The Problem with Conclusions

The Problem with Conclusions

I THINK it is important for us to understand the problem with conclusions. The entire structure of knowledge is based on conclusions. I say this is wrong. I’m not saying that we should stop investigating and inquiring into any of the many fields of study—that would be ridiculous—but that we need to STOP coming to these conclusions and then calling any ONE conclusion a FACT.

We say that North America was inhabited 11,500 years ago, and all indications from the excavations and the studies indicate this. So some individual gets credit for coming up with this knowledge and he pats his big ego and then becomes popular and makes money on his discovery and then his knowledge becomes FACT.

Now we say it is a FACT that North America was first inhabited around 11, 500 years ago. And this remains a FACT for some time to come. But then another fellow finds other sites and in his research he determines that North America was first inhabited around 35,000 years ago and this process starts all over again, and then this new data comes to be accepted as a FACT.

We have done this behavior in the fields of history, religion, mathematics, physics and quantum physics, paleontology and evolution, and in the field of astrophysics and every field of knowledge that we investigate. Then these conclusions become the basis for our further studies, calculations, and so forth, and because the conclusions were wrong and in FACT were not FACTS, we are led astray and so much time is wasted. By coming to these conclusions that are WRONG and then moving on by using the data from these conclusions, it may take years or decades or even hundreds of years to get back on track, if we ever get back on track.

Now, I propose a system where we no longer call a conclusion a FACT and simply call it the CURRENT THEORY or the CURRENT OBSERVATION. This allows for those that are doing further research or moving from this CURRENT OBSERVATION or CURRENT THEORY to proceed with caution and to even question the information that they have acquired.

Let’s take the field of physics for example. We come to these conclusions and then we move on to call some conclusion a FACT. Even if it goes by some name that has the word THEORY in it, it still becomes accepted as an accepted conclusion or FACT amongst those in the specific field of study. In the case of Einstein’s THEORY OF RELATIVITY one may spend months and months in his attempts to understand this theory and go through all the mathematical equations to grasp the accepted FACT of this information and then after several months of studying this information one finally understands the accepted information and in that same instant that this accepted theory is understood one realizes that it is WRONG. In fact one later comes to realize that the accepted FACT of MASS is WRONG. There is this insight from all this study and persistence in attempting to understand these principles and suddenly one comes to the OBSERVATION that MASS may not exist at all, and that everything may be ENERGY. It may be that only because of electric and magnetic energy fields (electromagnetism) and certain other very complicated principles (which I will not go into here because of their complexity) that this ENERGY is held together as MATTER, and therefore should not be considered MASS at all. Now look at how physics has gone on for so many years from these WRONG conclusions, so most everything else is WRONG. I’m not the only one that has come to this OBSERVATION, and there are others. This fellow by the name of Bruce Harvey in the UK came to this OBSERVATION and has facts to back it up (learn more by putting his name in a search engine).

You believe in your views about gravity because you have been conditioned to believe in it. Did you know that science has learned that Newton's law of Gravity may not be the whole story? Science has learned that gravity may not be ONLY because of "the objects attracting each other". Some scientists now theorize that a warping of space, by spacetime curvature contributes to gravity. This gets into some very complex stuff like electromagnetism and quantum mechanics that very few people can understand. There is also the rope theory and this is a far more simple theory that few scientists will consider because it overrides their accepted theories. Therefore gravitation, as we know it, is still a theory and we may come to learn that there are other aspects to this force or this energy, or what you will.

In the field of astronomy or, more specifically, astrophysics, we find conclusions that have been made in this field of knowledge that have been blown completely out of the water. Just look at the knowledge based on THE BIG BANG THEORY (which I think is a plausible theory), and the BIG CRUNCH THEORY, and then look at the knowledge of our universe. We now have come to the realization of the possible existence of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY (learn more by putting these names in a search engine), which may make up some 96 percent of the known universe, yet the scientist know little to nothing about it. The CURRENT OBSERVATION or the CURRENT THEORY on DARK ENERGY is that it is creating a repulsive energy and causing the expansion of the universe to be in a state of continuous expansion and it seems to be actually accelerating. This contradicts all the KNOWLEDGE and all the CONCLUSIONS that I learned just fifteen or twenty years ago.

Now let’s take the field of paleontology (the study of the fossil record). If we study this field we find that certain conclusions have been made and have been accepted as FACTS and then we come to find out that the FACT was incorrect or even, as in one case, a fabricated fossil and not the truth at all. This science also tends to overlook the possibility of some sort of cosmic energy playing a part in evolution. In my studies of evolution I have seen evidence that this may indeed be true. Some Astrophysicists and other scientist believe that cosmic rays from supernovas could play a role in evolution. One can show through examples and with mathematics that the cosmos is full of energy and that the many components of our cosmos contain the necessary ingredients to form a "thinking" cosmos. Could the cosmos itself be the creative energy of our universe and the directive forces in nature working along with natural selection? Could it be that there is an "outside" energy working with the energy within these organisms?

Humans tend to focus on those things that support their view and exclude those that don’t. Greed, ambition, and even knowledge can get in the way of truth and open-mindedness and we need to put a stop to this or at least slow it down and I think using the principle I describe here will help do that.

Science puts forth evolution based solely on natural selection and usually refuses to consider any outside energy, even if this energy is a natural creative energy of our cosmos. Scientist within the established media claim to know a great deal about physics and mathematics, but they are willing to propagate information that may be false and often refuse to consider evidence that demonstrate possible errors. Scientist claim to know a great deal about the universe and the cosmos, but they actually know very little and there are still many unknowns. Scientist claim to know what the center of this earth looks like and they put pictures in text books to represent this knowledge, but in actuality they know virtually nothing in reality about the deep interior of this earth. In fact we are still learning about the deep oceans and our rainforest and we continue to find new species of life in the water and on land.

I can make examples in every field of knowledge where this problem applies. I could produce examples in the field of HISTORY and, especially, in the field of RELIGION but I would have to keep you here until KINGDOM COME (sorry, pun intended) or for much longer than you may like so I will end it now by saying we simply need to stop this insidious behavior of coming to conclusions in any field of knowledge and we should begin calling the information we have by the description of CURRENT OBSERVATION or CURRENT THEORY. This will hopefully bring about a completely new attitude in all these fields of study.

P.S. I received an email from this physics genius, Bruce Harvey, in the UK. It was good to hear that he read my work. He also clarifies and makes a very profound statement concerning what I have said here by saying, “I’ll add my current thoughts about how the human mind works—We have an innate ability to come to ‘conclusions’ based on inadequate and unreliable information. Because our brains are designed to do this, we all too easily fall into the belief that our ‘conclusions’ are logical deductions derived from sound axioms.”


Kerry Craig Walker, April 23, 2006