Being able to observe or to make observations is not the same as being observant. The first two are part of the scientific method but it is only the third that sets the scientific method into motion. We participate in the first two because of our individual skill but the third occurs because of our humanity.

Humans do not kill because of what is in their hands but because of what is in their minds.

The purpose of science is not to satisfy human curiosity but to ensure human survival. Why is it that we have stopped doing any real science? Science has now become high tech journalism, reporting on what has been observed. That is not true science.

All we do is report on what we observe. Science is not involved in the quest to ensure human survival. The greatest threat to human survival is not in our environment but among ourselves. Science has restricted itself to the study of the environment. That is, to put it kindly, voyeurism.

The days of pretending that what happens half-way around the globe does not affect us are over. It is time to drop the pretense if we are interested in human progress. Remember Galileo. Humans would never have walked on the moon if they had continued to pretend (believe) that the earth was the center of the universe.

The first step of the Scientific Method is observation, but observation is not measurement. We need to differentiate between the Scientific Method of Nature and the Scientific Methodologies humans have developed.

The education of the individual is always limited by the education of the whole, never the other way around. The philosophy that humanity can be changed one person at a time is well-intentioned but will never work.

If your theology is not based on an honest appraisal of reality and the text on which your theology is based you are not really in any moral position to question the veracity of any politician.

Why do the overwhelming majority of humans live according to the philosophy that humans are not part of nature? We seem to think that our ability to make choices has placed us out of the jurisdiction of the laws that maintain nature.

Our goal in research is to study and make summary statements about the entire distribution of data associated with our sample, but we do so by making measurements on the individual members of the sample in order to get those individual points of data. Even though our goal is to study the sample we never directly observe the sample; instead we observe the individual members of the sample. The challenge for the statistician/researcher is to recognize that his study of the sample is accomplished by studying the parts of the sample, and that when he studied the individual parts he was only studying the sample, not the individual parts. Synthesis can only be accomplished through analysis but the danger lies in believing that the analysis is the synthesis.

If you don't know the purpose of a thing you are not really in position to assess its effectiveness. After all these years it seems that we don't know the purpose of education and science.

Test scores reflect only one part of the process of education; the part that applies at the individual level. An educational process that focuses primarily on test scores or individual performance is deficient. Human problems are not caused by our inability to understand the word around us but by our inability to understand each other. Unfortunately, not only do our educational systems pay scant attention to the latter but they seem unaware of the insidious negative effect that the area they focus on has on our ability to understand each other.

It is a lack of faith to have faith without checking the basis of your faith. Faith must not only be based on what an entity can do but in how important it is. That is why I don't only drive my car but I check the oil and other fluids. It makes no sense to have faith in what God can do and have no faith in how important He is to you. If He is important to you, you will continue to assess what you think about Him.

Success is defined by understanding, not by preparation. No amount of preparation will enable you a accomplish a task for which you are not designed or which you do not understand.

Many people seem to think that Systems Thinking is the same thing as thinking systemically. This leads to the idea that there is a group we can identify as systems thinkers. Systems Thinking is a natural condition; to think systemically is a positive action by an individual. Thinking they are the same could be counterproductive, One result is that we are more focused on how to lead organizations/systems instead of understanding the role of systems thinking in how these entities lead themselves.

The greatest battles of all time have been won by the brain not by brute force. This is why the key is critical thinking and not critical action. Yet we have confused the two, advocating critical action while believing it is critical thinking.

Breaking the resistance

Humans have experienced world peace in the past so there can be world peace in the future. The key lies in understanding that the remedy we propose for any situation depends on our analysis of how that condition came into existence. At the moment we seem to think that the disruption we now witness among humans began in one area and has spread throughout the species. It is from this analysis we have developed the idea of healing the world one person at a time. The analysis is wrong so the remedy is also wrong.
The only place where we can find an adequate analysis of how disruption entered human consciousness is in the Bible. Unfortunately, because that section of the Bible -- Genesis 1-4 -- is also accepted as Scripture to both Jews and Christians it allows for both theological and social interpretations. Unfortunately, the only interpretation that has been accepted is the theological interpretation which says that disruption among humans was sown by an outside influence. This leads to the expectation that world peace must also be imposed by an outside influence. Both the analysis and the remedy are wrong.
The key to finding the remedy lies is accurately analyzing how the disruption entered our psyche. We need a social interpretation of Genesis 1-4. How much longer will the theological world resist?

Two Bibles

How can a book that is so widely read, studied, analyzed and discussed be so universally misinterpreted? When people say "The Bible" says they don't even realize that there are two parts to the Bible and the part that is used as justification for what they claim the other part says does not say what they believe it says.

I am not blaming anyone because I did not see it either. But I see it now. Most people believe that the first chapter of Genesis was written to prove that God created the world. That sounds reasonable based on how it begins: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." But they fail to see that if that was the reason why that chapter was written, chapter two would not have been included in the book as well.

Because they assume a false purpose for the chapter they have not taken the time to figure out the real purpose why the chapter was placed in the book of Genesis.

In short, that chapter was written along with chapter 2, 3 and 4 to explain why humans do all the inhumane things that they do. The way it is written it also provides the way to get rid of them, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I can understand why believers would miss that. They like the idea of fallen man being rescued by God. I don't understand how skeptics and non-believers could miss it

Freedom to Choose

With more than seven billion humans on this planet, living on seven continents as citizens of hundreds of independent nations, and subscribing to thousands of philosophies it is difficult to see how we can ever get all humans to live the way that every other species on the planet lives; committed to the welfare of the species rather than to the welfare of their parochial group. Yet, this is absolutely necessary for the future well-being of our species. Crisis after crisis highlights that fact.

We need to get everyone on the same page so that the money now being wasted on military budgets and standing armies can be redirected to development projects. The first step to getting us all on the same page is to teach universally that our much vaunted freedom of choice is not freedom to choose our behavior, which is the way we exercise it, but the freedom to choose which group we belong to, which is the way nature enforces it.

This method is superior to other attempts at defusing the tension among humans in that it does not require anyone to make any significant changes in their philosophy, nor does it tell them what to do. There is no call for change nor a call for compromise, and nothing stands in the way of peace than our resistance to change or compromise. It accomplishes our goal, and we all desire a world without the threat of war, by utilizing the power of nature that produced a thriving ecosystem into which humans finally emerged. In other words it produces the results nature would have had without human interference. In nature, each entity performs in a certain way because of the group to which it belongs. It is not the behavior of entities that determines the nature of a species but the species that determines how members of that species behaves.

Can we really trust science?

Most people are unaware of the distinction between science and the scientific method. I have done a cursory review of the scientific literature and, even though this review was not exhaustive, it does not appear that the literature places any emphasis on the fact that whereas science is the tool used by humans to develop models of reality the scientific method, especially within the context of peer review, is the tool used by scientists to test and compare those models. For this reason, most people use science and the scientific method as synonymous terms. They speak of science when the context shows that they mean the scientific method and they speak of the scientific method when they mean science.

This confusion can probably be attributed to the fact that science and the scientific method have been key players in some of the most intense cultural wars in which humans have engaged over the years, being presented as being antagonistic to religion, especially in discussions pertaining to the origins of the species. This state of war that exists between religion and science has caused the scientific community to pay scant attention to the role that science plays in human progress and development. Consequently, the scientific literature focuses only on the results of applying the scientific method to test different scientific models in various contexts. The fact that science itself is a model of a process that has been ongoing in nature from the very beginning remains unaddressed. Science is the human model of how nature deals with diversity and selects from a variety of options. It deserves the same level of scrutiny that we have applied to our scientific models of how various areas of nature functions.

We use the scientific method to compare and choose among conflicting scientific models that represent how we think nature functions. But this process depends on an assumption that is not true. Science assumes that humans, as observers, are not a part of nature’s developmental processes. The remarkable success that we have achieved with the scientific method and peer review has caused us to further assume that the meta-model within which we have applied the scientific model is either without error or has been implemented without error. As with all other assumptions we make, these assumptions need to be tested and I will attempt to do so here using data that is already available and is generally accepted as being true. If we had tested these assumptions we would already have found the answer to the most pressing problems humans face because we would have identified importance of the connection between science and human development.

As can be inferred from the last sentence, it is not that we do not understand the connection between science and human development. The evidence is overwhelming. What we have overlooked is the fact that science does not only contribute to our development but it is a reflection of how well we have developed as a species. It serves as both thermometer and thermostat.

Separation of church ans state, but who is protected?

The state exists to protect its citizens. The principle of of the separation of church and state keeps church and state from having undue influence over each other but no one seems to care that under current SCOTUS doctrine, this principle does not protect the citizen from the church to which he belongs.

If a citizen/church member brings suit against his church for violation of his rights the current doctrine allows the church to argue that the court has no jurisdiction over the matter because it is a purely religious matter.

A Fair Constitution

Now, if "We the People" can create a Constitution that mandates the Government to promote the general welfare how can we think it unconstitutional for the Government to mandate that "We the People" should contribute to the general welfare?

Health Care and the Individual Mandate

If Court watchers are correct, it appears that the future of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act may hinge on whether the Court perceives that the mandate changes the relationship between the Government and the citizen in a “fundamental way.” What, then, is that relationship?

Many people seem to view the Federal Government as a conveyance in which the citizens ride. That is not the Constitutional view, however. In the Constitution the people have vested “legislative Powers . . . in a Congress of the United States” but each citizen is a part of this conveyance. This is the only constitutional relationship between the government and the people.

The question, then, becomes whether any member of the citizenry who decides or is unable to contribute to the general Welfare has a continuing right to demand that the rest of the citizenry should provide that citizen with healthcare? Has the citizen, by opting out of the collective functioning of the government, given up his right under the protection of the Constitution to a share in the general Welfare?

In the preamble to the Constitution the people established the Constitution as the primary vehicle for promoting the general welfare. Everyone agrees that the individual mandate is the only way to ensure that individual premiums from private insurance providers are universally affordable. To declare the individual mandate to be contrary to the Constitution would interfere with the constitutional duty of Congress to promote the general welfare.

Acting out

It is almost axiomatic that our thoughts are private property. It is not as obvious, though it is easily shown, that they no longer belong to us exclusively the moment they are translated into actions or are shared with others. We may be held responsible for them but they are no longer ours exclusively. Our thoughts are self-contained within our minds, out of the range of human sensors but our actions are influenced by the nature of the relationships we have with our surroundings. Everything we do occurs within the context of those relationships. It is important to recognize that our actions are performed on behalf of one or more of these relationships.