On Power and Science: Discussing the Implications of Thomas Kuhn

13 Monday Mar 2023

Posted by in Electric Universe

≈ Leave a comment

I’m back from Maternity Leave to continue my series on cosmology and culture. I would like to dedicate this article to Wal Thornhill. His recent passing is a profound loss for so many of us. Discovering the electric universe and meeting Wal years later, changed the course of my life, and career. As a social scientist with a lifelong personal interest in cosmology, I had long given up hope of understanding the universe because big bang cosmology made no sense to me. Then I learned about the electric universe. It led me down a new path of research and discovery, and to the answers that big bang cosmology had failed to provide.

It also led me to the ground breaking work of  Thomas Kuhn, which allowed me to access the world of science through my own background in critical analysis. In light of Wal’s passing, it is more important than ever to highlight the implications of Thomas Kuhn’s work, and what it reveals about the true nature of predominant Science—and cosmology in particular. Understanding the nature of Science, allows us to appreciate just how important—and how courageous—Wallace’s work and legacy are.

Central to my series has been the argument that cosmology is presently at a crisis point and headed towards an inevitable paradigm shift or revolution; and, secondly, that the Electric Universe Model is emerging as one possible alternative to guide cosmology into the future.

The term paradigm shift underlies much of this work. It was popularized through Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Since the publication of this book in 1962, there has been much misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of its overall thesis.

One misunderstanding of the book—and, by extension, those that draw on it—is that it gets caught up in the term paradigm shift when in actuality Kuhn is merely describing changes in scientific perspective or point of view. To come to this conclusion is to miss the larger thesis of Structure, and its implications. If Kuhn was merely saying that science changes with changes in point of view, he would not have been so controversial and he would not have so viscerally angered the World of Science–up to the present-day.

It is important to note that Kuhn did not set out to write the book he eventually ended up with. He originally set out to write about the history of science, and discovered something unexpected about how science is done along the way. In the process of exploring the history of scientific change, Kuhn discovered that institutionalized Science operates much differently than how we have been led to believe it does.

The larger and deeper thesis of Structure is that Science does not do science the way it claims to, meaning that institutionalized science is not empirical. Through a historical study of science, Kuhn discovered that once a scientific paradigm becomes entrenched and institutionalized, it often becomes dogmatic, hegemonic and unyielding to falsification and change. Almost by accident, Kuhn’s book became an interrogation of Science in and of itself. And it paints an unflattering but arguably more realistic picture of Science than the idealized or utopian image of Science as presented by, for instance, one of Kuhn’s biggest opponents, Karl Popper.

“For Popper the ‘core scientific ethic’ was falsifiability– all knowledge, at all times, should be exposed to constant and deliberate criticism.”[i] Kuhn would whole-heartedly agree with Popper: Falsifiability should be the core scientific ethic or principle. The problem is that, in reality, or, in practice, it is not, and this is what Kuhn’s work reveals.[ii]

Another criticism of Kuhn, by Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend and others, is that Kuhn glorifies normal science and hides behind it. If we recall from previous work, normal science is the stage where a field or discipline has a scientifically based model of understanding that works. Feyerabend and Popper accuse Kuhn of wanting science to always stay at the stage of normal science and, therefore, of resisting paradigm criticism and change.[iii] This is a blatant mis-reading and misrepresentation of Kuhn.

Kuhn did not insist that science should not progress beyond the non-problematic stage of normal science. On the contrary. He revealed (and lamented) that scientists tend to insist that they are doing normal science—i.e., that their model and paradigm has no holes or problems—long after the model has started to drift and fail. His book problematizes the fact that, in practice, science attempts to force a Model to stay at the normal stage—i.e., “business as usual”—despite mounting anomalies and contradictions that the Model cannot adequately address. And this is especially true in cosmology. As the highly esteemed philosopher of science, Ian Hacking, points out in his introductory essay to the 2012 addition of Kuhn’s book, big bang cosmology is “full of outstanding problems pursued as normal science.”[iv]

This is the crux of the problem. And this is why Kuhn’s work is indispensable for any critical analysis of the present state of cosmology. With respect to cosmology, Kuhn’s findings about the reality of how science is done, are even more relevant today than they were in 1962. As Hacking points out, at the time of Kuhn’s writing, there were two competing cosmological models. But, today, Big Bang cosmology has a monopoly on truth. 

If we recall from previous shows, after Normal Science the predominant model of understanding starts to drift, due to the accumulation of anomalies and phenomenon that the model cannot explain. At this stage (called Model Drift), one might reasonably assume that the predominant model has the opportunity to self-correct and re-examine its foundational theories and assumptions and/or explore alternative explanations, if needed. However, this rarely happens. Rather than address the problems directly and re-examine their premises and assumptions, scientists working within a dominant model focus on patching the model up and attempting to manage the problem. This process of perpetual patchwork creates more problems and eventually leads to crisis and model breakdown.

As we demonstrated in several previous shows and articles, this is where Standard Cosmology presently finds itself–at the stage of model crisis and breakdown. At the Crisis Stage, scientists continue the patch work but also go beyond it, inventing ad hoc revisions in an effort to deflect or mask the mounting contradictions and inconsistencies. With respect to the crisis in Standard Cosmology, scientists are doing this and much more.[v] Many working within the Standard Model also double down on the model’s contradictions and inconsistencies, and have even gone as far as to celebrate them and characterize them as exciting opportunities for future research. What’s more, rather than admit that the Standard Model has not been able to provide clear and consistent answers, proponents blame its shortcomings on the weird and wacky nature of the universe. Basically: the universe is just “too weird” to be explained. Arguably, one of the factors that facilitates the acceptance and celebration of weird and inconsistent findings is relativity, which (as discussed in previous shows) is a foundational theory of Big Bang cosmology.[vi] To critical outsiders, such indulgence and celebration of strangeness and paradox risks devolving the Model—and those working within it—into a state of unnecessary complexity and absurdity.

Overall, emphasising patchwork and ad hoc extensions over empirical problem-solving, doubling down on inconsistencies and contradictions, celebrating such contradictions as wonderfully weird opportunities for future research, and, blaming the Model’s failure on the universe itself, all suggest that, as the predominant model begins to drift and fail, scientists stop honouring the scientific method (i.e., stop acting empirically) and become more concerned with keeping a broken model afloat.

This die-hard reluctance to question a failing model flies in the face of falsifiability, which, as we recall, according to Karl Popper, is the underlying ethic of science. The fact that science shuns falsifiability (a fundamental principle) when it is most needed begs the question why? Either science is not what Popper claims it to be or there is something else at play, or both.

When viewed from a socio-political perspective, one begins to see power and hegemony at play. And this is what Kuhn’s work implies. What begins to emerge at the Crisis Stage, is the idea that institutionalized and entrenched scientific models—and those working within them and the official channels that fund them—tend to become more concerned with not relinquishing power and self-preservation than empirical observation, problem-solving, and the pursuit of scientific truths or new knowledge. The main take away from all of this is that entrenched Science does not do and/or is not willing to do what it claims to do—i.e., test its theories and hypotheses empirically and change course when needed.

Popper and others were infuriated by such findings, not least because it tarnished the idealized and noble image of Science that had been espoused up until the publication of Structure. It is worth re-stating that Kuhn also held Science to a higher standard, and hoped for it to conduct itself empirically. Kuhn did not set out to tarnish the image of science. He was a trained physicist after all. But as any truly empirical scientist can attest to, scientists often end up with very unexpected results once they enter the lab and conduct their experiments and analyses. In the case of Kuhn, his lab was history itself, and as a true empiricist, he was not willing to deny or skew his findings, no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient they may be to the status quo. And he suffered tremendously for his integrity. Since the publication of his book, Kuhn has been attacked, personally and professionally, for shining an unflattering light on the nature of institutionalized science.

To the Poppers of the world, Kuhn is a heretic. Rather than attempt to refute Kuhn’s thesis Popper, Feyerabend and others attack him for having the audacity to shine a light on Science. To his opponents, one of Kuhn’s biggest crimes was making conclusions—and what they perceive as predictions—about how Science operates based on its history. In other words, they condemned him for being historical. For his critics “historicism was not just wrong, but immoral – and insofar as Popper and his followers saw historicism hugged-tight within the concept of normal science, Kuhn was also immoral.”[vii] Now, historicism is defined as “an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history, that is, by studying the process by which they came about.”[viii]  In his book, Kuhn looked at the history of science and scientific progress and made some observations about how science changes and progresses. It seems strange, if not duplicitous, to condemn the author of a book on the history of science for using history in his analysis. It is an Orwellian act that can only be described as a very unscientific case of “shoot the messenger.”

For instance, in his critique of Kuhn, Steve Fuller accuses him of presenting an image of predominant or institutionalized Science and Science Education that resembles a “mini-Vatican”, a “Royal Dynasty”, and, even, “the Mafia.”[ix] For his opponents, Kuhn is guilty of presenting a predominant paradigm as “an irrefutable theory that becomes the basis for an irreversible policy.” In Kuhn’s view of science, Fuller maintains:

“the community of researchers create science in their own image: setting the standards, recruiting people who will continue with those standards, and then hovering as divine judgement over how well they go about doing this. It is a mini-Vatican, a state unto itself where the only safeguards are those which they create….It is a horribly circular world, where no-one is ever accountable to anything, or anyone, outside of themselves.”[x]

Kuhn never said these exact words, but this is what many deduce from his book. It is interesting to note that Kuhn’s detractors do not attempt to disprove this negative view of Science; they simply complain and condemn Kuhn for having the nerve to come to such a conclusion, in the first place, and for using historicism[xi]  to get there. This begs the question: If Kuhn is wrong, why do they not refute his findings.[xii]

Whether they characterize his finding as historicist or predictive or immoral, given the current State of institutionalized Science, and the current crisis in the Standard Model, I think it is fair to say that Kuhn’s findings are valid and still stand. Sorry Popper and company, but if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, be it presently or in 1962…then Kuhn must be right!

The unflattering image of Science depicted in Kuhn’s work could easily be applied to other institutions such as Politics and Political Education. I studied political science as an undergrad and wrote as a political analyst for many years. I can attest to the self-preserving and circular nature of both mainstream politics and political theory. With respect to the latter, western political philosophy often seems more concerned with preserving the dominant sociopolitical order than with rigorous investigation. For instance, in the book The End of History and the Last Man, American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, argues that liberal democracy has proven to be a fundamentally better system than any of the alternatives, and, therefore, there can be no advancement from it to an alternative system. As such, liberal democracy represents “the end of history,” in that this form of government is the final form of government for all nations.[xiii] In other words, liberal democracy is the best and final political paradigm, and, thus, there can be no alternatives, ever. Talk about arrogance and self-interest. Who’s being predictive now?! How can anyone that calls themselves a political scientist declare that history ends with their particular model of government. Are we to believe that the fact that Fukuyama is American, and, that America is the dominant and hegemonic liberal democracy in the world, has nothing to do with this line of reasoning.

Fukuyama’s circular logic is similar to that of proponents of the Big Bang theory. For instance, in an article entitled “Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?,” Corey S. Powell concludes that: “We have a lot to learn about our place in nature’s grand scheme. But we can be quite confident that, wherever future theories and discoveries take us, the Big Bang will be a part of the picture.”[xiv] Given Powell’s conclusion statement, we can assume that the answer to the article’s title question, “could the Big Bang be wrong,” is a resounding no. Similar to Fukuyama and liberal democracy, this article more or less implies that the Big Bang marks the end of history for cosmology; that there can be no advancement from it to any alternative theory–since it is the best one to ever exist, and, that can ever exist. If this is not an example of “an irrefutable theory that becomes the basis for an irreversible policy”—the characterization of dominant paradigms that Kuhn’s critics condemned him for arriving at—then I don’t know what is. 

Everything discussed so far suggests that there is a relationship between institutionalized Science and institutionalized power. If scientific change was merely about shifting scientific worldviews that come about due to model falsification, then why was Galileo imprisoned for life for his new perspectives on cosmology. And why was Socrates executed by the powers that be, for his. Both of these men promoted opposing or alternative cosmological and philosophical ideas that undermined the dominant power structures (and ideologies) of their time; and both were punished severely for it. Historically, ideas that defy power or the status quo are undermined, while those that bolster it, are promoted–through government funding, illustrious awards and careers, the mainstream media, etc. This has everything to do with power and the unyielding nature of dominant institutions, including the Institution of Science.

Once a model becomes as deeply entrenched and institutionalized as well as as heavily funded and supported, as the Standard Model is, for instance, it becomes perceived as too big to fail. In other words, there is so much invested in the model—and the illustrious careers and institutions that both support it and rely on it—that the model cannot be wrong. There is just too much at stake. Thus the focus shifts from scientific integrity to maintaining a model’s authority. This is why Kuhn argued that science is forced to change. When Kuhn used the word revolution he was not ignorant of the gravity or connotation of that word. Revolution is inherently forceful; and is often born of tyranny and crisis. Those that dismiss his primary thesis—and its critique of entrenched or institutionalized Science—are, therefore, either ignorant of its meaning or intentionally denying its broader implications.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a paradigm shift in and of itself, insofar as it radically changed the way we view and understand Science. This is why it angered, and continues to anger, so many mainstream scientists. Its larger thesis is a commentary on how Science is done; on how we as humans carry it out. Essentially, the book revealed that, at the Institutional level, Science often ceases to be empirical and becomes unyielding—preventing its own progress. Structure ultimately lays bare the difference between Science in theory and Science in practice. It dispels illusions about entrenched Science as purely objective or altruistic and exposes its tendency towards dogma and hegemony as well as its deference to authority. This is something we witnessed during the pandemic, with medical professionals putting deference to authority before concern for patient care and well-being. 

As a society, we tend to hold Science to a higher standard. Unlike Politics or the Media (and other institutions), we are led to believe that Science is purely objective and not self-interested or corrupt. Given this idealized view of Science, it can potentially be used as a tool to influence or manipulate people. In addition, critics of official scientific narratives may be subject to ridicule and public shaming, and increasingly, even risk being cancelled. Ironically, this goes against falsifiability, Karl Popper’s “core ethic of science,” which, as mentioned earlier, is the notion that “all knowledge, at all times, should be exposed to constant and deliberate criticism.”[xv] That  predominant Science often opposes and restricts falsifiability—as is presently the case with cosmology—suggests that there is a power component at play at the level of institutionalized science that simply cannot be ignored. Having established a relationship between power and science, in the next article we will explore what makes this relationship possible.

Notes

[i] https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

[ii] Given his emphasis on empirical falsification as the main driving force and ethic behind science, it is not surprising that Popper was angered by Kuhn’s findings. While falsification is what Science claims to be driven by in theory, Kuhn found that, in reality, once Science becomes entrenched/institutionalized, it resists falsification and change. In other words, Structure trashed Popper’s official version of how science conducts itself, and he was not happy.

[iii] See the quote by Feyerabend for more on this: https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

[iv] Hacking, Ian. cited in Kuhn, S. T. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Fourth Addition, p.x.

[v] It should be noted that when I mention science hereafter I am referring mostly to cosmology.

[vi] As we discussed elsewhere, Einstein’s theory of relativity had impacts far beyond science, normalizing and promoting paradox, and the acceptance and celebration of weirdness, in the public imagination. See–https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2021/04/10/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-2/

[vii] https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

Note: Karl Popper was a philosopher of science. It is strange that a philosopher would condemn another philosopher—especially one with a background in physics—for using history in his analysis. After all, where would philosophy be it did not draw on history.

[viii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism

[ix] See  https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

[x] Lea-Henry and Fuller cited in https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

[xi] For using history to describe how Science behaves, Kuhn was accused of being “predictive” in his analysis.

[xii] It is interesting to note that Popper pulled out of his one and only

[xiii] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

[xiv] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/could-the-big-bang-be-wrong

[xv] Karl Popper cited in https://www.jedleahenry.org/popperian-afterthoughts/2021/5/27/karl-popper-vs-thomas-kuhn

The Electric Universe Model and the Future of Cosmology By Ghada Chehade, PhD

14 Monday Feb 2022

Posted by in Current Events, Electric Universe, Science

≈ 4 Comments

PART I. 

Drawing on Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift framework, I’ve established that cosmology is presently in crisis and inevitably heading towards a revolution (or paradigm shift). When a scientific model reaches a crisis point—marked by mounting anomalies and contradictions that the model cannot resolve—then it can no longer serve as a reliable guide to problem-solving and will eventually be replaced by a different model.

This is the Model Revolution Stage of the Paradigm Shift Cycle. It begins with the emergence of a new model or models that speak a fundamentally different language, making the old and new models irreconcilable and incompatible: which means that they cannot coexist. Simply put, the main criteria for model revolution, is a new model, that speaks a fundamentally different language and is incompatible with the existing model.

To distinguish it from other uses of the word, for the purpose of this analysis, I use the word language to refer to “paradigmatic language,” by which I mean how a paradigm talks about and describes the things it observes in nature. A change in paradigm is ultimately a change of worldview (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). So, are there presently any cosmological models that speak a fundamentally different paradigmatic language, with a different worldview?

In order to explore this question, we must first establish the lexicon of the Standard Model of Cosmology. To put a complex subject in admittedly reduced terms, I have distilled the Standard Model lexicon to the three following foundational concepts and assumptions (in order of significance):

  • Gravity—as the principal cosmological force
  • General Relativity—as defining and/or in relation to gravity 
  • The Big Bang—an expanding universe birthed by the big bang

These concepts are complementary and interdependent, while also engendering the majority of other concepts and hypotheses contained within the Standard Model, which exist to explain (often contradictory or anomalous) observational data related to one or more of these foundational assumptions. In other words, the paradigmatic language or lexicon of the Standard Model is premised on, and couched within, one or more of these foundational notions.

PART II. 

A Fundamentally Different Cosmology?

So, are there presently any alternative models that deviate from one or all of these foundational concepts and assumptions? Let’s look at what mainstream science has to say about alternative cosmologies. In the mainstream, alternatives are sometimes described as physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). “Physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model…”[i] According to mainstream scientists, “theories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the standard model…and entirely novel explanations, such as string theory, M-theory, and extra dimensions….”[ii]

Examples of extensions include Eternal Inflation theory and the Oscillating model of the universe.[iii] I leave it to cosmologists and astrophysicists to explore the details of these hypotheses. For our purposes, what matters is that both of these theories rely on the Standard Model’s foundational assumption, and lexicon, about a big bang, and are, therefore, not sufficiently different. Even early big bang rivals such as Steady State Theory still rely on foundational assumptions and concepts–such as gravity as the sole driving-force of the universe as well as expansion. 

Another mainstream alternative is Modified Newtonian dynamics or MOND. MOND “is a hypothesis that proposes a modification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation to account for observed properties of galaxies.” Specifically, It is “an alternative to the hypothesis of dark matter in terms of explaining why galaxies do not appear to obey the currently understood laws of physics.”[iv] In other words, MOND (and its variants) are an attempt to address one of the many anomalies—and crises—of the Standard Model. 

While it is touted as an alternative that can eliminate the problems and anomalies created by the hypothesis of dark matter, MOND is still gravity-centric (and actually increases the galactic effects of gravity).[v] It also relies on many of the main assumptions and concepts of the Standard Model (with the obvious exception of dark matter). Thus, as is the case with the previously mentioned extensions, MOND is also not a viable alternative in the Kuhnian sense.

Overall, an extension to the Standard Model, by its very definition, could never be seen as containing a fundamentally different paradigmatic language. What’s more, while these extensions arose to address problems and deficiencies in the Standard Model, by further contributing to the complexity of the Model, they ultimately exacerbate the crisis in contemporary cosmology. Let us recall that, as noted in previous articles, increasing complexity is an indication of crisis. 

Moving on to the “entirely novel explanations” such as String Theory, M-theory and extra dimensions, the main thing worth nothing for our purposes is that these still treat gravity as the main driving-force in the universe. As such, they too cannot be seen as speaking a fundamentally different paradigmatic language, and do not qualify as serious theoretical considerations for a new model.

These are but a few examples of mainstream alternatives that exist. I leave it those more versed in the hard sciences to sift through and evaluate all of the possible add-ons and extensions to the Standard Model. As a critical discourse analyst working within the Kuhnian framework, I am primarily interested in identifying alternative models that meet the criteria for Model Revolution; ones that self-consciously and directly espouse a fundamentally different language, with a different view of the cosmos

The Electric Universe Model

One model that I am familiar with, and that also stands out for speaking a radically different language, is the Electric Universe Model of Cosmology (or EU Model for short). Proponents of this model self-consciously espouse an entirely different paradigmatic language. Let’s look at some examples in the words of its proponents.

In an introduction to an essay in The Secular Heretic by EU physicist and pioneer, Wal Thornhill, the magazine’s editors describe the EU Model as the science of the 21st century, telling its readers: “Set aside everything you think you know about all things great and small because the ideas presented” in the Electric Universe “overturn it all.”[vi] Referring to the EU Model’s take on the primary assumptions of the Standard Model, they note:

“Was there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein’s Relativity? Doesn’t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy? Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century.”[vii]

Implied in this statement is the idea that the Electric Universe Model calls into question many of the foundational concepts and suppositions of Standard Cosmology. 

What about gravity? This is arguably the most important point of departure. 

For the EU Model, the universe’s nature cannot be explained by gravity alone. Moreover, according to Wal Thornhill, “unlike the Standard Model, the EU Model has a physical model for gravity as a manifestation of the electric dipole force.” In the Standard Model, gravity is the fundamental organizing force in the Universe. On the macro scale, the Universe is dominated by gravity. But in the Electric Universe Model, “The Electric Force is the fundamental organising force at all scales.”[viii]  

According to EU proponents:  

“…the gravitational theorem…does not single-handedly provide all the answers required by physical science, particularly in deep space….gravitational theory struggles to explain many anomalies in observation….Today’s most vexing scientific anomalies point to an unexpected—at times dominating—role of the electric force.”[ix]

The EU Model does not deny the role of gravity in the universe. On the contrary, as its proponents explain:

“The Electric Universe concept emerged from the principles of empirical physical science as expressed by such pioneers as Galileo, Kepler and Newton…However, there is an important corollary to the gravitational theorem…”[xi] and that is the Electrical Force.  [xii]

Due to the hierarchical structure of the gravity-relativity-big bang lexicon that I identify at the beginning, if the first foundational concept—i.e., gravity as the organizing force in the universe—is compromised, then it stands to reason that the other two would also be called into question. If the Standard Model’s views on gravity as organizing force are wrong, then general relativity would be rendered irrelevant, and the big bang improbable. For instance, based on what the EU Model has to say about gravity, the question of a big bang becomes moot. According to Thornhill, “there was no big bang” and “we do not know the origins of the universe.” 

What about theories such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravitational waves., etc.? While they are presented as declarative truths or foregone conclusions by mainstream science, EU advocates would caution that these concepts are physically undefined and remain ad hoc hypotheses.

Paradigmatic Traps

However, it is not likely that the Standard Model will easily let go of these, and other, foundational concepts. This is partly due to the fact that paradigmatic lexicons/foundational assumptions can trap scientists in a discursive prison that limits the way they can talk about—or even think about—what is observed. In a parading shift, the new paradigm typically understands the language of the old or existing model (but does not agree with it). The old paradigm, however, is restricted in its ability to understand—or even consider—the language of the new model. 

For example, because the Standard Model does not allow for cohesive electrical effects in space, they are limited to describing much of the interstellar medium as gas, whereas the EU Model describes it as plasma (not least because over 99 percent of the known universe is made up of electrically-charged plasma).[x] Standard Model scientists know what plasma is, but given their paradigmatic assumptions, they default to the language, and, therefore, the physical properties, of gas. 

For more on the differences between the Electric Universe Model and the Standard Model refer to The Electric Universe Heresy by Wallace Thornhill, and this recent video by Mel Acheson.

In exploring some of the most important differences between the two models, I do not claim to assert whether or not the EU Model is poised to replace the Standard Model. As Acheson and others have noted, the EU Model is still evolving and remains a work-in-progress. However, looking at the paradigm shift framework, one could not ask for a better example of a model that meets all of the requirements for the Model Revolution Stage, embodying what it means for a model to speak a fundamentally different language than—and be incompatible with—the dominant or existing model.

Moreover, as I have shown in previous work, the Electric Universe Model is also arguably less complex than the existing Standard Model, thereby satisfying part of Kuhn’s requirements for paradigm change. In this respect, the EU Model cannot be considered as an add-on or extension to the Standard Model. It is by the aforementioned measures, a fundamentally different cosmological paradigm. 

A Note on Worldview

Implied by the major differences between the Standard Model and the EU Model is a difference in worldview. As Wal Thornhill explains, Electric Universe proponents believe in a “resonantly connected universe,” which is “self-organising,” and where “entropy can decrease.” In the Electric Universe worldview,  “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts”. The universe is “consciousness-filled…” with “instantaneous information transfer via resonant connection.”[xiv]  Overall, the EU worldview highlights and emphasizes cosmic connectivity.

While the Standard Model does not have a formally articulated and expressed worldview, the Electric Universe infers from what the Standard Model says and, more importantly, what it is silent on, a worldview of  “disconnected, random, chaotic, unconscious, purposeless, ever-increasing entropy.”[xv] A worldview that is very much in contrast to its own.

Given these differences, Standard Model proponents and Electric Universe proponents are ultimately living in two different—and incompatible—worlds. 

As stated earlier, a paradigm shift or scientific revolution is ultimately a change of worldview for scientists. As noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

“Though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist afterword works in a different world….Rather than being an interpreter, the scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing inverting lenses. Confronting the same constellation of objects as before, and knowing that he does so, he nevertheless finds them transformed…through and through…” (pp.121-122).

From this statement, we can conclude that a change of paradigm will ultimately upset the scientist’s worldview and field of study–turning them on their head. In light of this, let’s look at how proponents of the Standard Model have reacted to the Electric Universe.

Part III.

Mainstream Response to the EU Model

For a long time mainstream science and media responded as Kuhn’s work would suggest. Once Science becomes Institutionalized and entrenched, it tends to function like other dominant Institutions—such as Religion and Politics—in that it is dogmatic and unyielding to falsification and change or newness. For years, mainstream scientists have ignored, dismissed and/or mocked the Electric Universe Model. Some even going as far as to lump it in with absurd hypotheses held by “crackpots and a few fringe contrarians.” There are also claims that EU Model’s predictions are “in absurd conflict with observations of the big bang.”[xvii]

This is ironic given the Electric Universe’s claim of a history of accurate predictions. 

Examples include: 

  • That solar radiant energy is due largely to transmutation of elements in the electrically active solar plasma, which was confirmed by an independent SAFIRE experiment in 2019.
  • The electrical “flash” discharge preceding the impact of a copper projectile on Comet Tempel One
  • That the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan has distinctive lightning scars—called Lichtenberg patterns—with virtually no large craters. 
  • Successful predictions about what would be found at the heliopause
  • Successful predictions about the heat from Saturn’s north pole

These predictions, notwithstanding, it is not surprising that the Standard Model would dismiss the EU, especially given what Kuhn says about incommensurability. In the course of a paradigm shift, new ideas and assertions cannot be strictly compared to—or judged by—those of the old model, since the two models will have no common measure. From the perspective of my field, Critical Discourse Analysis, judging the EU Model by the existing Model’s standards and/or categorizing it as a model that is not to be taken seriously, are prime examples of how language is linked to power. 

In CDA, power is understood in broader symbolic terms, including the power to represent someone or something in a certain way. 

For CDA “language….is not simply a tool of communication, but a means by which people demonstrate their commitment, in one way or another, to certain ideologies”[xix] or dogmas. From the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is always about power and control, and is never arbitrary (Birch, 1991; Hall, 1981–cited in “A critical discourse analysis of power and ideology,” 2011).

With respect to science, those working in a model that is as deeply entrenched and as heavily funded as the current Standard Model, ultimately have the power to define and control the very discourse around cosmology—including what is considered acceptable and not acceptable. Given the careers and funding at stake, and given the power it has to define and shape the discourse, it is not surprising that mainstream science and cosmology would dismiss or mock any truly alternative model that threatens or undermines it. 

Once this becomes the official discourse on cosmology—i.e., that the Standard Model is acceptable and alternative models that deviate from it are unacceptable—it functions as a form of neuro-linguistic programming, that signals to the broader population how they should think about cosmology.

Ironically, however, it is the very resistance to new ideas that eventually forces Institutionalized Science to change. By resisting novelty, normal science (or dominant science) prepares the way for its own change, not least because crises left unresolved eventually force individuals—including scientists working within the existing model—to look elsewhere for new and better answers or explanations.

It must be stressed that this entails fully abandoning the existing, broken model. For Kuhn, new models demand the destruction of the old paradigm. In a scientific revolution, the new paradigm does not simply revise—or extend and add on to—the old paradigm, it replaces it.

While mainstream science has typically ignored and/or dismissed the Electric Universe Model, more recently, there has been what I describe as “electric universe adjacent” language in the mainstream. 

Examples include the following titles: 

From the titles alone, we can see that this language is different and uncharacteristic from what’s been typically reported by the mainstream in the past; and appears to be more closely aligned with the discourse of electromagnetism. 

One title even mentions filaments. And While two of the titles deal exclusively with magnetism, according to the EU Model, it is meaningless to talk about magnetism without also considering the Electric Force.

What might this recent change in mainstream discourse foretell? 

While it is too early to say for sure, one possibility is that more advanced technology (with more sophisticated probes) will make it increasingly impossible to deny the role of electricity in space. Something the EU Model has long claimed.

Wal Thornhill notes that “the Electric Universe paradigm has an unparalleled record of successful predictions in the space age.” He expects that this will continue; and that images and findings from the new James Webb Space Telescope will further support the predictions of the Electric Universe. 

Given the recent additions to their lexicon, could proponents of the Standard Model be preparing or attempting to get ahead the curve, and make room in their discourse for electromagnetism, and cosmic electrical forces; while maintaining their authority. 

In other words, could they be preparing to include electricity as an add-on or extension. Will we suddenly be reading about E-Gravity, for instance.

Kuhn’s paradigm shift framework, and everything discussed so far, clearly demonstrate that this is not sustainable in the long-run. Mixing incommensurate models—with fundamentally different paradigmatic languages—would only hurt science and could not be considered a true paradigm shift or scientific revolution. 

Due to their fundamental differences, the Electric Universe Model and the Standard Model cannot co-exist in the same paradigm. They are too different. As Mel Acheson aptly maintains, trying to add the Electric Universe as an extension to the Standard Model would simply muddy the waters. 

Given everything we know about the paradigm shift process (including our clearly articulated criteria for a Model Revolution stage), we must conclude that the future of cosmology cannot, and will not, be an ad hoc revision to the Standard Model. On the contrary, due to the very nature and definition of a scientific revolution, the only way forward is a truly alternative cosmological model, with a radically different paradigmatic language and worldview

Could this be the Electric Universe Model of Cosmology?

Time Will Tell…

Notes

[i] https://hep.info.yorku.ca/beyond-the-standard-model/

[ii] https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11813627

[iii]  https://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html

[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

[v] See Ibid. 

[vi] https://thesecularheretic.com/the-electric-universe-heresy/

[vii] Ibid. 

[viii] As cited in a chart created and provided by Wallace Thornhill, February 2022.  

[ix] https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/11/28/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity/

[x] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzw6s4nbTZA&feature=emb_logo

[xi] https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/11/28/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity/

[xii] As cited in a chart created and provided by Wallace Thornhill, February 2022.  

[xiii] Ibid. 

[xiv] Ibid. 

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ap0nxgg9Ws

[xvii] See https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/06/why-isnt-anyone-seriously-challenging-the-big-bang/?sh=2275dfa1689f

[xviii] https://www.grin.com/document/350636

[xix] Ibid. 

[xx] https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2021/06/26/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-3/

[xxi] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=95&v=9brYReflH3A&feature=emb_titl

Copyright © 2022 Ghada Chehade. All content in this article is the sole property of the author and can only be reproduced with the expressed permission of the author, Ghada Chehade.

Why Cosmology Matters Beyond Science

26 Tuesday Oct 2021

Posted by in Electric Universe, Science

≈ Leave a comment

In previous articles, I explored the current crisis in cosmology and what it means to have a revolutionary shift or change in cosmology. In today’s article, I step back and explore why cosmology matters in the first place. Why does cosmology matter beyond science and to non-scientists? And, how does cosmology impact everyday life?

We know that the study of the universe is important to science. But cosmology has impacts far beyond science and has a significant cultural component. What we believe about the cosmos impacts our worldview and eventually influences how we view and organize our cultural and social institutions, values, and norms.

It also greatly impacts how we view ourselves in the world.1 While we may not think of culture when we think of cosmology, cosmology has greatly impacted everything from anthropology and art to philosophy, morality, religion, and even politics.

Historically, changes in cosmology have precipitated tectonic cultural and ideological shifts that have shaped and defined the course of history. But the relationship between cosmology and culture is not unidirectional; it is far more nuanced than that. Cosmological shifts are also a product of their time, and often grow out of and/or reinforce philosophical and socio-political milieus that benefit from or exploit the ideas promoted or reflected in a new cosmology.

Let’s look at these points in greater detail.

I. Galileo and The Scientific Revolution

Changes in cosmology can have tectonic ripple effects that influence the course of history. A classic example is Galileo (and the Copernican revolution) and the shift from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of cosmology. This shift was so profound that it sparked the Scientific Revolution. But it also had profound consequences beyond science. As the Educational Director of the Italian Consulate (in the US) explains, “Galileo’s ideas not only sparked a scientific revolution, they initiated a large-scale revolution in human thinking. He changed the way we see the world and, more importantly, how we perceive ourselves within it.”2

Continue Reading

Recent Hiatus

01 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Electric Universe, Science

≈ 1 Comment

Thank you for visiting the blog. I have been on hiatus due to pregnancy and the birth of my first child. I will be returning to the website soon.

In the meantime, if you’d like to read or watch some recent material on cosmology, here are some links.

Articles:

Not If, But When: Cosmology in Crisis & The Coming Paradigm Shift, Part 1

Not If, But When: Cosmology in Crisis & The Coming Paradigm Shift, Part 2

Not If, But When: Cosmology in Crisis & The Coming Paradigm Shift, Part 3

Videos:

Videos:

On the Need for Balance In All Things

05 Tuesday May 2020

Posted by in Current Events, Political Economy, Society

≈ 2 Comments

balance

We live in a world and era that is very much out of balance. Imbalance causes problems and suffering. Balance is not some new age or airy fairy concept, it is the natural and proper state of all things in the universe. We need balance in all things, those within and those without, those big and those small. We need balance in the natural world and the man made world; balance in our societies and balance in our own bodies.

When things are out of balance, they cannot function properly–be it a plant, a human body, or a society. If farm plants do not get the right balance of everything they need to grow, bear fruit and be healthy, then they will not be properly optimized (i.e., they will be out of balance) for consumption and nutrition, in turn putting those that consume them out of balance. If the air has too much pollution, then there will not be enough clean oxygen for us to breathe, negatively impacting our lungs and our ability to live and breathe (literally) in health and balance. If society has too much poverty, misery and suffering, it will fall out of balance.

Some may believe that the social or man-made world does not require balance in the same way the natural world or human body does. That is not true. The social requires just as much balance, if not more so. Jean-Paul Sartre said that no man is an island. Whether we like it or not, we share this planet with billions of other human beings. Think of it like being on a ship full of people. If the majority of individuals are at the end or back of the ship, the ship’s weight will not be equally distrusted—it will be off balance—and it will tip and sink. Have you ever been on an airplane and asked to change seats, only to have a flight attendant tell you okay, but you have to sit on this or that particular side because the weight has to be equally balanced or distributed. Why do you think they say that? Because if the weight is not properly distributed the plane could go down; just like that ship. The weight on the plane does not have to be completely equally distributed. But too much on one end, and not enough on the other, and the plane could go down. And no one on board wants that; not the people in first class or the people in coach. Everyone is on that plane together, and if it goes down, they all go down; no matter which seat or section or class one is seated in.

The same is true of the social or man-made world. But the elites (what many refer to as the 1 percent) of today—and probably throughout history—fail to realize this reality. While you can gate yourself off from the riff raff and build entire walls and cities exclusively for the those at the very top, eventually what happens at the bottom will impact those at the top. To illustrate this point let’s use the notion of the body politic, but in a different manner than it has traditionally been employed. The body politic is a medieval metaphor that likens a nation to a corporation, with a corporation being understood as a group of people acting as a single entity. This concept is often used in discussions of nations or nation states and the authority or sovereignty of monarchs and leaders (as the head of the corporation or body politic).

For our discussion, I use that term to connote that a society or nation, collectively, make up one body, with members of that society making up the different parts of the body. While the rich and powerful may be the head or at the top of that body, if the other, “lower” parts of the body become diseased or dysfunctional it will eventually impact the head or those on top. This means that if there is too much disparity—especially of income and resources—and the “lower” parts become so impoverished that they cannot function in a reasonably healthily, and dignified, manner, this will eventually affect and infect the entire body. In other words, if the society is too unbalanced–with respect to wealth, resources, power, means, access to employment, health care–this disparity will eventually impact the whole body, including those at the very top.

Now, it does not have to be completely equal or even. It is inevitable that some will have more and others will have less. But when a very small minority have everything and the majority can barely survive—and if that minority creates, perpetuates, or exploits and feeds off of the suffering of the majority—then we are grossly off balance and have a serious problem. We end up with a body politic with diseased limbs, and a head that often exploits or creates those diseases in the first place. This is a foolish and destructive state of being, not least because what happens to the lower body parts will eventually impact the head. While the head may benefit for a while from the suffering of the other parts, in reality, a diseased or neglected limb will eventually infect the entire body. If not treated, the outcome is eventual death.

Capitalism in its present form is a socio-economic system that would rather chop off its diseased limbs and hobble itself than feed and nourish those limbs to prevent disease in the first place. It is a system that believes it profits from the malnourishment and suffering of those limbs. And in the short term it does profit; financially that is. But remember that unbalanced ship. Eventually even those at the very front of the ship—the monopoly capitalists, the bankers, the multinational corporations, the complicit governments and political leaders—will be impacted by a ship of poor integrity. When a ship with too many holes begins to sink, it will not matter what class or section one is seated in. We will all go down.

If the present Corona virus situation, and the economic fallout from it, has shown us anything, it is that many people in western society are overburdened with debt. Very few households have enough savings to get them through a couple months without work, let alone a year or more. While we are reluctant to talk about it, especially in the mainstream media, the old notion of work and employment (with regular paycheques, medical benefits and pensions) is becoming a thing of the past, and has been for years. In the era of economic globalization the reality of the workforce is one of diminished traditional employment. This manifests as either outright unemployment or underemployment. Examples of underemployment are freelance work, contract work, “gigging” or being forced to participate in the sharing economy. These terms are euphemisms for the reality of growing economic crisis and reduced economic security. The reality is that access to stable and well-paying work and income has been decreasing since the 1980s while the cost of living has only gone up. To fill in the gaps in their income, many households have had to rely on increasing debt and credit card usage just to get by. And when, suddenly, what little work and income these underemployed people do have is halted due to a virus, there is no way to service debts; not to mention, pay for rent, mortgages and food.

Basically people: The ship is sinking. The economic disparity and the uneven distribution of wealth and resources has come home to roost. Now, those on top (the bankers, etc.) will likely benefit from this dire situation in the short term. They may reduce interest rates or allow for the deferral of debt payments, mortgages, etc.–ultimately creating greater profits for themselves as individuals, businesses and governments borrow more money and go further into debt. However, with no one working and no one able to service those debts, eventually, it will all crash and burn.

A debt economy is unsustainable. It was unsustainable and unrealistic from the very beginning, but no one was willing to admit it. Not the individual that wants to live beyond their means by relying on credit. Or the individual that is forced to live on credit because they have far too little means to begin with. Or the bankers that get mega rich by keeping everyone in debt, with individuals paying back fake money (i.e., money that banks create as a credit card balance by entering numbers into a computer screen) with real money (i.e., the real interest one has to pay to use that fake money). Or the capitalist/banker/corporate-allied politicians who can stave off politico-economic uprising as long as the population is able to eat and survive by using credit and borrowing money.

The culture of debt has allowed us to ignore how unbalanced and desperate the economic situation actually is. It is a house of cards that we all patriciate in and all help to prop up, and with one ‘global pandemic’ it may all come crumbling down. Whether we will be better or worse off for it—whether the leaders and the mega-rich will use the virus situation to make politico-economic life more austere and more draconian, or whether humanity will find a way to prevent that and come together in an unprecedented form of collective living and cooperation—remains to be seen. A realist would say it will surely change for the worst; the system always finds a way to profit from disaster and come out on top. While others might say that the paradigm as we know it is shifting, and a new socio-economic paradigm is inevitable.

What that paradigm could look like, and if it is even possible, is a topic for another day…

The truth hurts, literally: On the fate of Julian Assange

26 Tuesday Nov 2019

Posted by in Current Events, Geopolitics, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

File photo dated 11/04/19 of Julian Assange who is expected to appear in person in court today, as his extradition case continues. PA Photo. Issue date: Monday October 21, 2019. Assange, 48, is due in the dock at Westminster Magistrates' Court for a case management hearing relating to his extradition to the United States over allegations that he conspired to break into a classified Pentagon computer. See PA story COURTS Assange. Photo credit should read: Victoria Jones/PA Wire

This is the second time I am breaking the sites’ hiatus. And for the second time, it is to comment briefly on Julian Assange. With reports coming out that he is in such poor health that he could die while in detention at a high-security prison in the UK, where he is awaiting extradition to the US following his betrayal by the newly elected president of Ecuador—or should I say newly installed, in order to carry out the west’s bidding, a large part of that being to turn Assange over to the west—two things come to mind: First, they’re planning on killing this poor man and blaming it on his ailing health and are preparing us for his “sudden death behind bars” by reporting on his health now (It is reminiscent of Epstein. Though Epstein was a sinner, not a saint). The sudden wide reporting on Assange’s poor health across all mainstream media outlets is very likely a preamble that will be used to whitewash his death (and more importantly, his cause of death) when and if it happens.

I don’t doubt that Assange is doing very poorly and ailing, his own people are saying it. But this is most likely the result of torture and illegal treatment. This brings me to the second thought that came to mind: If they don’t kill him outright, they are at the very least torturing this brave soul, and psychological and physical torture are probably the cause of his ailing health. I very much hope that I am wrong about these observations (especially about plans to kill him). But if either are true, or become true in the near future, we should remember that the mainstream media was seeding the story of his imminent demise for days or weeks, and this is likely being done in order to whitewash his murder or death later on; and pin it (or spin it) on his failing health.

Overall, it is a sad day for anyone that values truth and respects those individuals that are brave enough to pursue and spread it (Assange helped exposed certain truths about US actions in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay). For Julian Assange, his commitment to truth is hurting him in ways that we should all be concerned about. Dead men (or severely tortured and destroyed men) tell no tales. In addition, in the case of Assange, death may be the price he will pay for alluding unjust capture and detention all these years. I hope that Assange does not suffer this fate, though he is presently suffering nonetheless. While those that care about him, believe in him, appreciate him and/or support him (or his work) suffer on a different level by not being able to help him. Such is the sad state of our so called western democracies and our ‘just’ international laws.

 

Julian Assange Arrested in UK: Plans for Extradition to the US

11 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Current Events, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

assange.jpg

I am breaking the hiatus of this blog to say a few quick words about today’s arrest of Julian Assange by British authorities. After seven long years of asylum, it appears that Ecuador’s (relatively new) government has sold out the famed whistle blower. According to the RT news site, Assange has been arrested for “extradition to the United States” for publishing Wikileaks. Whatever one may think of Assange, this is a sad day. In the end, Assange is being handed over to the US for leaking something that was true.

As RT reports elsewhere, “The whistleblower garnered massive international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks released classified US military footage, entitled ‘Collateral Murder’, of a US Apache helicopter gunship opening fire on a number of people, killing 12 including two Reuters staff, and injuring two children.” RT continues, “the footage, as well as US war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 200,000 diplomatic cables, were leaked to the site by US Army soldier Chelsea Manning.” Manning “was tried by a US tribunal and sentenced to 35 years in jail for disclosing the materials.”

The leaked footage was not a work of fiction, nor was it fake news. It is an incident that actually happened; it is the truth. Essentially, Assange has been hunted for years, and is today being arrested in the UK and will be handed over to the US, for leaking the truth. What does it say about the world we live in, and the so-called ‘freedom of the press’ the west pride’s itself on; when those that dare tell the truth or spread the truth or leak the truth are hunted like dogs?

The situation is unfolding. Check back for updates.

 

Sense-A Poem

31 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by in Poetry, Society

≈ Leave a comment

Running in and out and away from the time in which I live
Contained in body but lost in sense

No sense, false sense, whatever happened to common-sense?

We don’t need the people to think and ask questions
No, now you’re talking non-sense

Can you speak to me in a language that makes sense?

The markets are open, so let the bidding commence
Running back and forth through time and social con-sci-ence

The heavy weight of the price tag…
That constant, conflated, inflated, perpetual, pre-tense

Pre-time, pre-war, pre-love, pre-life
Yes, scavenger bees must pollinate strife