Genismo

Genismo
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos

Translated by Débora Policastro

Genetic Philosophy

The roots of Genismo date back about 20 years ago, around the 80’s. By that time, I had created what I call “Genetic Philosophy” [1]. It was a simple doctrine, based on the finding that we are not able to change our instincts since they are genetically codified; however, it would be possible to do so through our culture and beliefs, which are cultural products and therefore can be substituted. It was clear to me at that time that much of our suffering was due to the dichotomy between our values like religiosity, ethics and moral on one side, and on the other to our instincts, wills and wishes. Then the best thing we could do would be to adequate our culture to our biology as much as possible, not the opposite. The opposite would be biologically impossible. Putting our beliefs and culture against our biological imperative could only produce more suffering and unhappiness.

Let us note in passing that the Freudian theory of sexuality can be seen as one of the facets of my old “genetic philosophy” since sexuality plays an important instinctive role and, therefore, we could expect that a violent repression to those instincts would cause suffering or various disorders.

Later, around 1990, still intrigued by man’s biological nature, I read the fantastic book The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. The book shows clearly that all living beings evolved through natural selection “in order to” perpetuate their genes. “In order to” is between inverted commas because it is a metaphoric notation: organisms do not really have a conscious objective of perpetuating their genes. They act in this way instinctively, through impulses or reactions that are pre-coded in their nervous system. These reactions can be pretty complex, since only organisms (herein understood as a set of genes) that can transmit their genes to future generations remain in the gene pool of the population. The ones that are not able to do so for some reason do not have their genes preserved; therefore, their characteristics are eliminated. That way, it is like the living organisms had an intention to act in compliance with their genetic perpetuation.

We must notice that the instinctive value of life, that is, survival itself, is nothing more than one of the many features of genetic preservation. Before the reader thinks that Genismo is all about offspring, as many do when in contact with the doctrine for the first time, I must say that that would be a crude simplification. It will make all the difference to remember that our genes are not only in our bodies, as we will see.

“Genes created us and we must serve them”

Well, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene showed clearly through innumerous examples from the natural world that living beings were programmed by natural selection to perpetuate their genes. To perpetuate genes means making them survive for as long as possible through generations. Actually, organisms could be seen as carcasses, biological devices or “Survival machines”, as it was addressed by the evolutionary biologists at the time, that were “made to” survive and pass their genes on to the next generation.

In the book, maybe for prudence, Dawkins did not use human examples to demonstrate this point of view and, for my own luck, he stated we should go against our genes! In his words:

“Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

So that the reader can start to understand this gene-perpetuative paradigm, it is important to notice that animals supposedly irrational do not undertake battles and bloodthirsty mortal wars against their own species and, in a surprisingly way, it is rare that one of them dies in individual fights, like territorial disputes or because of females in heat. Even in the search for food ad hunger situations, very rarely species will eat another member of its own species. Why is that so? Is not survival the biggest biological imperative of all?

That happens because the biological nature of living beings is centered in perpetuation of genes of shared organisms, not individual ones. If the biological paradigm was only sheer survival, no female would risk its life to save its descendants from danger. The animals would hunt and eat their own species and offspring when hungry. But that rarely happens. What happens is that the supposedly “wild” animals follow their genes closely, more closely than humans. Humans have consciousness and a mighty brain unfortunately capable of betraying our genes. That happens not only through wars against our fellow creatures, using famous “mass destruction weapons”, but also against ourselves and as a consequence, endangering our own happiness.

“Happiness is to walk the path of genetic perpetuation”

Thus, my old genetic philosophy evolved to Genismo sometime after I read “The Selfish Gene” and realized we should avoid acting against our genes and start acting for them. Obviously, we should be restricted to some ethical dominion, but yet we would have an ample playing field that would minimize our suffering, give us a meaning to life and a new kind of immortality, not anymore based on illusions, but on real entities: the genes.

Genismo, during a phase that lasted from 1990 until April 2003, established that we should assume culturally our biological condition of “Gene-Perpetuator Machine” and act to perpetuate them. As a result of such actions, which I called gene-perpetuative actions, we would maximize our happiness, since we would reduce culture x instinct conflicts and integrate our culture to our deepest biological essence.

“Our genes are our most precious assets”

Of course the acceptance of our “gene perpetuator machines” intrinsic condition is not trivial: it imposes changes to our old values, some perhaps based on religion, and changing inveterate beliefs and values is undoubtedly the most difficult task in the world. But the doctrine establishes clearly that our most valuable asset is our genes and if we want to maximize happiness without corrupting truth, we must accept it.

It is important to highlight that our genes are not only in our individual bodies, but spread all over humanity, as well as other species. We share the largest part of our genes with our descendants and relatives, but the difference with other members of the same species is not that big. We share about 86% of identical genes (not chromosomes) with our children and about 68% of identical genes with any other person.

This genetic sharing should provide us, in a cultural value level, acknowledgement and acceptance of other beings as part of us. That way, acceptance of Genismo could (and would) sponsor a bigger altruism in relation to our choices and actions. Thinking that our consciousness is us, our essence, causes an increase in human selfishness. This selfishness occurs because usually consciousness is understood and accepted as something individual and, differently from genes, something that cannot be shared. We must remember that selfishness of genes does not necessarily imply selfishness in behavior. Most of the times, the opposite happens: consider, as an example a mother, not necessarily human, that risks her own life in order to save her offspring’s. This altruistic behavior in relation to her offspring was produced by “selfishness” of her genes that “want” to survive and perpetuate, and led to an altruistic behavior. There are many other types of genetic altruism (instinctive) with members of the same species but not directly related.

“God does not exist and the only way to transcend death is through genes.”

Genismo is a branch of atheism and is committed to science and truth. For that reason, generally, beliefs not linked to reality such as religion, mysticism, esoterism and other types of religion or pseudo-science lacking factual evidence are not considered beneficial. Especially deistic religions are seen by Genismo as alienating and dangerous memes, since their followers usually have a distorted way of seeing the world that sometimes may lead to contradictions, unfairness and unhappiness.

The genists – Genismo followers — must be tolerant with the infected by religious memes (believers), since they know these believers had generally had their brains infected when young by powerful and sometimes irresistible memetic genes. As these memes, through faith, lead the individual to a continuous and persistent acceptance of contradictions (implicit in those religions), it is extremely difficult to make them notice that those contradictions should imply the falsehood of their set of premises (beliefs).

Immortality through genes reinforces our gene-perpetuative actions and is also a form of happiness Genismo offers. However, as genes are real entities and souls are not, the feeling of immortality through genes is a belief with factual support. Thus we see Genismo as a generator of two distinct sources of happiness: the first, the most pragmatic one, brings happiness by reducing cultural conflicts (memes x genes) and breaking the dichotomy between culture and biology, therefore leading the individual to greater body-mind integration. The second genist source of happiness is of a more “elevated’ level, perhaps ideological: it comes from the feeling of immortality through genes and gives life a transcendental sense without appealing to false illusions.

“Genist Ethics is Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME)”

Genismo leads individuals to value their genes and make them act in a way they will consciously want to perpetuate them. That is the “reason” why we evolved, and Genismo reinforces that that is also the reason we should live for. This way Genismo transforms a biological goal into a cultural one. It unifies culture and biology. This new way to see ourselves helps us integrate with our unchangeable essence that is our genetic programming.

Nevertheless, there may be gene-perpetuative possibilities that, although can bring happiness or pleasure to their executor, may provoke more suffering and unhappiness to other individuals, decreasing total happiness in the group, something that goes against the principles of SME. In that case, those possible actions must be avoided, since Genismo is restricted to SME dominion. We must therefore be always alert and not lose sight of the genist goal: happiness. Although Genismo does not yet have a detailed and explicit ethics code, ethical restrictions to our actions must necessarily be based on “scientific meta-ethics”: each individual’s happiness is limited to the happiness of the group. That is, an individual in the group must not enhance its own happiness at the expense of overall happiness of the group. Total happiness prevails over individual happiness.

“We are our genes”

In April 2003, Genismo evolved again: it was becoming each time clearer to me that our consciousness was not our essence, but our genes. Genismo used to treat “us” and “our genes” differently. We treated our genes as “them”. We should serve them and live for them. Implicitly we were privileging our consciousness as our “true self”. From that date on, not anymore. Our consciousness, as our arms, stomach, eyes and nails must be seen as appendages of our true self: our genes.

Although our consciousness apparently [2] has control of our actions, it is a result of a small part of our brain processing; maybe even of a minute area of our brains. Thus, it is more reasonable even physically to think that we are our genes, since differently from our consciousness they permeate virtually all cells of our body: from the toes to the nucleus of each of our neurons.

However, the dictatorship of consciousness has made its roots very deep. There will still be time until this new paradigm reflects on our colloquial language, and because of that we must be comprehensive while we still treat genes as “them” and our consciousness as “us”, even because we would not be understood by the ones that do not know Genismo. But a genist would know that when we say we are struggling to perpetuate our genes, we must understand we are struggling for our own immortality.

There is more than one way to reach Genismo. One of them is through Scientific Meta-Ethics (SME): happiness is maximized in the pleasure centers in the brain that produce it when the organism acts according to is evolutionary programming, that is, in a way to perpetuate its genes. Another way is through study of life evolution. The following text, one of the firsts I wrote concerning this new paradigm, shows how Genismo can be understood through neodarwinian study of life evolution.

Hierarchized Genismo

Genismo is a meme that has happiness as a goal. Happiness is not only pleasure, but the addition of pleasure (and suffering) proportional to its duration on time. Suffering decreases the value of happiness while pleasure increases it [1].

By the theory of evolution and natural selection process, we know that living beings evolved *as* if they had the unconscious and instinctive goal of perpetuating their genes, that is: maximizing their “gene-perpetuation”.

There is no transcendental reason for living beings to act this way. That happens because the genes that are present today are exactly those that were able to adapt their bearers to preserve them until the present moment.

The genes that did not make their bearers perpetuate them, that is, were not able to make the organisms (phenotypes) that carried them pass them on to the next generations, perished. Those genes are not among us any longer. Therefore we are all living descendents of the first replicant (“the primordial gene”), which originated life about four billion years ago and was successful to survive through times [2].

For that reason, the base of evolutionary psychology, the science that studies the behavior and social structure of living beings is based on the “gene-perpetuative” paradigm.

But how do genes make their bearers (us) act “in a way to” perpetuate them?”

Evolution and Consciousness

Genes instigate their organisms to act in a “gene-perpetuative” way, as:

Rigid and biologically codified mechanisms.

That way, for instance, a plant does not need to think or feel it has to turn its leaves towards the sun in order to receive light: internal mechanisms turn the leaves in the direction of sunlight captivation. They execute this task automatically. Fructification or seed launching are also automatically done by the genetic regulation of the plant, with no help of any nervous system.

Hyper primitive instincts

In beings that own nervous system there are mechanisms codified by genes through mental algorithms (instincts) that instigate the organism to behave and act almost mechanically, without the need to think about its actions. Those algorithms are in general placed on the base of the brain, in the reptilian system. For example: breathing control, pupil dilatation in the dark, bristle of hair when cold, etc. The increase in the ability to survive and reproduce is a feature that helps genetic survival.

Instincts that generate wishes or wills.

Other instincts (=mental algorithms genetically codified to solve specific problems) do not produce directly an action in the organism, but impulses, wishes and wills, in a way that the organism itself, through other instincts or use of reason and logics, will decide the best way to satisfy them. In general, those mental algorithms that generate wishes and feelings are situated in the brain limbic system. Examples: anger, love, jealousy, etc.

Reward mechanisms.

Reward mechanisms are studied by a science area known as “behaviorism”. Those internal mechanisms make the organism learn (through usage of memory) through pain (or pleasure) that an action is harmful to the genes (or beneficial to them). For instance: putting a hand on fire causes pain and pain is a sign and a way to learn that this act is harmful to the genes. Eating sweet substances is pleasant because, in general, they offer energy to the body and that is beneficial to the genes.

Epigenetic Rules

“Epigenetic rules” are improved forms of instinct. They are basically mental algorithms that are not used while not necessary. But when triggered and put to action they may activate a lot of internal mechanisms. Such instincts are not triggered without a previous evaluation of their necessity in relation to the environment. For example: being slapped on the face may trigger anger, or may be caress display in some culture. The same sensorial stimulus may activate others like anger and affection or not, depending on the context.

Those instinctive mechanisms developed through natural selection since thousands, even millions of years ago. However, the environment changes more rapidly than the genes adapt to it. That can make them lag behind environmental changes, what causes risk of death or extinction of species. For that reason, the genes made the epigenetic rules flexible through natural selection, what led to the appearance of the neocortex: the thirst for reason.

With this new human brain layer, almost every stimuli that before would trigger instincts that make the body act immediately do not do that anymore. The instinctive actions are blocked and, before being triggered, they go through a rational/environmental evaluation: consciousness.

One of the functions of consciousness is therefore blocking instinctive actions and evaluating the best answer. With a more efficient response to environmental stimuli, reason naturally took place of instinct in control of actions. For that reason we (sometimes) are able not to hit a person in case he/she annoys us.

Obviously, the genes that created this brain layer only survived because this strategy was more efficient to perpetuate the genes of the organism. Why? Because we are here!

If the genes that created reason and consciousness had been less efficient to perpetuate we would not be here with all this conscious and rational apparatus in the head.

With this new neurological apparatus in the brain, a new level of gene-perpetuation appears:

Absorption of memes.

As a consequence of the speed of environmental changes and genetic inability to create mental algorithms specific to each different environmental situation, the genes created a more flexible structure – the neocortex- which can block instincts and analyze the best solution through reason instead of responding immediately. The ability to store memes in brain memory allowed knowledge to be used without having to be reinvented.

Since then, the culture and the brain have advanced and evolved a lot. That allowed us to land on the moon, create medicines and become one of the species with the biggest evolutionary success on the planet.

Ideological Pleasure

The ability to absorb memes made the ideological pleasure possible.

The ideological Pleasure is what we feel when we act in accordance to the ideology (memes) we believe is true. It has probably originated from the necessity of cohesion in territorial disputes and tribal wars in our evolutionary past. For instance, if we belong to a soccer team, religion, club, city, country, etc, we should feel pleasure when we act in benefit of the group or the institution we belong to. This pleasure is based on the fact that people that are close to us and share the same interests should probably share more similar genes; thus, helping them is also a way to help our genes, since we probably share more genes with them than with strangers.

Genes and Happiness

It is important to notice that the usage of instincts, epigenetic rules and reason itself had a “purpose” [4]: those mechanisms evolved while benefiting gene-perpetuation. But these organisms are not really interested in gene-perpetuation (actually, not even the genes are)! These organisms want more and more pleasure and less suffering and pain. So, all usage of internal brain mechanisms to solve problems means only more sophisticated ways of solving problems to increase pleasure and decrease pain for the longest period of time possible, that is: they are ways of trying to maximize happiness!

What happens is that organisms that own nervous system are ALWAYS running from suffering and seeking pleasure. All the time. As pleasure multiplied by time is happiness, to put it simple, organisms are always seeking pleasure. And the genes, on the other hand, always “want” to survive, to perpetuate. In our evolutionary past, at least, the ways to seek happiness should be the same that led to gene-perpetuation. That is: the more happiness we got, the more genetic perpetuation would be done. Therefore we have a logical-evolutionary correlation between seek for happiness and genetic perpetuation.

Betrayal

Nevertheless, the genes “did not know” that such rational power and ability to control from something flexible as the consciousness they had created and its associated neuronal subsystems could also turn against themselves. Although consciousness can solve technical problems masterfully in a way to avoid pain and get pleasure, has also allowed harmful memes to perpetuate genetically (for instance consumerism and VM2F) and also happiness (Buddhism, celibacism, etc) to appear.

Obviously, we are still in an evolutionary process. Natural selection continues to act in a way that, in a long or short term, those memes will face barriers, if not memetic, at least genetic against their proliferation. One of the ways for the genes to get rid of the VM2F is to instigate an organism to reproduce before a meme is installed in its mind. That should explain the increase in numbers of teenage pregnancies [3].

Priorities Hierarchization

One of the things Genismo suggests is that we must follow our genes. But what does that mean?

It basically means that we must act according to what “our genes want”.

One of the ways the genes signalize what they want is through wills and wishes. For instance, if an organism feels the need for water, genetic mechanisms signalize with thirst. If the organism satiates the thirst it will be acting according to the wills of the genes that created the mechanism of thirst. However, there could also be conflicting wills. For instance, I may feel like eating candy and, at the same time, I may want to lose weight and be healthy. How can I prioritize that? What if a gene-perpetuative action is anti-ethical?

The best way to solve those conflicts is through a priorities hierarchy. See below what I propose:

Scientific Meta Ethics should be the greatest hierarchical valued rule.

This way, not even gene-perpetuative actions are allowed if they infringe SME.

The gene-perpetuative path must be prioritized in relation to satisfaction of wills and wishes.

Satisfaction of wills and wishes is a way of following the genes.

Through this hierarchy, “pragmatic-Genismo”, which used to be based on hedonism as a way of maximizing pleasure without necessarily a counterpart in perpetuation of genes, now is not genistically compatible anymore in case the action is against gene-perpetuation.

Maximization of Happiness

It is easy now to notice, through priorities hierarchization, that the goal of Genismo, by definition, is the maximization of happiness in the first place, since SME has maximization of happiness as a basic postulate:

“Scientific Meta Ethics postulates that an action is better or fairer than another one when the level of general happiness created from it, computed in the longest period of time possible, is superior to the level of happiness created in the same period.” [5]

Happiness among Genists and non-Genists

Genismo makes cultural goal compatible with the “biological goal”. This way, Genists have an extra ideological pleasure for knowing that they are acting in a gene-perpetuative way, even if this action also causes pleasure naturally, which is in general sponsored by genes when one follows the gene-perpetuative path.

On the other hand non-genists, especially the ones who are not interested in gene-perpetuation, will not always follow a gene-perpetuative path, and most regularly a diversion from this path will make one suffer or at least prevent one from being as happy as one could be when following it.

In natural conditions, a non-genist has two options:

The individual does not follow any ideology, religion or life philosophy.

In that case the person must follow what gives him/her more pleasure, that is, the person will follow his/her instincts aiming happiness, what would be more or less like the genist pillar that says we must follow our genes. It is like returning to our primitive origins but within a modern environment. That could probably lead to a gene-perpetuative path, but not necessarily!

The individual follows some ideology, religion or philosophy of life.

In case those philosophies are not Genismo, the person will have to restrict or act in a way that does not favors genes and, for that reason, he/she will at some moment repress genes, what should cause loss of happiness. For example: some religions promote physical sacrifices like whipping and boring prayers to please God. But those sacrifices decrease physical pleasure and therefore happiness, though they can cause ideological pleasure.

However, a genist has ideological pleasure without having to stray from the gene-perpetuative rout. That way he/she would have a greater happiness than a non-genist with no ideology or a non-genist with ideology. This way we demonstrate that following Genismo produces more happiness than not following it.

The Matrix Case

The matrixian case is an extremely artificial chance of maximization of individual happiness at the expense of maximum alienation of the world and the universe. As follows:

Suppose a person wants to maximize his/her personal happiness and enters a matrixian cocoon where electrodes are implanted in his/her brain and he/she will receive intravenous feeding, in a way that he/she will spend the rest of his/her life in this machine that maximizes happiness.

By definition, the machine will maximize happiness to the highest level his/her brain can handle. Happiness will be maximized as it would never be in the real world. This person will not perpetuate any genes and will consume many planet resources in order to stay in that machine for years.

Now I ask the reader a difficult question: would you enter this matrixian machine if it was offered to you cost-free? And if not, why not?

If your answer is yes it is because there is already gene-perpetuative spark acting in you! 

References

[1] A Fórmula da Felicidade [Happiness Formula]
http://www.Genismoo.com/metatexto37.htm

[2] Genismoo: Uma introdução [Genismo: na introduction]
http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto1.htm

[3] Gravidez na adolescência [Teenage pregnancy]
http://www.brasilescola.com/biologia/gravidez-adolescencia.htm

[4] A Teleonomia: o “para” não significa propósito. [Teleonomy: “for” does not mean purpose.]
http://www.Genismoo.com/Genismootexto3.htm#4

[5] Introdução à MEC [Introduction to Scientific Meta Ethics]
http://www.Genismoo.com/filosofia2.htm

“É preferível eleger um bandido que um entreguista-neoliberal.”

Por Jocax , Setembro de 2010

Antes de tudo, quero deixar claro que , como todo mundo, sou totalmente CONTRA a corrupção,

o tráfico de influências , o despotismo e todas as mazelas antiéticas que permeiam a política nacional e mundial.

Entretanto, O PIG (“Partido da Imprensa Golpista”) quer nos fazer acreditar que apenas um determinado tipo de “honestidade” ou “ética” deve nortear a votação popular, e que qualquer outro parâmetro de valor deveria ser relegado a um plano secundário.

É claro que a honestidade, a ética-política é um quesito importantíssimo no julgamento que se deve fazer para a escolha de qualquer candidato, mas existe um quesito muito mais importante do que esse: A concepção ideológica do candidato.

A ideologia de quem vai definir os rumos do país é que vai nortear, de fato, o destino da nação. É a partir da ideologia do dirigente maior que dependerá a felicidade da nação. Vejamos alguns exemplos:

1- Mao Tse-Tung - “O Grande Timoneiro” - dirigente chinês 1966-1976 com sua política de revolução proletária, praticamente baniu o ensino superior na China e levou o país à fome, causando a morte de milhões de chineses [1] :

“Mao é acusado de com seus programas sociais e políticos, como o Grande Salto Adiante e a Revolução Cultural, causar grave fome e danos a cultura, sociedade e economia da China. Políticas de Mao e os expurgos políticos de 1949-1975, provocaram a morte de 50 a 70 milhões de pessoas” [2]

Se o “grande timoneiro” tivesse apenas roubado alguns bilhões de dólares de seu país, o prejuízo a nação chinesa teria sido muitíssimo menor, mas com sua ideologia de culto ao “trabalho braçal” e a negação da cultura intelectual, apesar de bem intencionado, mergulhou a China daquela época na pobreza e no atraso tecnológico.

2- Adolf Hitler – Hitler foi eleito democraticamente antes de se tornar ditador [10]. Se Hitler tivesse simplesmente roubado vários bilhões de dólares de sua pátria e se tornado o homem mais rico do mundo, ao invés de tentar conquistar o mundo e jogar a Alemanha numa guerra infernal, com dezenas de milhões de mortos. O mundo todo, com certeza, agradeceria.

3-Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC) é o nosso exemplo caseiro. Considerado por mim e por muitos como “o pior presidente que o Brasil já teve” [3], FHC é um neoliberal típico. Partidário do “Consenso de Washington” que apregoa a globalização e o neoliberalismo quebrou o Brasil duas vezes levando-o quase à miséria:

“Desemprego Recorde, Subemprego em proporções pavorosas, Mendicância, toxicomania, prostituição e outras atitudes desesperadas de gente fraca e sem perspectiva existencial diante da crise interminável que a defesa da moeda forte nos trouxe.” [3]

Um neoliberal, em geral, está comprometido com o "consenso de Washington" que apregoa (entre outras coisas):

“Privatização das estatais; Abertura comercial; Redução dos gastos públicos; Desregulamentação (afrouxamento das leis econômicas e trabalhistas); Juros de mercado; Câmbio de mercado; Investimento estrangeiro direto, com eliminação de restrições; Estabilizar privatizar e liberalizar tornou-se o mantra de uma geração de tecnocratas que estavam tendo sua primeira experiência no mundo subdesenvolvido, e dos líderes políticos por eles aconselhados; “[5]”.

Assim, FHC e sua ideologia neoliberal levaram o Brasil à bancarrota, colocando o país na chamada “Década Perdida”:

“...o Brasil vivenciou problemas gravíssimos, todos sob os auspícios dos tucanos que, no período, ampliaram o fosso que separa os ricos dos pobres, dilapidaram o patrimônio público nacional alienando-o a interesses multinacionais em troca de rigorosamente nada para o povo brasileiro, promoveram o crescimento do analfabetismo, o fomento... o desmantelamento do parque industrial brasileiro em benefício de empresas e indústrias estrangeiras, conseqüentemente o aumento do desemprego, do desespero, da fome e da miséria...” [4]

Um exemplo hipotético simples pode ilustrar melhor a idéia:

Suponhamos, hipoteticamente, que o pleito seja disputado entre dois participantes:

O primeiro, um político com suspeita de "ladrão", porém, com caráter nacionalista. Seu concorrente, um político com fama de honesto, porém um seguidor do neoliberalismo globalizante. Dentro deste quadro hipotético, qual dos dois deveríamos votar?

Acredito fortemente que nosso voto deveria ir preferencialmente para o político nacionalista (mesmo que com fama de "ladrão") ao invés do pretensamente “honesto” político neoliberal. O risco de prejuízo para a nação seria bem menor que se o eleito fosse o neoliberal, se não vejamos:

Com uma “penada de caneta” (um acordo oficial, feito legalmente) o presidente poderia, por exemplo, vender a Petrobrás (A Vale do Rio doce foi vendida a preço de banana [8]) , ou mesmo vender a AMAZÔNIA ao estrangeiro! (Veja que A Rússia vendeu o Alasca aos EUA, e o Acre foi comprado pelo Brasil da Bolívia e do Peru) , ou então abrir as fronteiras e acabar com o parque industrial nacional gerando (outra vez) milhões de desempregados e famintos, com um prejuízo incalculável, não apenas econômico, mas social sobre o futuro de gerações de brasileiros, que cresceriam sem emprego e sem futuro, agravando a marginalidade e a violência. Tudo isto de forma totalmente legal e “honesta”. Enquanto que seu adversário “bandido”, do nosso exemplo, por sua vez, poderia no decorrer do seu mandato, roubar apenas alguns bilhões de dólares, sem comprometer de forma irreversível o futuro da nação, com um prejuízo muito menor ao país.

O PIG [9], por razões provavelmente ideológicas e elitistas, quer nos fazer acreditar que a pretensa honestidade do candidato deve ser o mais importante parâmetro na escolha do voto. O PIG gosta também de alardear a idéia de que o imposto é a pior praga que recai sobre uma população, mas, obviamente, não dizem que esta é a principal forma de distribuição de renda e recursos dos mais ricos aos mais pobres, sem impostos não haveria recursos para investimentos em infra-estrutura, educação, saneamento, saúde principalmente nos lugares mais pobres e necessitados. O objetivo do PIG parece ser o da TOTAL concentração de renda, semelhante talvez à época medieval, onde os senhores eram detentores de todos os recursos e a população –sem nenhum direito- só poderia sobreviver trabalhando para eles. Nas palavras de Bauman:

““ no cabaré da globalização, o Estado passa por um strip-tease e no final do espetáculo é deixado apenas com as necessidades básicas: seu poder de repressão. Com base material destruída, sua soberania e independência anuladas, sua classe política apagada, a nação-estado torna-se um mero serviço de segurança para mega-empresas”( Bauman, p.74).”[11].

Por esta razão que eu digo:

“É preferível eleger um bandido na presidência a um político entreguista-neoliberal” (Jocax)

======================================

Referências:

[1] A revolução cultural de Mão Tse Tung:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cultural_Chinesa

[2] Mão Tse-Tung
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Tse-tung

[3] Fernando Henrique Cardoso
http://www.culturabrasil.pro.br/fhcopior.htm

“”

[4] A “Década Perdida”
http://www.culturabrasil.org/decadperd.htm

[5] O “Consenso de Washington”

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenso_de_Washington

[6] O Brasil comprou o Acre

http://www.portalbrasil.net/estados_ac.htm

[7] EUA comprou o Alasca

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasca

[8] A fraude da privatização da Vale do Rio Doce

http://www.pstu.org.br/jornal_materia.asp?id=5977&ida=20

[9] Lula o Analfabeto?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nacionalismo-br/message/445

[10] Adolf Hitler

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Ascens.C3.A3o_ao_poder

[11] Nacionalismo e Genismo

http://stoa.usp.br/genismo/forum/42457.html

The New Inductivism

The New Inductivism
Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos,
translated by Debora Policastro



Abstract: Occam’s Razor (OR) establishes that one must eliminate “unnecessary” hypothesis from theories. This essay intends to establish some rules that conceptualise the “no-necessity” criterion in OR. A new version of the classic Inductivism is also proposed and later used to solve this problem.

Key-words: Epistemology, Occam’s Razor, Philosophy of Science, Science, Inductivism, Logic, "Inductivist Hierarchy”, Inductive Method.

1-Introduction

Occam’s Razor (OR) [1] is a logical-philosophic criterion used virtually in every knowledge acquisition process as well as in our everyday life.

Succinctly, OR establishes that we must eliminate unnecessary hypothesis from our theories. The criterion by itself is almost a tautology, that is, an absolute logical truth, since the hypothesis understood as unnecessary are by definition not necessary to the theory. That way OR must be considered an incontestable truth. Therefore, the whole problem is not really in OR, but in the criteria concerning the “unnecessity” of the hypothesis.

Let us use some examples to exemplify. Consider the following theories:

1a- For a car to move, it must have fuel.

1b- For a car to move, it must have fuel, and its occupants must pray the “Our Father”.

2a- For cough syrup to work the patient must ingest it.

2b- For cough syrup to work the patient must ingest it and, besides that, sing “hula-hula” while turning around for three times.

This way we could include an infinity of other craziest as possible hypothesis in each of our theories.

Similarly, the reader knows he does not have to recite a children’s poem each time he drinks a glass of water in order to avoid pouring water out of the glass. That shows OR is present in our everyday life, even in an imperceptible way.

But how should we know whether a hypothesis is really unnecessary?

How should we know we actually do not have to pray the “Our Father” for the car to move, nor turn around singing the “hula-hula” for some medicine to be effective, or recite a children’s poem so water does not shed from the glass?

Indeed, all these apparently absurd and clearly unnecessary hypothesis given in the examples could be absolutely necessary in some other universe, or even in our own universe since the moment the reader finishes this sentence. That is, we cannot guarantee that the laws of physics have changed and those hypotheses that were before seen as absurd are now totally necessary.

In short, what is the criterion of necessity (or not) of a hypothesis or any theory?

Before we answer to that important question, let us create a new theoretical framework: “The New Inductivism”.

2- The New Inductivism
The main process to connect our minds to the external world and elaborate theories about our universe, that is, the way we acquire knowledge is known as “induction process”.

The induction process, or Inductivism, establishes that experiments, occurrences or events that always have the same results will probably have the same results under the same conditions. And the more times these results repeat, that is, the more favourable observations about the hypothesis or theory are obtained, the more reliable the hypothesis or theory is.

2.1- Hypothesis Formation

Obviously, the simple observation of phenomena repetition does not produce by itself any theory. To exemplify, a monkey can observe some repetitive phenomena for its whole life as “the Sun rises in the East”, and it will not formulate a theory about that.

Therefore, the inductive process does not elaborate finished theories. Instead, it provides us with important clues so that we or some kind of processing can create hypothesis or theories about reality. That way, it is perfectly possible that different people elaborate different theories or hypothesis using the same data obtained from inductive observation.

2.2- First Results

From the inductive process we create the basic hypothesis that our universe is logical, that is, it works logically according to the aristotelic logic. And also, the laws of Physics must be stable. These first results give us the trust that our universe must not have changed its laws so that water would pour out from our glasses if we did not recite some children’s poem!

The Induction process is very criticized by many scientists and science philosophers under the true statement that this process not always produces correct results.

However, that will rarely happen under the “New Inductivism”. There is an inductive hierarchy in the New Inductivism. This hierarchy establishes that new inductive rules must be subordinate to pre-existent inductive rules.

Thus, there is a law hierarchy based on more basic and reliable inductive processes, where some have more power and privilege than others. That way, it is not possible to interrupt an inductive hierarchy without a good reason for that.
So a new inductive rule can only be considered satisfactory if it does not break the hierarchy of stronger inductive rules.

In this manner, the “New Inductivism” can be defined as the classical Inductivism linked to subordination of an inductive hierarchy.

2.3-Inductive Hierarchy

It is possible to create an inductive hierarchy in a decreasing degree of power, in a way that a law with a less elevated level of power must not go against the superior hierarchical levels. Our inductive hierarchy can be defined in a decreasing level of importance in the following way:

The most basic and powerful inductive rule is that our universe is logical. No illogical event has ever been observed. We can suppose then, by induction, that the universe follows logic. Any theory that goes against this first rule must, in principle, be considered false.


The laws of Physics form the second class of our inductive hierarchy. Obviously they must not oppose the first level of hierarchy. And, for that reason, the laws of Physics can use mathematics, which is totally based on logic. The laws of Physics are created by observation of the most extense set of observations on regularities of our universe. For that reason, they must be among the most reliable rules built by mankind. The power of these rules resides in the fact that they must be verified, direct or indirectly, in every observable universe and they should not be limited to our planet, nor even to our solar system.
The laws of Chemistry could form the third level of our hierarchy.


The laws of Biology, the forth level.
The other norms, rules or laws must not oppose the theories of the classification above, unless they are exhaustingly verified.


It is possible to notice that the degree of strength in the inductive hierarchy is based on the extensibility, that is, the quantity of favourable observations in space and time in which the theory approaches in a favourable way. Inductive rules of short range in space and time have fewer favourable cases than large range ones. For that reason, such rules must be subordinate to the most general ones that had been tested and, because of that, present a greater level of reliability.

2.4- Inductivist Response

Now, with that classification, we can rebut the argument against the inductive principle: “The Sun Rising Argument”. It says that if we use the inductive process about the rising of the Sun every morning we will create a law establishing that:

“Today and always, every 24 hours the sun will rise in the East and set in the West”

However, we can “rebut” (*) this argument by showing that it goes against the inductive principles of the second hierarchy (the laws of Physics), since according to these laws, the hydrogen of the Sun will end in four billion years and our star will explode. That way, one day, unfortunately, the Sun will not rise anymore and therefore this principle cannot be considered satisfactory.

2.5- “Inductivist Refutationism”

We must make it clear that the inductive process, as any other process, does not necessarily lead to the truth. Something that has always been stable and reached the same results can have these results changed by some new condition or some new observation. We will never be sure about the ultimate truth of the universe.

That way, it is natural that a law or rule created by an inductive process stops being valid in case a new observation “rebuts” (*) the inductive regularity. In that case, evidently, the induction does not exist anymore, since this refutatory event did not pass through induction. The induction, in that case, was broken and therefore it is not an induction, it is not valid. We can clearly notice the brakeage of the inductivity by an unfavourable event as analogue to “popperian refutationism”, where evidence contrary to a theory is its own rebuttal element.

2.6- The Deductive Hypothetical Method

The Deductive- Hypothetical Method (DHM), in which hypothesis and theories are released to be later tested, does not go against the inductive method. If not, see:

In DHM a theory (or hypothesis) – not necessarily of inductive basis – is proposed. From this theory we can use logic and verify the consequences that it causes. If any observation “refutes” (*) the consequence of this theory or this theory itself, then the theory will be “refuted” (*). But clearly if the consequence of a theory is “refuted”, then the theory that originated it will also be refuted, since the strongest inductivist rule is the logical one, and by logic (more specifically by “modus tollens”) if the consequent is false then necessarily the antecedent will also be.
That way, we can verify that if DHM shows some case which results in a “refutation” of the consequence of a theory, this fact will also break the Inductivism of the theory that originated it. The opposite is also clearly true: a flaw in Inductivism by an observation would also “refute” (*) the theory.

2.7- The Evidence

An evidence is an observation, fact or event that corroborates or not a theory. The inductive method, in general, elaborates its theories from evidence, that is, inductivity has its basis on reality as a starting point. Thus, Inductivism has advantages over other creation processes.
It is important to notice that theories or hypothesis generated by creation processes that do not come from empirical observation will also need to go through some kind of validation process, that is, a sequence of tests and empirical observations will also be necessary for the theories to be reliable.

Obviously in principle a newly created non-inductive theory, and yet with no favourable evidence can be true, while another that has been tested can be false. However, until the observations or experiments decrease or enhance the reliability of the theories, we must credit the theories that have already been through some observational test. In that case, inductive-based theories would have the initial advantage and therefore must be taken as more reliable than the non-inductive ones.

2.8 – Degree of “Inductive Reliability”

As a particular case, but not less important, we could say that a theory that does not have any favourable evidence, that is, the number of favourable inductions is zero, must have in principle, zero reliability.
As the amount of favourable evidence (quantity of valid inductive events) increases, the inductive reliability degree must also increase.

3- Necessity Criterion in Occam’s Razor

From this new theoretical base we can now answer the question in the beginning of this essay:

What is the necessity (or not) criterion of any hypothesis or theory in OR?”

The answer to this question can be given according to the “inductive reliability” degree (IR) presented by the hypothesis concerning the theory. The lower the inductive reliability (IR), the more unnecessary the hypothesis is.

Take the following theory as an example:
1b- For a car to move, it must have fuel, and its occupants must pray the “Our Father”.

The hypothesis of the necessity for the prayer for the car to move has a very low IR and therefore can be considered unnecessary. But in case our universe changes or the fact happens in another universe, this hypothesis can have a high degree of IR and then be a hypothesis that is not unnecessary. It all depends on associated inductive reliability.

(*) “Refute” is between inverted commas because, according to P.I.F [3], it is never possible to know whether an observation is true or not. Therefore, it is never possible to know whether something was refuted or not.

References:
[1] A Navalha de Ocam – Occam’s Razor
http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto24.htm
[2] Ciência Expandida – Expanded Science
http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto25.htm
[3] O Princípio da Incerteza Filosófico – The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle
http://www.genismo.com//logicatexto31.htm
[4] O Argumento Indutivista – The Inductivist Argument
http://www.ecientificocultural.com/ECC2/artigos/metcien2.htm

Portuguese version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/forum/42550.html

Felicitax: The Construction of Deux

Felicitax: The Construction of Deux
Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos,
translated by Debora Policastro

“God does not exist, but can be built.”
(Jocax)

Friend,
The issue I have slightly mentioned about an autonomous concept of happiness is so important that I have been searching for a name that would define the idea for a long time. I wanted a name that could express a limit to our “final quest”. I have thought about some, but could not find any that would really be worth the concept.

I will call it then “FELICITAX”. Maybe this is my last great idea to be published and, in fact, I have been keeping it for a long time. Few people had the privilege of knowing it.
My intention was to publish it in my book about genism, as its last chapter, which would be entitled “Beyond the Genism”. Although Felicitax is not a direct consequence of genism, it surely can be developed from the scientific “Meta-Ethics” (SME), of which genism is a ramification. (Un)fortunately, some (evil?) gene makes it difficult for me to keep secret of great ideas. Anyway, I herein register this one. I will then summarise Felicitax, even under the risk of not being comprehended.

Introduction

The objective of genism is happiness. We cannot have it, in its full potential, if we do not realise what we really are. However, evolutionary biology gives us the answer: we are “gene-perpetuative machines”. From this finding, genism proposes a philosophy whose ideas affect our routine, becoming itself a life philosophy. Genism establishes that we do not deny our intrinsic biological condition of “gene-perpetuative machines”. This is the first step to reduce internal conflicts, those triggered by the “culture x biology” dichotomy – memes x genes conflicts – the integration of our “cultural being” with our “biological being” through genism reduces this kind of conflict, resulting in less suffering and more happiness. If besides that we notice that our true “me” is not our traditional consciousness, but something I called “genetic-me” (our genes), that will make us gain a kind of immortality and, as a consequence, more happiness.
But happiness is defined through time and feeling [2]. Happiness by itself can be considered as an autonomous entity. Happiness does not need and should not be selfishly restricted to ourselves or to our kind, nor to biological beings!
Genism is also a scientific theory: it is a testable method that seeks the maximization of happiness in biological beings that evolved through natural selection. However, before the advent of the scientific “Meta-Ethics” (SME), there was no scientific approach to ethics and moral. There was no scientific tool that could approach the true effectiveness of the ethical theories through science in an objective way. As SME is yet totally unknown and is in state of development, the political usage of the theories for the good or for the bad could be done with no kind of scientific and objective control. Thus, it is not unlikely that unscrupulous, unreliable or narrow-minded people could try to deviate the objective of genism, distorting it. That could be done, for example, as a political decision, by establishing which GROUP should have its happiness maximized. But this is extremely dangerous: some could want the maximized happiness to be restricted, for example, to species; others, to nations or countries, or even to a specific ethnic group. However, the scientific “Meta-Ethics” to which genism belongs to, claims that the group should be understood as the set of all sentiate beings (capable of feeling) and that means the group is not restricted to human kind.
Oxen, cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, fleas and everything that is capable of feeling should be involved in the genist group, since they are, in principle, all capable of feeling. At first sight, that looks quite weird and radical but, as we already mentioned, it is not. The difference is that our brain has around 100 billion neurons, but an insect like a flea, for example, has only a few hundreds. Furthermore, the function of pleasure can rise exponentially according to the quantity of neurons or the kind of internal organization, not necessarily in a linear way.
What I mean is that organisms do not have the same weight on the compute of total happiness. Happiness depends on the capability of feeling that each organism owns. The suffering of a single human brain, for instance, could be of such magnitude that it would justify the elimination of the whole specie that made it suffer like, hypothetically, the one that causes cholera, or the fleas. Thus, if the human capability of feeling is larger, we should also have more rights than other species with shorter capability. Moreover, scientific “Meta-Ethics” establishes that happiness must be computed within the longest possible period of time. Thus, intelligence is a crucial aspect, since by its means it is possible to avoid the extinction of the planet caused by a meteor collision, or even avoid the extinction of life (and of happiness on the planet), as it is expected to happen in 4 billion years with the explosion of the Sun. That all must be taken into consideration (and in our favour) in general happiness as a whole.





FELICITAX

Although the long introduction above, many people will certainly not understand what I am about to expose. The “dictatorship of consciousness” might prevent you from seeing it. However, I will herein register it, for the future. Someday, perhaps, this idea will have great value and might stop being a science fiction project to become a real fact.

When I tried to explain FELICITAX to a few people, I used a simple hypothetical example, and I will do this again:

Suppose you are “face to face” with a simple insect, like an ant, for instance. Imagine that you “look” each other in the eyes, and stay like that, beholding each other for some minutes. Suppose that this insect has some idea of what you are. You own more than 100 billion neurons and capability of feeling and thinking. The ant may have only a few hundred neurons and, if it could, it would notice that its small neural net in its minute body is contained in the net of the observer. Thus, in a certain way, ITS BEING WOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE OBSERVER: you would have all the perception the ant could have, but only in a greater level. However, the opposite would not be true. Not all you feel and perceive could be felt by the minute insect. This hypothetical ant would “know” that it could never feel, notice or understand the universe as you do. If the ant could analyse your potential, it would comprehend you almost as a “god” before it. Therefore, by noticing all that, it would probably worship you.
If, by hypothesis, either your life or the life of the insect had to end, and the decision was empowered to the insect, then maybe it would choose to finish its own life only to save you. After all, your happiness potential is much larger than the one of the ant and, in a certain way, it would continue to “live” in you. Your happiness, your capability of feeling may be a thousand or a billion times superior to the capability of the little ant. Therefore, even under the point of view of measuring happiness, of SME, the decision of the ant about giving up its own life in order to save yours would be absolutely correct.







Deux

What if, in the hypothetical example above, us humans were the ant?

Then, who would this “you” be, a “you” that would be to us as we were to the ant of the example above?!
This “you” does not exist. At least not on Earth. But, if it existed, it would be a being of such magnitude that we should, if possible, give up our own life to save the being’s life!

This hypothetical being could enhance happiness in the universe A LOT simply by the fact that it can feel a billion times better than we can. We must name it. Let us call it “Deux”. Thus, if Deux existed, we should give up our own life to save His, if necessary.

But Deux does not exist!

LET US CREATE IT THEN!

If we *had* the technology, this should be our objective. But why? Why should we create Deux? The answer is simple: by definition, Deux would have a much larger capability of feeling than ours. Therefore, He could enhance happiness in the universe. Thinking only about our own happiness or the happiness of a specie is not ethical. Reasonings not connected to ethics can lead to any kind of barbarity. A perfect and free universal ethic must consider happiness as an autonomous entity, not attached to any species our subgroup. We already know what happens when rights are directed to specific subgroups.

The biggest problem in the SME is the mathematical quantification of “feeling”. If this problem was solved, perhaps Deux could be built as a computer or as a big biological brain, something like a huge neural mass immersed in a large tub that would provide it with food, oxygen or energy.
We must notice that there are not and there should not be limits to the continuous improvement of Deux; his capability of feeling and thinking could be continuously enhanced. Therefore, Deux would have an infinite potential. In fact, He should design his next “version”, with modules that could be attached and added to his neural net or even design enhanced clones. Obviously the seek for knowledge should continue through Deux, since this would be the best way to foresee and avoid the dangerous occurrences of a Universe in constant transformation.

Thus, Deux should be designed with the objective of increasing happiness in the universe. For that to happen, Deux’s main purpose would be feeling pleasure, great pleasure. However, in order to continuously enhance happiness in the universe, there must be intelligence and knowledge enough to produce technology for that goal. Therefore, Deux must own an intelligence capable of extending itself at each new version, capable of learning, producing and absorbing more and more knowledge. His evolution would happen exponentially with time. He must “self evolve”.
And what about us? As the real “ants” of the whole story, we should know that, in a certain way, we would also be contained in Deux. But, what should be our end then? Deux was designed to maximize happiness in the universe. I guess thatiIf we were “in the hands of Deux”, we would not have to worry, right? After all, would not we be contained in Him?



PS: Felicitax, in our era, must be considered as a philosophical entity, or as a science fiction element, not as reality. Until it can be understood and become a feasible project, many millennia must elapse. However, it is not impossible that Deux has already been built in another planet. In that case, He shall reach us.

Portuguese Version: http://stoa.usp.br/deux/files/-1/8794/deux.htm

--//--

Expanded Science

Expanded Science
Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos,
translated by Debora Policastro

“If truth were not the objective of philosophy, the Grimm brothers would have been the biggest philosophers in the world” (Jocax)

Abstract: initially, in this article, we present the foundation on which current science stands. Next, we explain the main stream of modern science, the “Popperian Falsificationism”, and show why the current criticism to the system is flawed. Later, we will prove that the “falsificationism” is logically inconsistent and we will propose a new concept of science, unifying it with philosophy.

1-The objective of Science

Science has truth as its only objective. This objective is essential to any tentative of classification in science.

2-Basic Postulates of Science.

2.1- Compatibility with the Facts
The Truth in science can be defined as “all information compatible with reality”. The term “compatible with reality”, in our definition of truth, must be understood as “according to the facts”, never in contradiction to them. This way, “compatibility with the facts” provides the empirical feature of science, as it links the scientific truth to the reality of the facts.
2.2 – The Universe is Logical
Likewise, we must also take the fact that our universe is logical as a scientific postulate. That is, the universe – defined as the set of all that exists – does not present logical contradictions between its element and laws. It must, therefore, follow the classical logic (aristotelic). Such an assumption is important because no illogical events have ever been verified in the universe. Secondly, if contradiction was allowed, science would be “trivialized”, that is, every kind of affirmation would be true, even if it was absurd, since a logical system with incompatible premises necessarily implies that any proposition is true. In the appendix ‘A’, at the end of this text, we prove that the proposition “the universe does not exist” can be logically derived from a logical system that presents contradictory premises. Some usual definitions of science can be found in the appendix ‘B’.

1. The scientific method

The set of rules with which science seeks knowledge (information considered ‘true’ or highly reliable) is what we usually call “Scientific Method”.
3.1-"The Deductive Method"

The deductive method comes from the assumption that the universe is logical, so the logical inferences can be applied to scientific theories in order to extract other theories which, by logical consequence, should also have the same degree of reliability. The basis of the deductive method is the logical syllogism known as "modus ponens" [8]:

H => D (If "H" implies "D")
H (and "H" happens, i.e. H is true)
=> D (We can conclude that "D" will also happen)

This rule can be summarized in the following tautological formula:

((H => D) ^ H) => D
(If "H" implies "D" and "H" happens, we can conclude "D").

Example: "If all geese are white" and my aunt has a goose, I can conclude that it is white. Thus, from the general theory H: "all geese are white", we can extract the particular theory D, "my aunt’s goose is white."

3.2-"The Hypothetical Deductive Method"

One of the most important rules of the scientific method, "The Hypothetical-Deductive Method" is based on the logical tautology known as "Modus Tollens" [7]:

H => D (If "H" implies "D")
~ D (and "D" does not happen, i.e. D is false)
=> H ~ (We can conclude that "H" did not happen)

And it can be summarized in the following formula:

((H => D) ^ (~ D)) => ~ H

(If "H" implies "D" and "D" did not happen, we can conclude that "H" did not happen).

Which can be interpreted as follows: "If 'H' implies 'D', and 'D' is false, we can conclude that 'H' is false."
As an example: If "all geese are white", it implies that my aunt’s goose should be white, but, in fact, my aunt has a red goose, so I can conclude that 'all geese are white' is a false theory.

Thus, in order to investigate a theory "H" under the conditions in which this theory implies the consequence "D" , if this consequence is not verified, that is, if the conditions where H is true the consequence "D" is not true, we can conclude, logically, that the theory "H" is not true (it is refuted). This is an important result since it becomes unnecessary to investigate directly theory "H"; investigating its consequences ("D") to conclude about "H" should be enough. Of course, if "D" is observed we cannot conclude that "H" is correct, but "H" will be “stronger”, that is, with a higher degree of reliability, having passed the test.

It is important to note that the scientific methodology comes directly from the postulate that the universe behaves logically. If it were not so, neither the hypothetical-deductive nor the deductive method could be justified.

The "Inductive Method", or simply induction, is not strictly considered part of the scientific methodology, as it goes from particular events, or samples, to derive general theories. Thus, we can never claim that what came from an induction is true simply because it came from an induction. For example: "All geese I have seen in my life are white, then, can I conclude that all geese are white?" We cannot. "The sun comes out every day since mankind exists. Can I conclude that this will happen forever? "We also cannot.

Nevertheless, we cannot put the "inductive method" in the ostracism because, although not very reliable, it provides us with important clues to connect our mind to reality. No scientific theory would have been discovered without induction. What are the scientific observation and the empiricism if not an inductive method to get to hypotheses of a general nature?

If we do not understand the "inductive method" as a criterion for evidence of scientific theories, but as a method to provide hypotheses for theories or ideas, it can be considered valid and very precious. Isaac Newton, for example, would not have discovered the law of gravity if he had not seen the attraction of matter. Einstein would not have created General Relativity if there were not experiments showing that the speed of light was constant.

4-The Origin of Scientific Theories

It is important to note that science does not make any restriction on the origin of scientific hypotheses or theories. [We will consider, in this text, hypotheses and theories as synonyms. In general, a theory begins as a hypothesis, and after several tests, if it manages to pass unscathed, it receives the ‘status’ of scientific theory. However, a 'brand new' hypothesis can be true while a very old theory can be false (do you remember the theory about the Earth being the center of the universe?). This way, with all the logical and scientific rigour, a theory is not necessarily more valid than a hypothesis. New theories can be achieved through induction (which is the most used method), but they can also be achieved through pure imagination, or even dreams [9]. There are no restrictions to create hypothesis. The theories are not refuted by looking at their origins, but at their consequences.

5-Pseudo-Sciences

There are no restrictions about the origin of scientific hypotheses. A priori, No hypothesis or theory can be discarded only because it was produced from induction or empirical observations. Although this scientific freedom of creating hypotheses can be enriching, since no one is prohibited from creating new and revolutionary scientific theories, it causes, in a terrible contrast, abundance of illogical and absurd theories and hypotheses that reclaim the status of scientific theory: they are the famous "pseudo-sciences."

6-Popper and the Falsifiability Criterion

The postulates and scientific methods described herein are adopted, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, by nearly all scientists and philosophers in science. However, they are yet not sufficient to accurately delimit what is scientific and what is not, or to separate science from pseudo-science.
We will take, as an illustrative example, the "Green Imp Theory" (GIT): "There is always a 'green devil' hovering over each person’s shoulder, but whenever someone tries to look at it, or makes any attempt to detect it or record it somehow, it will get invisible and undetectable. " This example proposes a theory that does not go against any scientific postulate and is not inherently inconsistent, what could be enough reason to reject it, but nevertheless, we are unable to test this theory. So what do we do?

The first philosopher who tried to clearly demarcate what is science and what is not was Karl Popper (7/28/1902-9/17/1994) [1]. Popper delimited science by adding the following criteria to it [10]:

1-No scientific theory can be proved true.
2-A scientific theory can only be proved false.
3-A theory which cannot be refuted is not a scientific theory.

Thus, with this new set of postulates, Popper introduced the 'falsifiability' (or ‘refutability’) as the main criterion of distinction between scientific and unscientific theories. The ‘refutability’ of a theory means that, in principle, the theory is liable to be distorted and thus be or not refuted (Modus-Tollens would be a way to refute a theory). For example, when analyzing the case of our ‘Green Imp Theory (GIT) above, we now realize it is not a scientific theory, since it is a theory that cannot be distorted neither directly or indirectly; therefore, it is not refutable and cannot be a scientific theory.

It is important to reinforce the idea that there is no "confirmation" of a scientific theory. If a theory passes the tests, it is said that the theory was corroborated by the tests; never confirmed by them (in the sense that it has been proved true). When a theory is corroborated, it only gains reliability, because by the criterion (1) above, no theory can be considered true:

"The science method consists of daring ingenious conjectures followed by rigorous attempts to falsify them." Only the aptest theories survive. It is impossible to legitimately say that a theory is true; one can say with optimism that it is the best available, better than the ones that already exist "[3]

In spite of the “popperian” ingenuity about delimiting science, the criticism was abundant.

6.1-Critique and Defenses on the 'Popperian Falcificacionism'

The main criticism to the "Popperian falsificationism" is that the tested theory is always inside an environment which conditions cannot always be fully controlled or evaluated. Thus, there can be a "false negative" in relation to its validation, and the theory can be prematurely discarded. For example, suppose we want to test the theory "All geese are white" and for that, we try to refute it by observing with binoculars, cameras and other observation paraphernalia, several geese spread over the world. Finally, an observer is able to shoot from far away, a brown goose flying along with his flock of white geese. Now that he has this evidence, it is possible for him to refute the theory. But what if the goose was only dirty with earth? Would we be prematurely dismissing a true theory?

This critique to the "Popperian falsificationism” is valid; however, it can be easily refuted with the following argument: if this theory was unfairly distorted by a misled or even fraudulent observation, this observation did not really act as a refutation of the theory. A false refutation is not a refutation. Likewise, we cannot invalidate the justice system simply because someone can present false evidence to condemn or acquit a defendant. If the rebuttal example is not valid, and the theory is unfairly rejected, this, as a single element, does not diminish the merit of the falsificationist criterion; it only states that we must be very careful with the tests and, moreover, it will always be possible to try to refute your own rebuttal. That being done, the theory can be "reborn" and reconsidered valid. If not, it should remain in the limbo of refuted theories waiting for a possible counter-rebuttal that might come in the future, if ever.

A second type of criticism, also widely used, is that "falsificationism" does not follow what the history of science has shown. If we analyze the evolution of science from its historical development, we will not find the rationality that Popper tries to impose to it. But this critique does not make any rational sense, because this would be like saying we should not create remedies in laboratories because if we study human evolution, mankind has always survived and evolved without any medicine. It is not rational to claim that we should keep a certain modus operandi simply because in the past it has always been so. However, despite the criticism to Popper is subject to refutation, there is in fact, as we will see next, a logical inconsistency in the “Popperian” criteria. And that is fatal to science and also to the "popperianism".

6.2 Refuting Popper

Although the historical criticism to the popperian “falsificationism" is refutable, since they do not really affect the falsificationist process logic, the postulates introduced by Popper are actually inconsistent. And the internal inconsistency in science is simply fatal. In order to prove that, we will consider the first two criteria proposed by Popper to demarcate a scientific theory:

i) No scientific theory can be proved true (confirmed).
ii) A scientific theory can only be proved false.

Taking the basic postulate that science seeks truth and not necessarily the usefulness in the theories, even because the "usefulness" of a theory is subjective, we should take the postulate (i) not as a condition for a theory to be scientific, but as an impossibility of proving it true.

If we interpreted the postulate (i) as a condition for a theory to be scientific, many theories that could be proved true would be considered anti-scientific in spite of science seeking the truth! That would be a complete nonsense. Therefore, we must interpret the postulate (i) not as a condition to which theories must obey to be considered scientific, but as an impossibility of being sure of what the ultimate essence of reality is. We cannot, for example, even prove that solipsism [14] is false: any information that reaches our consciousness could be only an imagination of a reality that actually does not exist. Could anyone, for example, prove we are not dreaming?

We do not need, however, to reach the limits of epistemology to understand why we cannot be absolutely sure of the veracity of a scientific theory: It is impossible to know whether we have, in fact, knowledge of every possible condition that influences the applicability of a theory. Without making these conditions explicit, the theory may not be valid in certain contexts in which the conditions cannot be verified. As an example, consider the theory "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius." This theory is valid only under conditions of adequate pressure (1 atm), otherwise it is false. Thus, a more correct theory would be: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at 1 atm pressure." Do we have now all the necessary conditions? What if water is composed mostly of heavy hydrogen atoms (deuterium)?

Let us now change focus and show the inconsistency of the criteria (i) and (ii):

Consider the following theory: "This shoe box contains a frog."
This theory is not very useful but, for now, we are not concerned about the usefulness of theories, we are concerned about its veracity. If we open the shoes box and find a frog, what can we say? Can we consider the theory true? Would that refute Popper’s postulate (i)? These matters are not trivial, since it is possible to say that what we see is not a frog but a toad, or that it could be an optical illusion or even a dream and therefore, we cannot claim that the box contains a frog or that the box exists. Indeed, these philosophical claims can keep the criterion (i) unharmed; however it contradicts the rule (ii) "A scientific theory can only be proved false”. If not, see:
If a theory can be proven false, then it is also true that its contradiction can be proven true.

At the very same time a theory is proved false, the theory that denies it is being proved true. Here, the sense of the word "prove" has the same connotation as to prove a theory false or true. As an illustration, consider, for example, theory A: "All geese are white." If we can prove this theory false by presenting, for example, a red goose, we will be at the same time proving that theory B "Not all geese are white" is true!

However, if we philosophically accept the fact (i) to be true, that is, if we admit that we cannot be sure about the ultimate truth of reality, then, strictly speaking, we can never say that a theory can be proved false, because if a theory "T" can be proved false, the opposite theory "Non-T" (denial of "T") can be proved true, that is, we would have the theory "Non-T" as an absolute truth . Anyhow, we conclude that the "Popperian falsificationism" is intrinsically contradictory, and that makes it easier for a new theory about science to be elaborated.

7 - "Expanded Science " or "Ocanian Science "

Science, just like philosophy, seeks the truth. It is then natural that they are unified, and this project aims to redefine science and unify it with philosophy in a knowledge area I called "Expanded Science" or "Ocanian Science”.

As truth is the only goal of the “Expanded Science"(ES), it should not be restricted to the empirical sciences, although these are also part of the EC. However, the truth in the ES means all information compatible with reality, where reality is the set of events that happens or have happened. Propositions built on systems disconnected from reality do not matter to the ES.
If we take the words 'theory', 'hypothesis' or 'proposition' as synonyms, we can establish the following criteria to define the "Expanded Science, "Ocanian Science " or simply Science:

(i)-Only the propositions directly or indirectly linked to reality are objects of analysis for the Expanded Science .
(ii)-The propositions that most fit the "Occam’s Razor" should be considered closer to reality than the others.

These two criteria compose the foundation of this new science. The criterion (i) intends to distinguish what is part of the expanded science and what is not. Criterion (ii) intends to classify the propositions in relation to their degree of veracity, that is, we must believe the best “ranked” theories are closer to reality than those that do not fulfill the Occam’s Razor criteria.

We can observe that there is no longer the criterion of distortion, precisely because, strictly speaking, we cannot prove anything in terms of absolute truth (that is implicit in the criterion (ii)), and of course, we cannot even prove that something is false. Nevertheless, we can give a new meaning to the words "Proof" or "Rebuttal" if we understand them as related to the Occam’s Razor.
Take the following illustrative example:
We find a shoe box and we notice there is a brick inside. What can we say about the theory: "Inside this box there is a brick”?
When we look inside, and notice a brick, would that be perfect evidence of its absolute truth? Incredible as it may seem, no! Actually, there are innumerable hypotheses which in principle could be true and would deny the proposition that inside that box there is a brick. We will consider some of them:

- The volume was actually of a battery radio imitating a brick.
- The volume was something that resembled a brick, but it was not a brick.
- That was not a brick because you are in a dream, imagining it.
- A momentary short circuit in your brain made you imagine a brick in an empty box.
- A new weapon with alpha waves was tested on you so you would imagine the brick.
- Someone created a holographic image of the brick so that you would think it was real.
- There are no bricks, since this universe is an imagination of a great consciousness.
- Etc.

Thus, we cannot undoubtedly prove that any statement about reality, as obvious as it may seem, is in fact, reality. However, by the criteria of the "Ocanian Science", we can use the Occam’s Razor and give preference to the more plausible theories in terms of the "razor" and, that way, consider the proposition "the shoe box contains a brick" as the most appropriate of them, the closest to reality.

It is interesting to note that the "theory of the green imp" (TGI) cited at the beginning of this essay, which previously could not be approached by the Popperian science, since it could not be tested or falsified, now can be easily approached by the "expanded science”: the theory of the green imp must be considered less true in relation to the theory that there is no such imp, since the latter is more appropriate in terms of the Occam’s Razor.

7.1- Some considerations on the "Occam’s Razor"

The "Occam’s Razor" establishes that we should not put unnecessary hypotheses in a theory. The term "unnecessary" is the key of the Occam’s Razor: If we can explain a fact with fewer hypotheses, then it must be done. Extra hypothesis must be discarded. If several theories explain the same phenomena, we should give preference to the theory with the smaller subset of hypotheses. It is possible to show that the accretion of unnecessary hypothesis to a theory makes it become less likely to be true [11]. Thus, we can understand the Occam’s Razor as a criterion of classification of the most likely theories. The theories that suit the Occam’s Razor the most are more likely to be true.

Many refer to the Occam’s Razor as the “simplicity” criterion, but this is dangerous. The "simplicity" in Occam’s razor does not refer to what is simplest to understand, but to what is most likely to happen. For example: for some, saying that life on Earth was promoted by aliens may be much easier to understand than an explanation that uses random and unlikely shocks of molecules, but not more likely to happen, since the alien hypothesis would imply that it would be also necessary to explain the origin of these aliens’ life added to explanations on how they would have acquired technology enough to get to our planet..That is, the apparent "simplicity" of the hypotheses of life being planted on Earth by aliens, contains, in fact, the complexity of the origin of extraterrestrial life, added to the complexity of an evolution faster than ours.

7.2-The Role of Evidence and the Classificatory List

We can define evidence as a fact in favor of a theory, as an event that corroborates a theory. Obviously, a piece of evidence may eventually also corroborate rival theories. A white goose, for example, may corroborate the theory "all geese are not black" as well as the theory "all geese are not red." The more restrictive the evidence, in the sense of not corroborating rival theories, the lower the chances of the rival theories being true and the higher the chances of the theory corroborated by the evidence being true. If, for example, we notice a brick inside a shoebox, this brick corroborates the theory "a shoe box is not empty" much more than the theory "the shoe box is empty", since the extra hypothesis needed for the box to be really empty, while we notice a brick inside, are quite unlikely (although they may be true). Note that there is no longer an explicit rebuttal of the theories that were not corroborated by evidence; they are only moved to the end of the "Classificatory List" of the theories more likely to be true. Nevertheless, we can still use the word "rebuttal" or "distortion", if we understand them in a relative meaning, that is, a theory refuted by evidence is just a theory less likely to be true.

7.3-The Role of Logic and Scientific Methodology

All the evidence we have since we understand ourselves as human beings indicates that the universe follows the Aristotelian logic. Thus, if any theory, hypothesis, or proposition violates the logic, it will be going against this enormous and extraordinary “history of evidence” and should therefore be placed in the last positions in the "Classificatory List ". In practice, this is equivalent to a rebuttal. However, we can maintain the word "REFUTE" not in the absolute sense of the word - rejecting a theory forever - but to understand it as highly unlikely to be true. Therefore, we must consider our logical Universe the largest set of evidence we have, and then we can continue to use the Deductive Method (3.1) and Hypothetical Deductive Method (3.2) in the same way we were using before, except that the conclusions we reach cannot be considered absolute truths (simply because the premises used in the methods also cannot be considered absolute truths).

7.4-The Old Popperian Science

The Popperian criterion (i) "No scientific theory can be proved true" was kept, and is embedded in the criterion (ii) of “The Expanded Science "(ES), as this only refers to the degree of proximity to reality. The "Falsifiability" is clearly disposed in item (i) of the ES, since all propositions related to reality are addressed, not only those that can be falsifiable. However, the popperian "rebuttable evidence” still has a high level of relevance in the ES, precisely because it obliges the theories to put unlikely propositions - thus contradicting the Occam’s Razor - in order to be coherent with the observed facts. For example: the theory "the shoe box is empty" needs some unlikely hypothesis to remain valid (as a brain 'short circuit'), if related to the evidence that we observed a brick inside the box. Thus, "rebuttable evidence" is still valid to throw the refuted theory to the last positions in the list of theories that are closer to reality.

7.5-Religions

If we define the universe as the set of all that exists, religions are also objects of the ES, since they refer to aspects of reality. Thus, they are also subject to classification by the Expanded Science, according to the Occam’s Razor.

The 7.6- Solipsism

The solipsistic idea is that everything we observe, feel and believe is nothing more than an illusion of some consciousness (I) and, therefore, this reality we observe is false, it does not exist. As solipsism makes references to reality, it is subject to the Expanded Science analysis:
The hypothesis that the universe developed from a few physical laws and a finite amount of elementary particles that led it to produce intelligent life with consciousness requires much less hypothesis (and simpler ones) than those required for the existence of such a being that would be able to imagine and relate every single detail of our imaginary world. Moreover, we would also have to solve the problem of the origin of a being with such complexity [13]. Therefore, by the Occam’s Razor, solipsism must be pretermitted in relation to a universe that is not imagined or virtual. That is, now and not before, we can scientifically "discard" the solipsistic hypothesis.

7.7-The Jocaxian Nothingness

The hypothesis that the universe, including the laws of physics, was generated from the Jocaxian Nothingness (JN) [12] (a nothingness without physical elements or laws) is now considered a scientific hypothesis, since it refers to our reality: the origin of our universe. As the JN is the simplest hypothesis about the origin of the universe that respects the Kalam’s Argument [13] ("An infinite time in the past could never lead to our present, since it would take an infinite time" = never), it should be one of the theories that are closest to reality according to the Occam’s Razor.

7.8-The Philosophy

As Philosophy seeks the truth dealing with ideas and concepts, ultimately, related to reality, it is also part of the Expanded Science.
Thus, we propose the unification of Science and Philosophy, in this new branch of knowledge: The Expanded Science.

Appendix A

Evidence that contradictory premises imply that any conclusion is true, even that "the universe does not exist":

1) Premise 1: "A" ('A' is true)
2) Premise 2: "~ A" ('Not A' is true)
But: "A ^ (~ A) => FALSE '('A and not A imply False’, Logical Tautology *)
So, we can conclude from 1 and 2 (by modus ponens):
3) "False" (concluded 'false')
But: "False => Anything" ("False implies X ', X is any proposition; it is a Logical Tautology )
Assigning 'X' (or 'Anything') the proposition "he Universe does not exist," We have:
4) "False => The universe does not exist"
From 3 and 4, we can finally conclude by modus ponens:
5) "The universe does not exist"

That is an absurd.
This example shows that from contradictory premises we can prove any absurdity.

(* Tautology is an absolute logical truth; that is, a truth that does not depend on the value of variables.)

Appendix B
Some definitions of science found on the Internet
Science:

* Rational investigation or study of nature directed to the discovery of the truth.
Such investigation is generally methodical, or according to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge.
* The organized collection of knowledge acquired through such investigation.

Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge that covers general truths or the operation of general laws especially obtained and tested through scientific method. Scientific knowledge depends upon logic [2].

The scientific method is a set of basic rules for a scientist to develop an experiment in order to produce knowledge, as well as correcting and integrating pre-existing knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, based on the use of reason [6].

--//--
Portuguese version: http://stoa.usp.br/cienciaexpandida/forum/39474.html