Philosophical Method

The answer to this question is “Yes and No”. More precise answer is “No and Yes”.

No part is because Philosophers tend to transcend physical reality. They may or may not go to right side. Even if some of them reach to right destination of transcendent reality, their method is not suitable to study physical reality.

For the yes part … (i) Philosophy must not peruse transcendent destination beyond of physical reality and (ii) Philosophy must be assertive of physical reality. Yes part of Philosophy is rare these days but it is part of philosophical tradition as explained below:

Preface & Complete 1st Chapter – Book: “Philosophy Unscrambles Dark Matter”

To be Philosophical means looking things in totality. To have a totalitarian approach. Rather than focusing a particular problem, trying to understand overall general structure, scheme or theme. To have a systematic approach and unwillingness to accept any stance within that general scheme without having solid logical justification.

This philosophical approach is good because non Philosophical people are often trapped in particular problems that may not even have sound logical basis. Having totalitarian approach is not a hindrance for solving particular problems either. Philosophy is more interested in big picture. A big picture philosopher can be dealing with particular problems but that would be his practical activity rather than philosophical.

After having seen that General Relativity (GR) has actually failed the test of Cosmos, now it is time to see that ‘scientists’ do think as if their beloved theories ‘govern’ the whole Universe.

Examples are numerous but purpose of this blog post is not to present a great number of examples. It is quite general – they normally talk like this and take it for granted that their theories do ‘govern’ the Physical World. Here is a recent example of just yesterday where a famous science writer is saying following:

From a theoretical perspective, we know how galaxies should form. We know that the Universe ought to start out governed by General Relativity, our law of gravity.

Ethan Siegel — Senior Contributor at

Here Ethan Siegel, just like majority of other ‘scientists’ is thinking that Universe must start in mode and manner as prescribed by the governing theory which is General Relativity.

The straight answer to this opinion should be that if your theory is the Governor of Universe then Universe must be a rebel of this Governor. This blog has already shown that Universe or Cosmos actually does not care anything about General Relativity (GR).

However actually this is the issue of perspective. Modern Science especially Physics is under the influence of Idealism. The implications of idealism on Physics are profound and deep which I have explained somewhere else in following words:

Implications of idealism are that our own ideas seem more real than the actual physical facts. Rather than explaining unknown aspects of reality on the basis of known observed facts, science would start explaining or interpreting observed facts on the basis of metaphysical ideas of larger reality. Big Bang theory is one of extreme examples of this kind of manifestation of idealism in Physics.

In this modern idealism, we start from GR equations. We find ‘correct solutions’ on paper and take them for real. It means we are at least at an advanced stage than those ancient animist people for whom any idea would be as real as physical reality. Our “modern science” has only sorted out that status of reality cannot be assigned to each and every idea of mind. This status goes only to ‘correct solutions’ of GR equations.

The actual physical reality is only that we are getting redshifted light from everywhere such that more distant galaxies are more redshifted. But more real for scientists is the very first moment of creation of universe that is found out through so called ‘correct solutions and our scientists become able to tell us (like modern magicians) all the details of that early stage of universe as if it took place before their eyes. Not only that, rather than theorizing larger reality on the basis of observed facts (scientific approach), they have started explaining or interpreting observed facts on the basis of so-called already known larger facts of reality.


Modern ‘Scientists’ are actually more than magicians. They are the kINGS of whole Universe and their theories are the governors of Universe. As I stated earlier, basically this is the issue of perspective. Outlook of ‘scientists’ has been contaminated by idealism. Reality can however be captured or grasped only from realistic point of view such as Epistemological Realism where external world is real i.e. not construction of mind. Mind is reflection. Our theories do not govern Cosmos … Our best theories only best represent the physical reality into theoretical – narrative or mathematical – format. Knowledge is confined to the boundaries of mind. Mind works on observational data and ‘organizes’ sense data into the form of knowledge. And Scientific knowledge also does not cross the boundaries of mind.

Yes Idealism is more charming. But realistically speaking, our theories do not ‘govern’ physical world.

Supporters of Big Bang Cosmology often come up with this argument. Recently, a Philosopher of Science, Dr. Bjørn Ekeberg (PhD) published a Philosophic themed book from the platform of a reputed University that pointed out some problems of Big Bang Cosmology.

The first response from the Big Bang Supporters that he faced was this title argument that “There is No Alternative to Big Bang Cosmology”.

The background of this argument is that present day science has settled in a “peer review” process. Now forget good old day’s open minded science where scientific research or experimental results were science. Now “what has been published” is science.

This is a closed process. New ‘scientist’ is required to cite recent publications. In this process only peer reviewed stuff is cited … may be it is hard requirement to cite only proper peer reviewed stuff.

The result is that for the modern ‘scientist’, science only exists in peer reviewed journals and any individual’s ideas are not science unless they are published in peer reviewed journal.

See that it is closed process and obviously it gives rise to close mindedness.

Contempt of ‘scientists’ against open mindedness is clear in their beloved Dunning and Kruger Effect. To any outside researcher, they straight away call “suffering from DK effect”.

Any outsider researcher has false confidence that he has found something in science. It is not possible that any outsider may find scientific fact. If any individual thinks so, he must be suffering from DK effect.

However, following is the reality of DK effect:

Dunning-Kruger Effect — How it is a faulty theory: by Khuram Rafique on khuram

A typical closed minded approach … Actual DK effect is the confidence that all the knowledge is contained only in peer reviewed books and journals. Dunning and Kruger were suffering from this actual DK effect. They formulated a theory about a person named McArthur Wheeler … and they did not bother to see that case type of McArthur Wheeler was already well theorized in a 19th century (pre-peer review era) important book.

The nature of contempt of ‘scientists’ is that for them any outside thing does not even exist. If they say that Big Bang Theory is the only explanation of related observed phenomenon, they are right only to the extent that yes within peer reviewed domain it is the only thing in town. And they do not publish outside things. Therefore only thing in town remains the only thing in town.

Actual DK effect is like a cartoon character who has a big nose. Everywhere he can see only his own nose. So only his own nose is everywhere. This is the nature of contempt of present day ‘scientist’ against open mindedness.

Open minded person says alternatives exist … just open your mind. Our scientist would say no everywhere is my own nose. No other thing exists in town.

Basically supporters of modern official science frequently raise this question only to make a point as if Philosophy actually cannot teach anything.

The answer is that Philosophy teaches us our right limits. We do not claim to have hard knowledge of things beyond of our limits. With philosophy we find the logical boundary of any assertion. We do not conclude out of proportion things like since we observe redshifts so whole Universe is expanding. There are logical barriers in the process of accepting that since galaxies are redshifted so Universe is expanding. Non Philosophical mind is almost free of these logical barriers and easily accepts this out of proportion claim. The two barriers that rightfully stop a philosopher are that observed redshift (cosmological redshift) is different from doppler’s effect and that mathematical possibility of expansion of ‘space’ does not mean an actual physical possibility of the same.

Philosophy thus keeps us in right limits. And Philosophy also liberates from artificial limits or boundaries that since we have not crossed a man-made criteria so we are not competent to get right knowledge of certain things. Our limit is not our official qualification. Our limit is our exposure to actual world and sources of information. To conclude the things, our minds need exposure to information and not any certificate issued by anyone.

Equipped with Philosophy, we know that anything mathematically possible does not imply that it is also physically possible. Neither mathematical things become physical for us like since gravity problems are solved through metric equations therefore gravity itself is metrical in nature or spacetime is a physical thing and there are physical ripples in this solid spacetime. Obviously, ripples were in anything actually physical and not pure mathematical or mathematical taken as physical.

Philosophy is straightening and strengthening of the process of thinking and concluding. Without right thinking process, Universe is expanding by way of expansion of space, spacetime is curved, there are ripples in spacetime, gravity is metrical in nature, first quantum moment of the creation of universe took place before our eyes and we know all the tiny details of that tiny moment and other like things.

Official Theoretical Physicists always blame any non-official stance on science matters as pseudoscience. However following clear indications of pseudoscience are common in official Theoretical Physics.

1- Out of proportion claims – We see redshifts and say “Universe is expanding”.

2- Claim to have sort out all the reality – like GR has the claim that everything will be sorted out only within GR and any outer thing can do nothing. (Only QM can do where GR is not applicable)

3- Assigning physical attributes to non-physical things — Spacetime Curved, Ripples in Spacetime, Expansion of Space.

4- Reality status to Ghost objects — Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

5- Explaining hard observations on the basis of already held model, theory or belief rather than developing right theory for hard observations – Cosmological Redshift, CMBR

Therefore, we see that lot of Pseudoscience is being promoted under the name of Theoretical Physics. We already have seen that Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy.

Newton was Theoretical Physicist … (a point of view)

Well, basically Newton was Natural Philosopher.

English Translation title of his Principlia Mathematica is “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”.

Newton was not Theoretical Physicist. He was greatest Natural Philosopher however.

While every Science or Philosophy must have to start from a point, The unique sign or indication of Rationalism Philosophy is that starting point itself is boundary.

You have staring point. Now onward close your eyes … Now just ‘deduce in mind’ or ‘derive on blackboard’.

The idea is that since first principle was correct so only mind (logic) or mathematics can lead to all the details of reality.

Does Natural Philosophy of Newton follow this principle?

Newton does start from ‘axioms’ which are his three laws of motion. But he does not provide these three laws as a form of boundary. Now onward we should not close our eyes. The purpose of axioms was only to derive few theorems and not the whole of reality.

But Rationalism Philosophy intends to deduce or derive whole of reality only out of first principles.

Rationalism is a closed system of knowledge. There is no need to observe anything. Mind itself or somehow found the first principle. Rest of the reality will be found just out of logical deductions or mathematical derivations.

Now Theoretical Physics, being a form of Rationalism Philosophy, is also a closed system. Instead of emphasis on logical deductions, there is importance of only mathematical derivation. Since there is no essential difference between logical deduction and mathematical derivation, so to this extent Theoretical Physics completely follows the footsteps of Rationalism Philosophy.

There is however slight variation. Just like Rationalism Philosophy, your eyes are closed basically. You only open your eyes in order to celebrate that your ‘predictions’ have come true.

When, in year 1929, Edwin Hubble found a new observed fact, it was not even treated as a new observed fact. It was treated as ‘prediction coming true’. Eyes were closed … we already ‘knew’ this truth out of our ‘mathematical derivations’. We opened our eyes just for a while only to celebrate the success of our so-called earlier mathematical derivations. Similarly, finding of CMBR was not treated as a new observation. That was not a new thing at all as it was also already ‘mathematically derived’. That is how things are ‘observed’ in modern Theoretical Physics. When you already know the reality in your mind then you tend to observe the actual reality through your colored spectacles. This thing is true for Rationalism Philosophy and this thing is also true for Theoretical Physics or any ancient Mythology.

Natural Philosophy of Newton had started from axioms. But there is no requirement of keeping your eyes closed. You independently observe the reality and logically or mathematically conclude the things. In Theoretical Physics, the purpose of observations is not to see new things. Here, the purpose of observations is only to celebrate that ‘predictions have come true’. Within next few years NASA is going to launch James Webb Space Telescope that shall be 100x more powerful than Hubble Space Telescope. What is the purpose? Will this telescope show us some new things?

Not at all (for practical reasons). NASA already knows all the things through mathematical derivations. NASA already knows that no galaxy beyond this much distance will be seen and that after that distance there was a dark era and within this darkness was the time of creation of universe. So all the things are already known. Purpose of observations is only to celebrate the already known things.

Purpose of this blog post was to show that Theoretical Physics did not start from Newton. He was Natural Philosopher. And that Theoretical Physics of today is basically a form of Rationalism Philosophy.

Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy. Rationalism is all about ‘deducing’ details of reality from first principles. In today’s Theoretical Physics, certain ‘first principles’ or ‘frameworks’ (GR and QM) have been worked out. Here ‘logical deduction’ part has been replaced by ‘Mathematical Derivation’.

Theoretical Physics

There is no essential difference between deduction and derivation. Essentially, Theoretical Physics is a modern form of Rationalism Philosophy … and … as futile as its medieval counterpart.

Present day science — specifically Theoretical Physics is based on body of knowledge and rigid frameworks already worked out by various scientists during the last hundred years. New scientist is required to take start from the point where previous scientists had reached. This system, by and large, works on trust that overall body of knowledge worked out by others is correct and a system of citations is used to build the body of knowledge layer upon layer.

On the other hand, Philosopher is one who must start from scratch. He must start from a point where he has removed all the doubtful elements. Starting point must be confirmed to his full satisfaction. Present day type Science can function correctly as long as it is already 100% correct. But many substandard and even fake ideas merge, submerge and grow within this science. There is a weak citation method where new scientist just trust works or results of others and starts building his own castles of ideas or theories. New scientists thus start building their extensions on an ill structured building. A stage comes when only solution left is that building may be bulldozed and re-constructed from scratch. Only a good philosopher can do that.

Anyhow, a major reformation in citation methodology is needed within scientific method that new scientists must not be allowed to merely cite the works of others. Whatever they are citing, they must analyze it and reach to the conclusion that they are citing it because they agree to it after thorough verification.  

If above mentioned major reformation is not introduced then Philosophers should come forward to bulldoze the ill structured body of knowledge with accurate criticism and start the things on solid foundations with the methodology to cite works of others only after thorough analysis and verification.

Ideal vs real science is a reality. People generally defend official science because they trust that only ideal things are going on. Actually there are lot of factual inaccuracies in various science papers – and science people keep citing those factual inaccuracies.

Following are examples:

1- Alaxender Friedmann (1922) ‘predicted’ Hubble Law.

2- Lemaitre (1927) ‘predicted’ Hubble Law out of GR equations.

3- Hubble (1929) found ‘Expanding Universe’.

4- GR equations originally had the ‘prediction’ of either expanding or contracting universe and that Einstein introduced Cosmological Constant only to stay with prevailing point of view of static universe.

List may go on … all above are factually wrong statements … but they have been merged, submerged and they keep growing under established scientific citation method.

Scientists only follow “standard format” of citation … they do not actually analyze and confirm the reality of what they are citing. A handsome number of citations are to the credit of Dunning and Krugger Effect and no one including Dunning and Krugger has ever bothered to confirm that case of Mc Auther Wheeler was already well theorized by Sir James Frazer and there was no need of a substandard theory of DK effect when a better theory was already available.

I have asked following question directly from Mr. Dunning … but no response … In fact this actually delivered system works this way … as opposed to advertisements … He will not respond.

Why were Dunning and Kruger themselves not incompetent as they did not realize that the case of McAuther Wheeler related to the phenomenon of ‘Sympathetic Magic’ that was already well studied and explained by Sir James Frazer?

Philosophy is not standardized … Yes now ‘Academic Philosophy’ is standardized … but they are only publish or perish type of people who are maintaining their job careers and they are the ones who have completely ruined the spirit of Philosophy. The actual spirit of philosophy is to start from scratch … or if cite anyone … then first analyze that one and conclude that one by yourself and then cite with your own conclusion.

Yes Philosophy is full of non-sense blunders. But it is like digging the earth. By ratio you will get greater amounts of useless soil and things … but gems will also be found in lesser ratio off course. Here sand and soil cannot be blamed as output of Philosophy as they are essential part of doing effort to reach at the level of gems.

And by the way, Theoretical Physics is actually a form of Rationalism Philosophy … but obviously science people are not going to accept it.

Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy: