2) Arguments about the Evidence Base I

In "Reproducibility, Correctness, and Buildability: the 3 Principles for Ethical Public Dissemination of Computer Science and Engineering Research" presented at the Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, 2014 IEEE International Symposium Kristin Yvonne Rozier, Intelligent Systems Division NASA Ames Research Center and Eric W. D. Rozier pointed out, that recently, many prominent researchers have expressed concerns about shortfalls in the current methods and standards for public dissemination of science. Cited there, in Communications of the ACM, Vardi expressed concern that "our system has compromised one of the corner stones of scientific publication – peer review" [1] and Crowcroft, Keshav, and McKeown pointed out flaws in the current review process that have led to the decline in the quality of academic papers [2]. Birman and Schneider called for "an informed debate and a community response" lest our behavior "stunt the impact of our work and retard evolution of the scientific enterprise" [3]. Vitek and Kalibera summed up the problem [4] just in systems research. The point is, such shortfalls even mainly in the usage of the hard sciences, let alone in the so-called opinion, myth and hype based humanities#2, leave those responsible at large still ignorant of their terrible shortcomings. All of that can only be resolved with the science#3 to be introduced here. Especially in science#2 authors are made to just prove that their work is novel or interesting for their peers, rather than making them prove that their findings are relevant for the common good, let alone true for real people.

The bloody history of misleading paradigms, up to the one recently exposed by Allan Greenspan, who at the very least conceded his error in regulating the world into the financial crisis of 2008, speaks for itself! Simply aiming to mitigate these problems under OPTION I by providing a roadmap to more easily evaluate essential elements of different types of research, and simply provide a common language for a more appealing evaluation by recoding the real problem, might seem politically necessary to keep people together, but it certainly cannot be sufficient for the simple reason of

M=manipulation know-how

------------------------------------- = STRESS < DEATH

O=relevant orientation considered

These days, too many papers do not even adhere to the three principles (reproducibility, correctness, buildability) let alone be relevant for real human systems. In all three so far organized faculties of science, the social Darwinian rat race for wanting to be the leading science is part of the hidden agenda for paper dissemination; getting attention in the information flood! This is typical under OPTION I which reflects the dominant science#2 dynamic to get %-acceptance. In fact organized science cannot even resolve that problem among themselves, let alone that of how to become mentally FIT421 (4 this decisive and stressful 21st century) before the point of no return. Especially science#2 is exhausting itself in hypes, nitpicking or outrighteously rejecting each other say when it is about ecology, or the health hazard of smoking - even instrumentalizing scientists#1 to lobby with spin. And so there is little use for their arguments to build upon where it extends the now technologically enhanced#1 information flood beyond meaningful comprehension. The mainstream is then simply forming the zeitgeist with its known unfulfilling, self-destructive inner dynamic with decreasing life-times of the hypes encapsulated by the media#0 to promote hidden agendas.

All lacking O=inner trans-orientation leaves real people in their remaining M=pre-trap manipulative earning a living detached and meaningless, stressful as part of the problem, in the evolving International Disorder. This inadequate state of the scientific underpinning by the "humanities" should be as alarming as the resulting thinking catastrophes, since they evoke human catastrophes! So the first problem to be resolved with science#3 is that of how to get the necessary attention for it beyond the hope for a return on investment under OPTION I!

- Science#1 Fiction#0 author Isaac Asimov gave up on this challenge by leaving the solution to a robot named Giscard, that evolved himself in his innate §1-3 of the laws of robotics to include §0, which allowed it to keep humanity out of further mischief after it had destroyed planet Earth. This "self-improvement" when his old §1-3 self became inadequate almost blew Giscard the robot's s positronic brain as what so far happened to robot at their wits end with §1-3. By employing the non-sequitur of the principle of radical contingency, Asimov, faced with most humans still impotent to learn from even their own history, chickened out to deliver a bestseller instead.

- The Swiss bestseller#2 author#0 Friedrich Dürrenmatt in his play, "The Physicists", had to resort to hiding in madness, and ultimately to murder, to prevent the ultimate misuse of their newly discovered science#1, in business as usually by politics#2 similarly capitulated in view of addressing the challenge of science#3.

- The philosopher Karl Popper and the Physics Prof. Richard Feynman have so far been the outstanding critics about the state of organized science – which nevertheless at Feynman's time allowed the Challenger Disaster in 1986 where managers put aside over 200 medium and some 170 graver faults as acceptable flight risks. Feynman has analyzed that thinking-catastrophe but nevertheless the spin has made meanwhile that human catastrophe an accident! The grave faults, included that one that led to the carrier rocket of the Space Shuttle exploding with 7 astronauts.

- Thus science#2 overrules engineers with their science#1 again and again, and even more so personally relevant warnings, just like on the Titanic 1912!

- In fact in "The Open Society and its Enemy" Popper has identified philosophy as the enemy without being explicit what open means, and which can only reasonably mean, open to the personally relevant life- through task-fulfillment!

- Not just during the Middle Ages, there have so far been all kinds of crazy ideas around such as dogmatically claiming the material world#1 to be a "flat earth society".

And such spin intimidates ordinary people's life confined to world#2 in their world#0 of thinking beneath their common sense. To not end in those three worlds of OPTION I's human catastrophes, we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science:

- In the South Seas is a cargo cult was formed by people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now, obsessed with technologically#1 enhanced world#1. And so they have arranged to make things look like runways, putting fires along the sides of the runways, making a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas, and then waited for the airplanes to land,

- like the Jews when they danced around the Golden Calf in the vain hope to get free from God' Laws.

This is idolizing the principle of radical contingency like the evolution myths of pseudo-science still evoked today when to lazy to understand Creation as it is and impacts on our lives, greedy to be a trend speaker instead! In worldly#2 terms those natives are doing everything right in the way they perceived the forms of the US army in which they saw gods...

The cargo cult forms#0 were perfectly looking right to them. But as such, they did not work, like idols who cannot overrule the Creator by recode him as a God, then among others. Feynman came up with calling these kinds of approaches cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing what keeps the form do the job, in a design in which the laws of nature result in a functional machine.

In summary, to design and duplicate what works, requires all of the understanding - to which only real human people are able, and information to help others to not just judge the value of your contribution, but to understand its intentions and reasons. Conscious people learn from life and experience that the relationship truths will come out to prevail. Only then other experimenters can repeat your experiment and find out whether you were right or wrong. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory#1. The impact of your art#0 will trigger the intended reaction or not in your target group, and implementing the conclusion as your social theories#2 will get more or less support. And, although when you are after gaining some temporary fame and excitement by tricks, spin and bluff, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in view of the four science faculties#1-2-0, and that requires there excludes conscience#3!

And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care of not to fool yourself, which is missing to a large extent in much of the research communities, in their teaching of and conditioning students with cargo cult science above all in the humanities and economics! A bottom line difficulty is of course, the fact that the three faculties of science#0-2-1 under OPTION I are reducing real human beings to subjects und rather than understand the former, to condition them to fit the prevailing ideology. And all that is shamelessly performed by the leading performers up to politics, with the impotence of so far organized science to take timely responsibility for their thinking catastrophes; too bad, we nee another war to release the non-understood social unrest such as in the great depression of 1929! It was caused by the thinking catastrophe of the leading economists and those pulling the strings to make Hitler come to power...

People have experienced enough should have learned enough from human catastrophes about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. But the long bloody history of not learning and unlearning how to not fool ourselves, letting go scientific integrity and conscience for short-term illusions, e.g. OPTION I, disproves such wishful expectations to appease people with, and obscure OPTION I. In addition it is sad to see that  science#3 has hardly been specifically included in any educational or training course. And so the OPTION I "sin" is past on from generation to generation with the blessings of the intellectual, the post-modern priests and mullahs.

In fact the first ethical requirement is that you must not fool yourself by defaulting to OPTION I even if you are the easiest person to fool and are experiencing the fear to otherwise get outcast. Peter and Judas die not pass the test after Jesus was crucified, but the Vatican rose to its evil Middle Age power on Peter as its rock, this is not kidding! Instead you have to understand cause and action up to your inner relationship truths to become FIT421 and then part of the solution. Do you now experience Papageno's voice in Mozart's "Magic Flute" to rather pretend that anything goes for you without facing the Peter-Judas test? Only if you do not fool yourself when the cook cries three times, can you refrain from not fooling others. You just have to become honest in an inner way beyond fear of the Empire striking back with its OPTION I conventions and ideals and that do everything to inhibit you giving meaning to your OPTION II. Only when you also refrain from fooling layman when you're talking as a scientist, or children as an adult, are you not part of the problem of passing on OPTION I forms and rituals from  generation to generation, but rather overcome that curse with your OPTION II as part of the solution!

Context