volume deals with the attributes of domain of science. It shows what science is and what it is not, what material is included
and what is excluded, and not only where the boundaries are located but also how definite and distinct are these boundaries.
It also discusses who scientists are, what they do, and how do they work.
volume attempts to discuss fundamental concepts of science which forms the foundation upon which the edifice of science is
built. This book attempts to give reader a feeling for what the science is, to point out potential pitfalls and other sources
of possible trouble that has directly or indirectly delayed the perpetual motion. However, science is our best method of gaining
objective knowledge. It is a self-correcting system that applies logic and empirical
methods to test theories of nature against the observable data. All theories
are given a fair treatment by the scientific method, but if they are not up to the mark, if they fail the tests, then they
should be abandoned. Science does not prove its theories; they are all accepted
only tentatively. In studying the development of scientific theories we frequently find that a particular theory seems to
ebb and flow, now being received, now rejected. A scientist is always willing
to throw out even the most successful of theories if new evidence is found that conflicts with existing theory. However, to overthrow a successful theory requires extraordinary evidence like perpetual motion and it
is to be seen now how long perpetual motionist will wait to see their invention and theory to get recognition in science.
Eminent philosophers and critics of science like Ernst mach, Henri Poincare, C.S. Peirce, P.W. Bridgman and J.B. Stallo have
attempted to find out loopholes in the structure of physics and elucidate relationship between symbols and facts of physics.
The school of thought has been called “positivism,” pragmatism and operationalism. This volume on the limitations
of science follows their lines in general. The spirit of all these school of thoughts is one and the same.....
any serious investigations into perpetual motion and any effort to invent perpetual motion, scientist declared that perpetual
motion is impossible and it is absurd. It is the characteristics of the ‘conditioned mind ' that it regards as absurd
anything that does not agree with itself; i.e. with accepted conceptions. But it would be correct to say that accepted conceptions
are not necessarily true; and, therefore, absurdity is not necessarily identical with untruth. We have many examples from
the history of science to demonstrate this assertion. The pronouncement of the heliocentric theory was regarded as 'absurd.'
Yet it has been found to be true. It seemed absurd for no other reason than because
it conflicted with accepted doctrines of religion. In the course of time, facts will always prove or disprove whatever the
Mind, the chief arbitrator, approves or disapproves of. Sooner or later, science has to recognize truth of perpetual motion
and realize that law of conservation of energy is based on a bundle of more or less illogical conceptions corollaries of which
may be true, many of which are certainly false.
presenting the volume, an attempt is made to review structure of science in the light of perpetual motion so that readers
can realize that philosophy including scientific theories largely deals with the interpretations of facts, and not with the
facts themselves. The facts may be true, and the interpretations false. Now, in the present work, we do not question the truth
of any known facts, i.e. of any actually observed phenomena, but merely the correctness of their interpretations. For example,
it is fact that planetary motion is around the sun is perpetual but its interpretation by physicist and perpetual motion are
different that leads to contradictory worldviews. By various mechanical means, assumptions, empirical theories, and conceptual
models cosmologists and astronomers are trying with tremendous vigor to understand working of universe. Yet they are far away
from the truth reason being that they have been unable to conceive principle of perpetual motion in nature. Over-balancing
wheel is one of the best models to explain working of the universe.....
In spite of the limitations of science, the sheer success and power of the science over that
last 150 years is undoubtedly a great land mark in human history, as we have seen. This raises the obvious question and temptation.
Is the success of science a model for all other human knowledge? Should we not make the scientific way of knowing the only
way of knowing? But science has many limitations. “We can admittedly find that nothing in physics or chemistry that
has even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because
we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart
from the laws of physics and chemistry, we must also consider laws of quite a different
throws no light on the realm of moral, aesthetic or religious beliefs. Science can’t help us with questions about the
supernatural. Study of science only implies the study of material universe in which man live and of which he is a part. The
scientific method limits the search for reality to the physical; it excludes the spiritual. The scientific method cannot address
ethical questions. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science; thus the
scientific method is amoral. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning, or morality. For such answers,
science is dependent on the values and personal beliefs of those who use it. Science, therefore, has great potential for both
good and evil. It can be used to make vaccines or poisons, nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. It can be used to clean
up the environment or to pollute it.
method has many other limitations. Science does not make moral judgments. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the
laws of nature is on very dangerous ground. To find the answers to the "big questions" of life, we cannot look only to science.
Scientific method is limited to a process defined by that which is measurable and repeatable. It can be used to argue for
God or against Him. Science by itself offers no moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us
how natural law works, while telling us nothing about its origins. Scientific method can only comprehend physical reality,
lacking as it does and denying the benefit of psychic intuition and gnosis that enables perception of other (non-physical)
worlds and cycles of existence.
very success of mathematics tempts scientists to overdo it, to ignore the limits of science. Science advance its boundaries
to explore the area of known by excursions into unknown by finding relationship between previously uncorrelated facts, by
making new observations. Every scientist is aware of great area of ignorance in or near his specialty. Every invention or
discovery only whets appetite for more opens up new streams of knowledge and points out more paths to follow into unknown.
Therefore, the question that how much science can expand beyond its present boundaries cannot be answered for the extent of
the unknown or uncorrelated is infinite. Therefore science has to proceed without limit. ……..