How many people have cheered about the “discovery” of the Higgs Boson? And how many would question my use of quotation marks when writing the word <discovery>? How many people are thrilled with CERN, while having absolutely no idea of the real and true mechanisms that govern the creation of science today? I have said it many times before: Science is the process of formulating prediction models. Nothing less. Nothing more!

I have argued many times before on the above so I will save you the copy-paste of other articles you can find here (see articles tagged with “Science Philosophy“). The only purpose if this article is to advise on the obvious: when worshiping something, try to learn more about it. No matter how many particles are “discovered”, they will be all VANISHED (and I mean LITERALLY!) when a new physics theory will come in place to replace the existing one! Do you think this it too much? Think again.

It was the same way the ludicrous idea of instant forces from a distance (call me “Newtonian gravity”) was totally replaced by the curved timespace (call me “Einstein gravity”). It was the same way the all mighty Ether suddently “seized to exist” when we “discovered” that light had a constant speed (too controversy in that one – check related articles).

Just waiting for the String Theory to completely obliterate all we “know” and tell us that what we think we see does not “exist”! … 🙂

And a bonus tip: Interpreting the tips in the signal of a SEM microscope as “atoms” does not mean we actually “see” atoms! Check out this page to see what scientists do to avoid directly answering the all simple question “Have we seen atoms?”… Or take a look at the Yahoo! Answers page… Search in Google images for “atoms” and you will see very good graphics but not one image that resembles the atom the CERN boys are searching for. Even scanning tunneling microscope does not guarrantee you that what you see is what you “see”. Measuring  tunneling-current density is not “seeing”. And do not even dare to forget the key name: Hillman (check out here)… It is not just a matter of not-enough magnification. It is a matter of “seeing what you like to see”…

And a second bonus tip: The fact that each model is more “accurate” than the previous one does not mean anything more than “we create the next model so as to fit better the observations”! It is the models who are created based on observations! and not models who happen to be more “accurate” because we “progress”… The difference is important. AFTER knowing the desired results, one can create a much more accurate geocentric model than the heliocentric we have now… (even though that would not be more “correct” – see Earth at the Center of the Universe?)