This paragraph removed until Quantonics receives permission from FPS to publish Dr. Smith's original letter in full here. 18Jun2001 - Doug.

Please see Scott Smith's original FPS letter here. By Dr. Smith's request we removed his letter's text which appeared by paragraph here for readers' convenience: i.e., side-by-side coverage and synchrony with our review comments.

See his June 14, 2001 letter to Quantonics stating his concerns about our use of his original text and his concerns about Doug's viewpoints and perspectives.

See Doug's June 15, 2001 response to Dr. Smith's letter.

Dr. Smith references prior letters in American Physical Society's (APS') Forum on Physics and Society (FPS).

Doug is a member of APS and participates in their FPS.

Our intent in reviewing Dr. Smith's letter is to try to show that his science is objective. As such his science is just as 'fundamental' in its perspective as organized religion's insistence that God objectively created our 'reality' 6000 years ago. Our position is that both modern classical science and organized religion share an objective mind set; however, classical science uses its objective mind set to worship physical objects, and organized religion uses its objective (via Aquinas, et al.) mind set to worship phenomenal subjects. As a result their contrary analyses put them in extreme opposition against one another, and we have our religious-scientific culture wars.

Our solution to this issue is to recognize extreme ills of classical objective either/or thinking which we in Quantonics call Classical Thing-king Methods. In place of CTMs' we suggest more Bohrian, quantum, complementary, both/and Quantonic Think-king Modes (QTMs).

We will show Dr. Smith's nearly pure objectivity in his use of classical language and terms. We see his language and terms as evidence that he objectively knows about quantum science, but that he does not understand quantum science. If he did, we think he would use more complementary, both/and language and terminology.

We assume Dr. Smith's distinctions between science and non-science are analogous distinctions, respectively twixt objective 'reality' and subjective 'reality.'

(Our bold and color, to emphasize topics for comment.)

For any scientific statement to be testable, we presume that it must adhere radical formal mechanism, i.e., rules of formal predicate logic.

For any scientific statement to be falsifiable, it must adhere a formal predicate edict of a logical 'not' as an objective construct. By that we mean, 'not' must have a both logical and physical (substantial) opposite or negative.

We agree that no ('scientific') theory can be proven. But we disagree that it can be disproven using testability and falsifiability. Why? Scientific method is innately incapable of achieving falsifiability! Why? Classical negation is subjective! It is impossible to 'negate' a physical object. Physical objects are non-negatable!

Physical objects, instead of having opposites, rather have complements. A n¤t of anything is everything else. This is why Bergson, et al., are insistent that classical 'not' is subjective. Classical 'not' is n¤t objective, in any formal, radically mechanistic way!

Further, testability is n¤t absolute. All scientific test results are uncertain! N¤ test result may ever be absolute, and worse — results are always a matter of interpretation, and thus resort to opinion.

Even repeatability is uncertain. We may only say that tests which are run in other times and facilities are analogous, never identical.

Evidence too, is always subject to scientific judgment, n¤t absolute formal precision.

Bottom line, science can neither 'prove' n¤r 'disprove' any theory absolutely!

What is unique about quantum science is that it admits this either provable ¤r disprovable 'problem' going in to any test as foundation to quantum uncertainty. All test outcomes in quantum reality are both provable and disprovable which is analogous to saying "quantum uncertain." By comparison, classical science still deludes itself, as Dr. Smith shows, that it can disprove via falsifiability.

Classical science thinks it can decide absolutely whether a glass of water is half full. Quantum science says you will always be uncertain. Why? Absolute quantum flux!

(Our bold and color, to emphasize topics for comment.)

Using our comments from previous paragraph, we would say this: "There is both evidence which can disprove this statement and there is evidence which can prove this statement."

Too, there is 'mu' evidence which has little to do with Dr. Smith's quote.

What is important here, is to distinguish twixt a classical scientific context and a religious context. Each of those two contexts have entirely different sets of assumptions (axioms) about reality. In some religious contexts Smith's statement about God's creation is provable. But only provable using those contexts' axiom sets. As Einstein said, "Only the theory decides what one can observe." Some religious theories decide some practitioners can observe God's creation as described by Dr. Smith. Others do n¤t. And we all know that science theory does n¤t.

Our big problem philosophically here is that some religions want their axioms to be 'the' axioms for everyone, while simultaneously classical science or even general science wants its axioms to be 'the' axioms for everyone.

Clearly Dr. Smith thinks that science's axioms are 'the' axioms. You can see this in his statements like, "The statement is not scientific." In other words, if you do 'not' use science to think, your reasoning is at best questionable, certainly "non-scientific," and we (i.e., scientists) will call your memes various appellations like, "absurd, ludicrous, nonsense, insane, etc." Smith goes on to do just that.

(Our bold and color, to emphasize topics for comment.)

Is classical science's objectivism truly scientific? In Dr. Smith's next paragraph of his letter he claims Newton's ontology is now considered "false." See our bold black highlight. Yet we see Dr. Smith using both Newtonian and Aristotelian concepts to convey his arguments. Is Dr. Smith's approach truly scientific?

Let's list just a few "false" Newtonian and Aristotelian concepts:

• Classical monism 'exists' (e.g., grand universals, one scientific 'reality' fits all, etc.),
• Analytic homogeneity 'exists' (physical calculus, unitemporality)
• Classical localable, isolable, separable, reducible objects 'exist,'
• Classical 'no,' 'not,' and other 'negative' concepts are formally and absolutely assessable objective concepts,
• Classical unitemporal motion is 'real' change,
• Classical 'state' may be achieved by stopping reality while one conveniently 'observes' it,
• and so on...

(Our bold and color, to emphasize topics for comment.)

We showed in an earlier paragraph that science is innately incapable of establishing absolute falseness. We also showed that 'not' and its kin 'no' are subjective, not objective memes.

Newton's mechanics is only a useful approximation within Dr. Smith's presumed set of scientific axioms. Aristotle's syllogisms and Newton's mechanics blinder Dr. Smith and his ilk to a much vaster quantumesque reality, a reality no single set of 'axioms' may ever describe. A reality which shall remain always, to finite intellect, quantum uncertain.

Dr. Smith's use of utility reeks of what Poincaré called "convention." Utility is a code word for scientific parochialism, scientific provincialism. Convention implies convenience. Dr. Smith is asking that science be a science of convenience, especially human convenience. He hints that classical science is not a science of reality. How many scientists could agree with that assessment?

Again, in our view, "...any (well-educated) freshman philosophy student can tell you, 'We can both prove the universe was not created this morning, and we can prove the universe was created this morning.'" Again, as Einstein said, "Only the theory decides what one can observe." What one can both prove and not prove depends upon which set or sets of assumptions/axioms one adheres.

And which set of axioms, which theory, would these scientists use to "...agree on which (statements) were scientific and which were not scientific...?"

And here we see Dr. Smith's either/or classicism again. Either "...bad science...pseudo science," or good science. Dr. Smith is telling us that one set of axiomatic statements (one theory) is 'real' science and all others are either bad or pseudo science!

(Our bold and color, to emphasize topics for comment.)

Only way we know how to establish 'facts' and 'contradiction' is to stay in an Aristotelian/Newtonian ontology. But Dr. Smith already told us Newton's Aristotelian-based ontology is false!

Hmmm...