How can we prove that there is a scientific law of nature that describes how harmony works

How can we prove that there is a discovery of a scientific law of nature, which we call a law of harmony or a law of alignment, that describes how harmony works?


What sort of proof is needed to prove a discovery of a scientific law of nature? Do you need clinical trials, or random trials, which go beyond anecdotal evidence? Or, is there something else than even those three? The benefits of those first two, for example, in trying to assess the efficacy of a drug, is that they will give you hard factual data that describes the reality or truth of a situation. But again is there another way to assess truth? Naturally truth is built upon fact, not opinion. So, what is it that we're leading up to here?

There is a way, a different way to assess truth. We could sum it up with the word logic, but one might not know from their knowledge of that word how logic can establish truth certain. Yet, it can, and a simple example will help illustrate.

A dog is an objective reality. We can see it. Of course, we don't see the word dog on the object. We label the object a dog.



A dog is considered an animal. Again, this is an objective reality, but one which is dependent upon a method or approach for labeling objects. One approach humans use for understanding reality is defining words. So, an animal is defined as: "a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."[i]


A dog falls into that category of being an animal based on that definition.


Another approach humans have for understanding and describing reality is categorization. So, for example, staying with our animal example: "Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia."[ii]


That description is making use of another approach that science uses to describe reality, which is to use hierarchical classifications. The kingdom Animila is one category in the Linneaus Taxonomy. Taxonomy, more generally is "In biology, taxonomy is the science of naming, defining and classifying groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics."[iii]


There is no one in science that would say that a taxonomy is not a scientific approach.

It, of course, makes use of logic. The logic inherent in a taxonomy is the logic of grouping by characteristic.


Groupings by characteristic is a method of science that goes beyond simply definitional description. Continuing with our animal example, the Linneaus Taxonomy groups by characteristics. So, it goes beyond a definitional description, such as "Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia."[iv] Before that definition of an animal there was the word animalis, the latin which referred to the concept of an animal, and meant"having breath, having soul or living being" and had no reference to a taxonomy. The reference to the taxonomy leads one to see that in the Linnaean taxonomy the following characteristics apply to an animal: "Members of the animal kingdom are eukaryotic and multicellular but have no cell wall or photosynthetic pigments. They are mostly motile and they are heterotrophic, which means they must feed on other organisms and cannot make their own food. They reproduce sexually or asexually."[iv]


To make clear the difference between a definition and a taxonomy, or scientific grouping, consider the object gold. Gold existed as an objective reality even before the periodic table was invented. It was a shiny object that was valuable long before it was, in the Periodic Table, grouped in period 6, group 11, and considered Au with the following properties: Atomic weight 196.966, 79 Protons, 118 Neutrons, 79 Electrons, with oxidation states of +1 and +3. (Why is gold where it is in the Periodic Table? Because of its electron configuration. Who would have thought that elements could be arranged by qualities and characteristics? There are underlying relationships in nature that take some discovering to identify.)


So, so far you probably are appreciating the fact that object reality is understood and described by utilizing definitions and groupings according to qualities or characteristics.

No one would say of what has been described so far, that utilization of definitions and taxonomies and tables is an insubstantial way to describe and understand reality - fact and objective fact. In fact, one might say accurately that they are indispensable to describing and understanding reality.

Now, when you group natural organisms or natural minerals according to qualities or characteristics or properties, if you group them by subjective opinions, such as prettier, "my favorite," or most popular, then you are not grouping them in any scientific way. But if you group them by factual qualities, characteristics, or properties, then that is scientific. It is scientific because the groupings are subject to verification - that is, they can be objectively verified. The qualities of a dog in the subspecies can be verified.[v, vi] The qualities of an element in the noble metals group of the periodic table can be verified.




The fact that no one prior to Dmitri Mendeleev ever thought to group minerals before does not mean that these characteristics of the mineral, gold, did not exist. Nor does it mean that the relationship between the characteristics of one element in the table did not have any relationship to the characteristics of another element in the table.[vii] Gold (AU) is related to platinum and mercury in following way - they are 1 proton away from each other (and they have the same number of electrons, which is why they are in the same row).








Similarly, in this column on the table, all of the elements are found in metallic form in nature.


The fact that these relationships between the elements were not known before Mendeleev noticed them, beginning in 1869, did, again, not mean that the relationships were not there. When the relationships were discovered, a discovery was made. That is, something that existed was found to exist. And again it was subject to independent verification.

Now, this is the nature of what is being asserted here. We're asserting that there is a law of nature, a scientific law of nature that we've discovered.

So, what type of proof could one use to establish a discovery. Let's continue with the point we began above, that a dog is an animal. You can see that that assertion is a true assertion for two reasons: 1) a dog's characteristics fall in with the definitional characteristics; 2) a dog's characteristics fall in with the taxonomy's grouping of characteristics.

Now, if we make the assertion that Oliver is a dog, what we're saying is that a particular "object" who has been given the name Oliver fits the characteristics (definitionally and according to the taxonomy) of a dog.

These two statements are factually true and accurate, and were they subject to independent analysis would come out as true, when tried by all - or universally. It is a truth we might say. It holds up under analysis and scrutiny. Neither of these two statements is a discovery of a scientific law of nature, but as propositions they are true. Again, this does not mean that they are discoveries, laws or anything of that nature. They are simply true statements.

Yet, it is useful to go down this path. If we take the next step and say, Oliver is an animal, how did we do that? We did that through logical deduction. If: A dog is an animal; If Oliver is a dog, then by deductive logic, Oliver is also an animal. This is a truth as well.

Now, this way of reasoning has utility in establishing or independently verifying something we cannot see. So, for example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal."[viii]


We do not have to wait until Harold dies to say, "he will die." If the first premise is true, and the second is true, then the third is true. Notice too we do not need a clinical trial, or a random sample, we can actually turn to an abundance of anecdotal evidence to render this a true syllogism.

Now, this way of deducing that Harold is a mortal, or deducing anything for that matter has utility for proving a law of nature, a scientific law of nature. We don't have to draw the conclusion separate from, or apart from, the premises, because the conclusion simply follows from the premises. That is, we don't have to prove the conclusion that we are going to draw any more than we have to prove that Harold is a mortal. If we know that "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man," then we know "Harold is mortal." We have proved Harold is a mortal by deductive logic.

So, what are we asserting and proving through deductive logic? We are proving that Being loving is a part of a whole we're calling harmony, or harmonious relationships. How are we using deductive logic to prove this?

Let's start with the premise that a heart pumps. Or, said differently, a heart functions as a pump. This is a true statement. As true and verifiable as the statement all men are mortal.

A heart pumps.

We can broaden that to:

A heart functions like a pump, delivering nourishing resources to the body, when the heart is healthy.

Now, let's call that premise one.

P1: A heart functions like a pump, delivering nourishing resources to the body, when the heart is healthy.

Premise two is as follows.

P2: Being loving we give and receive nourishing resources.

Who would not say that being loving involves giving and receiving nourishing resources. This may be rewritten in the following equally true way.

P2: Being loving, we give and receive time, attention, affection and other resources in ways that nourish.

Is that a true statement? It is as true a statement as Harold is a man. Yes, it is a true statement.

So, we have two premises. What is the conclusion?

Conclusion: Being loving, we act like a heart, when healthy, in that we give and receive in ways that nourish.

Now, you may have to read that a few times to

P1: A heart functions like a pump, delivering nourishing resources to the body, when the heart is healthy.

P2: Being loving, we give and receive time, attention, affection and other resources in ways that nourish.

Conclusion: Being loving, we act like a heart, when healthy, in that we give and receive in ways that nourish.

Let's look again at each.

P1: A heart functions like a pump, delivering nourishing resources to the body, when the heart is healthy.

Do you accept premise one as a reflection of reality?

P2: Being loving, we give and receive time, attention, affection and other resources in ways that nourish.

Do you accept premise two as a reflection of reality?

Conclusion: Being loving, we act like a heart, when healthy, in that we give and receive in ways that nourish.

Does that conclusion follow from the first two premises? Yes, the conclusion requires you to infer that a pump delivering and receiving is similar to giving and receiving. We certainly could have made that more explicit.

P1: A heart functions like a pump, delivering (giving and receiving) nourishing resources to the body, when the heart is healthy.

P2: Being loving, we give and receive (and act like a pump, giving and receiving) time, attention, affection and other resources in ways that nourish.

Conclusion: Being loving, we act like a heart, when healthy, in that we give and receive in ways that nourish.

Does this make sense? Is it logical? If so, you've understood this logical proof. A logical proof.

Again, you did not need a clinical trial, or a random sample to deduce the conclusion, it followed from the premises.

Now, really, that is the essence of the way this discovery is proved. You repeat that approach with each of several behaviors (being loving is a behavior) noting that each behavior (such as being thoughtful, being responsive and so on) acts like a particular part of the body.

You add up all the body parts and you have a whole body.

You add up all the behavioral parts and what do you have?

Well you have a whole ____, a whole something. You could say you have a "whole" behavior. The more you understand what a whole behavior is the more you realize that words like harmony or alignment fit in that blank. Sure, you could simply call it a whole behavior. Being loving is a behavior. Being thoughtful is a behavior. Add lots of behaviors that act like parts and you have a whole behavior.




Notes


[i] Google definition, animal, available at https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+animal&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS825US825&oq=define%3A+animal&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.5342j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.


[ii] Wikipedia, animal, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal.


[iii] Wikipedia, Taxonomy (biology) available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology).


[iv] See e.g., Siyavula, Five Kingdom System, available at https://www.siyavula.com/read/science/grade-10-lifesciences/biodiversity-and-classification/09-biodiversity-and-classification-04


[v] Taxonomy, by Rosalie Madayag, published Oct 2, 2014, available at https://www.slideshare.net/rosaliemadayag/taxonomy-39783258.


[vi] Lumen learning, Taxonomy, available at https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-biology2/chapter/taxonomy-2/.


[vii] Images from National Library of Medicine, PubChem, available at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/; Wikipedia, Noble metals, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_metal.

[viii] Live Science, Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning By Alina Bradford - Live Science Contributor July 25, 2017, available at https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html.

7 views