Glenn Borchardt

A revolutionary reexamination of longstanding conceptual assumptions, May 8, 2007

Reviewer: Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

Written by Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D. (Director of the Progressive Science Institute, Berkeley, California), The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein is more of a philosophy text than a science text. Questioning the twentieth century "scientific worldview" systems philosophy, which focuses too heavily upon systems and too little upon the influence of environments, "The Scientific Worldview" instead advances a system of "univironmental determinism" - a mechanism of evolution (not just Darwinian evolution, but all aspects of evolution) based on the fundamental axiom that whatever happens to something results from the infinite variety of matter in motion within and without. The ultimate logical extrapolation of the system is the predicate that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. The Scientific Worldview is most readily understandable by intermediate to advanced students and scholars of philosophy, though novice and lay readers willing to apply serious thought and study will be able to follow the complex tenets discussed. A revolutionary reexamination of longstanding conceptual assumptions about the base nature of life, the universe, and everything.

John Burroughs
Reviewer… (altro)

This was the prelude to The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein, which includes most of the text of The Ten Assumptions of Science in Chapter 2.

The following reviews were at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/059531127X/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102...

What the pursuit of knowledge comes down to, March 11, 2005
Reviewer: selfconscious (Las Vegas, Nevada USA) -

If you look at the previous reviews I have posted on Amazon over the recent years, you will understand that I have been a person on a quest. I have felt driven to understand what I find going on in the world. My quest finally gets vindicated in the complex constellations of thought behind this book.

Among the conclusions worth mentioning here is the fact that there is simply no means to access knowledge via reading without an appreciation for the processes which occur within the writer *before* the writer begins translating observations into the language we read.

The writer can't help but bring various assumptions to the task of writing. And, being human, the writer can assume wrongly more often and more easily than rightly. But how is a reader to know the difference when taking up the work the writer offers? Would you read the work of an author who assumes wrongly about the world? Wouldn't it be helpful to have a clue as to how to tell the difference?

Glenn Borchardt has meticulously identified the places where human scientists assume wrongly consistently enough to be subtly discoverable. Those of us who care about assuming rightly can benefit mightily by objectively examining the assumptions already held by those we entrust with our further enlightenment. Else what we are really up to is perhaps not really enlightenment.

In addition, Borchardt has very helpfully made the contrast discussed more clear by providing examples of it in various current works available at his Amazon Listmania. Paying careful attention to the comments on each work listed pays benefits in furthering concrete understanding. In addition, a way ahead is indicated through the work of the other authors listed.

Foundations of Science, December 9, 2004
Reviewer: Roger Burbach (Berkeley, CA)

The Ten Assumptions of Science: Towards a New Scientific Worldview
By Glenn Borchardt

Review by Roger Burbach

Borchardt's ten assumptions of science constitute a philosophy of science, or as he prefers to call it, a foundation for a "scientific worldview." This is a must read for those who want to understand the logic of science, particularly young scientists who need to know how their particular area of work fits into the broader conceptualization and reasoning of science.

For the ordinary lay person, the text will be difficult to follow at times. But it is worth ploughing through 120 pages of text to understand some of the fundamentals of science that affect our everyday lives. One does not need to understand any advanced math or complicated scientific theories to read this book.

All of the ten assumptions are interrelated, and as Borchardt says, he employs a "strict determinism" to come up with each of the assumptions. This means every assumption has to follow a logic that conforms to what we see occurring in the real world. In putting determinism at the center of his scientific philosophy, he is not simply talking about the old religious and philosophic debate over whether man has a free will or is predestined. Rather for Borchardt all matter and life, indeed the entire universe, is shaped by determinism. What determinism means is that everything in the universe is interconnected and interrelated.

This determinism is not the old mechanistic worldview derived by the eighteenth century philosophers who believed that the heavens and the earth were guided by a number of set physical laws. They asserted that if humankind could over time come up with these laws, we could predict where the universe as well as humanity are headed. What prevents Borchardt from adopting this crude determinism is one of his ten assumptions of science, Uncertainty. Uncertainty means that we can never understand all the forces that will interact with any given object or event. And this uncertainty derives from another one of the ten assumptions, Infinity. Because the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of objects and forces at work, making it impossible to calculate or understand all of them.

The interrelation of uncertainty and infinity means that we can for example come closer and closer to calculating the precise orbit of the earth around the sun as our scientific instruments of measuring become more advanced: But we will never come up with the exact orbit of the earth because there are an infinite number of objects in outer space that affect the orbit of the earth. Indeed each orbit of the earth around the sun is different from the previous one because of changes and events that occur, such as the approach of meteorites, the flare up of solar storms, the movement of our galaxy as it approaches and collides with other galaxies, etc. And we will never be able to calculate all these different forces and events to know with exact certitude the next orbit of the earth.

The ten assumptions of science also contradict some of the beliefs embodied in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Borchardt does not believe that the universe is curved, or the derived implication, that time travel is possible. With Einstein's relativity, a person who flew near the speed of light in space and returned to earth would be a different age than a classmate that/he had left behind. This is the basis of many scifi books and movies.

The first reason why this is impossible is because the universe is not curved, it is infinite: it exists in all directions, it does not curve around and come back as Einstein argues. Sorry to disappoint many viewers of Star Gate and Star Trek, but likewise travel backwards through time is an impossibility. It contradicts another of the scientific assumptions, that of Irreversibility. No event or motion can ever be repeated. Matter can never be recombined or restructured exactly as it existed before.

For me the most fascinating implication of the ten assumptions of science is that they are at variance with the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe. Here several assumptions of science come into play. First is the assumption of Infinity. Since the universe is infinite, it has no beginning or end. The Big Bang also contradicts the assumption of Conservation, meaning that the form of matter can change, but it can never be destroyed or created. Thus it is impossible for the universe to have originated about 14 billion light years ago from a tiny pinpoint as most Big Bang theorists argue. Borchardt points out a couple of simple reasons why this is simply inconceivable. How could all of the universe that we see today have come from a simple pinpoint? Moreover, what is the universe, at 14 billions years, expanding into? Something out there has to "preexist." To argue to the contrary is like those who once argued that the world was flat, that if sailors went to far they would drop off the earth and fall into a void. Just as this early view of the earth was set up in conformity with the beliefs of the Catholic Church, so today's belief in the Big Bang coincides with scientists who believe that there was a moment of creation for the universe.

Borchardt's determinism and ten assumptions do not by any means take away from our ability to marvel at the universe. Because the universe is infinite, we will never exhaust our exploration or understanding of the world. There are always new "laws," new facts, new understandings, and even new assumptions of science that will be uncovered. We can push the boundaries as we seek to understand our place in the universe, but we will never cease to be amazed and astounded at what we discover.

Roger Burbach
Author: "Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice"
Co-Author of "Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire"… (altro)