The Frontal Cortex

Don’t Blame Science Journalists

Apparently, it’s time to dump on science journalists. Plenty of bloggers, it seems, just accept it as a statement of fact that science journalism sucks, and is in desperate need of fixing. Various solutions have been proposed, from the supply side (educate ignorant journalists) to the demand side (make people want to know more about science).

Personally, I think these complaints are ridiculous, and that scientists don’t know how good they have it. Let’s review the facts, shall we?

1) Most science stories in the mainstream media are simply paraphrasings of press releases put out by the scientists or their academic institutions. This sad state of affairs is not a result of journalistic laziness. Rather, it is a direct result of the way modern science works. For those who don’t know, here’s a primer: breaking science stories – such as the latest paper published in Science or Nature – are embargoed until the journal is published. (Scientists are almost always not allowed to even discuss unpublished research. If they do, they put their research at risk.) The morning the paper is published, journalists are sent a press release. A mad hubbub ensues. The scientists in question are forced to recapitulate the same sound bites over and over, and stress that these results are preliminary, clinical trials are years away, etc, etc.

Nobody likes this process except for the science journals. Scientists don’t like it because the resulting stories are always oversimplified and uninteresting. Journalists hate the process because it renders them impotent. Instead of doing actual reporting, they end up writing banal summaries of sketchy but sexy research day after day. So why does this terrible system persist? Because scientists will never challenge the journals that control their career. Nobody wants to piss off Nature by talking to a writer.

So we are left with the following situation: scientists are pissed because we write what they (or their academic institutions) tell us to write. It it they, after all, who control the flow and timing of information. Excuse me if I’m not sympathetic to their whining.

2) Scientists are almost never subjected to critical coverage in the mainstream media. Quick: name the last newspaper or magazine article that dared to criticize or skeptically analyze a piece of published research. If you had trouble thinking of an article, it’s because it almost never happens. And this isn’t because science is perfect. As a JAMA study reported last year, almost a third of medical studies published in the most prestigious journals are wrong. Flat out false. These are the same studies that get that get faithfully recited in our daily newspapers day after day. This gullible reporting stands in sharp contrast to the way scientists actually perceive things. When I talk to scientists, I’m always impressed by the way they criticize the research of their peers. To take a recent example: a few weeks ago I spent over an hour listening to a neuroeconomist elegantly dissect a very influential fMRI study. (Other scientists subsequently echoed his criticisms.) And yet this same study has been covered extensively in the press, with nary a hint of skepticism. The fact is, science journalists suffer from an excess of politeness. We are intimidated by all the acronyms, and forget to ask difficult questions. But this is our duty. Most researchers, after all, are funded by tax dollars. They have an obligation to explain their research to the public.

But this doesn’t mean that science journalism is all it could be. Although we live in an age of science, for the man-on-the-street the scientific enterprise has never seemed so remote. This is clearly a significant failure. And while part of the solution requires a better educated citizenry, and science journalists could use some better scientific training (who couldn’t?), I think the most important reform we could make would be to change the way scientific information is released. Once we stop letting scientific journals control the flow of scientific news, I think you will start seeing less regurgitated press releases and more of the stuff that defines great journalism everywhere: stories about the scientific process, stories that reveal science as a human enterprise, stories that put research in its proper context. One possibility is that the public likes science; they just don’t like reading press releases.

Comments

  1. #1 E. Powers
    October 11, 2006

    The job of criticizing scientific work should go to peer review first. I think there is a good reason why scientists are discouraged from presenting their research to a reporter or the public before it has been accepted by their scientific circle. Science reporting doesn’t have to be simply a reconstruction of the journal piece. A response from the public, policy makers, business community, and funding institutions could provide what manuscripts can’t.

  2. #2 jon p
    October 11, 2006

    As a scientist, I can certaintly understand the difficulty of being a science reporter. I am also frustrated by the lack of freedom scientists have to discuss their ongoing research. This serves to isolate people from the scientific process. But I fear that if scientists actually criticized each other in public then it could be used by anti-science advocates (like creationists) to make further baseless attacks on science. Now is not the time to introduce a skeptical point of view. But you made some good points.

  3. #3 Pinko Punko
    October 11, 2006

    I’m totally into your points, but a lot of what we were talking about was more about the way the Nobel prizes were covered, and how the solution to cracking the short news cycle with either accuracy or some sort of basic truth is usually highly sub-optimal. I don’t know any scientist that would claim it is the science’s advantage that coverage is usually highly credulous. Since it is almost always breakthroughs with only upside that get reported, should we be surprised that the public doesn’t know how science works? The media tends to shove scientific results into a pre-determined template. This is part of the problem.

  4. #4 Eric Wallace
    October 11, 2006

    You seem to have glossed over the fact that it is a journalistic choice to pounce on the latest sexy paper, trumpet it, and move on the next day. No one is being forced to use those press releases. Wait a month, talk to some scientists, put the research in context, build a reputation for quality science coverage, etc. I’m not giving the journals and institutions a free pass in how and what they disseminate, but they’re probably taking advantage of science coverage trends that were already there.

  5. #5 RPM
    October 11, 2006

    If the current publishing system is to blame, would a more Web2.0 style system (like PLoS One or arXiv) be better for science news? Or if we’re reluctant to go that far, how about the simple open access model employed by PLoS?

  6. #6 Jonah
    October 11, 2006

    RPM – I think tings like PLoS One would absolutely improve the reporting process. For starters, they would help journalists describe the scientific process as a process, and not just as a list of facts that come out once a week in various journals. Reporters would have access to the various comments and tweaks and critiques that scientists demand of each other. In other words, they would see how science actually works. Great suggestion.

  7. #7 wafer
    October 11, 2006

    Well I would have to agree with you in part and disagree in part. What is the job of science journalists? Is it simply to regurgitate what the press release says or to actually get away from the desk and do some work. Those scientists that allowed themselves to be gagged by journals like Science and Nature (and I am not sure this is actually true), are available a month after the paper comes out for a more meaningful interview/discussion, but I guess the journalists have moved on to the next sexy thing. Most universities and other research institutions have websites describing the specific research going o individual scientists. An actual journalist could go to these sites and see whats going on and contact those scientists directly for a potential story. There are many other journals than Science and Nature with exciting and high quality work which could be mined. This requires some expertise obviously, but do journalists in other fields simply wait for a press release and write a story, or do they go out and identify stories? But maybe it is easier to sit at a desk, wait for the press release, and then complain about whiny scientists, that don’t do your job for you.

    I will agree scientists need to do a better job talking to the public and journalists, but excuse me if I am not sympathetic to the whinings of an editor of a magazine.

  8. #8 DeskZombie
    October 11, 2006

    A note about embargoes-

    Most journals send out their releases or “tip sheets” several days in advance of publication/embargo. The embargo simply means that the journalist cannot publish a story on the research before that time. Journalists CAN speak to the scientists during that period between the release and embargo expiration, giving them several days prep time to do interviews and background research. Likewise, scientists are allowed and encouraged to speak with reporters during this period IF the reporter agrees to honor the embargo.

    For example, PNAS sends out their “tip sheet” on Wednesdays and the embargo expires the following Monday at 5 pm, giving journalists 5 days to work up their story. Science has a similar window – releases go out on Monday, embargoes expire on Thursday.

    I would think an experienced journalist could make the most of that lead time.

    From Science’s FAQs on Eurekalert:
    “Each week, new research scheduled to appear in Science is embargoed�and information pertaining to it cannot be published, broadcast, sent to listserves or posted online (except to restricted-access sites approved by the AAAS Office of Public Programs)�until 2:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time on the Thursday immediately prior to publication…”
    “Every Monday morning immediately prior to publication, no later than 9:00 a.m. US ET, information about forthcoming papers is posted at the Science Press Package online, accessible to reporters through the embargoed news section of EurekAlert! (http://www.eurekalert.org)…”

  9. #9 Ulrich Mohrhoff
    October 12, 2006

    “No, it’s not that editors aren’t smart enough to understand science. Actually, it’s the opposite: they’re too accustomed to being smart, and thus can’t deal with the fact that they don’t understand it. And because they’re uncomfortable feeling confused, readers are left in the dark about a universe of research that eludes easy explanation.” – K.C. Cole

    Read more

  10. #10 Michael Kenward
    October 12, 2006

    Jonah utters much sense. In particular, journals now exert a pernicious influence over supine media.

    The embargo system is simply the puppet master pulling the strings. But the science writers collude with this, partly because they have their backs to the wall and they like an easy life.

    Most newspapers cover science because they feel that they have to, not because there is an audience out there desperate to read the stuff. So the science reporter constantly has to wheedle space out of reluctant news editors, many of whom think that science is something that the dog brought in.

    News editor have this funny idea of what constitutes news. To them it is the material that has just appeared in the rival press and on the broadcast media that day. If the front page of The New York Times covers a paper in PNAS, then heaven help the science writer on the Washington Post for passing on it.

    Embargoes just make it easier for everyone to know what will appear in tomorrow’s newspapers. (Don’t be surprised if there is a lot on large-scale solar power or autism next Monday.)

    The scientists go along with this game because it benefits them too. After all, a paper in Nature, Science or PNAS is often a crowning achievement in a scientist’s career. What better for the next grant application than to have that paper splattered all over the newspapers?

    If everyone heeded Jonah’s words and went to find their own leads, you would rarely read the same stories in different media. Get out and about. Visit researchers in their labs. Attend conferences. There’s plenty of genuinely interesting science out there. Not all of it is in university labs, and yet we rarely read about the results of corporate research.

    Sadly, another nail in the coffin of science journalism is, paradoxically, the Internet. It means that science writers can sit at their desks, waiting for the flood of press releases to come in. Then they can research away to their heart’s content. Much easier, and cheaper, than getting on a plane and spending hours trying to fathom some hard science.

    Is it any wonder that much of today’s science coverage is bland?

    Someone mentioned the Nobel Prizes, only a fool would consider these announcements to be typical of science reporting. No embargoes, old science, media feeding frenzy. All too often handed over to whoever happens to be in the office, or nearest to the winners. And there is no longer the luxury of half a day before your story gets into print. These days you have to get something on line in seconds.

  11. #11 Temur Z. Kalanov
    November 26, 2007

    Dear Sir,

    I kindly ask you to publish my articles:

    1) “The Correct Theoretical Analysis
    of the Foundations of the Special Theory of Relativity”
    (Abstract: The correct theoretical analysis of the generally accepted foundations of the special theory of relativity is proposed. The principle of the unity of formal logic and dialectics is a methodological basis of the analysis. The main result is as follows: the foundations (i.e., the interpretation of Michelson-Morley’s experimental data and calculations, the contraction hypothesis and the Lorentz transformation formulae, the concept of space-time, Einstein’s formula expressing equivalence of mass and energy) contain logical errors and are not consequence of any postulates. The existence of logical errors is irrefutable proof of incorrectness of the special theory of relativity. The following correct theories and principles are proposed: theory of time; theory of space; the quantum theory of constancy of light speed; the principle of

    2) “The Correct Theoretical Analysis of the Foundations of Classical Thermodynamics”
    (Abstract: The correct theoretical analysis of the generally accepted foundations of classical thermodynamics is proposed. The principle of the unity of formal logic and rational dialectics is a methodological basis of the analysis. The result is as follows: the foundations of classical thermodynamics (i.e., the first and second laws, equation of state, concepts of internal energy, of heat energy, of entropy, of temperature) contain logical errors. The existence of logical errors is irrefutable proof of incorrectness of thermodynamics. The correct statistical foundations are proposed).

    3) “The Correct Theory of Photon Gas”
    (Abstract: The correct theoretical analysis of the generally accepted foundations of theory of photon (quantum) gas are proposed. The principle of the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics is the correct methodological basis of the analysis. The new results – the correct quantum-statistical foundations – obtained within the framework of the formulated master equation taking into consideration both the quantum states of the radiating molecule and the quantum states of the photon gas in the isolated macroscopic systems “molecule + molecular gas + monochromatic photon gas” are as follows: (a) Planck’s, Einstein’s, and Bose’s works on the theory of photon (quantum) gas contain logical errors; (b) photon (quantum) gas being born by radiating molecule obeys “Gibbs statistics”: equilibrium photon (quantum) gas is described by Gibbs quantum canonical distribution; (c) Planck function (“Bose’s distribution”) is an consequence of Gibbs quantum canonical distribution; (d) Einstein coefficients (i.e. the coefficients of spontaneous emission, induced emission and absorption) are equal to each other).

    4) “CRISIS IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS: THE PROBLEM OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH”
    (Abstract: The problem of truth in science – the most urgent problem of our time – is discussed. The correct theoretical analysis of the generally accepted foundations of theoretical physics is proposed. The principle of the unity of formal logic and rational dialectics is a methodological basis of the analysis. The main result is as follows: the foundations (i.e. classical thermodynamics, the special theory of relativity, quantum mechanics) contain logical errors The existence of logical errors is irrefutable proof of incorrectness of the theoretical foundations and means that theoretical physics enters the greatest crisis. The crisis in physics leads inevitably to the general crisis in science. The crisis as effect is explained by existence of the global cause: the crisis is a collateral and inevitable result of inductive method of knowledge of the Nature).

    Sincerely yours,
    Dr. Temur Z. Kalanov

    Home of Physical Problems,
    Pisatelskaya 6a, 700200 Taskent, UzbekistanTel. +(998 712) 142 14 35
    E-mail:
    tzk_uz@yahoo.com,
    t.z.kalanov@mail.ru,
    t.z.kalanov@rambler.ru

  12. #12 Temur Z. Kalanov
    May 25, 2008

    THE THEORETICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE AND
    OF THE UNIQUENESS OF GOD: SCIENCE URGENT PROBLEM

    Temur Z. Kalanov

    Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan
    tzk_uz@yahoo.com, t.z.kalanov@mail.ru, t.z.kalanov@rambler.ru

    Abstract. The article is devoted to the 21st century?s most urgent problem ? the problem of existence of God. The theoretical proof of the existence and of the uniqueness of God, based on the correct method of knowledge ? unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics, ? is proposed. This proof represents a theoretical model from which the principle of existence and of uniqueness of God is deduced. The principle runs as follows: God exists as the Absolute, the Creator, the Governor of the essence (information) and of the phenomenon (material manifestation of information). The main conclusion is as follows: the principle of the existence and of the uniqueness of God represents absolute scientific truth and, consequently, should be a starting-point and a basis of the 21st century?s correct science.

    Key words: philosophy of religion, metaphysics

    Introduction
    1. Lately, the global problem ? the problem of stable and safe development ?arises before Mankind. The analysis of this problem shows that it is inseparably connected with the principle of development and with the global problem of sense and of purpose of existence of Mankind. These problems cannot be solved within the framework of 20th century science ? an inductive science. As is known, the 20th century?s science paradigm ? i.e. the initial conceptual scheme of science, the approach to formulation and solution of problems ? is formulated as follows: (a) God does not exist; (b) the unity of the world consists in its materiality; (c) the knowledge of the phenomenon (i.e. form, external aspect) determines the knowledge of essence (i.e. content, internal aspect); (d) any object can be mentally divided into elements; the knowledge of the elements of a system results in knowledge of the system of elements. This paradigm stipulates an inductive way of knowledge of the world, formed by ascending movement of knowledge: by the transition of knowledge from one states into higher states, i.e. by transition from a formulation of separate concepts to the formulation of a system of concepts. An ascending movement of knowledge in the way of an ?unlimited? sequence of ?dialectic negations? reflects the development of Mankind as ascension from a simple state to a complex state. The inductive science ascertains the fact of development, researches previous and present states but does not predict the future (next) states because it does not contain a deductive key to an explanation for the principle of development. In other words, inductive science (unlike a deductive science) does not answer the main question: ?Why is there development in the world?? Therefore, the 20th century?s science paradigm does not allow to draw a complete (true) scientific picture of the world and, consequently, to solve correctly the following global problems: the problem of predestination, predetermination (inevitability) of knowledge of the world; the problem of the purpose of knowledge of the world; the problem of the limit of knowledge of the world; the problem of truth of knowledge of the world; the problem of existence of the absolute truth; the problem of the sense and of purpose of the existence of Mankind; the problem of source and of motive force in the development of Mankind; the problem of the way and of the limit of development of Mankind; the problem of destination of Mankind; the problem of the essence of the world. Thus, the correct research for the problem of development of Mankind is impossible without formulation of a new paradigm.
    2. The formulation of a new paradigm means, first of all, a dialectic negation of 20th century philosophy (gnosiology). As is known, the 20th century philosophy is characterized by perfect scientific methods but it cannot answer the ?eternal? questions: ?What is man??, ?What is life??, ?What is death??, ?What is the sense and the purpose of a human life??, ?Does God (the Creator, the Governor) exist??, ?What is God (the Creator, the Governor)??. Weakness of 20th century philosophy (gnosiology) is explained not by a lack of necessary scientific data but by the narrowness of modern scientists? consciousness: (a) narrow consciousness (which is not contain concept of God) determines interpretation of scientific data, and interpretation of scientific data characterizes narrow consciousness (which is not contain concept of God); (b ) the modern scientists? thinking has not moved far from well-known interpretation of the key concepts: the categories ?reality?, ?matter?, ?consciousness?, ?thinking?, ?thought?, ?knowledge?, ?morals?, ?truth?, and ?criterion of truth?. Thus, dialectic negation of 20th century philosophy (gnosiology) and formulation of a new paradigm are impossible without a broadening of scientists? consciousness, without the critical analysis and correct definition of philosophy?s (gnosiology?s) key concepts: the categories ?reality?, ?matter?, ?consciousness?, ?thinking?, ?thought?, ?knowledge?, ?morals?, ?truth?, and ?criterion of truth?.
    3. Broadening of scientists? consciousness and the correct definition of scientific concepts (in particular, the categories ?reality?, ?matter?, ?consciousness?, ?thinking?, ?thought?, ?knowledge?, ?morals?, ?truth?, and ?criterion of truth?) are possible only in that case if two different, mutually connected, mutually complementary methods of scientific knowledge of the world are used: the formal-logical method (the method of formal logic) and the rational-dialectical method (the method of rational dialectics). The unity of these methods is not only the correct way of building and of substantiating a system of philosophical knowledge, but also a correct methodological basis for the critical analysis of any system of concepts. Since these methods of scientific knowledge represent the formal-logical and rational-dialectical ways of thinking, scientific knowledge (i.e. system of scientific concepts) is a consequence of these correct ways of thinking. In other words, the way of thinking determines human knowledge, and the human knowledge characterizes a way of thinking. There is no knowledge in general ?knowledge separated and independent of the subject of knowledge, ? and there is only human and non-human knowledge. Hence, the existence and definition of concepts (in particular, the categories ?reality?, ?matter?, ?consciousness?, ?thinking?, ?thought?, ?knowledge?, ?morals?, ?truth?, and ?criterion of truth?) is the consequence of a way of thinking.
    4. Modern scientific thinking is analytical thinking. The purpose of scientific thinking and of scientific knowledge of the world is to comprehend scientific truth. Scientific truth represents the content of objective scientific knowledge, i.e. represents a property of a system of scientific concepts, not depending on the scientists? outlook, not containing references to the means and methods of knowledge (in particular, to devices, procedure of measurement or calculation). The objective scientific knowledge at a certain moment of history is one of states of knowledge in the process of inductive knowledge. If the process of inductive knowledge has no upper limit (i.e. an upper boundary), then knowledge ? the system of scientific concepts ? is always incomplete. Since the properties of a complete system, generally speaking, qualitatively differ from properties of an incomplete system (i.e. since properties of complete system are not consequence of properties of incomplete system), the content of incomplete knowledge represents relative truth. Social practice is an aspect of the criterion of relative truth. In this connection, the problem of the validity of scientific knowledge ? one of the central problems in gnosiology ? cannot be solved without determination of an upper limit of process of inductive knowledge, without comprehension of absolute truth. In other words, a complete (correct) definition of scientific concepts (in particular, the categories ?reality?, ?matter?, ?consciousness?, ?thinking?, ?thought?, ?knowledge?, ?morals?, ?truth?, and ?criterion of truth?) is impossible if absolute truth does not exist: the absolute truth is the criterion of correctness, of validity of scientific knowledge. Thus, the problem of the existence of a upper limit of inductive knowledge ? i.e. the problem of the existence of absolute truth ? arises.
    5. The statement and solution of the problems of the existence of a upper limit of inductive knowledge and of the existence of absolute truth are out of framework of an inductive science because, according to the definition of the concept ?induction?, an inductive way of knowledge has no the upper limit. Each stage of an inductive way of knowledge is: statement and solution of a new problem; a new scientific knowledge; a result of scientific creativity. As George Polya ? the well-known mathematician and pedagogue ? has pointed out, the methods of scientific creativity are as follows: a scientist should guess the theorem before he will prove it; a scientist should guess the idea of the proof before he will carry out the proof in details. In this sense, the theorem of the existence of a upper limit of inductive knowledge (the theorem of existence of absolute truth) is my guess, my scientific hypothesis. One can guess this theorem and idea of the proof of this theorem only if one take into consideration the concept ?God? explained in the main religious sources ? the Bible and the Koran. Hence, the problem of development of Mankind represents a logical consequence of the global problem of the existence of a upper limit of inductive knowledge and of the problem of the existence of God. Thus, the scientific solution of the problem of the existence of God (i.e. the correct solution of the problem of the relation between science and religion) is a key to the correct solution of the actual problem of development of Mankind.
    6. As is known, one of the main purposes of science and of religion is to explain the world. However, scientific and religious pictures of the world ? as results of such explanation ? essentially differ from each other. This distinction is not sufficient reason, a logical substantiation, a proof of existence of the contradiction between science and religion. Really, from the formal-logical point of view, science and religion cannot be compared because there are no logical relations (i.e. relations of identity, subordination, collateral subordination, partial coincidence, and discrepancy) between scientific and religious concepts. This is explained by the fact that structures, principles of knowledge, categories (concepts), methods of science and of religion are different. For example, science uses an inductive (analytical) method of knowledge. This method is based on the analysis, i.e. mental division of the object of knowledge into aspects. And religion uses a deductive (non-analytical, meditative) method of knowledge which is not based on the analysis. This distinction leads to the fact that the main religious concepts ? ?God?, ?creation?, ?result of creation? ? and scientific concepts have no general (common) basis and, hence, there is no reason for comparison between them. It means that the problem of the relation between science and religion is a problem of logical-philosophical relations between scientific and religious concepts. It is obvious that this problem cannot be solved within the framework of special sciences (for example, cosmology, astrophysics, physics, biology, genetics) because it is a general scientific problem. For comparison of these concepts to make, it is necessary to build scientific model of God. Thus, the problem of relation between science and religion is reduced to the problem of building of theoretical model of God. Only on the base of this model, one can establish unambiguous (one-to-one) correspondence between the main, key scientific and religious concepts.

    Definition of the key scientific concept “Creator and Governor of the world”
    The formulated approach to solution of the problem of stable and of safe development of Mankind results in the following statements [1-10]:
    (1) the solution of the problem of stable and of safe development of Mankind is impossible without a knowledge of the principle of development;
    (2) the principle of development should be researched within the framework of a science new paradigm;
    (3) the science new paradigm runs as follows [1-10]:
    (a) the correct methodological basis for scientific (analytical) research represents the unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics;
    (b) the world represents a unity of opposite aspects: essence (i.e. internal, non-material aspect, the information aspect having a measure) and phenomenon (i.e. external, non-information aspect, the material aspect having a measure);
    (c) zero of state (i.e. zero of quantitative determinacy) of the world (i.e. “the beginning of the world”) represents a unity of opposites: a unity of zero of information state (i.e. information zero) and zero of matter state (i.e. matter zero); zero of quantitative determinacy does not mean lack (non-existence) of qualitative determinacy; zero of quantitative determinacy (i.e. zero of state) exists eternally: it cannot be created or exterminated; the concepts “information” and “matter” are the initial concepts designating the aspects of the world;
    (d) the application of correct methodology to the research of the world leads to the statement that not any object of knowledge can be mentally divided into aspects (elements);
    (e) there exists the individual concept “object of cognition, indivisible into aspects” (i.e. “non-World”); the category “object of cognition, indivisible into aspects” is designated by the individual logical name “Absolute”;
    (f) the Absolute does not belong to the set “object of cognition, divisible into aspects” (i.e. “World”) and exists eternally (i.e. the Absolute cannot be created or exterminated) because zero state of the world cannot be created or exterminated.
    The following consequences are deduced from these statements:
    (a) If the object is a synthesized (a constructed, formed, created) object, then it is mentally divided into aspects. If the object is mentally divided into aspects, then it is a synthesized (a constructed, formed, created) object. Consequently, the concepts “object synthesized (constructed, formed, created)” and “object divisible into aspects” are identical ones.
    (b) If the object is a synthesized (a constructed, formed, created) object, there is a creator (constructor) of the object. From this point of view, if the system “reality = Absolute + world” is a complete system, and the object “world” is mentally divided into aspects, then the object “world” is created by the object “Absolute”. The object “Absolute” is not mentally divided into aspects. Hence, the object “Absolute” is not a synthesized (a constructed, formed, created) object. The object “Absolute” bears the philosophical name “Creator”. The logical category “Absolute” is designated by the individual philosophical name “Creator”.
    (c) Creation of a set of objects of the world represents the following action. The creator creates and injects the essence (the information, the program) into the information aspect of the world. This essence is manifested in the phenomenon aspect of the world. The manifestation is a set of states of matter. The nonzero state of matter is a set of material objects.
    (d) Extermination of the objects of the world represents the following action. The creator exterminates the essence (i.e. the information aspect) of material objects. This extermination of the essence is manifested as extermination of material objects in the phenomenon aspect of the world. Extermination of material object (for example, in physical, chemical ways) does not mean extermination of the essence (i.e. the information aspect) of this object: the essence cannot be exterminate in physical, chemical ways. If the essence of an object cannot be exterminate in physical, chemical ways, then a set of forms of manifestation of this essence exists. Since the essence of a material object is manifested in different forms, extermination of material object means only a change in the form of manifestation of the essence, transition (transmutation) of one form (i.e. one set of material properties) into other form (i.e. other set of material properties).
    (e) The complete system represents a system having hierarchical structure: “complete system = controlling system + controllable system”. There is a subordination (submission) relation between the “controlling system” and the “controllable system”: the “controlling system” is a higher system, and the “controllable system” is a lower system. From this point of view, the system “reality = Absolute + world” is the “complete system”, the “Absolute” is the “controlling system” (the controlling, highest aspect of reality), the “world” is the “controllable system” (the controllable, lowest aspect of reality). The logical category “Absolute” is designated by the individual philosophical name “Governor” (“Operator”).
    (f) Control of the world is carried out as follows: the “Governor” (“Operator”) makes an informational influence on the world of material objects for the purpose of controlling. This action is manifested as ordering, stabilization, functioning, change, development of the world. The informational influence upon the object changes the informational content of object. The change of informational content means a change of the material form (i.e. material properties: for example, energy and mass) of the object. The chaos does not exist. Consequently, the controllable material object represents a complex system: the unity of content (i.e. the informational content of object) and form (i.e. set of material properties of object).
    Thus, this system of the statements leads to the following general conclusion: the logical category “Absolute” is designated by the individual philosophical name “Creator, Governor of essence and phenomenon”, i.e. “Creator and Governor of the world”.

    Identification of God
    A logical-philosophical definition of the category “Absolute, Creator, Governor of essence and of phenomenon” allows to identify God, i.e. to solve the problem of unambiguous (one-to-one) correspondence between the main religious and scientific concepts. Comparison of the definition of the religious concept “God” with the definition of the scientific concept “Absolute, Creator, Governor of essence and phenomenon” leads to the statement about identifiability of the recognizable object “God”: there is an unambiguous (one-to-one) correspondence between the religious object “God (Creator, Governor of the world)” and the scientific object “Absolute, Creator, Governor of essence and of phenomenon”. This statement can be formulated in the form of the principle of existence and of uniqueness of God: there exists a scientific object “Absolute, Creator, Governor of essence and of phenomenon” which is a unique and correct theoretical model (identifier) of the religious object “God (Creator, Governor of the world)”.
    Thus, from the scientific point of view, God exists as the Absolute, the Creator and the Governor of essence and of phenomenon. The scientific concept “Absolute, Creator, Governor of essence and of phenomenon” is identical to the religious concept “God (Creator, Governor of the world)”. This statement is based on a unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics and, consequently, represents absolute scientific truth.

    Conclusion
    Thus, the proposed approach to solution of the problem of development of Mankind and formulation of the principle of existence of God are absolute scientific truth: it is truth irrefutable within the frame of science, because it is based on correct methodological basis ? unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics. According to the Bible and the Koran, the predestination of Mankind is to serve God. (It is possible to offer the following analogy: if the world is similar to a computer, then God is similar to the programmer and the operator of this computer; the computer and the program are means for the solution of the problems that face the creator of the program and the operator of the computer). The main aim of human science as means of cognition is to know Universal Morals (i.e. morals in the broad sense). This fact leads to the statement of a question on the scientific research of the principles of Universal Morals, stated in the Bible and the Koran. As is known, high moral qualities are not a consequence of employment in science. However, scientific achievements depend on moral qualities: for example, in the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates? opinion, the existence of objective truth is a consequence of the existence objective moral principles. Therefore, “the moral qualities of the prominent person are, probably, of great importance for the given generation and for all course of history than purely intellectual achievements. The lasts depend on the greatness of spirit to greater degree than it is usually accepted to consider” (A. Einstein). In other words, the criterion of truth in science, practice, human life, and development of Mankind is the principles of Universal Morals.
    The system of correct moral principles ? the main content of the Bible and the Koran ? is a key to understanding the principle of development of Mankind because the development represents an ascension of Mankind on the steps of Universal Morals, and science and practice are a way and means of the development. The principles of Universal Morals should determine a new paradigm, a methodology of science, interpretation of scientific data, a scientific picture of the world and should render essential influence on policy. Comprehension of the principles of Universal Morals, stated in the Bible and the Koran, is the imperative of our time, a necessary condition of the correct (stable and safe) development of Mankind. Hence, the principle of existence and of uniqueness of God should be a starting-point and a basis of the 21st century’s correct science.

    References
    [1] T.Z. Kalanov, “On a new theory of the system of reference”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., V. 48, No. 2 (2003), pp. 153-154.
    [2] T.Z. Kalanov, “For the problem of knowledge of the Universe”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 48, No. 2 (2003), pp. 154-155.
    [3] T.Z. Kalanov, “On a new theory of physical vacuum”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 50, No. 2 (2005).
    [4] T.Z. Kalanov, “On a new theory of the black hole”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006), p. 62.
    [5] T.Z. Kalanov, “The problem of the SETI: A methodological error in cosmology and astrophysics”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006), p. 60-61.
    [6] T.Z. Kalanov, “On the hypothesis of Universe’s “system block””, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006), p. 61.
    [7] T.Z. Kalanov, “On the correct analysis of the foundations of theoretical physics”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 52, No. 2 (2007).
    [8] T.Z. Kalanov, “On the hypothesis of control of the Universe”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 52, No. 2 (2007).
    [9] T.Z. Kalanov, “Theoretical model of God: The key to correct exploration of the Universe”, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., Vol. 52, No. 2 (2007).
    [10] T.Z. Kalanov, “Critical analysis of the special theory of relativity”, Bull. of Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 26D, No 1 (2007), pp. 1-15.

  13. #13 Ric
    December 19, 2009

    Just an FYI: you have been quote mined by the creationists at uncommondescent.com. They are using your statement that journalists are not critical enough of scientists to support their talking point that journalists are not critical enough of evolution.

    Typical.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!