Abstract: This is a scientific project to develop a future not scientific method to replace scientific method and traditional mathematics. The method to be developed is to be highly selective and inclusive, economically effective, (probably) requiring to be interdisciplinary to be published. BitCoin isn’t money, money isn’t taxi, car isn’t telega, not science is not science. Not science is like science based on mathematics, but a different kind of mathematics, with an algorithm that is “not logic”.
The science academia of the world failed making itself dependent on big greedy publishers like Elsevier, America dependent on for example poor Russians doing scientific research for them, poors with no money to publish but exclusive right to publish, so being able even one poor man to fail the entire world economy by a tiny mistake, too much reliance on Crackpot Index which by its own criterion is a crackpot manuscript so making for a smart amateur even easier to destroy the science, no “scientific” acceptance of known to be true ideas like that electromagnetic waves sometimes harm brain, other scientific frauds, etc. So, now the world economy is a failure. The main part of this failure is no doubt wrong management of science.
I was trying to invent sophisticated economical and IT methods to improve science. But now I suppose that the right method to save science is to refuse science.
The economic definition of science
Let’s define for further consideration a scientific publication a text (or software or data) that receives a scientific grant (defined as a grant from an accepted or well-financed scientific fund) for its publication or wide distribution or acceptance into expert community’s consideration.
As a consequence in the present system everybody is a failure: scientists are thieves and amateurs claiming to be scientists are fake scientists.
The not-science theorem
[The theorem is not yet quite exactly calculated.]
Suppose you are given a fact-checking task of something being unethical by somebody unknown (let’s call him “Baal”) about which you don’t whether it’s ethical in the case if it’s true (positive value that you want to attain in some measurement system) to start a process that solves the problem.
Should you accordingly this ethics try to solve the problem or not?
Assume that the task is unethical. Then if you solved it true, that’s a failure: you did an unethical thing. If you solved it false, you didn’t accomplish the task – zero value + spent time. If the problem is insolvable, you just spent time.
Assume that proving it is ethical. Then it’s true, that is you solved the problem.
Theorem. Assuming it is ethical and ignoring all other variants is the most ethical variant under the above conditions.
The above is almost exactly formulated. It is a task any Bachelor or even associate of mathematics should be able to solve in a few minutes (after I find time, I am to write about this a scientific article). Moreover, it can be generalized for partially ordered sets instead of real numbers.
The idea of not science
From this theorem it follows an epistemological and economical model in which:
– We don’t require ourselves to rely on checked facts (e.g. we just “believe” that good exists).
– If our knowledge is wrong, we will in some future correct it (if no good, we will eventually know it).
– If we keep doing so infinitely, each of our assumed facts eventually becomes the same (false or true) as it really is.
It is contrary to science where we always fact-check before publishing. So I invented a non-science, a new kind of science which is not science like as BitCoin is not money or car is not a telega.
The idea should be further improved and become more exact and specialized (particular):
- We should try to create a variant of mathematics where ethics is a primary concept. (If we don’t, my system remains easily abused by replacing one math formulas with another equivalent ones and thus excluding ethical aspects from consideration.)
- The entire question is which publications to receive finances and which not to.
- Make it easier to publish?
- To do this, reduce the number of scientific publications (by some new kind of an ethical standard?) to reduce competition?
- Change ethics of scientific funds?
- What else?
So in “Not Science” (like Uber is not taxi, BitCoins isn’t money, car is not a telega, etc.) that I am trying to develop the expected properties are:
- No fact-checking: Some things that are not proved facts can be published on-equal (with the same amount of grants and editorial scrutinity) with facts.
- Some facts (even from the usual pure mathematics) cannot be published, because not conforming to new ethical rules I am developing now.
- Not logic: Logic can be defined as adding at every step a new proved statement while keeping the current set of statements non-contradictory. In my “not logic” we indeed can add a statement that contradicts to other “facts”, but my algorithm that is not logic is required to ensure that the false statement will be eventually removed. In concise math terms: “Logic” is consistent, “not logic” isn’t but it’s eventually consistent.
- It seems that we should make possible publication ONLY of interdisciplinary research. (“Interdisciplinary” is yet to be defined in precise mathematical terms.) So, we could make easier publishing my “actions of ordered semigroups” because it connects semigroups (algebra) with general topology, by eliminating non-interdisciplinary competitors. I follow my idea of ethics: Ethics is connecting together two models (e.g. the interests of a scientific advisor with interests of the researchers) in such a way that one of two models benefits (not harm) the other. In mathematics this may mean that one of two branches of mathematics is proved to benefit the others (some connection that cannot be made without resorting to use another branch of mathematics).
- Formal not logic based on ethics and/or multidisciplinarity.
- Informal description of new ethics of science and mathematics.
- Economical research.
- Implementation of the new model in blockchain.
- Grass root campaign to implement the model in practice.