True Science Platform

I think it would be beneficial if we had a science based on truth (called True Science).

At present, modern science has a number of problems. Modern science is not that modern and just the science that resulted from a rejection of classical science. One problem is the idea that they screen research and information to (in theory) create a mountain of empirically true facts. The problem is, it is difficult to avoid making relevant assumptions. All things have assumptions. For example, aren't people always making the assumption that anything isn't caused by your grandmother's cat? Most assumptions aren't relevant, when I state "relevant assumption" I am inferring or implying that the assumption could truly change the overall outcome (in other words, is just incorrect). For example, at present, science has made at least two relevant assumptions as to the structure and function of DNA. One assumption is that DNA has the same structure in water as it does in a salt crystal.

Another problem is that modern science is always on the defensive. Modern science is always trying to fight creationism. It's just like in the westerns, if you circle the wagons it's hard to get anywhere.

And still, an additional problem is that science is a multi-billion dollar industry (charity). It is in science's interest to avoid new ideas that might put them under attack.

Thus, as science in theory protects the truth of information, it also censors information. In my opinion, censorship is not the most efficient way to get at the truth.

Science should be define as an ordered method of determining the truth. The platform will allow information and ideas to be presented. People will be allowed to debate the information and ideas.

You might not think this platform will be useful, however, it will allow the questioning of things that exist at present, which are obviously wrong. For example, for longer than I can remember science has been teaching that evolution is protein evolution. The problem is, if that were true bacteria should be evolving far faster than plants and animals. In your lifetime, you will probably account for around 10 to the 15th bacteria give or take a zero or two. Our solid waste is 10% bacteria (around 10 billion to 13.5 billion bacteria per gram wet weight). If you eat meat or dairy products, those animals produce bacteria. If you eat plants, oftentimes you don't eat the entire plant, and the rest of the plant is degraded by bacteria. If you send your solid waste to a wastewater treatment plant, the BOD will generate more bacteria. If you had two stacks of lottery tickets, one with 1 lottery ticket, and one with a quadrillion lottery tickets, which one would you take?

You can see why science wouldn't want to have to answer what's going on. It might appear that God exists. The truth is, that we inherit not only the protein or the "what", we also inherit the "how much" separately. This is like adding a compiler to a computer and allows us to evolve faster than the proteins we are made of.

You might think that things are just fine. Who cares if science doesn't have their act together? Back in the early part of the COVID-19 epidemic, when there were only 85 Americans dead, I suggested a new physical process that may have dropped the kill-rate by over 90%. Unfortunately, the person at the CDC went to school and was taught that DNA is just this nice double-helix, and didn't think it was worth bothering to check and see if the process worked. Now there are over 1 million Americans dead, of which over 900,000 would potentially not have needed to be dead, if they had bothered to check the process.

It's true that this platform may not make a great deal of money, however, trillions of dollars might have been saved had the platform existed.

I don't know if you picked up on the key information you would need to make this platform highly useful. It would be highly useful if you happened to know what is truth.

There is something I call "doing the Newton thing". It is based on the line of Newton's that, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." When I first heard this, I thought, "how modest". After some time, I considered how many giants I knew: the New York Giants, the San Francisco Giants, and the Jolly Green Giant. What Newton was actually saying was "I ripped off people but I'm not going to give them any credit". Doing the Newton thing, is letting someone else do 99% of the work, and you just change something just a little bit and derive the benefit of all their work. By saying you did the Newton thing to Socrates, is actually giving Socrates credit, and not doing what Newton did.

I did the Newton thing to Socrates, Lewis Caroll and others. I think we should add "doing the Newton thing" to the platform also. The platform's ability to obtain and organize information will facilitate others in being able to modify the works of other people.

- Scott Tackett