions might indicate relative to the individual’s memories of past experiences. The mind will analyze the sensorial perception and judge the perception relative to the individual’s Foundational Point of Reference and Mental History. If an individual’s Foundational Point of Reference and Mental History are based upon the beliefs of a science/religious book, then the individual will interpret the sensorial perception relative to the science/religious beliefs, and the resulting hypothesis will be contorted to be in agreement with the science/religious beliefs. Similarly, if the Foundational Point of Reference and Mental History are based upon the belief that mathematics is a valid measure of Nature, then the hypothesis will be contorted to be in agreement with the belief in mathematics. The individual whose Foundational Point of Reference and Mental History are based on wonder, curiosity, and love of Nature will possess the Mental Stance of being capable of an unbiased perception about Nature.

      The unhealthy mind stops at this stage and accepts as true any guess or belief that the mind might have imaged to be the cause or effect of a sensorial perception.

      The healthy mind possesses an innate self-critical mechanism that perpetually questions itself in a repetitious stream of ‘what-ifs’ and comparisons of past memories and learned knowledge. After the stream of self-questioning has reached the point of having no further useful questions to ask itself, only then does the mind choose the most likely conclusion of what the present sensorial perception might imply.

      (10) Validation : If a string of reasoning has the potential for being verified through the use of additional sensorial perceptions, the mind can then assemble an experiment that will provide additional sensorial input-information that can then be logically weighed relative to the hypothesis. If the experiment can be performed several times with each repetition providing a similar result as the original sensorial perception, then the mind can rationalize that, during events in life that include activities similar to the experiment, the future sensorial perceptions will likely remain similar.

      An aware infant, sensorially observing variations of sunlight, warmth, tastes, sounds, and aromas can arrive at a hypothesis on the second day that the sensorial perceptions imply a cyclic nature of Nature. The third day helps to confirm the hypothesis, and by the fifth day it might appear likely that the cycles will continue occurring as before. Adding other sensorial information, the infant can recognize cycles of weeks and months, and the infant’s hypothesis of cycles are further validated each following day, week, and month. The aware child can sensorially perceive the differences of seasonal change, which in the second year the child can recognize a repetition of the first cycle of seasons, and the child will wait until the completion of the third year to verify the hypothesis that seasons exist and that the seasons are repeated cyclically. By the fifth year the aware child will be of the conclusion that the seasons will likely continue cycling as before unless there is cause for the seasons to change. The aware child, however, will continue to hold the conclusion of “I don’t know that the cycles will forever continue” because the child is aware that Nature has the capacity to alter some cycles, that some cycles are based on dualities, some cycles are based on triplicities, some cycles are based on the combination of triplicities and a single, that some cycles exist within a triplicity and a quad combined, and that there is no guarantee that this planet will forever exist in the same orbit as today, and because the child knows that it is necessary to observe all cycles of all time before it is possible to form an accurate conclusion of any. The aware infant, at two days old, is performing a superior form of logic sequencing than what modern science claims for its scientific method. Science did not invent the scientific method, nor can science accurately lay claim of being the sole source of ‘scientific inquiry.’ (See also Child Prodigy for its discussion on the popular myth that prodigious intellects cannot exist without adult education.)

      The uncareful mind accepts without self-criticism that seasons will continue unaltered, but the aware mind will not accept the unsubstantiated belief that seasons will continue unaltered, and the aware mind remains in a constant analysis of comparing present observations to past observations. It is the uncareful mind that claims a cyclic event has been proven valid, while the careful mind knows that no such validation has occurred.

      If an experiment proves inconclusive or if it proves a variance of results that exceed the limitations of the hypothesis, then the original hypothesis has not yet been validated as correct, and further experiments are required before an individual can acquire a sufficient quantity of examples to derive a rational trend within the results.

      The healthy mind automatically progresses through all stages while the individual is within the act of a new sensorial perception. When an observation is of a complex object and activity, it might be necessary for the experimentation to include a lengthy process of observing or manipulating physical objects to determine how each object’s behavior resembles the behavior of the original hypothesis.

      There can be no validation of a hypothesis without there being a sufficient quantity of experiments that repeatedly show similar results.

      (11) Conclusion : After having progressed through all previous stages with the highest quality of conscious attention, only then is it possible to accurately theorize about a likely conclusion. If the stages of thought and action were correct, then the final conclusion will be an honest “I don’t know.”

      It is possible to say that all rocks will fall to earth when dropped from the height of one’s head, but it is not possible to accurately claim that all rocks will fall if there occurs a disturbance in the rock’s environment, that of an increase of wind or a decrease of gravity. It is possible to say that gravity is the cause of rocks falling, but if the individual himself does not know what gravity is, then the individual has based his conclusion upon the belief that an unknown thing is performing an unknown act upon a rock. While the conclusion may be correct, that some effect in Nature causes rocks to fall to earth, still it is not logical to claim how a thing works if there is no knowledge of how the thing works.

      (12) Application : Once an observation has been carried through the stage of Conclusion, the new knowledge is then applied to the individual’s life. If the knowledge is concluded to be beneficial to the body, then the individual will apply the knowledge by living in a manner that exhibits the person’s knowledge that the conclusion was correct. If the knowledge is concluded to be beneficial to the mind, then the individual will apply the knowledge to his own thinking. If the person does not apply the knowledge to his own life, then he does not believe in his Conclusion.

---

      The above stages are a brief outline of the sequence that a healthy mind progresses through during all sensorial perceptions of interest. Which Came First - the mind first determines the importance of the topic relative to its sequence of existence within Nature. Foundational Point of Reference for Logic - the mind logically determines the topic’s relativity to what is known in Nature. Emotional Stability - the individual is in the state of caring for accuracy, of caring about the topic, of caring about Nature, of caring to achieve the best knowledge, of caring about the outcome of the observation, and of caring to think and act with the highest degree of accuracy and benefit that is only possible through selfless love. Mental State - the mind is acutely conscious of the sensorial perceptions. Mental Stance - the individual holds a natural awe, wonder, and curiosity for his reason and purpose for observation. Mental History - the individual has used a similar sequencing of stages of observation in the past which are now capable of being usefully applied to the current observation. Sensorial Observation - the individual is aware of the need to sense more than sight, and the individual acquires exponentially more information about an object through the use of all five senses. Analysis of Sensorial Perceptions - the individual’s clarity of thought and memories provide for clarity of analysis. Hypothesis - theories are based upon concepts formulated from the mental comparison of the present perception to past perceptions, and the hypothesis will likely be reasonably valid due to the wealth of information used to formulate the hypothesis. Validation - with interest and a self-driven will to verify a thing right or wrong, the individual will strive to confirm or disprove the hypothesis. Conclusion - though a conclusion may be constructed from irrefutable evidence, still the healthy mind knows that it is possible that new information can invalidate a conclusion, and therefore nothing is ultimately “proven.” Application - the acid-test of an individual’s Conclusion.

      The popular Westernized “scientific method” is generally listed as observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. The scientific method gives no importance to the need of Firsts, none to Foundational Points of Reference, none to Emotional Stability, none to Mental State, none to Mental Stance, none to Mental History, no direct importance of multi-sensorial observation, no importance of Analysis of Sensorial Perceptions, no clarification of what the hypothesis is supposed to accomplish relative to Reality, no clarification that the Conclusion must agree with Nature and all other stages, and the single most grievous omission is the lack of Application.

      Western science has known since the early 1900s that emotions influence thought and memories, but the knowledge is not applied to science’s own “scientific method.” If science believed in itself, then science would apply its knowledge within its own behavior. Science does not make use of its own knowledge, which validates the observance that western science is a form of pseudo-intellectualism that has little or no capacity for being of benefit to man or planet. It is the omission of principles of behavior and sequencings of logic that have resulted in science building bombs and pollutants instead of building star ships and paradise planets.

      Man was performing the twelve stages of reasoning long before the first word of language was invented, before the word “science” was invented, and some men continue using the twelve stages of reasoning without regard of “scientific method.” Science does not own anyone’s mind, science did not invent principles of logic sequencing, and science is not the sole source of knowledge. As religion did not invent ethics and morals, so also did science not invent logics sequencing (scientific method).

      It is real living breathing men and women that perform sequencings of rationalizing topics, it is real people that perform experiments, it is real people that work in labs, it is real people that study and theorize, and it is the real people that deserve the credit for new useful discoveries; not an empty façade named “science.”

      Speaking honestly does not make a man a Christian even if Christianity teaches honesty. Declining to murder people does not make a man a Jew even if Judaism teaches against murder. Being in the ‘now’ with acuity of conscious sensorial perception does not make a man a Buddhist even if Buddhism teaches being in the now. And sequencing one’s logic does not make a man a scientist even if Science teaches a sequencing of logic. It is necessary to stop placing labels of ideologies on people, but rather instead, to simply refer to what actions that the people do. Modern man enjoys believing that he is greatly evolved beyond his superstitious ancestors, but modern man has not evolved, and the proof is found in how man still proclaims a faith in a Conclusion, but denies the need for Application.