This is http://www.essayz.com/a9406172.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION CREATION CREATION IMAGINE 940617 Much of the emphasis in scientific circles is upon the proof of hypotheses. Much less emphasis is placed upon the creative process of the formulation of and/or blockage of the formulation of valid hypotheses. Until a valid hypothesis has been formulated it cannot be tested to prove it to be a valid hypothesis, or not. Experimental procedures and computations in the absence of a valid hypothesis are unlikely to bear as much sweet fruit as in the presence of a valid hypothesis. In the absence of a valid hypothesis a great deal of experimentation, computation, publishing, and reading can take place without bearing any sweet fruit. In the light of the above it would seem prudent to give a significant amount of attention to those factors which play a role in stimulating the creative formulation of valid hypotheses; and in un-blocking whatever blocks may play a role in inhibiting the formulation of valid hypotheses. Collusive games of mutual self deception, addictions and patterns of codependent support thereof are highly likely to play major roles in blacking the creative formulation of valid hypotheses which would unmask and reveal the falsehoods inherent in a dominant paradigm. Wherever a dominant paradigm is protecting misleading aspects of the dominant paradigm including outright lies, it is highly likely that participants in collusive games of mutual self deception will work to block the formulation of creative hypotheses which would reveal the dishonest aspects of the dominant paradigm. The formulation of revealing hypotheses is likely to be blocked by dominant paradigms which are being supported addictively by collusive games of mutual self deception and by codependent supporters thereof. Technocrats are bound by duty to support high technology in preference to low technology; and so are bound to choose (in formulating hypotheses) high technology solutions to problems, over low technology solutions which would be more efficient. Such choices are bound to be made at the sub-conscious level---in order to protect the dishonesty of the collusive games of mutual self deception of the high-technology technocrats. The intensive development of nuclear energy in preference over the development of solar energy illustrates this tendency. The focus is upon proving high technology to be of high value and worthy of great respect. Solar energy originates in nuclear fusion in a natural furnace at the center of the sun. It delivers to the surface of the earth abundant energy adequate to meet any reasonable human needs. The technology to make use of that energy to meet human needs is low-level technology in comparison to the technology of duplicating the conditions of the solar core furnace---and so solar energy technology does not taste as sweet to a technocrat, as does nuclear technology. Passive solar energy technology is not as effective a celebration of high technology to a technocrat--- as is a technology which entails large fans, pumps, controls, and electrical components. When it comes to formulating hypotheses as to what technology will be most useful in helping humans meet their needs, the technocrat will thus block awareness of effective low technology possibilities, and glorify awareness of less effective high technology possibilities. Passive solar collectors will be regarded less highly than will sophisticated technologies for concentrating solar energy. Active fans and pumps will be favored over passive conductive paths. The process of evaluating possible technologies begins at the subconscious level which is often dominated by the rules and regulations of collusive games of mutual self deception of the dominant leaders of the dominant technologies. Many hypotheses which could be evaluated and shown to be valid and useful, are thus blocked from getting conscious consideration. People who are prone to challenge the assertions, inhibitions, assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, and dogmas of technocratic colluders need to be encouraged to bring out into the open their creative hypotheses. This will not happen unless they are given the true gift of security which is the freedom to be safely vulnerable within a community which is truly supportive of people being true to themselves and each other; regardless of the dominant rules of collusive games of mutual self deception. The removal of blockages to the sharing of creative hypotheses is as important as is the formulation of high technologies by which to test sophisticated hypotheses with sophisticated technologies. The process of making value judgments regarding the relative worth of alternative (subconscious) hypotheses is very important; but it is a process which participants in the collusions of exclusive objectivity cannot talk about freely in the darkness of the rules of their collusive games of mutual self deception. Hypotheses which challenge the viability of collusive games of mutual self deception are kept hidden in the sub-conscious, and therefore are never tested. People who are compulsively objective and preoccupied with celebrations of sophisticated high-technology cannot engage in dialogue about their value judgments, ideals, and the relative worth/importance of alternative ways of spending time and other resources. Such dialogue is taboo under the rules of their collusive games of mutual self deception; and so dialogue is regarded as of such low importance as not to merit consideration. Dialogue is shut out by intensive concentration of time, attention, energy and other resources upon the celebration of sophisticated high-technology. The achievement of security through the use of high technology weapons is technologically seen as much sweeter, than is the giving of true gifts of security enjoyed as the freedom to be safely vulnerable. Thus the arms races have concentrated upon higher and higher levels of technological sophistication; rather than upon creating secure contexts for open and honest dialogue among people who are ignorant of and alienated from each other. "People to People" programs of dialogue have receive much less support than have high technology defensive programs entailing sophisticated explosives and transportation vehicles for delivering explosives to the presence of unknown people who are misunderstood in the absence of open and honest dialogue with them. The defensive programs designed to achieve security through high technology have often undermined the possibilities of "People to People" programs designed to create secure contexts for open and honest dialogue---and so defensive programs have lowered the level of security. High technology programs are much more likely to squander scarce resources, than are low technology programs; but they are technologically more sweet. These abstractions are illustrated forcefully in a speech which anthropologist Laura Nader gave before a convention of the IEEE in the 1980's. It deals with her experiences as an anthropologist who was asked to serve on a national level panel named to address the dilemma of how the U.S.A. could become energy independent by the year 2000. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================