Karl Loren's Research Philosophy

Top

This page was the subject of an edition of the Monday Letter of January 15, 2007

Karl Loren uses guiding criteria to judge whether his research is leading in the right direction or the wrong direction.

One rule is that the findings of his research must lead to a MORE simple understanding of the subject, not a greater complication of the subject.

Here is an example of the situation from which an rule can be shown:

Biochemists have unraveled what were once the central mysteries of life, and have begun to fill in the details. They have traced how molecular machines break food molecules into their building blocks and then reassemble these parts to build and renew tissue. Many details of the structure of human cells remain unknown (single cells have billions of large molecules of thousands of different kinds), but biochemists have mapped every part of some viruses. Biochemical laboratories often sport a large wall chart showing how the chief molecular building blocks flow through bacteria. Biochemists understand much of the process of life in detail, and what they don't understand seems to operate on the same principles. The mystery of heredity has become the industry of genetic engineering. Even embryonic development and memory are being explained in terms of changes in biochemistry and cell structure. (source)

This excerpt shows that there is a tremendous complexity of detail just in one single cell. If understanding that cell required development and understanding of all that complexity it should be obvious that this research would never finish. There is MUCH research floating around just now that is of just this type.

Karl's approach would be to look for more simple explanations of the function and structure of cells than by looking into the infinite complexity that, surely, does exist.

Here is a graphic illustration:

is explained by BB

BB is explained by CCC

CCC is explained by DDDD

There is no ending of the complexity for such a series.

Rather consider this series

DDDDD is explained by

CCCC and

CCCC is explained by BBB

And BBB is explained by AA

and AA is explained by 0

So if the puzzle seems to be ZZZZZ

The solution must be some form of XXXX

Your research with this model, is not finished until you can find how "simplicity" is the answer, not more complexity.

Sometimes the term "inductive logic" is used to describe this type of research. (see below)Any research into "health" cannot help but take into account, also, "life." As long as health researchers fail to acknowledge spiritual factors as well as physical factors, Karl's opinion is that the research is flawed from before the beginning. Those who THOUGHT they were using she "scientific method" or inductive logic invaribly missed boat on the first and most vital part of inductive logic (see inductive logic, below)

Scientists "know" that "life" affects health, but don't have a workable definition of "life" and certainly don't know how to factor life into the equation of health.

A good example of that is how scientists could select the "virus" as the cause of disease. They have surely done that -- as in the election of the AIDs virus for "research" aimed at finding a way to KILL that virus.

The truth is, however, that a virus is NOT a living entity, just taking a standard medical dictionary definition of "life" and comparing that definition with the characteristics of "virus." Since a virus is not "alive" even per medical dictionaries, how can you "kill" it. Karl wrote about this many years ago HERE.

And, how can something which is NOT alive CAUSE an effect?

This is the philosophical level of Karl's Research.

Finally, Karl feels that research must find the path of causastion in the direction of atomic physics, energy and life, not germs, chemistry, drugs, surgery, viruses and genes.

Return To Top

------------------------------------------------

The Inductive (Scientific) Method