Truth - Science topic

The recent decision by California to sue the President over executive overreach raises serious constitutional and political complications. The lawsuit is not just a symbolic gesture; it represents growing concern over the erosion of federal balance and the blurring of executive and legislative boundaries.

What makes the situation worse is the apparent disconnect between the administration’s inner circle and the pragmatic realities of how American systems and institutional layers’ function. If anything, this President increasingly behaves like a legislator, obsessed with pushing sweeping laws rather than respecting the limits of executive power. And worse still, those around him seem either unable or unwilling to curb that impulse.

His latest proposal, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” bears an unmistakable resemblance to President Reagan’s 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, only amplified in scale and ambition. Historical precedent should serve as a warning. Following similar tax reforms, particularly under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), corporations largely used the resulting tax breaks not to drive long-term economic investment or job creation, but to buy back their own stock. In fact, stock repurchases surged from $519.4 billion in 2017[1] to $806 billion in the wake of those policies.[2]

If history is any guide, this new bill is poised to repeat that same pattern: enriching shareholders in the short term while deepening structural economic inequality and increasing federal debt.[3] Meanwhile, Congress, after 25 years of steady decline in oversight and effectiveness, has shown itself increasingly incapable of serving as a meaningful check on executive ambition. Most recently, the House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act despite not one, but two clear precedents warning that its core provisions are likely to do more harm than good, especially in terms of cost-benefit outcomes.

California’s lawsuit may mark a critical turning point. As federal institutions continue to weaken in both credibility and function, states—potentially even Republican-led ones—may begin to reassert their autonomy more aggressively. What is emerging is not just a legal battle, but a broader rebalancing of federalism itself. This struggle echoes earlier debates over states' rights, though the motivation today is less ideological than practical: states are reacting to federal dysfunction with self-preservation.

There is a great deal at stake. Whether or not California prevails in court, the mere fact of the lawsuit signals a broader shift. Power in America may be moving, slowly but steadily, back toward the states, redefining the architecture of our federal system in real time.

Bibliography

Economic Policy Institute. “The TCJA Overwhelmingly Benefited the Rich and Corporations While Overlooking Working Families.” Press release, December 17, 2019. Accessed June 8, 2025. https://www.epi.org/press/the-tcja-overwhelmingly-benefited-the-rich-and-corporations-while-overlooking-working-families/.

S&P Dow Jones Indices, “S&P 500 Stock Buybacks: Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 Estimates,” March 21, 2018, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/index-news-and-announcements/20180321-sp-500-buybacks-q4-2017.pdf.

S&P Global. “S&P 500 Q4 2018 Buybacks Set 4th Consecutive Quarterly Record at $223 Billion; 2018 Sets Record $806 Billion.” March 25, 2019. Accessed June 8, 2025. https://press.spglobal.com/2019-03-25-S-P-500-Q4-2018-Buybacks-Set-4th-Consecutive-Quarterly-Record-at-223-Billion-2018-Sets-Record-806-Billion.

Tax Policy Center. “How Did the TCJA Affect the Federal Budget Outlook?” Last modified January 2024. Accessed June 8, 2025. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook.

[1]S&P Dow Jones Indices, “S&P 500 Stock Buybacks: Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 Estimates,” March 21, 2018, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/index-news-and-announcements/20180321-sp-500-buybacks-q4-2017.pdf.

[2] S&P Global, “S&P 500 Q4 2018 Buybacks Set 4th Consecutive Quarterly Record at $223 Billion; 2018 Sets Record $806 Billion,” March 25, 2019, accessed June 8, 2025, https://press.spglobal.com/2019-03-25-S-P-500-Q4-2018-Buybacks-Set-4th-Consecutive-Quarterly-Record-at-223-Billion-2018-Sets-Record-806-Billion.

[3] Economic Policy Institute, “The TCJA Overwhelmingly Benefited the Rich and Corporations While Overlooking Working Families,” press release, December 17, 2019, accessed June 8, 2025, https://www.epi.org/press/the-tcja-overwhelmingly-benefited-the-rich-and-corporations-while-overlooking-working-families/; Tax Policy Center, “How Did the TCJA Affect the Federal Budget Outlook?” last modified January 2024, accessed June 8, 2025, https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook.

The 45-37 president “anointed by the lord” invented the “Truth Social” (generated by the Trump Media & Technology Group, TMTG) to diffuse his ideas and give to his followers the right hints of the right way of living, with [his] justice, [his] law and [his] order.

Do some of the scholars attending RG dare to comment on the question:

As long as the laws of logic are not established above all other political laws, we will be in chaos. Any irrationality will be considered truth. Russell's theorem demonstrates this.

Growing irrationality has led to the value of a work of art being determined by its authorship rather than its artistic quality.

The truth of a doctrine is granted by having a majority of supporters rather than by demonstration or proof.

Unfortunately, excellence is always a minority quality. The majority are usually mediocre, and we are sinking into an increase in entropy that permeates society with mediocrity. Desgraciadamente, las redes sociales buscan mayorías.

Darwin's theory

Theory of human evolution

Soumendra Nath Thakur

May 19, 2025

When a scientifically consistent alternative framework challenges a well-established theory—such as relativity—the focus of scrutiny too often falls disproportionately on the individual proposing the alternative, rather than prompting a balanced and critical re-evaluation of the dominant theory itself. This asymmetry is not only counterproductive but also historically recurrent in the development of science.

Established theories typically enjoy strong institutional backing, extensive historical development, and widespread acceptance due to their practical applications. As a result, questioning them can appear to undermine the collective efforts and intellectual investments of generations of scientists. This psychological and social inertia frequently leads to resistance, not necessarily on scientific grounds, but due to deeply embedded paradigm commitments—as famously described by Thomas Kuhn.

Moreover, scientists, being human, are not immune to confirmation bias. They may more readily accept evidence that supports prevailing theories while dismissing or demanding higher proof from alternative proposals. This leads to a double standard: new frameworks must endure intense scrutiny and carry a heavy burden of proof, while traditional models are often granted undue leniency, even when empirical anomalies or conceptual flaws emerge.

A key concern arises when this imbalance allows potentially flawed assumptions to remain unchallenged, thereby obstructing scientific progress. Instead of testing both the new and old ideas with equal rigor, the scientific community may prioritize defending the established view—sometimes to the detriment of discovery.

To foster genuine advancement, scientific evaluation must adhere to objective standards. This includes:

• Rigorous examination of the alternative theory’s internal consistency and mathematical foundation.

• Careful assessment of empirical evidence supporting the new framework.

• A critical reappraisal of the traditional theory in light of the challenge.

• Open, respectful, and evidence-based debate that prioritizes ideas over authority.

Skepticism is a healthy and necessary part of scientific inquiry, but it must be evenly applied. Disproportionate skepticism directed only at new ideas, while shielding established theories from equivalent critique, creates a pseudo-authoritative environment contrary to the principles of science itself.

Science, unlike legal or political institutions, should not be governed by authoritative consensus. Scientific knowledge is inherently provisional, always subject to refinement or replacement as better explanations arise. Theories are not meant to be preserved as immutable truths but must remain open to falsification—a core tenet emphasized by Karl Popper.

Treating scientific premises as unquestionable dogma suppresses critical inquiry and innovation. Progress depends on the freedom to explore unconventional ideas and to challenge prevailing models without fear of institutional or reputational reprisal. Authority and tradition must never replace evidence and logical coherence as the basis for scientific judgment.

While consensus may reflect accumulated knowledge, it should never be mistaken for finality. A single, well-supported piece of empirical evidence—or a more comprehensive theoretical model—has the power to overturn a widely accepted view. Scientific consensus, therefore, must remain responsive to dissent and open to re-evaluation.

Unfortunately, the current structure of scientific publishing, peer review, and institutional hierarchy can unintentionally reinforce gatekeeping. Textbooks and public science communication often present dominant theories as settled facts, reinforcing the perception of unchallengeable authority—especially for those outside the research community.

In conclusion, the health of science depends on its commitment to intellectual humility, openness, and methodological rigor. When a scientifically coherent challenge arises, the response should not be one of dismissal or deference to tradition, but of balanced and critical engagement with all premises—old and new alike. Only by adhering to these principles can science fulfil its role as a truly progressive, self-correcting endeavour.

In academic systems, credit is predominantly tied to authorship and publication. The individual who formally describes a new species becomes permanently associated with it, as their name is linked to the species in perpetuity. This often creates the misleading perception that the descriptor also “discovered” the species — even if they never encountered it in the wild. In truth, they described it, not discovered it; yet the emphasis on authorship tends to obscure this distinction. Ultimately, those with a strong publication record accrue recognition, awards, and career advancement, while the actual discoverer is often relegated to the role of a high-profile field collector, their intellectual contribution overlooked or minimized.

Human existence is characterized by conscious living, universal struggles and dreams, noble endeavors or evil doings, and the search for meaning. These dimensions of human existence, as infinite waves of destiny, are swept by the storms of life. Shakespeare dived into the transcendental depth of human existence, expressing it through his timeless words:

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer."

This universal question, as eternal truth, has been answered countless times and will continue to be so as long as humans do not forget their metaphysical essence. What is your answer: "To be, or not to be: that is the question."

Scientific models are unambiguisly known for their predictive success.

Argument against truth

1. Their (models') predictive success is a strong indicator of reliability, not a guarantee of final explanation

2. If of all the interaction facts you come about you know the ultimate cause consider def of capturing truth, science fails

3. Scientific models are mostly characterized for their reliability. Their predictive success is a strong indicator of reliability, not a guarantee of final explanation

Arguments pro truth

1. Predictive success implies a connection to truth, otherwise success would be an accident

2. Reliability (of models) is a trait of truth i.e truth is about consistency of and inescapability of realizations

Dear ResearchGate Community, Scholars, Seekers, and Visionaries,

In what may be one of the most consequential questions in all of science, philosophy, and the destiny of our species, I invite you to participate in a landmark discussion:

Context & Catalyst: Just yesterday, scientists announced the strongest evidence to date for potential extraterrestrial life: the detection of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in the atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18b, 124 light-years away. These compounds are primarily produced by microbial life on Earth, sparking a wave of global excitement. The findings—based on James Webb Space Telescope observations—were made at a 99.7% confidence level (three-sigma), but still fall short of the five-sigma threshold required for scientific confirmation. Moreover, alternate non-biological explanations remain plausible.

This raises profound questions: Are we witnessing the dawn of confirmed alien life? Or are we being misled by statistical mirages, wishful interpretations, and a fundamental misunderstanding of cosmic rarity?

Featured Article: I invite you to engage with and respond to my newly published, groundbreaking interdisciplinary synthesis:

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445

The paper rigorously examines the question using data from astrobiology, planetary science, evolutionary biology, instrumental limitations, anthropic reasoning, and spiritual-scientific paradigms. It concludes—after integrating all current knowledge—that Earth remains, with high certainty, the only known cradle of life in the universe. A bold but evidence-based conclusion.

The Ultimate Discussion Begins Here: Can we ever answer this question with 100% certainty? Is K2-18b truly a sign of life—or just another scientific “red herring”? What roles do science, philosophy, and metaphysical traditions play in this verdict? Should we adopt a default assumption of solitude until irrefutable proof arises?

Join the Discussion that Will Define an Era: This is not just another thread—it’s a historic convergence of disciplines. Your insights here could shape global scientific dialogue, redefine our understanding of life’s place in the cosmos, and contribute to a conversation worthy of accolades, recognition, and timeless significance.

Let’s go beyond the noise. Let’s seek the ultimate truth. Are we alone—or are we simply not yet wise enough to know?

I welcome your thoughts, critiques, references, and visionary interpretations. Let this be a thread that unites physicists, philosophers, astrobiologists, and all curious minds across continents and paradigms.

With respect and anticipation,

(Author of “The Final Answer: Does Life Exist Beyond Earth?” | DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24280.61445)

Please, no/yes answers (The more I get, the better). Anysoul who would like to comment on more - is most welcome!

Objectivity and subjectivity are key dimensions of the human mind. Objective reality can sometimes be overshadowed by subjective opinions, which complicates reality, and turns truthful certainty into existential doubt. In your perspective, how can one differ the bounds of subjective opinions?

I published an presentation "Three-Body Problem", where new equations for the interaction of celestial bodies and a solution method are proposed.

If you look on the Internet, it seems that everyone is enthusiastically looking for a solution to the three-body problem. And then someone exclaimed: "I found it!". "And around the silence, taken as a basis," - as Vaenga sings by russian. It turns out that those who are passionately searching, the process of searching is important. It cannot be stopped. You must constantly experience the drama of chaos in the Universe and be proud of your belonging to those physicists who tirelessly prove that there is no other World, because it follows from mathematical solution.

Yes, the World is mathematically substantiated, mathematics is a project, a tool and material for creating the World. But mathematics can be just a game for the mind. You need to find the mathematics that describes the project of the Universe. Mathematics that proves that there is no Building cannot be a project of the Universe.

It turns out that many seekers like mathematical games. I appeal to seekers of truth.

Solomon Khmelnik

Can we reach an absolute truth through Justified True Believe

“Truth in philosophy means that concepts and external reality corresponds” – G.W.F. Hegel.

The Kantian scholasticism and opportunism of “unknowable thing-in-itself” and his blatant modus operandi, “I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith”; was imported to theoretical physics by Albert Einstein; to counter the “Evil Quanta”! This opportunism as a ruling idea fostered by decadent monopoly capitalism, must be abolished from theoretical physics and cosmology; as a condition to abolish the decadence and the impasse of modern humanity!

“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”

Human life is conditioned by the essence of time, the bounds of space, and the depth of meaning. Eternal values, as universal guides to truth, illuminate the night of lost illusions and become stars of resilience. In today's consumeristic world, where justice has been dressed as an outsider, where truth and kindness are being sent on vacation, and where the beauty of endurance is not considered a modern trend, the passport of eternal values loses its validity.

In your perspective, what is value-driven thinking?

Finally I was forced to lodge a complaint in International Criminal Court for Crime Against Humanity. All the recipients of this information are under obligation to inform all concerned, directly or indirectly.

Formal Report

Hereunder is the final notice to the representatives of media, academicians and research institutions for deliberate criminal negligence of teaching fundamentally incorrect physics and physical sciences and wastage of public resources on baseless research.

This may kindly be treated as final notice.

(,TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AS JOURNALISTS, RESEARCH INSTITUTION, AND ACADEMIC AUTHORITY)

This is the copy of the comment which I have written on a paper which proves the Einstein's theory is baseless which is uploaded on Academia.edu and I am communicating you this comment so that all of you may also sent it to every university and research institution as the final ultimatum otherwise there is no alternative but to approach the International Criminal Court for deliberate criminal negligence.

Very good paper correct but wrong at one conclusion concerning the relativity of time otherwise there is no explanation of Doppler effect. What you have done I have already done in 2010 and the alternative theory of gravitation has been already proposed and published in scientific peer-reviewed journal. You will be astonished to know that there is a standing open challenge to the theory of relativity since 2012, which has been send to all leading universities of world, all research institutions of the world, and all leading professors of physics all over the world, which you can see on this website in my profile. I have given the final ultimatum to all concerned to change the baseless paradigm of physics and in case they do not accept the truth we will take the case to International Criminal Court for criminal negligence for imparting wrong education and wastage of public money on insanity on the name of research.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Ex. Director, Writer, Scientist, Philosopher and above all Philanthropist.

The above-mentioned final notice was followed by following letter alongwith the copy of the open challenge.

In continuation to my previous email with subject as Final Notice herewith find attached the copy of the open challenge put forward in 2012 and which is standing till today as I have defended against the attempts of proving me incorrect.

Here are the email addresses to which mail of above description has been sent.

-------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Shafiq Khan <shafiqifs@gmail.com>

To: editor@egypttoday.com, letters@thehindu.co.in, letters@egypttoday.com, editor@greaterkashmir.com, editor <editor@expressindia.com>, Media Enquiries <media.enquiries@guardian.co.uk>, editor <editor@iacs.res.in>, gazette-editor@hotmail.com, edw.ginsberg@umb.edu, it.uwd@kau.edu.sa, tzk_uz@yahoo.com, umarb@lums.edu.pk, chair@physics.berkeley.edu, chair@pa.msu.edu, csa@neduet.edu.pk, camp@nust.edu.pk, vice_chancellor@upesh.edu.pk, NNE TEAM <contact@indiaeducation.net>, seattle.truth@gmail.com, Nature Physics <naturephysics@nature.com>, nature@nature.com, letters <letters@washpost.com>, letters <letters@nytimes.com>, lbe <lbe@fysik.su.se>, director_sac <director_sac@aiou.edu.pk>, dean_colleges@du.ac.in, dletters@telegraph.co.uk, dean-students@unza.zm, ronila.qamatero@springer.com, quantumfitz <quantumfitz@gmail.com>, web-editor <web-editor@bristol.ac.uk>, web@ku.edu.np, npa-relativity@googlegroups.com, ROGER ANDERTON <R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com>, Hartwig Thim <hartwig.thim@jku.at>, colegios.universitarios@udlap.mx, islamic.studies@oxcis.ac.uk, iiit <iiit@iiit.org>, ifiz@phys.uni.torun.pl, prd <prd@aps.org>, phy@kashmiruniversity.ac.in, physics@hawaii.edu, physics@csus.edu, physics@nd.edu, fermilab@fnal.gov, fizik@ege.edu.tr, fisica@fc.ul.pt

Cc: gramfy@physics.uoc.gr, vc <vc@du.ac.in>, vicechancellor@sustech.edu, "bo.mou" <bo.mou@sjsu.edu>

We see a growing participation if Indians in religion in contemporary times. It includes in the belief of gods like Ram or Krishna . And people believe them blindly . Some historians suggest that these are just mere mythical stories to embark righteousness in society . So is there any truth in this or they practically fake?

ResearchGate should raise the issue with all the media and international judiciary for adopting correct paradigm of physics in all the universities and institutions of the world besides the research institutions of the world. What Jan Slowak is saying now I have shown the same thing in 2010 and substantiated the same experimentally in the other paper and accordingly put forward the open challenge which besides sending to all the leading universities and research institutions and to professors on their personal emails I have defended the open challenge against several attempts and consequently the open challenge is standing till date. How can they teach our future generations wrong physics and spend public money on baseless research. This is the time humanity should get up for truth to prevail. Let this be taken notice of by all media both visual and print media. I request ResearchGate to refer the matter to the all media and approach the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court for adopting the incorrect paradigm of physics which leads to atheistic paradigm consequently it has the effects on the social structure. Let truth prevail.

Can it be proven that scientific results reflect the truth? If not, would science have any significance beyond professional reasons?

The link to my publications is here

These publications also includes the two papers which substantiate the existence of two unknown substances namely aether and 'energy' which is referred in the Quran in verse (41-53)as His signs which have been scientifically and philosophically proven thereby the divinity of Quran and Allah as knower and creator of everything in the universe is also proven. The 'energy' is the source of livingness due to which all animal species including humans have consciousness, natural instincts, desire of survival, self repair, growth and many other characteristics. Thus for humans every cell of his body is the evidence of existence of Allah as the 'energy' is the constituent of the cells because of which cells are living .Now those who refuse the truth are perfectly described in verse 2-7 of Quran. This has to be the final scientific and philosophical evidence of existence of Allah and divinity of Quran.

I will fight to the last.

The velocity of light c is so enormously and disproportionately high in ordinary human scale in terrestrial Nature, that for all practical scientific, engineering and for everyday life; it can be assumed to be a constant. But Albert Einstein's turning this ordinary fact to an axiomatic/geometrical truth in his Special Theory of Relativity (SR), means that everything else in the universe including matter, abstract space and time or anything else; must be variable to conform to this truth. To keep this absolute truth in force, mathematical/geometric tools like the Lorentz Transforms (LTs), Time Transform (TT), 4D "spacetime" and the Gamma Factor (GF) were formulated in keeping with the absolute c alone; without any other scientific and/or empirical input! “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology”: INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Apparently as a reaction to the quantum phenomena discovered at the turn of the 20th century, and the break-down of much-valued Causality; Einstein did in physics what Emmanuel Kant did in philosophy, i.e., "Found it necessary to deny knowledge to make room for faith" or Absolute God.

Theoretical physics and cosmology till today are in turmoil, since 1905, when Einstein with his SR pushed physics to the realm of mathematical/geometrical abstractions. This seemed to be a comfortable escape from the uncertainty and the despair brought on by the brutal reality of the “Evil Quanta”. But SR and its extension to General Relativity (GR) has only led to more and more confusion, scholastic debates that continues for more than a century and still counting. The only justification for these esoteric theories come from subjective, contrived and even false claims of “experimental proofs”. But in spite of numerous “solid proofs”; the scholastic debates continue unabated. Einstein himself recognized the enormous confusion his theories of relativity caused in modern theoretical physics and cosmology, when he said, “Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?” A. Einstein, in "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" (Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961).

It can now be shown that light photons are matter particles with variable mass from the lowest radio waves to the highest gamma-ray range and their mass is inversely proportional to the cube of their velocity. The variable velocity of the light photons can only be observed at cosmic scale.; as the following series of publications would demonstrate:

Momentum – the Archilles’ Heel of Causality-based Physics: The Root of Its Miseries - from the Quantum to the Cosmic. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 304–312. https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9682

The following realities about laws have kept for example logical truths as unadequate for science. Certain values like factuality/concrete less, econiny/multicase applicability, have given the a high stand and invicibility status. Other values are the self-awareness and responsibiliy and realism, refrain from existential remarks.

Factual truths are great but they are not as its believed the pinnacle of description of nature or scientific prose. Their main ommision is that we haven't developped any logical truths about science.

The same goes for the point about laws as generalizations. Because generalizations are a powerful means and economic, it does not mean that possible discovery of non generalizable statements about nature would rendervotself use less.

Another point is about lack of ontological statements. Stars exist is such one.

Truth has been defined by many thinkers, writers, philosophers, and individuals from various backgrounds. Each interpretation contributes to the definition of truth in its own way, sometimes clarifying the concept and, at other times, complicating it. Over the centuries, the essence of truth has been explored in existential, relativistic, absolutist, cross-cultural, and other contexts, enriching the intellectual depth of societies. I would like to discuss the nature of truth and its theoretical and practical aspects: How do you define truth based on your perspective?

I notice a difference between the applications of Qiagen DNA isolation kits: QIAamp DNA kits, DNeasy Blood & Tissue kits, and Gentra Puregene kits. This makes me wonder: Is there a suitable method for DNA isolation for NGS and SNP analysis? Also, some recommend the phenol-chloroform method and others don't, so what is the truth?

The truth is that, just as women have spent centuries being selected by men for their desirability as sex objects. Women have been evaluating men as success objects. By this we mean that women evaluate men both as successful protectors, particularly in violent times, and as successful providers. (Kramer & Dunaway)

When considered the natural environment and the habitus of the translators, it can be seen that in the end of the day they are under the absolute and inevitable dominance of the cultural norms that are prevailing the place and environment they live in as translators. Also they are born in there. The way of attributing meanings, conceiving the "other" and world also the methodology of doing so is shaped within this culture. Even if they are not deeply affected by these prevailing norms of that culture they live in, saying that they are completely far from these affects is not reflecting trues. Consequently, the translator interprets the "source" one under the affect of the "target" and then translates it into the target the way how the prevailing norms of that culture he/she lives in presents the source one. At least the affects of the target can be seen on the translator when he/she translates she/he cannot run away from this reality and truth. So, I think that it is debatable the percentage of the absoluteness of translating the source culture's text into target culture's text. So the traditional way how it taught to the translators to select their type of translating (source/target oriented) before the translating process should be reevaluated and revised thoroughly. The background of these problems should be more visibly argued and debated among lecturers. Hope I could reflected my views here in a true way. And hope it would be beneficial.

Many of us remain confused by the concept of death, and it seems that it is the only indisputable truth. Everything dies. Do you believe in the existence of another life after death?

I am doing ChIP-seq for an activator of a transcription factor, that does not directly bind to DNA. I have initially used 25 min fixation with DSG at 2 mM, followed by 10 min of 1% formaldehyde fixation. However, we get so many peaks (~80.000 for both the activator and the transcription factor), that it is difficult to make sense of any biology. If I only fix with formaldehyde, I get about 5000 peaks for the activator and about 20.000 peaks for the transcription factor. If I look for the property of the peaks, then those are the "strongest peaks" (in terms of p- value, fold change and # of reads). I assume that "the truth" lies somewhere in the middle, but I was wondering if somebody has identified any artifacts due to DSG fixation in ChIP-seq experiments or how I would best test for this.

Thanks, Sylvia

I recall a fascinating lecture given by Professor Enrico Bellone. In a letter dated May 7th, 1952, addressed to his friend Maurice Solovine, Einstein shared a drawing that summarized his ideas on the subject: "What is science ?". The drawing features a horizontal line labeled E, which represents immediate experiences or the empirical basis, and a vertical line labeled A, which represents the axioms underlying theories. Einstein argued that there is no logical process that allows us to derive axioms from experiences; instead, it requires an intuitive, extralogical, and psychological leap. Once we have intuited the axioms, we can deduce special statements S1, S2... by assuming their truthfulness and then comparing them with experience. According to Einstein, the crucial level lies in the axioms, and therefore there is no distinction between science and philosophy, but rather a single set of concepts. He also maintained that the theoretical principles of scientific theories are fictional, and any attempt to deduce ideas and laws from elementary experiences is doomed to fail. So, what is science according to Albert Einstein? Einstein believed that all the games are played at the top of the drawing, where we jump from one idea to another, from one theory to another, and where we model nature because we have categories of ideas that are fairly standard. In this context, Einstein praised the great philosophers he admired.

Contrary to the opinion of the iron guards of SE who believe that this is the only unified field theory, the truth is that modern statistical mechanics of Cairo techniques and its B matrix chain products is the theory unified fields. Which means it can be the source of all SE solutions or any other time-dependent PDE.

There are too many examples of validation, but rather difficult to find.

Many times in physics, the equations accurately model certain aspects of reality, but the explanation is not compatible with philosophical truths. For example, in GTR, time is often believed to have begun with the universe and this violates reason: how did the universe begin without time? In the link shown below, I setup a framework in which logic is never violated, and the conclusions are compatible with STR, GTR, and QM. I would value your opinion on them. Thanks.

Some counterfactual or partially counterfactual sort of modal statements, if they imply possible worlds, imply also some really (probabilistically with high truth value) possible worlds, and some necessary worlds. In which circumstances at all can there be other counterfactually possible worlds in reality? All possible worlds need not be necessary, but some of them might be, are, and will be necessary.

To find out in which all cases these causal possible worlds are real as past, present, and future necessary worlds, we need to investigate the possibilities that the physical laws with the presently available contingently physical and ontological information will permit us to accept the existence of other worlds as causally really existing.

But it is impossible to differentiate between counterfactual or partially counterfactual sort of modal statements!

Hence, visit the basic discussion text of: https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

From the perspective of epistemology, is there absolute truth in marketing?

I would like to initiate a discussion on a theme that I believe is crucial in philosophical discourse: the pursuit of truth over the desire to win arguments. In many discussions, we often encounter the use of sophistry, where the focus shifts from seeking truth to merely aiming for victory in debates. As true philosophers, I believe our primary goal should be the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Have you observed instances of sophistry in philosophical conversations? How do you think this tendency impacts the genuine pursuit of truth? Let's share our thoughts and experiences on fostering an environment where the emphasis is on discovering truth rather than winning debates. Looking forward to engaging in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

I’ve been reading an article called “The George Santos Syndrome – Why people believe their own lies”. Suppose someone makes up a piece of fiction about some part of their life. Apparently, we use the same neural circuitry to imagine something as to remember it. If we reinforce the fabricated fiction we imagined with enough detail to make it sound plausible, it will eventually be remembered as truth if we keep repeating the lie and let enough time pass.

What happens when that imagination takes a scientific turn? In trying to formulate a credible hypothesis that explains some mystery, we naturally imagine as much detail as possible and keep adding what we assume to be facts, as well as reasonable ideas, as the weeks and months and years pass. Somewhere down the path – maybe sooner, perhaps later – we might conclude that our hypothesis seems to equate with truth. Then it could well be embedded in memory as such.

Science is certainly not the same thing as lying. But there are similarities between the two processes (which may be why scientific fraud does occur sometimes). We need a way to determine whether the hypothesis developed over time is actually factual or simply a self-deception that grows stronger and stronger as years (and decades) roll by. That method is, of course, to conduct experiments. But are experiments the final answer?

According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity – Albert Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". So the experimental results (which are potentially interpreted in different ways) are valid. But they’re only valid in one frame of reference – from the human perspective of the scientists, who say length contraction occurs. Looked at from the equally valid universal frame of reference, there is no length contraction.

Some people will say the universal frame is irrelevant because we’re human and the human perspective is the only thing that matters. Some will reject the whole discussion because they disapprove of the example using Special Relativity. But the point is that experimentation doesn’t offer a final answer. There is no final answer and we just have to do the best we can to solve the mysteries of the universe. We grope our way through all the theories and experiments, and hopefully make a little progress in the search for truth. To put things another way – quantum mechanics’ Uncertainty Principle has expanded into an Uncertainty Principle affecting all of science. The indeterminacy doesn’t rule just the subatomic realm in the early 21st century. It also rules the macroscopic Space Telescopes, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and every detector or laboratory.

Based on the epistemology of causality and formal (Aristotelian) logic, Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) declared that the objective reality (the noumena) is an unknowable thing-in-itself; so, there is no point in trying to know it. The only thing humanity can do, Kant posited, is to develop logical categories through thought and use those as tools to deal and “understand” the “phenomena” that man perceives through his senses.

The break down of causality with the recognition of the quantum phenomena (the Evil Quanta) at the turn of the 20th century, made the physicist Albert Einstein to adopt Kant’s subjective idealism in theoretical physics. Einstein’s aim was to know the ultimate, final, absolute etc., truth of the world (a theory of everything or TOE) by knowing the “Mind of God” through ideal mathematics and ‘thought experiments’.

Einstein could not achieve his goal in his life-time. What we see now in modern theoretical physics and cosmology is endless academic publications, century-long scholastic debates in scientific and public forums. Taking the cue from Albert Einstein’s aim to know the absolute truth of the world or the “Mind of God” through mathematics, ‘thought experiments’, and Kantian subjective idealism; every Tom, Dick, Mary and Harry around the world are involved in devising brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories that promise to achieve Einstein’s aim by improving or improvising his theories of relativity. Sensational, fantastic and fiery claims are being made both in the published journals and in public discourse; but only the officially recognized ones get any serious consideration. State funding, the Vatican blessing and the Nobel Awards etc., are showered to encourage “proof” and "discovery" of anything involving Einstein’s theories of relativity and of its officially approved improvisations; even through many of these “proofs” and “discoveries: seems contrived or not credible.

Fourteenth Book: They (at San Jose State University (SJSU)) Robbed my Post (from Fall 2008 to Present)

Heraclitus said, "If it were not for injustice, man would not know justice." I had many instances of SJSU's collective injustice against me, as they deprived me of everything that belonged to me as a Senior Full professor. They robbed me of my post (from fall 2008 to the Present) as I was isolated from the department, college, and university. Moreover, they treated me like a persona non grata. To add insult to injury, they did not pay me my financial and employment dues as I calculated the amounts that were unlawfully stolen from me and my stolen rights to the job pension (see the pension story attached with the press release). They were procrastinating in paying my salary in November 2023 and manipulating the payment of my total official compensation by creating hateful and baseless racist laws with the cooperation of the corrupt and racist administration, professors, and staff of the California Faculty Association (CFA).

Moreover, they deprived me of the support I was entitled to, like stolen supervisory points from 2002 to the Present, teaching assistance, publications, travel, losses of salaries for seven years + damage), feedback to my students, extra lectures, and other services. They even prevented me from providing feedback to my students from 2017 to Present. Furthermore, they appointed spies on me from students, staff, and professors. This is one of several forms of corruption among corrupted faculty, staff, students, and the California Faculty Association (CFA). This is the tip of the iceberg. As a result, they killed me academically, financially, psychologically, physically, and morally since 2006 with their ugly demotion of my position. The funny thing is that everyone who has harmed me has received an award for their satanic behavior. It is strange to see this in Earth's most lavish country- the United States of America.

If you are interested in knowing more about my tragedy, please get in touch with me at (http://drfayad.com), and don't hesitate to contact me at (info.aitg@aeehitg.com) to get the extended stories with much evidence within this volume. The delay in doing the website caused a lot of losses because "Amazon Publishing Pro" did not HONOR THE CONTRACT SIGNED ON APRIL 14, 2023, andparticipatedg in the Collective Injustice.

Contact information

AEEH PRESS INC.

P.O. Box 21514

San Jose, CA 95151

Phone: 650-304-1543

Landline Phone and Fax – 408-984-3886

To all San Jose State University (SJSU) and California Faculty Association (CFA) Administrators, Faculty, Staff, and Students:

Quote 01:

"The greatest form of retaliation is not loving your enemy but ignoring them."

― Bongha Lee, On Resistism

{Existence, existentialism, individualism, inspiration, meaning-of-life, resistance, retaliation, revenge, will-power]

My Reply -- Please ignore me as often as you wish, but not in my work.

++++++++

"Vengeance has no rules. It has no heart, conscience, dignity, or true allies."

― Richelle E. Goodrich, The Tarishe Curse

[book quotes, retaliation, revenge..]

You played Roles that have nothing to do with your positions at SJSU: (Unjust, Judge, Executor, Destroyer, Isolator, Neglector, alienator, racist, Spy, and other ugly roles). Do these roles exist within your contracts at SJSU and in your membership agreement with corrupted CFA?

The stories in this volume and the other 35 volumes are extended in all the volumes that are related to SJSU and CFA and their disastrous impacts on Collective Injustice in everything in my life (36-volume Book on Collective Injustice)

In the following lines, I will talk about my retirement and pension. It is a financial statement. When they hired me at San Jose State University in August 2002, they hired me as a full professor with no tenure and not a lecturer. Then, I gained two extra years of experience. Therefore, they have never employed me as a lecturer. I started giving my lectures as a full professor in the academic year from August 22, 2002, to August 21, 2007. In 2006, I was demoted to a lecturer for two years. I have been on leave since 2007. Why were these years not included in my service at the university? My service was missing for two years, which is nonsense. There is something wrong with my pension, which has been intentionally altered since August 21, 2007. At the height of my age, I was in the middle of a fierce war that I had never expected. I did not find a justification for their actions except for hatred, jealousy, and hate.

Furthermore, I became sure that what was happening was a comic play on the stage of this absurd life. I became the victim of injustice, and the claws of a wild wolf destroyed my shattered soul. In 2006, I waged a legal battle to restore my lost rights, during which I incurred large sums of money that I badly needed. As a result, I lost my health, money, and status. In addition, my income was reduced from ten thousand dollars to two thousand dollars a month. I returned to the university in 2008, when I applied for a professorship. However, my whole world was turned upside down at the university. They all stood against me to deprive me of my original rights, putting obstacles in my way and provoking me with inappropriate practices for scholars. I received a message via email informing me that my salary would stop in August for flimsy reasons that contradict reality. As a result, I could not control my tears, which poured out like a flood or a lost child wailing due to the urgent needs of life regarding food, clothing, medicine, and the house rent. Five days later, I received another letter of suspension of business, full of insolence, fraud, and fabricated accusations that have no basis in truth. I laughed bitterly as I fled from a country in the underdeveloped third world that does not respect the humanity of people and does not make them equal to find here, in what is the so-called "home of freedoms," cruelled and discriminating.

Is it possible to hypothesize the existence of a universe governed by supersymmetric natural laws that existed before the Big Bang (Garden of Eden)? Is it possible to believe that the Big Bang occurred due to the breaking of this pre-existing supersymmetry (a consequence of original sin)? It is possible that man (Adam and Eve) was present in the primordial universe (Garden of Eden) before the Big Bang, and that he reappeared on earth at the end of a long evolutionary process ,after the formation of the solar system in the current universe, born from the Big Bang (concordance between sacred scriptures and Darwinian evolution theory, meaning of the Divine commandment "Grow and multiply")? My answer "IS YES". In answering this question, the titles of the last chapters of a book by a famous Italian epistemologist (L. Geymonat) come to mind: "Science and Reality, Science and Truth, Science and Conception of the World".

By using argumentum ad rem, it is easy to arrive at the conclusive conclusion that THE USE OF THE TERM “AGNOSTICISM” WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT SENSELESS, inter alia, because:

> There are no real and true attributes of god. The word "god" is devoid of meaningful (physical) attributes, which makes it impossible to define this imaginary being otherwise than based on theology which, as known, is devoid of reality. In consequence, the definition of god can only be classified into the category of pseudo-definitions found in myths and fairy stories. It is therefore senseless to raise the question of the physical existence of god which, as all know, had been created by ignorant ancestors centuries ago, whose knowledge was based on beliefs and sorcery.

> Being confident that we know who is the god we are asking about, we are assuming a false, premise, thus committing a material fallacy, because we should first have to define the concept of god on the basis of the real, true attributes and then to ask the question about the god’s existence and then try to prove that the god physically exists, which, as knows, is as possible as proving the existence of gnomes.

All this does not prevent any god from existing in myths and not existing in reality at the same time, because the word existence is not a real predicate thus it cannot be an essential uniquely determined property of anything. This is consistent with the Kant's Maxim, according to which the term "existence” does not clearly define where god might exist. As a creation of the human minds, a god can only exist in the minds of believers and myths, but not in the real world, which is in line with the CANI's PRINCIPLE OF COEXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT BEINGS (CANI's Imperative of Independent Beings), according to which:

It is generally known that none of us has the knowledge to fully understand reality which certainly is not the delusion! Cognizing reality differs from cognizing the imaginary events and beings, just as facts and science differ from miracles and religious myths, which results from the CANI’s LAW OF VALUE OF INDEPENDENT BEINGS (Imperative of the Law of Beings known also as the CANI's Law or the CANI's Law of Logic), based on the Laws of Nature. Huxley simply confused the concepts of the real and religious beings that require diametrically opposed methods of cognition because of the nature of the things they refer to.

We all know that the reality is cognized by experience and reason, whereas the religious “reality” is cognized by the faith based more on non-rational than irrational perception of the world and therefore has no cognitive value.

Agnosticism based on such non-rational grounds is senseless and proves intellectual inertia and a lack of willingness to understand things. Above all, agnosticism robs people of the courage to adopt the clear-cut position to the root of the matter with regard to the existence or non-existence of god.

By the way, is it possible that Th. H. Huxley and academics like e.g. R. Dawkins, St. J. Gould, or B. Russell, who share his agnostic view concerning religion, intentionally ignore the scientific knowledge, declaring themselves religious agnostics only because to preserve the status quo with regard to the neutral view on the existence of god? After all, how can we accuse academics that their scientific knowledge, which, as we know, discredits the substantive value of religious agnosticism, would not allow them to draw the conclusive conclusions from their considerations?

Such a claim needs to overcome 3 objections in view of unification of our 2 best theories (qm& gr) .

(Realism claims our theories captured the truth about the world, a belief.)

Argument 1: There is no easily constructed semantic thesis about the shared correspondence of the 2 theories to the world i. E the objects& concepts of 1 cannot be combined demsntically with the other.

Semantic realism assets that properties of sentences i. e having meaning, being true etc are objectively explained primarily typically by in terms of causal relationships or interactions or correspobdence to external world.

every declarative sentence in one's language is bivalent (determinately true or false) and evidence-transcendent (independent of our means of coming to know which), while anti-realism rejects this view in favour of a concept of knowable (or assertible) truth.

Argument 2: The unproven hypothesis of a commonly held by the 2 theories correspondence to reality.

This argument is a thesis based on epistemological realism, a philosophical position, a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what can be known about an object exists independently of one's mind. Thus we ned to combine the 2 theories in a way to obtain an independent of mind correspondence to reality which is possible if we direct our focus on the Common denominator mind independent theorizing of the 2 theories.

It is opposed to epistemological idealism. Epistemological realism is related directly to the correspondence theory of truth

Argument 3: lack of proven commutative principle of Metaphysical realism. MR is the thesis that the objects, properties and relations the world contains, collectively: the structure of the world [Sider 2011], exists independently of our thoughts about it or our perceptions of it. So if 2 theories are proven to be so, their marriage is also.

There is an honesty in science which demands that the best means be used for the determination of the truth. (Alfred Kinsey)

Freud acknowledged the clitoral orgasm that women experience from masturbation. But naturally, as a man, he thought women should transfer this response (despite the change in anatomy involved) to the adult experience of intercourse. Today sexologists continue to promote these orgasms, invented by a man, to ensure that male sexual needs are satisfied. To be fair, it is the only message that pays because no one wants to pay for the brutal truth that women are not intended to be responsive ever.

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. (Galileo Galilei)

Honesty entails telling the truth at all times, hence honesty, they say, is the best policy. Any reason for telling lies in committed relationships? Sharing is caring!!!

The 'scientific' research methodology fails to lead to solutions to real-world 'wicked' social problems. We have a plethora of literature reviews discussing toxic leadership and bullying yet do any of these reveal the truth?

In an attempt to undertake human behaviour research into workplace bullying and harassment, a myriad of real-world issues were faced ultimately resulting in a failure to report the truth of what the research found.

Irrespective of how sound the research methodology started off, the end result propagated a lie. Is this why we fail to solve 'wicked' problems?

Human behaviour research into real-world problems need to be designed to accommodate real-world issues. Where toxic leaders taint the research, researchers must find a new way to report the results.

Currently writing a paper about Hegel with particular reference to his 'Phenomenology of Spirit'. Just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction with this? Really appreciated.

Do you believe that your understanding of qualitative or quantitative analysis brings you closer to the truth, given how you define truth? Please explain!

I read both their respective popular science books, but given their reputations, I still felt it was appropriate to ask the following somewhat low resolution question.

It seems to me that Ledoux proposes that animals, including mammals, do not experience anything, and are ultimately, in consciousness terms, no more than plants or indeed stones.

I am utterly shocked by his book and I don't feel like his theoretical explanations warrant this conclusion at all. And his reliance on Occam's razor seems unconvincing to me. Similarly, his idea that we tend to anthropomorphise on the basis of heuristics, and often wrongly, does not convince me. Yes, when I See the headlights of a car, it looks a bit human, and a bit cute. But it is not comparable to the deep intuition I feel that animals share with us conscious and deeply felt emotions.

For Ledoux it seems that consciousness, or how DAmasio would put it, knowing that you're feeling, is a product of a post-hoc, slow process exclusive to humans.

I then went on to read DAmasio's The Feeling of What Happens. If I understand him correctly he locates the emergence of consciousness in its primary form somewhat earlier in evolution, and to him it is more causally relevant to the survival of a large scope of species than it is to Ledoux. However, even DAmasio does not seem to be convinced that animals have the knowing of feeling, which to him seems to require a representation of a first person agent.

I am sorry if this sketch is rather flawed and crude, but I am very interested in your perspective.

I personally want to bolster my hopes by adding that some scientists believe that there is truth to be gained from an experiental basis, and not all truths can be derived theoretical. This is consistent with the ideas of intution, which seems to calculate endlessly more variables than our reasoning-explicit can, and give us a vague but potent output.

In my case, this output tells me : When a dog wags its tail and looks at me lovingly or expectantly, or when a cat stretches and purrs, I Can feel, as Ricky Gervais once said in a profound tone of voice, that "It'S. not. true.".. And that relieves me.

It is relieving because animals to me are beings that keep me sane. Their simplicity and emotionality (apparent), their loyalty, and the magic they exude. And also I can trust them more than humans. They evoke in me a kind of unconditional type of love and affection that few other things can. And I am guessing that this is infinitely valuable to humanity.

So, for various reasons, I think this question is hugely important to determine, even when we stay aware of the limitations that notions related to the measurement of Qualia etc impose on us.

My question is if there are good arguments to maintain that mammals are consciously experiencing their emotions, and not as fading prototypes, but in all their glory. And what your position is on this hugely important question. Most important of course, the implications for animal wellfare and the unfolding sensitivisation process regarding their well-being.

MY references here are Anxious by Ledoux and The Feeling of What Happens by Damasio.

Scientist never doubts there are reasons the world behave as it does- the search for such reasons is the essence of scientific Discovery.

Realists believe that scientific statements, serving that purpose, are the truth statements about reality, a kind of orthodox stance. They deny experimental measumenrs are theory-ladden.

But others take scientific claims in a lighter light. They see inherent beliefs as weaknesses in the scientific Discovery process that intrrfere in our true realist aspirations. They see experiment al validation as a singly available persuation method for scientific claims and not as the unshaken reality test it is perceive or they keep the benefit of the doubt for such unconsciously twisted attitudutinal reasons as that

because we are material things that are criteria for reality are on its capacity to bring material changed (anthropocentric bias).

This question arises to me as a result of doing several class projects for the university. Today it is very easy for us to access any web page, but not all of them have "the truth", for which I would like to know if this affects an investigation, since a lot of information has to be verified. Regards, and thank you very much.

Realism has been the back one of physics metathinking i. E insistence of a truth marker for every truth.

It has a big influence in deciding how to incorporate or reject new ideas about progress in science or emphasis on certain a priori principles of how the world has to be, because science is benefited from is and its party a realist project. For example it promotes the Application of old tools to new problems and to theoretical unification, although it is valid route to unification andcrelating lod theories to new is a value added practice for this aim.

However, it it has led to undue conservativism in scientific activities like theory choice i. E anything beyond paradim Examples of science thinking is suspect unless it is intuitively similar to the real things

(same entities postulated as old theories for reasons beyond and above the experiences that postulated these theories) for is to believe they are real.

Publication of academic research products, if the material does not directly contain a detailed survey of the status quo, is seldom accepted for publication.

The criterion is always based on merely analytic, directly science-and-technology-enhancing, and in this way economically publication-industry-enhancing sort of works. Hence the lag in advancements in science and philosophy and in the mutual enhancement of science and philosophy.

I have witnessed this for more than 2 decades. Silently. My only hope for change in this state of publication houses is this opinion of Max Planck:

“A new scientific truth does triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

– Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1950, pp. 33-34.

More than of a new scientific “truth”, it may be true of a new scientific-systemic “revolution”. But is this equally true of both philosophy and the philosophies of various sciences? I doubt.

That is, I hope that publishing houses will begin to realize that a synthesis in a radical manner, or a new systemic sort of viewpoint, will always require many pages to express itself; and hence, analytic surveys of existing literature becomes difficult and below the standard that is expected of original academic works.

I just read some information about how the accent of foreign English speakers affects the perception of truth. Do you think genre or age would do the same? Do you think it is possible to see the same phenomenon with native speakers? What would be the features affecting such a perception?

So many problem solving techniques begin with asking a question.

But could our questions direct us with a bias , against observing truth, but misleading us into believing that our question is fundamentally important?

Millions of peoples round the world using internet and media for communication and google for search ,the virtual world is dominating the real world .How can we determine the real and true information s and facts not false knoledge?

Does nature understand mathematics?

A connected question is -- How are theory, theorem, and truth related?

Putnam critisized logical positivists acounts of the meaning of scientific terms and nature of scientific theories because they were incompatible with minimal scientific realism. However, before discounting antirealism as valud stance he leaned toward it in his internal realist years, the view that epistemic version of truth is the most valid.

The question is prompted by this terrific talk by Jonathan Haidt, which I urge you to watch in full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8

Logical truth (the congruence of thought with the thing, so if the narration of an accident matches reality, then the narration is true

Existential truth: the conformity of the thing with the imaginary thought that judges it, that is, the conformity of the thing with the mind.

Hegel holds self-consciousness and self-knowledge to be identical.

Fellow psychologist and people of great curiosity! Greetings! Please help a novice in the topic. I was asked of my opinions on how well our words represent our true thought and beliefs, which left me wondering if there are empirical evidences on the subject. As it is not my field, I had a quite hard time finding the right word into the search engine. It would be great if you could suggest a few readings or simply share your thoughts!

(There is no parametre so far, thus, it could be anything related to the topic ' to what extent language does reflects attitude; what are factors influencing truthfulness of the word; When we change our attitude towards a certain topic, would our words adapt just as fast? etc.)

Thank you!

Steven

Greetings all,

I am an educator for the past 20 years and working in Qatar for the past 10 years. I am also a PhD candidate at the University of Technology, Malaysia.

I would like to invite you to participate in a research project as respondents for my doctoral study. The purpose of this research is to find out the impact of transformational and sustainable leadership practices on teachers' performance in secondary schools and to investigate the moderating effect of motivating language on the relationship of these variables.

The following questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Any data collected will be kept confidential and no one will be able to connect your responses to you. Please answer all questions in the google form as thoughtfully and honestly as possible.

Thank you in anticipation for assisting in completion of this study. Your thoughtful and truthful responses will help us reach the maximum accuracy of the analysis and the researchers will be able to suggest meaningful improvements of the overall education system.

To access the Multiple Choice Survey please click on the link below, or copy and paste the link in the browser:

Thanking you in anticipation for your valuable time and participation.

Carl Jung said that there are archetypes and shadow archetypes related the end of the journey (the ruler, the magician, the sage, and the wise fool). The Ruler moves from taking responsibility for oneself through working with one’s own group or community to concern for society or the planet. Examples include Aslan, King Arthur, Max in Where the Wild Things Are, Jupiter, Obi Wan Kenobee, The Lion King, Woden, and Zeus. The Magician moves from healing and noticing extrasensory experiences through acting on visions to connecting everything with everything else establishing mental, emotional, and spiritual connections. Examples include Gandalf, Genie, Hermione, Merlin, Mary Poppins, Harry Potter, Samantha in Bewitched, The three Witches in Macbeth, and The Wizard of Oz. The Sage moves from searching for the truth through skepticism to an understanding of the complexity of truth. Examples include the professor in Gilligan’s Island, Jimminy Cricket, Dumbledore,The Fairy Godmother, Galdalf, Luke Skywalker, and Yoda. The Wise Fool or Trickster moves from treating life as a game through using cleverness to trick others, to living life one day at a time and enjoying each special moment. Examples include Anansi the Spider, The Cat in the Hat, Coyote, Ferdinand, Forest Gump, The Hare and the Tortoise, Huckleberry Finn, Raven, Tom Sawyer, Sawyer on Lost, Scheherazade, and The Wizard of Oz. Can you think of additional archetypes and shadow archetypes (ala Northrup Frye and Carl Jung) related to end of the journey?

Dear Researchers,

I interpret mediation calculated with Process 4.0 in my study in Zhao et. al., 2010 approach. They suggest that it's an indirect-only mediation when the a*b effect is the only one that is significant and sign of this effect doesn’t matter. The problem is, that in my results only indirect effect is statistically significant and total effect is lower than the direct effect which suggests a suppression or confounding model (MacKinnon, et al., 2000). My question is - can I use the term indirect-only mediation in this situation or should I interpret this result as an example of suppression/confounding?

Thanks in advance.

Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206.

MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L. & Lockwood, C.M. (2000) Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect. Prev Sci 1, 173–181.

It is rather abstract thinking, but just as the moment we define truth and as a result it reverses, I think we can treat problem solving this way.

We introduce the concept of Proton-Seconds and see it lends itself to a method of solving problems across a large range of disciplines in the Natural Sciences. The underpinnings seem to be in 6-fold symmetry. This lends itself to a Universal Form. We find this presents the Periodic Table of the Elements as a squaring of the circle.

Heidegger said that philosophy is thinking. What else is philosophy? What is the ultimate aim of philosophy? Truth? Certainty? …

Heidegger said that science is knowledge. What else is science? What is the ultimate aim of science? Knowledge? Truth? Certainty? …

It has been said that if the truth can destroy something, then that thing should be destroyed. Barring whether that's true or not, it brings up an interesting question. Can reality be destroyed by the truth? If so, then reality should be destroyed.

I am planning to start an experimental study where I use social media posts as tweets and Facebook posts to ask Turkers if they believe the information posted in there or not. I will be manipulating some parts of the posts (i.e. the text, the URL, the image etc).

I plan to study the impact of these different elements of posts on the perceived credibility of health information (I establish factual truth of messages separately based on scientific evidence). Since asking people what elements of a tweet make a message more or less credible for them might not result in reliable answers (people might not know/ not be aware/ be biased by priming).

I have couple of questions regarding this study:

1- Ethical concerns: can I manipulate the tweets/facebook post before showing it to Turkers? Do I need a consent form from the users who posted these messages since I will be using their original text.

2- do I need to show the whole post as it is, I mean, I have seen studies were they just show the text without the frame or logo etc.

I would very much appreciate it if I can get references that explain how to do this the proper way. this is my first time doing an experimental study. I plan to do a pre and a post survey with the experiment. so any feedback/guideline would be very helpful.

The Seismic Regulation say that even without an anchoring mechanism, the structures are considered to be anchored to the ground. Right or wrong?

Are the constructions anchoring with the ground Yes or No?

The anchors in the space commit the six degrees of freedom.

The reaction of an anchor consists of one or more component moments.

If these torques are not able to stop the rotation of the walls then it is not anchoring it is a articulation.

At small accelerations the foot girders are able to stop the rotation of the columns.

We know, however, that the pillars are intended to carry only static loads and not seismic ones in which they are completely weak.

The elongated walls, the correct dimensioning per direction and shape of the cross-sections of the floor plan of the walls, and their correct placement in the space, is the correct design that resists seismic shifts.

In an earthquake, the walls lose their eccentricity and their bases are lifted, creating twisting in all of the nodes of the structure. There is a limit to the eccentricity, that is, there is a limit to the surface area of ​​the base which is lifted by the rollover moment. To minimize the twisting of the bases, we place strong foot girders in the walls.

In the large longitudinal columns and walls, due to the large moments which occur during an earthquake, it is practically impossible to prevent rotation with the classical way of construction of the foot girders.

The result is that the foot girders fail and the anchoring turns into a joint with disastrous results for the elements of the nodes.

So the question comes in.

Is there anchoring of the walls at high accelerations or is it turning into a articulation,?

Because if there is a articulation,, then the anchoring of the base to the ground with the mechanism of my invention is imperative.

Theorem : a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

I am currently working on an undergraduate thesis on interruptive smartphone push notifications' (banner-type) influence on online users' (weak) comprehension and (loss of) interest in online news. I found this thought to be a possible threat not only to the relevance of online news when competing with the rapid-growing attention economy but also, and more importantly, a threat to the purpose of journalism that is delivering the truth.

I think that qualitative surveys could possibly be applicable to my research questions (descriptively written above) however, I am unsure if it fits a grounded theory. If not, what could you possibly suggest?

Thank you, in advance! :)

How does "truth" matter in designing, formulating and interpreting "research" in any discipline?

Are there any role of confidence and commitment too in a successful research?

Dear RG colleagues.....

Waiting for your scholarly opinions.

Have a safe and blessed time.

Regards