In his Twentieth Word, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, a 20^th century Islamic scholar and teacher, uses an interesting phrase, where he argues that the miracles of the prophets represent the highest points that scientific developments would ever attain and as such, they are set as goals which humanity should seek to accomplish. In interpreting the verse about the miracles of Jesus, upon whom be peace, in which it is said that Jesus would raise people from the dead by God’s leave, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi indicates that there is a cure to every disease which can be found through research. He also employs an interesting phrase in this section: “It is even possible to give a temporary tinge of life to death” [1]. While some suggest that with this intriguing sentence Nursi points to recent developments in medicine such as those involving organ transplantation or the use of ventilators, it appears that this phrase implies going one stage further.

The Holy Qur’an relates several miraculous events regarding raising the dead in the present, worldly life. In Chapter Baqara (2:67-73), the Holy Qur’an tells us of the incident upon which the chapter was named: Prophet Moses, upon whom be peace, and his people were told by God to slaughter a cow and strike a dead person with part of the slaughtered cow, afterwards the dead man was resurrected and told them who had killed him. Thus, the Qur’an reasserts that God Almighty has the power to resurrect people. Reflecting on this verse, Fethullah Gülen maintains that in addition to the miraculous nature of striking the dead body with a piece of the cow, the mention of this incident may imply that humanity is guided toward a scientific or technological goal [2]. In medicine, biological drugs used to treat certain diseases are produced from certain animals. Also, certain medications, such as insulin, can be produced making use of the ability of bacteria to produce genetically coded proteins. Perhaps, biological drugs to be obtained with the help of other living organisms may contribute to being able to give a temporary tinge of life to death. In this regard, researchers are particularly interested in stem cells and their potentials. In this method, it may be possible to use a person’s stem cells to produce organs, tissues, and replace malfunctioning organs with new ones without the risk of rejection. We have so far heard no positive results in these directions, but it was demonstrated that stem cells taken from a person and transplanted into an embryo of another living being started to grow [3]. God knows best, but this method may be part of the truth behind the act of striking the man’s corpse with a part of a cow in reference to the verse in question.

Chapter Baqarah gives two more examples concerning resurrection in worldly life. A man passed by a town that had fallen into utter ruin and asked himself in bewilderment, “How will God restore life to this town that is now dead?” God made him remain dead for a hundred years and then raised him to life, and asked him, “How long did you remain in this state?” He said: “I remained so for a day or part of a day.” God said, “No, you have rather remained thus for a hundred years. But look at your food and drink: it has not spoiled; and look at your donkey!” The verse tells us that only bones were left of the donkey (2:259).

The next verse is about Prophet Abraham, upon whom be peace, who prayed God to give him certainty in the heart about resurrection. He had to kill four birds and then put them on different hills which resulted in them being restored to life and flying back to him (2:260). While it may not be related to resurrection fully, the story of Ashab al-Kahf (“People of the Cave” or “Seven Sleepers”) is certainly intriguing and carries a similar theme. God made seven men fall sleep in a cave for roughly 300 years and then restored them to life temporarily, however they had believed that they had fallen asleep for only a very brief period. They were probably considerably skilled and well-educated young people with high positions in society, however falling asleep for three centuries caused them to lose their positions and possibly disappoint those who had invested in them at that time. Yet God Almighty’s wise purpose requires otherwise by making those people send a message to future generations, i.e., us, and giving them praiseworthy remembrance after their death. The same sura also describes the travels of Prophet Moses, upon whom be peace, accompanied by Yusha’ ibn Nun, during which the cooked fish they were carrying with them for supper was resurrected and swam into the sea (18:61-64). In a tradition of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, it is recorded that he talked to a dead girl by God’s leave upon her parent’s request, but the girl refused to come back to this world as she had found something better there [the Hereafter] [4]. 

The prevention of aging, alongside the wish to attain immortality, has long been one of the greatest aspirations of human beings. Several scientists and philosophers of the previous century argued that this might become possible in the 21st century. Chapter Baqarah refers to a prototypical society with greed for life, noting that people of that society wish “if only [they] might be spared for a thousand years” (2:96). Perhaps, the ultimate goal of today’s medical research is to try to ensure human beings live forever in this world. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warns that this is a vain thought, although we should seek healing by all possible means: “O servants of God, search for remedy for your diseases. Indeed, God has created no incurable disease except one: old age (or, death, in another narration)” [5]. Nobel laureate Alexis Carrel maintained that human cells are immortal under favorable conditions but Leonard Hayflick, later, demonstrated that cell divisions are limited due to DNA damage and shortening of telomeres [6, 7]. According to the Hayflick limit, the maximum lifetime a person can get even if he or she lives under the best conditions is 125 years. Telomeres are the structures located at the end of the chromosomes that protect DNA, and during cell regeneration, the length of telomeres decreases with each cell division and the number of divisions declines after a critical limit. Scientists dream of slowing down the aging process by reactivating these telomeres, but they have not made much progress despite some positive results in experiments with rats.

Big technological corporations have recently been making considerable investments in order to find ways to further increase human lifespan. Venkatraman Ramakrishan, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2009, said, “Californian billionaires are having such a good time at the party of life that they don’t want it to stop” [8]. The investments and efforts in this field do not seem very promising because the human body is not suitable for immortality. Instead, scientists are pursuing the idea of merging human brains with machines, which would require uploading a human brain to a computer. In today’s world where research on artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing, a human being’s habits and memory are supposed to be transferred to a computer. Elon Musk, the founder of Neurolink, a company that seeks to restore memory using gadgets planted into the human brain, once said that digital intelligence and biological intelligence would converge over time with increased interaction between the two. This sounds promising for the treatment of certain diseases such as Alzheimer’s. There is, however, another lead in this research according to Josh Bocanegra: “When the time comes and all the necessary advancements are in place, we’ll be able to freeze your brain, create a new artificial body, repair any damage to your brain, and transfer it into your new body” [9]. This may be an artificial body developed using stem cells with possible aid from diverse robotic devices. Ray Kurzweil, who works on Google’s machine learning project, argues that the use of tiny robotics that connect a human brain to computers may be possible by 2029, which will in turn extend human lives considerably. Another futurist, Ian Pearson predicts that in 2050, humans will achieve virtual immortality and a person’s personality transferred to a computer will be able to communicate with people in the future [9]. A recent New York Times article suggests that brain implants could change humanity [10].

Ultimately, it is hard to predict the extent of scientific and technological developments. The idea of eliminating death reminds us of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s saying that it is impossible for the lake of Barla (the town he lived in at the time) to be destroyed for the time being, but people can imagine such destruction and this imagination does not change the reality. Yet even the very imagination of eliminating death may serve as a false hope for people who rationalize everything and try to forget about the idea of death, and in this way, they stick to worldly pleasures more fervently. At this point, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, shows us the correct manner of thinking: “Remember death frequently as it dulls out pleasures” [11].

In the Qur’an, the most important verses concerning raising the dead are about the miracles of Jesus, upon whom be peace. It is emphasized that he would breathe into something fashioned out of clay in the shape of a bird, and it would become a bird by God’s leave, and that he would revive the dead and heal ill people (3:49). As a matter of fact, Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus and Jesus speaking when he was a baby are also medical miracles. It is interesting to note that today, just as in the time Jesus, materialistic thought dominates the scientific and medical research, which are mostly construed solely with a materialist perspective. Almost all discoveries are used as evidence for disbelief, and they reinforce the self-conceit of those who make them. Bediuzzaman predicts that as Christianity will be purified from superstitions in the End Times, and that science will have the upper hand in rule and power. If such a purification will occur, then one tends to think it is not going to be only in political and administrative fields. Possibly, the change of scientific, or more specifically, medical perspective may constitute a major stage in the purification process that could save modern medicine and science from materialism and become instruments of discovering the truth. Who knows? God Almighty may make a vulnerable and weak baby speak to send a message to a purely materialistic community as a manifestation of His divine power.

References

1. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, 20th Word, First Station, Words.
2. Fethullah Gülen, Kurandan İdrake Yansıyanlar.
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/chimera-stemcells-organs.html
4. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, 19th Letter, Letters.
5. Bukhari, Tib 1; Abu Dawud, Tib 1; Tirmidhi, Tib 2.
6. Carrel A, Ebeling AH. Age and multiplication of fibroblasts. J Exp Med 1921.
7. Hayflick L. The limited in vitro lifetime of human diploid cell strains. Exp Cell Res 1965.
8. https://www.livemint.com
9. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307675
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/opinion/sunday/brain-machine-artificial-intelligence.html
11. Tirmidhi Hadith No. 2307.

The questions on the creation of mankind and the inner workings of the universe have been the primary issues that have had a profound impact on both modern, secular philosophy and traditional religion. Our collective experiences in natural sciences and educational disciplines have taught us that certain models can be developed to help us comprehend the functioning of the universe.

One of the fundamental questions in this respect relates to how a great deal of orderliness and discipline is possible in the universe despite its immense scale. Exploring the potential of this orderliness encourages our curiosity to examine life at the most minuscule level, and some scientists aim to explain this perceived system within the universe via an idea called “the Computational Universe.” In this article we will discuss how this idea can be considered to support the perceptions of monotheistic belief. In scientific literature, the term “computational” refers to anything that possesses any relationship to complex calculations, as various disciplines such as physics, chemistry; the term is used even by the discipline of psychology.

Thanks to relatively recent developments and discoveries in science, we are able to better understand the events in our world and universe. To put it into perspective, humanity was deprived of certainty on the shape of the world up until several centuries ago. However, scientific developments, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries, formed the basis of the stunning technological developments that we live with today. Comparatively, it could be argued that what we know, comprehend, and understand about the universe that we live in is only a small fraction of what the universe actually contains. Continuous developments in science and technology help us understand more and more about the way the universe works. “Our science and applications to space technology have evolved by improving our abilities to measure, test, and analyze physical events and by developing their mathematical models” (Fontana 2005).

As humanity began to uncover some of the codes by which our universe is made to function, we have been using these rules to make our lives easier. This is common human behavior: we learn new things and try to use them to improve our lives. In fact, human technology has advanced so much that we now have machines that can move and function like a nano-universe. Basically, we are giving them a code, a sheet of rules to function in the way we desire. As a result, we are much less dependent on physical labor; for instance, we now can farm with high-tech machines instead of our hands.

New ideas are born with these emerging technologies and with more ease than they were back in the old days; thus we have had a progress at an exponential rate. Looking at all these historical aspects and experience , some scientists conclude that the universe we take part in might be a “mother computation” and all of these things that keep the universe well-oiled and functioning might be parts of codes and commands coming from this mother computation.

The argument does not end at whether we live in a computation or not though. From that point, people who believe that we live in a mother computation split sides, with some providing the explanation that we are real, and this is reality, but controlled by a mother computation. This group argues that everything that happens around us is part of reality, just like we are, but that they function via a code that was inserted into their cores in order for them to work the way their coder wants them to.

The other school of thought challenges the vast majority of conventional theological thought and logic. This argument agrees that we do live in a computation, however that this life is not reality. Events in the universe, including our lives are just a simulation, and we are test subjects.

“Several physicists, cosmologists and technologists are now happy to entertain the idea that we are all living inside a gigantic computer simulation… Our instincts rebel, of course. It all feels too real to be a simulation. The weight of the cup in my hand, the rich aroma of the coffee it contains, the sounds all around me – how can such richness of experience be faked?” (Ball 2016).

Though this idea of a computational universe appears to be new because of the fact that computers and digital simulations appeared only a few decades ago, its origins go back to antiquity. Some of history’s greatest minds, such as Plato and Descartes, have actually provided their views on this concept even without these technologies being present at the time. They questioned reality and dug deep into life and how we perceive everything around us, however their arguments were not widespread among their contemporaries because they had no proofs to support their controversial ideas that challenged everything that people believed.

So, is the universe a mother computer or a giant computer simulation?

It is widely accepted by almost all people that there are principles and rules by which the universe is governed and which we can observe on both the macro and micro levels. Events are considered supernatural or miraculous if they take place outside of these principles. Therefore, scientific findings may allow us to develop a deeper appreciation for the “computational” orderliness that can be found in our universe among the orbits of the planets down to the multitude of complex ecosystems that exist across our world in a variety of different biomes.

Religious traditions

From the perspective of monotheistic religions, it is believed that the Creator creates and pursues everything with an order in the universe, which allows the universe to keep working in a perfect balance. The universe’s orderliness, especially that which occurred during its creation, is stressed profoundly in the holy books. For example, it is stated in Genesis 1-2 that the creation of the entire universe occurred in “six days,” and this process was described day by day in the relevant verses. This implies a certain order in the development of events during the creation of the universe.

A certain orderliness is also clearly declared in the Qur’an: “He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth … has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination” (2:25). Today, the scientific community explains this order and design in the universe with concepts such as the “Anthropic Principle.” According to this principle, the universe possesses such perfect features that it could not have arisen by chance without purpose. The situation can be understood more thoroughly if major examples of design existing in the universe are briefly examined. Doing so, we will find out several aspects of this principle that we encounter in our daily lives, which in turn will lead us to further understand God’s complex creation of the universe.

Based upon the evidence that some scientists have shown that a starter leads off, like a coder writes codes, in order for the universe to function correctly and in a perfect continuity, the faithful of religious traditions might reasonably suggest that this entire universe is just like a computer created by the Creator who continuously controls it by constantly creating new every moment for it to function as the codes are based on His commands. This rationale is the essence of and consistent with not only monotheistic religions but also in many ways with other belief systems.

Overall, the concept of a “mother computation” placed on duty in the functioning of our universe is not just a singular subject but instead a comprehensive set of ideas people have focused deeper. While, according to some, there is indication for the universe being a reality and being controlled by a “computer,” according to others, there might also be indication for how the universe could also just be a simulation. A team of physicists working at the University of Bonn claim that they have come up with a measurable way of showing that our universe is indeed “simulated” (Yirka 2012). The main focus of their paper is that in order to create a simulation of our universe, there has to be a three-dimensional framework to represent real world objects and processes. But the problem is, this paper is based on only what we know of reality today. This means that an exact copy of our universe would be impossible to create until the end of time, when we have all the knowledge that the universe presents us with – the entire idea splits right at this point.

Religion also becomes a separate argument along with these two different beliefs. Monotheistic religions believe in an Almighty God, who creates ex nihilo and put things in order in a perfectly “computed” order. God, in these traditions, are also believed to sustain all the existence by constant governance; as a matter of fact, everything is an outcome of the manifestation of God’s names and attributes – nothing comes out outside of His Divine realm and authority.

With there being many more religious traditions and philosophical approaches in this world, many different ideas can emerge as possible theories. In regard to the idea of the world being a computation, scientific theoreticians cannot definitively know for sure whether we live in a computational or fundamental reality, and do not speculate on who might be the one who programs this computer that way. Religious traditions, however, take one more step and claim if there is a computation, then there must be an agent who makes it possible and wills the world to be as it is rather than something else. Otherwise, claiming the universe to be a mother computer on its own would be no different than believing in nature to be the creator of everything, as opposed to nature itself being a created being.

While the computational model seems to support the arguments of believers in terms of explaining that there is an established order in the universe and that this order operates within certain laws and rules created and maintained by a creator in a perfect continuity, thinkers and philosophers may come up with different explanations in their own words and formulations to understand creation and life as we know it.

The mysteries of the universe offer us an expansive space to bring about the best of our rational and spiritual capacities, so our existence in this life becomes a meaningful one.

References

• Giorgio Fontana. “Why we live in the Computational Universe,” https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511157.pdf.
• Philip Ball. 5 September “We might live in a computer program, but it may not matter” http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter.
• Bob Yirka. 2012. “Is it real? Physicists propose method to determine if the universe is a simulation,” Phys.org.

Dreams are some of the most odd, and sometimes most uncomfortable, experiences for us. They can sometimes also be so realistic that we do not even know if we are awake or still dreaming. One can feel the same after a false awakening, where one dreams of having been awakened. In a false awakening, the room in which a person becomes awake is commonly similar to the room in which he fell asleep. This feeling may end with a sign during a dream and then it suddenly dawns on the person that he is experiencing a dream instead of reality. This is called lucid dreaming, which can be described as being aware that you are dreaming and are in control of your dreams. A person can also enter the dream state while he is conscious and can control the dream. Before exploring the endless possibilities of lucid dreaming, we will start with the physical nature of dreams. The spiritual nature and interpretation of dreams from a metaphysical standpoint are discussed in previous articles [1-4] of The Fountain Magazine.

Dreaming is a state of consciousness in which one can experience anything imaginable [5]. What you can do or experience in dreams is usually not limited to physical boundaries. We walk, run, fly, and even pass through walls. We see many symbols that may represent multiple meanings. Dreams can relate to the past, present, and the future of a person. They can help us to remember our pasts, understand the present, and shed light upon the future. Dreaming is an interesting part of our lives and the contents of our dreams are usually fed from our daily experiences.

Dreams are defined as a succession of thoughts, images, sounds, or emotions which the mind experiences during sleep [6]. It is also described differently in many areas: physiologically as a response to neural processes during sleep; psychologically as reflections of the subconscious; and spiritually as messages from God, the deceased, or predictions of the future [7]. Dreaming is not only unique to humans. Studies show that some animals, and even plants, have high brain activity while they sleep which could mean that they dream. However, remembering dreams is unique to humans. It enables communication with the inner mind, helps self-knowledge, and advances an individual and society [8].

Dreams are also an important source of inspirations in history. We know many examples of inventions that were inspired by, and problems that were solved with, the help of dreams. Niels Bohr, famous Danish physicist, got the Nobel Prize in physics in 1922 due to a dream that enlightened him to figure out the structure of an atom. George Frideric Handel, German-English Baroque composer, heard the last pieces of his most popular work, The Messiah, in a dream he had. Elias Howe was inspired with a dream for his famous needle design that was required for a lock-stitch sewing machine. Famous chemist, Friedreick Kekule’s (1829–1896) dream helped him to make one of the amazing discoveries of his time [9], the discovery of benzene ring. After spending so much time on scientific problems, they become a part of their subconscious and feed their dreams.

There are mental blocks that prevent us from thinking creatively such as “a problem can’t be solved by using a specific method” or “a scientific approach against our current understanding of the theory”. Ray Kurzweil, one of the world’s leading inventors, thinks that these assumptions and limitations are relaxed in our dream state and so we can think about new ways of solving problems without limiting ourselves with these constraints [10]. Also, during dreaming our rational faculties are not evaluating whether an idea is reasonable or not, which helps us to think outside-of-the-box and produce creative solutions. Another constraint with these scientific problems is time. Repetitive experiments take quite some time with many unfruitful results. Thomas Edison, the inventor of the practical electric light bulb, literally tested thousands of different substances as filaments that would work in his experiments. Dreams can provide an opportunity to rapidly work on time consuming problems within a relatively short time span.

A common misconception regarding dreams is that we experience hours’ worth of events and activities  in a matter of seconds. Despite this common belief about the expansion of time in dreams, they seem to flow at the same rate as time does in the real world [11]. Five minutes of activity in our dreams probably would take about five minutes in our daily life. In that case, how can we explain that some of our dreams seem to last hours, days or even longer? The answer to this perception of time seems to be that dreams are cinematic. Movies generally cover a longer time period than the two hours that we spent in front of the screen. Just like these movies, we concentrate on the interesting parts of the dreams and leave out the rest. If you are trying to solve a scientific problem in your dream, wouldn’t it be nice to skip all the repetitive, unproductive, and time-consuming parts such as planning, research, experiment design, decision making, and analysis of the results?

All of these advantages of dreams for solving problems requires being awake and even in control of your dreams as is the case with lucid dreaming. Lucid dreaming is not a new term, as it was coined by the Dutch psychiatrist and writer Frederik van Eeden (1860–1932). The existence of lucid dreaming is well established and has been researched scientifically [12]. During a lucid dream, a person can actively be in control and change experiences in the dream environment. Lucid dreams can start as a normal dream when the person realizes that he or she is dreaming (DILD, Dream-Initiated Lucid Dream), or a person can go from a normal state to dream state while preserving the consciousness (WILD, Wake Induced Lucid Dream). There are many techniques to induce lucid dreaming such as dream-recall, reality testing, identifying dream-signs, mnemonic induction, and napping.  Many people experience lucid dreaming, but it is a skill one can develop. With proper training and exercise, one can increase lucid dreaming frequency from once per month to once per night.

A common method to determine if you are in a dream is called reality testing. The test simply includes performing an action and checking whether the expected results are consistent with real life. An unexpected result of the test lets the person realize that they are in a dream. When the person is lucid and aware in a dream, then he can exercise control and practice basic tasks, even the actions that contradict with known physical rules. A new world opens its doors to endless possibilities where all the actions are bound only with imagination. Flying, jumping from a plane without a parachute and landing safely, walking on water, teleportation between distant locations, transforming scenes, and telekinesis would be your everyday activities. You may feel how limiting our daily life is and that you are meant to live in a world where you can use your unlimited imagination.

An obvious benefit of lucid dreaming is being the basis of the most effective therapy for nightmares [13]. If you are aware that you are dreaming then there is no need to fear anything, including even the most horrifying monsters, because nothing can cause you physical harm. This may encourage you to face the threat rather than avoiding it. Lucid dreams feel extremely realistic and it is not easy to differentiate from real life. Many people use lucid dreaming for rehearsals. It can be used to improve public speaking, artistic performance, athletic activities, and courage for competitions. Realistic features of lucid dreaming can be used to fulfill one’s longing for his loved ones, relatives living abroad, or even for ones passed away. Lucid dreaming can be used as a meeting place for the ones living apart and do not have a chance to meet regularly. This will be a virtual meeting not only in the sense of telepresence but also the ones you meet will be a construct of your brain.

The brain is highly active during dreaming and not constrained by physical senses. This contributes to creative thinking and novel combinations of events and objects in our dreams. When combined with the cinematic behavior of dreams, lucid dreams can provide a platform for creative thinking and ideas for scientific issues by skipping the repetitive and time-consuming steps. There are other ways to use lucid dreaming for educational purposes. A quickly scanned book can be recalled from memory and read thoroughly. One can practice memorization of scriptures or even dictionaries. It can be used for learning and practicing a foreign language and all other repetitive learning processes.

Another area of application for lucid dreaming is healing. Patients can use dreams to enhance waking performance, improve physical health, alleviate and soothe pain, overcome phobias, achieve self-confidence, practice physical skills, recover neuromuscular functions, recover from injuries, and an increased sense of freedom for the disabled. Our last example but maybe the most exciting application area of lucid dreaming is entertainment. The movies and computer games cannot provide the experience as realistic as you can get in your dreams including even movies with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and the latest projection technologies. You can create your own big budget movie and be the main actor in your lucid dream. How would you design your new Jurassic Park or Matrix movie?

The realistic experience in dreams leads us to the question, “If this is not real, what is?” What if the world we think and live in is another construct and that we are waiting to wake up into another “real” world? We need to look beyond our daily lives and question the nature of reality and our purpose in this life. Are we living in this world to be a small actor in a dream or to take back the control and get ready to wake up into the “real” world? Maybe it is time for a reality check…

Acknowledgment: This article was produced by using MERGEOUS [14], an online article and project development platform for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

References

1. John Young, “Interpreting Dreams,” The Fountain, Issue 29, January–March, 2000.
2. John Young, “Dreams: A Spiritual Approach Part II,” The Fountain, Issue 30, April–June, 2000.
3. Muhammed Toprak, “A Historical Review of Dreams,” The Fountain, Issue 65, September–October, 2008.
4. Stephen LaBerge, “Lucidity Research, Past and Future”,
5. http://www.lucidity.com/NL53.ResearchPastFuture.html
6. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2000. Retrieved 2009-05-07.
7. Wikipedia, “Dream”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream
8. School of Metaphysics, “The Intuitive Nature of our Dreams”, Retrieved 2010-06-05.
9. Halil I. Demir, “Forbidden Inspirations”, Mergeous Pre-print Articles.
10. http://www.mergeous.com/articlepreprintins.asp?aid=57&type=fulltext
11. Association for Computing Machinery, “Singularity: Ubiquity Interviews – Ray Kurzweil”.
12. Daniel Erlacher and Michael Schredl, “Time required for motor activity in lucid dreams”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2004. 99, 1239-1242.
13. Watanabe Tsuneo, “Lucid Dreaming: Its Experimental Proof and Psychological Conditions”. Journal of International Society of Life Information Science (Japan), 2003. 21 (1): 159–162.
14. The Lucidity Institute, “Frequently asked questions about lucid dreaming”, Version 2.3, July 16, 2004.
15. Mergeous, online article and project development platform. http://www.mergeous.com

The Fountain is a composition, one in which each and every member of the human family can hear his or her conscience’s calling, a reflection of what is not always visible to the eye, or a response to the yearning deep in the heart and mind; a response that sometimes finds its definition best expressed in a poem, and at other times in a journey into outer space or through the veins of the human body. It is reading the universe, the major book of creation, and making sense out of it by way of the manual of Divine guidance.

The Fountain is an effort to try and see the reality through the veils of apparent causes and to obtain our share from each phenomenon, each of which is a letter enclosed with a message addressing us.

The Fountain covers the following themes:

• analytical articles on religious and scientific topics
• reviews for books about new and contemporary issues
• answers for frequently asked questions

The Fountain prefers to publish articles which:

• encourage scientific discovery that is in the service of humanity,
• popularize scientific topics for average readers, rather than addressing to a field-specific audience,
• promote altruism and devotion to positive action,
• adopt a multicultural approach, aiming to find a consensus on universal human values,

• serve to break the stereotyped images in minds about different cultures and faiths, and provide guidance in a world of cultural diversity,
• accept everybody as they are, encouraging dialogue in society and preventing the idea of the other,
• underline that terror has nothing whatsoever to do with religious faith,

• do not deal with temporary agendas, like politics, but promote actuality instead.

Note: The explanations above aim to exemplify the type of topics with which the magazine is concerned in order to help brainstorming. Please do not feel restricted about writing on any other topic that may be suitable for the magazine.

STYLE CONVENTIONS

The editors reserve the right to edit and correct all articles. The essence of the article will be maintained. If there are numerous stylistic inconsistencies, the article will be returned to the author for further review and resubmission.

The article’s title; author’s full name, address, phone number, and e-mail address; educational background, university affiliation, other publications; the length of the article (the number of pages and words); and a brief abstract (150 words or less) should be provided. Articles should not be less than 1,500-2,000 words.

Proper sources, citations, and endnotes according to the Chicago Manual of Style should be provided. If another style is used, all citations must be consistent. Alphabetize bibliographical references in endnotes. References must contain: Author, (year of publication), title, place of publication, publisher, and page numbers. Citations within the text must be in the Harvard style: Author surname, year, page number(s). Quotations from the Sacred Books must be italicized. Provide the chapter’s name and number, and the number of the verse(s). Send original illustrations or photos in hardcopy, or on disk in Adobe Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator formats.

As The Fountain is intended for general readers, please do not use jargon, region-specific, or technical terms. Non-English or unfamiliar words may be explained in a glossary, or translated/explained immediately after the word.

The opinions and views expressed by The Fountain’s contributors and editors are their own, and do not necessarily express The Fountain’s viewpoint or position. The Fountain does not accept responsibility for views expressed in articles or other contributions that appear in its pages.

Please send your submissions to editorial@fountainmagazine.com.

Indeed, attaching a purpose to everything non-systematically is subjective and seems not to be compatible with the current scientific methodology. For this reason, some people tend to deny religious sources of knowledge, whereas other people tend to accept a dualist viewpoint where they separate the domains of religion and science. Such dualism pushes religion out of people’s lives and restrains it only to particular instances and environments, reframing religion with surrealist subjects.

The path to reviving religious spirituality in daily life, on the same objective domain with science, requires many approaches. One of them is to answer the following question: is it possible to find a systematic way of understanding the purpose of the phenomena that has been observed and discovered by scientific methodology?

Although scientific methodology has evolved throughout history, the common motive that fits all stages is exploring the causal relationship among phenomena and expressing causality with some set of laws and principles. If we traced back to the origins of the scientific approach, we would encounter Aristotle’s definitions. He stated in his book “Metaphysics” that there are four types of causes (Fine, G., 1987):

1. Material cause – i.e. the materials that something is composed of. For example, water, sunshine, soil etc. are necessary to plant a tree. Therefore, these are material causes for the tree that was planted.
2. Formal cause – in his original words, “the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it.” For instance, a drug can only be useful if its constituent chemicals are mixed in a certain ratio. Hence the specific ratio is the formal cause of the drug.
3. Efficient (or motive) cause – the prior conditions that lead to the resulting situation. This is what is usually considered as “the cause” in science, especially in physics. An example is the source of new cells, which was unknown until the 19^th century. It was François Raspail (1794–1878) who first stated Omnis cellula e cellula, meaning that every cell is derived from another cell which tells the efficient cause of cell (re)production. (http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/raspail.htm)
4. Final cause – i.e. the purpose or the goal of something. This is also known as telos. In our daily language, we often mean the final cause or telos, when we talk about “whys.” For example, the telos for a seed to germinate is to become a tree.

Considering these different types of causes, which all together become a complete explanation, we can see that the current understanding of science is diverged from this point. These four categories of cause survived in science until the 17^th century. But then, by constraining science on the matter and its motion, as Francis Bacon stated in his Advancement of Learning (1605), only the material and efficient causes are taken into account as the major two subjects of science (Bacon 1605). During those days, Spinoza and Descartes deliberately rejected the final (teleological) cause and claimed that the efficient causes are necessary and sufficient to explain the universe. Thence, Newtonian physics was developed on the basis of the efficient cause. For example, the cause of acceleration is thought of as the force, in a sense that when a force F is applied to a mass m, the acceleration becomes a = F/m.

Causality in science is therefore reduced to the “efficient cause” and effect relationship. However, as we discussed, religions emphasize the purpose of events and accept God as the cause of causes. Therefore, religions use a different language, especially by underlining the telos, in terms of explaining phenomena. For instance, one of the amazing properties of water is that its least absorbing spectrum corresponds to the optical regime (Gedik, N. 2005). To explain this phenomenon, science asserts the efficient cause and searches for the relationship between the absorption spectrum and the natural oscillation frequency of the water molecule. However, disregarding the temporal order, this purpose-based approach says that because it is crucial and vital for living beings to receive sufficient light, and since the atmosphere largely consists of H₂O molecules, then water had to be transparent to the optical frequencies of light to allow creatures that have eyes and photosynthesis systems to get enough light.[1]

We should admit that the latter explanation does not sound strong enough to be generalized and be formulated. Therefore, we usually avoid using the adjective “scientific” for such explanations. But when our subjects or phenomena are chosen in the bio-world, we observe that the “standard” efficient causality does not give a satisfactory explanation, and the teleological causality is necessary. For example, the adaptation concept is teleological, which makes the usage of “final cause” indispensable in biology. Furthermore, in the early 19^th century, in his book The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin deliberately employed the term “final cause,” as it was noticed by James Lennox (Lennox 1993). Although some people claim the opposite, by carefully investigating Darwin’s works, Asa Gray and James Lennox appreciate Darwin by stating that he is the first scientist who reconciled morphology and teleology. Simply put, every species are equipped with specialized organs so that they can maximally benefit from, or maximally defend against, their environment. The same idea is also valid from the religious point of view and does not necessarily deny natural selection.

We can find more examples of teleological causality in systems biology, which studies biological concepts in a holistic way and therefore utilizes a teleological language. For instance, during mitotic cell division, chromosomes are replicated only once and then separated into two new cells. But note that something, indeed a checkpoint, prevents the cell from replicating its DNA more than once. This situation appeals for attention and can be explained in two ways. First is the teleological, or what biologists sometimes call the “biological explanation.” DNA is replicated once because otherwise it is severely defective or even lethal for the cells. Such a teleological explanation is perfectly compatible with the mechanistic explanation (efficient cause) based on the chemical interactions of some related proteins, which can be modeled by thermodynamic equations. As the system is complex, it is often hard to fully fit into a model using thermodynamic formulations. However, system biology offers another way that mixes the language of teleological and efficient causes by considering the system as a signaling network, on which the signal (or information, as in the information theory) is carried out via specific protein phosphorylations or reactions. If we were to analyze the spectrum of the words used in systems biology, such as commitment, robustness, checkpoint, decision etc., we would see that its language is more similar to our purpose-based daily language. For such irreducibly complex systems, the employment of teleological concepts does not arise as metaphorical; rather, it is indispensable as the whole cannot be purely explained by its parts.

Other sciences also provide teleological examples. Beginning in the early 20^th century, quantum physics emerged, bringing along some very unintuitive experiments. For example, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen offered a paradox called EPR. This states that measurements on two spatially separate but entangled particles can demonstrate correlations that cannot be simply explained by efficient causes. Later on, this phenomenon, called quantum entanglement, was empirically validated and can be explained by the final causes, introducing a retrocausal relationship.

Theoretical physicist Ken Wharton argues that the process known as frustrated spontaneous emission is naturally explained by such teleological causality. A light-emitting atom stops emitting light when the surrounding atoms are no longer able to absorb light. The decision of the atom whether to decay or not depends on the other atoms’ absorption, which has not happened yet. The idea that “the atom is probing the future” is not only counter intuitive, but also difficult to accept on the basis of the efficient causality, as Wharton states. (G. Musser, 2014).

Although teleological explanations are not always indispensable and can always be accompanied by efficient causality, the urge for the simplest explanation usually brings teleological language to science. Because science has been facing complex systems in various fields, teleological (purpose based) causality has become necessary since the beginning of the 20^th century. As a purpose-orientated understanding of existence is fundamental for almost all religions, it would not be strange to observe the engagement of science and religion in the near future.

Returning back to the initial question, of whether the purpose-oriented view can be reconciled with scientific research, we see that this is already widely evident in the scientific community. But there are still some people who think religions oppose science, owing to their purpose-oriented view. The judgment is left to the reader.

Yusuf Malik holds a PhD in physics. He is a freelance writer based in Boston, USA.

Reference

1. Fine, G.. 1987. “Forms as Causes: Plato and Aristotle,” in A. Graeser (ed.), Mathematics and Metaphysics in Aristotle, Bern: Haupt, pp. 69–112.
2. http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/raspail.htm
3. Bacon, Francis. 1605. “Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Human.” en.wikisource.org.
4. Gedik, N. 2005. “The Miracles of Water,” The Fountain, Issue 49.
5. Lennox, James G. 1993. “Darwin Was a Teleologist.” Biology and Philosophy 8 (4).
6. George Musser. 2015. “The Quantum Mechanics of Fate,” Nautilus, February.

[1] The difference between this explanation and the anthropic principle may seem subtle here, but there is an enormous conceptual gap which extends beyond the scope of this article.  

For this tree, the seed is intelligence, water is determination, air is patience, and effort is excitement. One thing to consider is that imagination and fantasy are not the same concept. Whereas imagination is the seed of realistic, logical plans and projects designed in accordance with long term goals regarding life and the future, fantasy involves short term projections out of proportion with reality, emotion, and rational thought. In this sense, there is no imagination that does not sprout its roots towards the goal and does not disperse the seeds of excitement to the human soul. This is because imagination is like a pile of emotions that sustain us in the years ahead. It is the energy that powers the heart, the mystery juice which injects excitement into our minds, a framework of desires that bind us to life. It helps us to believe that one man’s expectations for life are as good as his dreams; his earnings will match his excitement. Imagination and the resulting “excitement” is a great blessing that brings out treasures, love, and skills hidden inside us. Above all, imagination can help us to achieve success in all of our endeavors. This is true of science, too.

Defining scientific success can be tricky. It requires effort, hard work, and observation to achieve scientific success. But most importantly, it requires intelligence which is a blessing. Just like a licensed driver controlling a car, the brain’s performance improves with the skill of its driver. To maximize the brain’s potential, it is very important to integrate the heart and conscience with the use of intelligence.

Can we explain the reality that there is only a limited number of scientists because they were born as such or inherited this quality genetically? The reality is thousands of babies are born with brain capacities similar to that of scientists’ in terms of anatomy, histology, physiology, and biochemistry. Even though human intelligence is partly determined by inheritance, there are other factors. If the case was as simple as inheritance, would Einstein say, “I do not have any special skill, but I am passionately curious”? When Thomas Edison said, “1% of genius is inspiration and 99% is sweat,” he captured perfectly that one needs more than just intelligence to achieve success – one also needs to maximize that intelligence through hard work.

Scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi summarized the stages of knowledge development of the human mind in seven steps. “One first imagines something (tahayyul), then conceives of it, and clothes it in a form (tasawwur). Afterwards, one reasons and reflects on this thing (taaqqul), then confirms it (tasdiq), and then has full conviction of it (iz’an). Then they fully support it (iltizam); then they become committed or devoted to it (itiqad)” (The Words, Gleams of Truth).

Each of these stages is subject to different rulings. They form the ladder to higher meanings. Thus, if a person is unaware of the step occupied, he/she ends up remaining in the lower stages and acts according to the necessities of that particular level.

Therefore if we do not want to leave our scientific approach at the dimension of “sophistry,” which starts with imagination (tahayyul), we have to continue our intellectual and ideological journey all the way to the end. Imagination, which is often overlooked, bears the seed of intelligence, which is a blessing offered from the infinite ocean of God’s wisdom. Imagination is the unprinted photo of our intellectual aptitudes. How do you like to print and uncover your dreams?

Recent advances in science have led to longer lives, better health care, and healthier societies. Science develops through trial and error. However, irreproducibility still remains a problem, with issues related to bias, a high level of competition, a lack of appropriate statistical analysis, and preference to publish novel and positive findings instead of negative or additive results.

Irreproducibility issue

One of the pillars of scientific work is its reproducibility. Repeated proofs with a statistically significant number of experiments that show the finding is true under defined conditions further consolidate its acceptance by the scientific community. Positive findings often need reproducibility from different scientists and laboratories to be accepted as scientific fact. This does not mean, however, that they are completely discredited when they cannot be reproduced. Each bit of research is significant and worth praise by itself.

Scientists often do not find the means to repeat somebody else’s work given that large amounts of effort and money need to be spent. The practical way to test someone else’s findings usually happens through industries that could gain commercially from a certain finding. Unfortunately, this often comes with a price, even if research is found to be irreproducible. Bruce Booth, a venture capitalist, states that at least half of the findings in publications cannot be reproduced in industry settings. This might be an underestimation, given recent reports from different biotech companies.

According to various reports the reproducibility of published articles, in biomedical sciences for instance, is as low as 10-30 percent. Amgen, a biotech company with a team of around 100 scientists, tried to reproduce the results of 53 key cancer research articles in top journals, and found only 6 of them were reproducible (11% reproducibility). Bayer’s scientists found that only 14 of 67 projects related to oncology, cardiovascular medicine, and women’s health were reproducible (21% reproducibility).

Another example is the PsychFileDrawer project related to experimental physiology, which showed only 6 out of 21 articles were reproducible (28% reproducibility). In addition, one study to reproduce findings drawn from 18 articles regarding gene microarray analysis found in Nature Genetics largely failed. Similarly, when protein samples of identical proteins, as shown in article by Bell et al (2009), were sent to different laboratories, those labs failed to reproduce the initial findings. Dr. Asadullah, Vice President and Head of Target Discovery at Bayer, points to the increased trend of failures in Phase III trials, which also suggests a serious problem in the way research is vetted and published.

These numbers regarding the reproducibility raise an important question regarding the system of scientific research. If these alarming findings are true, it could mean that 70-90% of money spent on science does not bring about anything that is reproducible. It is intriguing that although the technologies used for scientific discoveries are now much improved, which would be expected to make date more precise and rigorous, the opposite is happening. This tends to suggest that the issue is not with the technology, but with the attitude and atmosphere of the larger scientific community.

Table 1: Major issues regarding today’s science

Publish or perish

A scientific publication is not only a tool for the transfer of knowledge between scientists, but also the basis for promotion and the awarding of grants. A rule in scientific communities regarding finding money to perform research is “Publish or Perish.” This refers to the cycle of publishing a high impact paper to get a grant, or losing one’s ability to compete with other labs.

The bar for success in the scientific community is set very, very high. This forces fledgling scientists to publish quickly and in high impact papers. Remarkably, in the major science journals, there has been a 10-fold increase in the retraction of articles in the last ten years, while there has only been a 1.4-fold increase in the number of journals published (Fang et al, 2012, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS).

Selective publication issue

Providing the best figures for publication, and selective interpretation of data, can also lead to incorrect results within scientific literature. A lack of blind experiments in basic science also plays a role in these mistakes. Some researchers may design their experiments, know what the control and experimental groups are, and may have biases in terms of wanting their hypothesis to be correct – thus they may interpret their data in favor of their idea.

Dr. Begley, head of global cancer research at Amgen, tells of a case where they tried to reproduce scientific findings in a paper but failed to reproduce the findings, even after 50 trials. Finally, they went to the author of the article and discussed how to solve this issue. Dr. Begley learned that the authors had tried the experiment only 6 times and it worked only once, but they put it in the paper since it made the best story. This might be seen as an extreme case, but similar selective publication of “good data” is not uncommon.

Scientists are under a great deal of pressure to publish the “best story” – both to advance their own careers and to fulfill their own competitive ambitions. This is increasingly becoming an important issue, and it stresses the need for verifying the results of others and publishing findings that negate previous publications.

Lack of incentive for verification

A majority of journals require authors to publish novel and positive findings and disregard negative findings and repetitive studies. There are a few journals that publish negative results, such as the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, the Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, and the Journal of Interesting Negative Results, etcetera. But publishing negative findings is still a low priority for most publications, which seek new and exciting discoveries to attract more attention. But a renewed focus on verifying existing science, and publishing negative results, will create more reliable scientific literature.

Another issue is the lack of incentives for verification. Since the easiest way to get funding is novelty and publishing in high impact journals in the current hypercompetitive environment, there is almost no room for verification, if any. Under these conditions, many scientists tend to write up their own observations and seek to get published with little concern for reproducibility. Why do they need to find out whether it is wrong or not? If it is wrong, this would make it tougher for them to get funding.

But is this proper scientific conduct? Given these issues within the community, how can we be certain their research and its findings are sound?

Given the potential amount of misinformation in scientific literature, we need a scientific renaissance. We could have a reward system, such as funding or recognition that improves reproducibility, robustness of data, and an increased publicity of data and protocols, as Dr. Ioannidis suggested. Other approaches to increase reliability could be decreasing the requirements for getting grants, and providing a reproducibility parameter in the citation index.

Toprak is a freelance writer, living in Texas, studying Genetics.

References

1. In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 on 4/28/13.
2. Reliability of ‘new drug target’ claims called into question. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/reliability_of_new_drug_target.html on 4/28/13.
3. Retrieved from http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/view_article_list.php on 4/28/13.
4. John Arrowsmith. Trial watch: Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 87; 2011.
5. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
6. Ioannidis et al. 2009. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nature Genet. 41, 149–155; 2009
7. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
8. Bell et al. 2009. A HUPO test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry–based proteomics. Nature Methods 6, 423–430; 2009
9. Bruce Booth. Academic bias & biotech failures. Retrieved from http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/#0_undefined,0 on 4/28/13.

New developments in scientific thought and hypotheses testing are changing the ways we think about truth and certainty.

Not only do scientific decisions rely heavily on tools and procedures of quantitative analysis, but also on social life and daily decisions. I want to start with a story from the judiciary system about the misuse of an important quantitative tool of the scientific community, Hypothesis Testing. It’s about the overturned Amanda Knox case in Italy. In 2007, she was accused of killing her roommate and sent to jail. The odds of DNA matching in the case of accidental death were reported as incredibly rare by a forensic data analyst, who examined data with regard to incidents of crime, concluding that the accident is not statistically an accident. The judges then made their decision based on this rareness, a single value, named p-value. Later, this was overturned (New York Times, March 27, 2013), because of a misinterpretation by the judges and lawyers, of the rare probability. What factors forced the judiciary system to make this decision based on a single value alone? Honestly, this is the story of the century and a story of Hypothesis Testing. This article introduces the logic behind their decision, draws attention to the misuse of data, and mentions alternative logics to this traditional approach on the matter (in March 2013, Italy’s Supreme Court ordered a retrial and found the two suspects guilty on January 30, 2014).

What is Hypothesis Testing?

We live in a data-driven world. Statistical inference is the process of drawing conclusions or decisions from data. The Hypothesis Testing procedure in the Neyman-Pearson paradigm is one of the procedures of this process, widely used in the scientific community for over a century. In this mindset, two complementary hypotheses are first defined: one is the conventional thesis (the null hypothesis) accepted to be true by default; the other is the alternative thesis (the alternative hypothesis) that needs evidence from data to falsify the null hypothesis. It results in a single value, called p-value, which is calculated from the data using theoretical model assumptions. A p-value is a measure – in probability sense, ranging from 0% to 100% – of how much evidence you have against the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence you have against the null hypothesis. One may combine the p-value with the significance level to make decisions on a given hypothesis. This is also called significance testing. It has an accept-reject mindset (dichotomous decision or binary logic); in such a case, if the p-value is less than some threshold (usually .05) then the null hypothesis is rejected. Basically, it is a black or white decision, without considering the contrasts between them. This interpretation has been widely accepted in the twentieth century of scientific research, and many scientific journals routinely publish papers using this interpretation for the results of hypothesis tests, even though there are current tendencies not to use this. Let’s take a look at the history of this black-white logic.

History

The history of the process of hypothesis testing starts with Fisher (1890-1962), around the early twentieth century. Later, the contributions of Pearson (1857-1936) and Neyman (1894-1981), who were early fathers of statistics, about the interpretation of the hypothesis tests were integrated into present-day applications. Fisher’s approach focuses on inductive inference about a single hypothesis, whereas the Neyman-Pearson approach informs future behavior based on a test using two complementary hypotheses (Newman 2007).

These approaches are strongly influenced by Popper’s logic of falsification. Falsification can be defined as the act of disproving a proposition, hypothesis, or theory. This logic asserts that sufficiently improbable events can be considered impossible. A p-value suggests whether a null hypothesis is sufficiently improbable to be considered practically falsified in the sense of a logical refutation (Newman 2007). When we come back to the Amanda Knox case, the decision the judges made and justified is followed from this falsification logic in hypothesis testing. Another criticism with this mindset is: how fair it is to rely on a single value that yields a rare result? Are we going to generalize one lucky drawing of raffle tickets to believe all tickets are winners?

Logics and proofs

We use logical flaws and biases in our daily life. Finding the logical flaw in scientific papers is something most readers aren’t interested in. Instead, the results are believed as a fact. One of the widely used flaws/biases is in seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs or a hypothesis in hand (Mercie and Sperber, 2011). We tend to prove or show the accessibility or superiority of arguments by bringing evidence. Failure to prove that a treatment – say, a low fat diet – is effective is not the same as proving it is ineffective.

Let me give another example to clarify this: The New York Times editorial news reported on February 9, 2006, “Millions of Americans have tried to reduce the fat in their diets, and the food industry has obligingly served up low-fat products. Yet now comes strong evidence that the war against all fats was mostly in vain.” Actually, in the hypothesis testing mindset, the evidence collected from research should either reject the null hypothesis which is “diet is ineffective,” or fail to reject it. The mindset in testing is not about finding evidence to support the null statement. It is also not about proving the alternative hypothesis, “diet is effective.” Rather, it is basically looking for evidences to falsify the null statement. In the report, the “evidence” the reporter meant should be against the null hypothesis, not against the alternative hypothesis. Data is collected to falsify the null hypothesis, not to prove its truthiness, because the null is already accepted to be true unless convincing evidence is collected against it.

Let me give another example of this paradigm. As Newfoundland (2013) described, a person is innocent until proven guilty by bringing convincing evidence. The jury can’t say “he is innocent,” instead, the jury uses evidence that produces reasonable doubt to reject his innocence.

Developments in inferential paradigms

The accept-reject paradigm in inference represents a conventional wisdom. There are other, or currently developing, paradigms in inference, too. One of the dominating paradigms is the Bayesian-likelihood approach. After enjoying much wider acceptance in social and natural sciences, the Bayesian method suggests different views of hypothesis testing. The Bayesian approach is a method of data analysis in which subjectivity, conditionality, or past information is used to update the hypothesis as additional evidence is acquired. This approach in hypothesis testing offers a dynamic structure in probability calculation so hypotheses, and decisions, are not seen as a static truth; instead, they are updated with current data and the decision is stated in the sense of likelihood.

In our court room example, the Bayesian inference is applied to all evidence presented, with the past information being combined with the current evidence. The benefit of a Bayesian approach is that it gives all historical information so the decision is unbiased all along as the past data (prior knowledge) is used correctly. This paradigm changes the way statistics are calculated and how the result and inference are interpreted. Currently it is widely appreciated in quantitative data analysis, especially after convenient software exists for its implementation. However, the criticism to this approach, made by many, is found in its subjectivity. Objectivity and handling prior knowledge is a concern here so that different people, having different opinions, may arrive at different results.

Another developing paradigm: Fuzzy Logic

Fuzzy logic is another method in quantitative decision making. In contrast to binary logic (yes-no, or accept-reject), fuzzy logic can be thought of as gray logic, which allows a way to express in-between data values. It emerged in the development of the theory of fuzzy sets, by Lotfi Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy logic is mostly seen as a branch of artificial intelligence that deals with reasoning algorithms used to emulate human thinking and decision making. It handles the concept of partial truth using linguistic variables, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. The concept of partial truth would be subjective and would depend on the observer. For example, for the temperature of the weather, we want to determine when to say cold, warm, and hot. The meaning of each of these concepts can be represented by a certain membership (called a fuzzy set). The concept of each would be subjective. One might consider cold for all values up to 40 0F. In Figure 1, the meanings of the expressions cold, warm, and hot are represented by functions mapping a temperature scale to “truth values” ranging from 0 to 1. A point on that scale has three truth degrees, one for each of the three functions (expressions). The vertical line in the figure represents a particular temperature that the truth values (see three arrows) are measured. Since the red arrow points to zero, this temperature may be interpreted as “not hot.” The orange arrow (pointing at 0.2) may describe it as “slightly warm,” and the blue arrow (pointing at 0.8) “fairly cold” (Fuzzy Logic, 2013, para. 6). A rule could then be adopted, like for example, if “slightly warm” then stop the fan.

Picture was obtained from

Fuzzy logic uses truth degrees as a mathematical model of the vagueness phenomenon, and it summarizes data analysis in facts with truth degrees, and leaves the decision to the observer. Its advantage is its ability to deal with vague situations with respect to linguistic variables. While the significance testing for a hypothesis declares one accept or reject, fuzzy logic allows for degrees of acceptance or rejection. However, in fuzzy logic, the notion of truth doesn’t fall by the wayside, but it is expressed in degrees and offers possibilities for different situations. Regarding inference, fuzzy logic uses the mindset ‘everything is a matter of degree and open to interpretation,’ and this mindset is also adopted to machine learning, which is considered a more suitable mindset with human reasoning instead of binary logic. The constraints in fuzzy logic are found in its tools and interpretations when complex inputs are considered.

The developments of paradigms in statistical inference have similar fates as in the developments of mathematics, geometry, and physics. According to the Euclidean parallel postulate, in space, there exist no two parallel lines that intersect each other. However, after Non-Euclidean geometry was developed in the nineteenth century, a wider geometrical and mathematical reasoning stemmed from it; accordingly, the geometry of the physical universe and particles came to be understood better. The development of Riemannian geometry, offering that distance properties might vary, resulted in the synthesis of diverse results concerning the geometry of higher dimensional surfaces and the behavior of geodesics on them. It also made Einstein’s theory of general relativity justifiable. Likewise, as time passes, we witness wider paradigms or logics that abandon or correct former approaches in scientific decision making tools. This is a good reason why teachers and professors should update their current teachings as to be consistent with convincing trends, as well as to train students to be ready for wider paradigms in the future.

Conclusion

In today’s scientific community, the way decisions are made and fallacies proved, are changing as new paradigms emerge. In order to make better decisions or to validate claims, many aspects and methodologies should be considered. One way to avoid mistakes as much as we can would be to expect fallacy points to exist in human mental processing during decision making, and improving and seeking better alternatives with well-established wisdoms.

(Thanks Ugur Sahin for reviewing the preliminary copy of this article.)

References

• Fuzzy Logic. In Wikipedia. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
• Kass, Robert E. 2011. Statistical Inference: The Big Picture 1. Statistical Science, 2011, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1214/10-STS337, Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
• Mercier, Hugo, Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34, 57-111.
• Newfoundland, Jason. 2013. “The Cell Phone-Brain Cancer Controversy.” The Fountain Magazine, Jan-Feb, Issue 91.
• Newman, Michael C. 2008. “‘What exactly are you inferring?’ A closer look at hypothesis testing.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 1013-1019, 2008.

“Curiosity is the wick in the candle of learning”
William A. Ward

When I visited my family last time, I realized that my two-year old nephew, who could not speak fluently and knew only a few words, wanted to learn about everything he saw. For instance, while I was using an iPhone, he wanted me to show him how to unlock its screen. I taught him how; he tried to use it and started asking questions about the applications: What is that? What is it doing? In fact, he sometimes couldn’t speak, but he implied what he wanted to ask. Moreover, he could easily learn and repeat what I said and did.

He is a curious bundle of joy, and so are most toddlers. I believe that if toddlers – who are usually defined as being between the ages of one and three – don’t lose their curiosity, each of them will grow into accomplished members of our future’s intellectual society.

Curiosity: What is it?

Curiosity basically means a desire to know or learn. Dr. Reiss states that curiosity is one of the 16 basic desires which guide human behaviors, and comes from the need to learn^[1]. Curiosity triggers various questions about events around us, and in a broader perspective, about the universe. The interaction between the desire to learn and the universe usually brings about scientific development. So, curiosity is the key to learning and science. And talking about children, curiosity is imperative to their learning.

“What is that?” is a phrase that is usually heard from a toddler who can speak at least a few words. Toddlers have a great curiosity to understand what happens around them. They are new in this world and everything grabs their attention. Because of this curiosity, they want to learn. According to Bruce Perry, there is a big learning cycle [2], which starts with curiosity and exploration, and goes on to discovery, pleasure, repetition, mastery, new skills, confidence, self esteem, security and more exploration. While one of the main characteristics of mankind is learning by curiosity early in his life, as time passes, his curiosity fades. What causes this change? Why does it fade away? Can it be delayed? What can be done to invigorate his passion for learning, exploring and discovering if it fades? How can schools, as a secondary environment for learning after the family, be designed so that the initial curiosity is not lost?

Why does curiosity fade?

The eagerness of children to scientifically understand the world is restrained by various factors. These factors vary due to the complex nature of human beings and the environment they live in. The three significant and common factors are fear, disapproval, and absence^[2].

One of the common factors is fear that can arise implicitly or explicitly. The definition of fear is “a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid”^[3]. It causes uncomfortable conditions for people. When experiencing fear, a human cannot act normally until either the fear subsides or he deals with the cause of the fear. For example, parenting styles, events that cause internal family distress, violence, a teacher’s disciplinary style, restrictions, rules, and an unhealthy classroom environment can be some of the reasons behind fear. Human curiosity is fostered by healthy, comfortable environments^[4].

The second factor behind fading curiosity is disapproval. If a child is raised by phrases that start with “don’t,” he will learn not to do things. He will not be eager to attempt to learn new, different ways. For instance: If a child is raised by saying don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t get dirty, don’t take that apart, don’t touch, don’t, don’t, and don’t… To learn, they need to try these things. These attempts can be wrong or not essential, but children achieve a great sense of learning by doing.

The last, but certainly not least factor, of losing curiosity is absence. The meaning of absence is that the child has no sense of safety and opportunity to share new discoveries. The existence of caring people around them provides the optimal environment for exploration, discovering new things and increasing the capacity of sharing one’s discoveries. This is because of the sense of safety.

Invigorating faded curiosity

In terms of renewing curiosity for a child who has lost his passion for examination and critical observation of the world, we can start by eliminating the reasons for faded curiosity: fear, disapproval and absence. Eliminating these factors will give children a chance to reconstruct their passion, safety, and courage to repair their lost and curiosity to learn.

One who is responsible for a child needs to recognize individual differences in them, and to encourage their unique kinds of curiosity. Each individual is recognized as a different world; therefore, each individual has his or her own unique framework about the world. In some points, there can be similar and overlapping ideas but it does not mean their conceptual framework is the same. Curiosity triggers them to enhance their conceptual framework by learning with understanding. So we need to let them run after their different styles of learning, which will help them to advance in a discipline without enforcement. By doing so, children feel free to choose their area of interest and with a strong sense of their curiosity, they will move forward in that discipline.

At this point, we come up with a question: what can be done for timid children? Being timid does not mean that they are not curious. They just require more encouragement and reinforcement to feel safe and familiar with situations.

Generally, parents or teachers assume that some creative attempts of children are failures; thus, we need to redefine “failure.” If a child wants to learn to jump rope, which is not an easy task for younger children, he or she can do it hundreds of times, and trip every one of them. On one hand, this can be defined as failure; on the other hand, parents can think that it is a determination to reach success and that these trials and trips are necessary to develop that skill.

Another mistake, which can hinder a child’s curiosity, is that parents mostly make a judgment about a child’s larger personality rather than their specific behaviors. If we continue on the same example: jump rope, to encourage and reinforce them to learn, we can judge their behavior and lead them how to overcome it rather than critiquing their personality.

New approaches in the scientific environment in Curiosity is a common topic, not only for children but also within scientific communities. Through curiosity, human beings start to understand the universe and realize its wonderful and unique design. When you scientifically dig deeper into the environment and the world, your astonishment will increase about how perfectly designed things are. For instance: while I was watching a documentary, a man was interested in cobra snakes, and he dedicated 40 years of his life to exploring snake’s hidden and mysterious world. He was still so excited about talking about snakes and the details of their life; moreover, he mentioned that he needed to do more exploration to master his knowledge about snakes. You can easily catch the point: 40 years to explore only snakes, but it is not enough.

To raise a scientifically literate generation, to make them well skilled in understanding the world and willing to explore the world and universe, just like the man who is interested in snakes, the classroom environment needs to change. There should be a focus on the students and their learning with understanding, rather than being teacher-centered and based on rote learning. The United States and other countries have passed various reform acts in education to have more student-centered classrooms and better environments for learning with understanding. The most popular term in reform acts is inquiry. Although a century has passed since first appearance of the term “inquiry” in the science-education literature, there is no compromise on inquiry; you can find a lot of definition and different types of inquiry.

Inquiry-Based Learning

In a general perspective, inquiry is not only a method to teaching science, but also a result of teaching science. Learners have hands-on and minds-on activities both during the process, and after teaching and learning; learners should be able to imply new situations of scientific inquiry in their daily life. The inquiry should start with curiosity and a question about phenomena. Curiosity and the questioning phase start with some awareness of phenomena, and continue with experiments, research, observations, designs, and so on. Moreover, according to previous activities, students have some evidence, results, or assumptions to answer the initial questions, then give an explanation in keeping with his or her findings. Students need to make a comparison between his or her answers, peers, and the larger scientific literature, and also be able to justify their findings and answers.

After this process, the student learns both the scientific concepts and scientific process, and, as a member of a scientifically-literate society, uses it in new conditions in daily life. This process is a kind of imitation of what scientists do in their research. Moreover, these activities provide high retention later in the learning process. Increasing average retention rates would make students more proficient with science, keep them familiar with scientific content, and the scientific method; thus, they may keep their curiosity vigorous to sustain their scientific readings and investigations. By doing so, little students are going to be little scientists based on the strength of their curiosity.

To sum it up, curiosity is a significant factor for learning and science; it’s an essential part of human behavior. Most of the explorations, inventions and discoveries originate with curiosity. But curiosity is not a static power; most of us can lose our curiosity about the universe and the world because of various reasons, including fear, disapproval, and absence. To invigorate faded curiosity we need to eliminate the factors that are the reason for such lapses. Moreover, parents and teachers should be careful about individual differences, and we need to redefine the term “failure.” Finally, curiosity is the feature of scientific communities that are eager to understand the world and the universe. If their scientific method, which is known as “learning with inquiry,” can be applied in the classroom, children can follow the mysteries of the world and universe. Throughout little students’ journey, and during their studies, curiosity, as a wick in a candle, will enlighten our world. Let them to keep their candle sparkling!

References

1- Reiss, Steven (March 5, 2002). Who am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities. Berkley Trade. ISBN 978-0425183403.

2- Perry, Bruce Duncan. http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/curiosity.htm

3- http://dictionary.reference.com/

4- Berlyne, D. E. 1960. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGrawhill.

Science is the systematic study of the behavior of certain phenomena (that is, regularities, uniformities) in the physical universe. Scientific study is based on observation, experimentation, measurement, and the formulation of universal laws that describe these facts and phenomena in general terms and enable prediction.

The process of describing regularities (i.e. things that happen in a particular way) is incomplete and never exhaustive because regularities are not exact and deterministic. There is actually quite a lot of approximation and simplification involved in this process. If an exact equation is desired, then these scientific laws, which are useful for prediction, must be formulated in mathematical terms; this represents the whole business of science.

The huge popularity of science is due to its practical results, such as the previous technological examples stated previously. Science is about studying regularities in the material world and describing those regularities in order to make predictions and to make possible the technology that we use daily possible.

It is important to stress that describing and making use of science is not about explaining, but rather using it to make sense of something; here, description is not to be confused with explanation. Therefore, science is about describing, not explaining. The moment a scientist talks about the meaning behind a law or regularity in nature and our ability to benefit from it, he is no longer talking science and he is venturing into the realm of metaphysics and the philosophy of science. Just because someone is a great scientist, it does not mean that he has a deeper insight into the meaning of the laws of the physical world and universe.

What science seeks to explain

Science does not answer questions of meaning or questions of agency (like, who is doing what for what reason? What is responsible for a given regularity?) and we cannot criticize science for not dealing with these questions. They may be important questions but it’s not the responsibility of the field of science to answer these questions. For example, consider the Law of Gravity. We drop a pen and it falls. Why did it fall? Because of gravity.

We observe that, without exception, the pen always falls when we lift it and drop it. Then we call the conjunction between performing an action and its regularity the law of gravity. This means that the law of gravity is simply the name we have given to this regularity; however, it does not mean that the pen is falling because of gravity. Gravity is the name given to the process, not an explanation for it, but in our minds both the name and the explanation for the phenomenon have become one and the same.

The question arises: Is it logically justified to explain an experience through a causal law that is derived through the same experience?

In the beginning, when scientists started asking these questions, it was unclear what the difference was between description and explanation. For a long time science was thought to be a venture competing with religion in providing answers for life.

Regarding natural laws, 19th century American philosopher Charles Peirce stresses on the point that natural laws serve as a description of natural events, not as explanations of these very events: “no law of nature makes a stone fall, or a Leyden jar to discharge, or a steam engine to work.”¹

A law of nature left to its self would be quite analogous to a court without a sheriff. A court in that predicament might probably be able to induce some citizen to act as sheriff; but until it had so provided itself with an officer who, unlike itself, could not discourse authoritatively but who could put forth the strong arm, its law might be the perfection of human reason but would remain mere fireworks. Just so, let a law of nature – say the law of gravitation – remain a mere uniformity – a mere formula establishing a relation between terms – and what in the world would induce a stone, which is not a term nor a concept but just a plain thing, to act in conformity to that uniformity?²

The law of gravity is just a formula, just a name. It cannot make a stone act in accordance to it.

It is important to note that the notion of law is closely related to issues of agency and also to the affinity of the human mind to perceive natural phenomena and the possibility of finding patterns in nature beyond science (i.e. how is it that we are so in tune to what is happening in the world that we can pick up all these regularities?). These issues announce the “greatness” of science. When it comes to the affinity of the human mind to realize recurrent patterns in the universe, Peirce says:

. . . the mind of man is strongly adapted to the comprehension of the world; at least, so far as this goes, that certain conceptions, highly important for such a comprehension, naturally arise in the mind; and, without such a tendency, the mind could never have had any development at all.³

Therefore, there would be no science if one could not grasp the regularities.

In our scientific inquiry, it is reasonable for us to be searching out these regularities and hoping that they will remain stable, but we cannot assume that we have explained how or why such regularities or laws are in effect. It may also be reasonable to say that there are regularities and we hope that these regularities and so-called universal laws will come into effect in the future so that technology can be made from predictions. There can only be hope, and not certainty, because science is based on observation and there may be some instances where the same observation may not occur.Even though science is based on exactitude, there is still a measure of hope and faith involved.

A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature. How do we come to the conclusion that we have a scientific law? Several events occur, (not just to the researcher) that hold to certain regularities, according to a certain pattern, and a generalized statement is formed. The process of generalization from a limited number of observations to form a universal statement or law is called the process of induction, or looking at a certain number of events and saying that things are going to happen all the time. The assumption under the process of induction is that the more observations made about a particular phenomenon, the more it will reinforce the law.

There is only one way for such an assumption to be true, and it has nothing to do with the number of observations. We assume a relationship or connection between the object and what occurs, the cause and effect. The assumption is that there is a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. One must be able to explain this connection in a logical way, not as something that depends solely on observation but something that necessitates the event. If this is unable to be done, if it is only based on observations, then induction is a problem. In formulating a scientific law, generalizations made through the method of induction are problematic.

Because of induction, the basic application of our inductive reasoning is twofold: firstly we think we can describe what we have seen by the use of universal laws, and secondly, that we can use these established laws in predicting what we will see. There is, however, a problem with the mechanics of the inductive process. Are we justified in formulating these universal laws simply on the basis of a discrete number of past observations that have been made?

For example, based on the scientific observation of planetary motion, we could suggest that “the sun will rise every day.” However, just because the sun has risen in the past, it does not mean that it will continue to do so either tomorrow or the next day. So the induction based on the number of occurrences of a particular phenomenon is illogical. There is no guarantee that we will ever see the sun rise again. The sense of faith we have in the scientific laws of planetary motions is based on the supposition that some kind of necessity has caused the sun to rise in the past and will therefore continue to cause the sun to rise in the future. We assume that the connection between the cause and the effect are necessarily related. To use another common example, everyone in Europe thought the statement “All swans are white” was true because every swan that they had ever seen was white. However, when travelers came back from Australia and New Zealand, they reported having seen black swans, thus providing a real life example of how induction can falter. This observation negated the previous generalizations.This brings us to the issue of causality.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. In relation to one another, induction only has to work sometimes whereas causality always has to work. It has little to do with the number of occurrences; it has to work for each cause-effect relationship. The consequence of this model of the world is that empirical knowledge is connected to the causal relations between objects and events. According to this view, the logic of scientific discovery is inductive. In other words, it infers universal laws from particular statements.

The logic of induction proceeds as follows: First, it conjectures that induction is valid, and then concludes that causation is true. Whereas, from the point of view of logic, it is just the other way around; induction can be justified only by proving that causation is logically valid i.e., that the relation between cause and effect is necessary. Induction is therefore logically not a justified method to attain universality. As the Australian-British philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper observes, scientific induction is “logically inadmissible,” that scientific “theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable.”⁴

Can we count on the laws of nature? It depends. We can have faith in them; we can hope that they will continue to hold in the future but there exists no logical certainty. But we cannot prove that they will remain true because we cannot observe something that will occur in the future (the dogma of the experiment).

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell calls the dogma of induction, the “biggest scandal of philosophy.” He provides the example of a farmer and his chicken. The chicken notices that the farmer comes every day to feed it. It predicts that the farmer would continue to bring food every day. According to the principle of induction, each feeding event added justification to its prediction. Then one day the farmer came and wrung the chicken’s neck. Russell’s point is that induction cannot justify any conclusions!

Critical problems with the method of induction have been in discussion long before the more recent debates, and are often connected with the concept of causality. The same issue was also at the center of a heated debate among Muslim philosophers and theologians as early as the 12th century. This critical problem with the method of induction was also pointed out earlier by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume stated that when we observe two events to be causally related, say a seed (a) resulting in the growth of a shoot or tree (b), what we in fact observe is only a contingent conjunction of two events. That is, the causation that we think we perceive is not actually “out there in the world” for us to observe. When we see two events and judge them to be causally related, it is merely through a habit of the mind, something we project onto the world. A necessary causal link, as such, is not guaranteed. Hume writes:

Were any object presented to us, and were we required to pronounce concerning the effect, which will result from it, without consulting past observation; after what manner, I beseech you, must the mind proceed in this operation? It must invent or imagine some event, which it ascribes to the object as its effect; and it is plain that this invention must be entirely arbitrary. The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it.⁵

This means that causal laws of nature are not true logically and there is no concrete evidence that these will continue to hold in the future. We simply cannot postulate universal laws that tell us the way the world irrefutably is and will always be unless we have some good reason to trust such generalizations. And even if we could trust such universal laws as “the sun will always rise,” it is not clear how many times we would need to see the sun rise in order to justify proposing this law. Scientific observation, although detailed and informative, has no claim to being the irrefutable truth of the matter.

The solution

Sir Karl Popper offered a potential solution to this problem by thinking about the way we do science in a new light. Popper turned science on its head by claiming that we are looking at science in the wrong way. Instead of looking to science to provide us with theories that are definitive and true, Popper said that we should be looking to science to provide us with theories that we have failed to prove false for a very long time. This approach to science is referred to as “Falsificationism.” Less of a solution and more of a shortcut, it is a tool which we are allowed to use in the game of science. He describes the Falsification approach by noting that for the scientific method to be rational, it must make claims to knowledge that is logically sound. That is, science is not about making grand universal laws, but about the examination of individual observations. According to the model of falsification, science is concerned with evaluating and refining. What we commonly think of as scientific claims to knowledge, are only hypotheses that we accept till they are proved wrong.

Fundamentally, Popper accepts that science can never provide us with complete 100% certainty, but he claims that this is not really a problem because it is not actually science’s job. The purpose of science is to provide us with a theory that is likely to be true based on the fact that we haven’t yet managed to prove it wrong. One unfortunate consequence of this, however, is that you can only ever be certain of the things that you have proved wrong. We know, for example, that the world definitely is not flat. The problem with this fact is that, although certain, it is not particularly useful to know that something is definitely false. For Popper, the best we can hope for is that a given claim is corroborated at one instance in time and if we presume otherwise, we are begging the question of the uniformity of nature: that what has always been, will (for apparently no good reason) continue to be.

To recapitulate, science does not deal with explanation; this is the realm of metaphysics. How we explain things depends on our beliefs and world view.

Dr. Yamina Mermer is a member of the Scriptural Reasoning Group based at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, UK.
Dr. Eren Tatari is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rollins College, Florida.

Footnotes

1. Online Past Masters text, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (University of Virginia E-text Center), 1.323. (The online texts is drawn from The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958).
2. Ibid., 5.48.
3. Ibid., 6. 417.
4. Popper, Karl. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co. (Original work published in 1935).
5. Hume, David. (1772). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Co.