{"id":316720,"date":"2026-06-01T12:01:47","date_gmt":"2026-06-01T11:01:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=316720"},"modified":"2026-05-30T19:02:47","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T18:02:47","slug":"the-distrust-on-science-is-caused-by-its-claims-to-be-absolute-and-unique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2026\/06\/the-distrust-on-science-is-caused-by-its-claims-to-be-absolute-and-unique\/","title":{"rendered":"The Distrust on Science Is Caused by Its Claims to Be Absolute and Unique"},"content":{"rendered":"

27 May 2026 – <\/em>The deepest reason of the distrust in science is its presenting itself as a monolith whose results are indisputable. Of course, pebbles fall to the ground according to the law of gravitation; this statement is true because we have direct experimental evidence. But science is composed by scientific theories, each including notions, principles and mathematical techniques, all based on philosophical ideas, e.g. that of infinity.<\/p>\n

Falsely, science claims to suggest absolute truths. Instead it passed deep crises (e.g. in early 20th century) and supported wrong ideas (e.g. ether). Moreover, it includes divergent scientific methods (e.g. Newton\u2019s mechanics and chemistry). All that is incompatible with its claim to represent rationality itself.<\/p>\n

Falsely, science claims to have a unique mathematics; instead, many scientific theories (e.g., thermodynamics, computer theory, genetic code, etc.) chose discrete or at most constructive mathematics[1]<\/a> instead of infinitesimal analysis making use of the actual infinity (as if this use were an unproblematic human capacity). Therefore, each scientific concept has two different meanings according to which type of mathematics it refers (e.g. a number is either finite or infinitesimal; a straight line is either an ever more extensible segment or a line including its two points at infinity, a set includes either a finite number of elements or an infinite number of elements).<\/p>\n

Falsely science presents itself according to uniquely a deductive organization, which draws from few principles-axioms all laws. This claim is based on the philosophical authority of Aristotle and the scientific authority of Euclid and then Newton. But many scientific theories (thermodynamics, information theory, computer science, etc.) are organized in order to discover a new scientific method for solving a given problem. These theories make use of doubly negated propositions that are not equivalent to the corresponding affirmative ones, hence the law of double negation fails and these propositions belong to intuitionist logic[2]<\/a> (e.g. in thermodynamics: \u201cIt is not<\/u> true that heat is not<\/u> work [\u2260 heat is work]\u201d).<\/p>\n

Falsely therefore science claims to follow a unique kind of logic. There exist many kinds of logic (classical, modal, intuitionist, etc.). In 1936 the logic of quantum theory was recognized to be a non-classical logic one[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Falsely science presents the first principle of its basic theory, Newton\u2019s Mechanics, as an operative principle; rather it is metaphysical and even a tautology. Rather, L. Carnot suggested an operative version of this principle: \u201cA body, once is in motion, cannot<\/u> by itself change<\/u> its direction and its velocity.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

As a fact, science presents itself as based on both mathematics of the actual infinity and classical logic managing the deductive theoretical organization. These choices are not negative in themselves; but they become so when the other choices are ignored or rejected as antiquated; and therefore inadequate to produce true science. With this arrogance it takes on a mythical aspect that philosophers, and ordinary people, have failed to discover. About this point the words of Emmanuel Burtt are wise:<\/p>\n

“Metaphysics they [the scientists] tended more and more to avoid, so far as they could avoid it; so far as not [as occurred in calculus and in Isaac Newton’s mechanics], it became an instrument for their further mathematical conquest of the world”<\/em>[5]<\/a> .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

NOTES:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Bishop E. (1967), Foundations of Constructive Analysis<\/em>, New York: Mc Graw-Hill.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Troelstra A. and D. van Dalen (1988), Constructive Mathematics<\/em>, Amsterdam: North-Holland.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Birkhoff G. and von Neumann J. (1936), \u201cThe Logic of Quantum Mechanics\u201d, The Annals of Mathematics<\/em>, 37, pp. 823-843.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Carnot L. (1803), Principes fondamentaux de l\u2019\u00e9quilibre et du movement<\/em>, Paris\u00a0: Deterville, p. 49.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Burtt E.A. (1924), The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science<\/em>, London: Routledge and Kegan, p. 303<\/p>\n

______________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Prof. Antonino Drago: University \u201cFederico II\u201d of Naples, Italy and a m<\/em>ember of the <\/em>TRANSCEND Network<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>Allied of Ark Community, he teaches at the <\/em>TRANSCEND Peace University-TPU<\/em><\/a>. Master degree in physics (University of Pisa 1961), a follower of the Community of the Ark of Gandhi\u2019s Italian disciple, Lanza del Vasto, a conscientious objector, a participant in the Italian campaigns for conscientious objection (1964-1972) and the campaign for refusing to pay taxes to finance military expenditure (1983-2000). Owing to his long experience in these activities and his writings on these subjects, he was asked by the University of Pisa to teach Nonviolent Popular Defense in the curriculum of \u201cScience for Peace\u201d (from 2001 to 2012) and also Peacebuilding and Peacekeeping (2009-2013. Then by the University of Florence to teach History and Techniques of Nonviolence in the curriculum of \u201cOperations of Peace\u201d (2004-2010). Drago was the first president of the Italian Ministerial Committee for Promoting Unarmed and Nonviolent Civil Defense (2004-2005).<\/em> drago@unina.it<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

27 May 2026 – The deepest reason of the distrust in science is its presenting itself as a monolith whose results are indisputable. Falsely, science claims to suggest absolute truths.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":61862,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[3515,304],"class_list":["post-316720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-fake-science","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316720"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316720\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":316721,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316720\/revisions\/316721"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/61862"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}