This presentation discusses and compares Objective science and Contemporary Science. Watch the presentation on YouTube. The content of the seminar comes from the recently published book: Gurdjieff's Hydrogens: Volume 1 The Ray of Creation. The Presentation series is organized by The Austin Gurdjieff Society. (The group website is: https://austingurdjieff.org/) One of the Group leaders is Robin Bloor, a pupil of Rina Hands who was, in turn, a pupil of Gurdjieff. He is the author of several books on The Work. For more information on his books click on the following link: https://tofathomthegist.com/books/ [Seminar content includes: Side by side comparison of two sciences, the suggestibility problem, a review of the scientific method, mathematics and reality, the degeneration of science, a litany of assertions, Newton’s thought experiments, the SAFIRE project, the concepts of Objective Science, knowledge]

1. TWO
SCIENCES

2. SUBJECT MATTER
1. Side by side comparison of two sciences
2. The suggestibility problem
3. A review of the scientific method
4. Mathematics and reality
5. Degeneration of science
6. A litany of assertions
7. Newton’s thought experiments
8. The SAFIRE project
9. The concepts of Objective Science
10. Knowledge

3. ”
“
To know means to know all. Not to know all means not to
know. In order to know all, it is only necessary to know a little.
But, in order to know this little, it is first necessary to know
pretty damn much.
Gurdjieff

4. TWO DISTINCT SCIENCES
Objective Science
Created by “scientists of new formation” and
affirmed by a “priesthood” consensus
Atheistic or agnostic
Materialistic, but only up to a point
Many laws. Hypotheses, Theories and Laws all
on the same level. No hierarchy.
Changeable
Fragmented
“Proved” by “repeatable experiment” and
shared data
Contemporary Science
Created by “higher mind” and revealed by C
Influence
Deist (there is a supreme intelligence)
Even God is material
Just three laws, but Laws apply at different
levels in a hierarchy
Immutable
Unified
“Proved” by scientific experiment or personal
experiment, supported by shared data

5. SUGGESTIBILITY AND BELIEF
Belief: an emotional attitude towards a lie.
Suggestibility is one of man’s chief features. It
naturally engenders belief and lip service.
…‘being-Partkdolg-duty’ also finally ceased to be actualized,
on account of which this, for them, most maleficent property
of their psyche, namely, ‘suggestibility,’ began gradually to
increase;
The Tales p646
In school, on TV, in the media, in books and magazines,
modern science suggests a particular atheistic world view
(“Big Bang” etc.) which many people in The Work seem
to accept and may even believe.
We need to know that the dogma of modern science has
little or no foundation.

6. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Wikipedia says this:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is
based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific
principles of reasoning.
We can list the process point by point.
Any assertion has to be verified by independent
experimentation. It is clear from this that science is
essentially collaborative.
This process can yield useful data and reveal important
knowledge.
Objective science is similarly empirical, and depends on
measurable evidence.
1. Observation: Some phenomenon is observed
that is deemed worthy of investigation in order to
arrive at an explanation that can be expressed as a
set of principles.
2. Problem statement: A statement of the
phenomenon is made as accurately as possible,
perhaps in the form of a question such as: How
does A react with B to produce C?
3. Prior evidence: Prior validated evidence relating
to the phenomenon (if any exists) is examined
and used if necessary as reference material.
4. Hypothesis: A hypothesis is proposed derived
both from existing evidence and the formulation
of the problem statement. The general rule here is
that the hypothesis must be falsifiable.
5. Prediction: A set of unambiguous and well-
defined predictions representing the logical
consequences of the hypothesis are formulated.
6. Experiment(s): The predictions of the hypothesis
are empirically tested with measured results being
obtained.
7. Analysis: An analysis of the outcome of the
experiments is conducted in an effort to prove the
hypothesis wrong. If the hypothesis is not negated
by the experiments, the outcome of the
experiments can be regarded as support for the
hypothesis.
8. Reformulation: If the hypothesis is disproved
then it may be reformulated and another iteration
of prediction, experiment and analysis may take
place.

7. WEAKNESSES IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
There are a number of weaknesses in the scientific
method itself that need to be understood.
They do not invalidate scientific activity but they
suggest that care be taken in evaluating scientific
claims.
We discuss these, one by one.
These are not the primary cause for the
prevalence of misleading ideas from the scientific
community.
Human behavior stands behind the worst
excesses.
1. Repeatability: Repeatability is difficult to
establish. For example none of the experiments
carried out the the Large Hadron Collider are
repeatable.
2. The Closed System: To eliminate possible
extraneous influences the experiment needs to
take place within a closed system.
3. Statistics: Many scientific theories are established
on the basis of “high correlation.” It is well known
that correlation is not causation, although where
there is causation there will inevitably be
correlation.
4. Data Scarcity: In some areas, paleontology is a
good example, data is too scarce for any
conclusions to be reliable.

8. HUMAN, ALL TOO HUMAN
There are some inherent human failings that
manifest themselves in the sphere of science
as well as outside it.
Aside from these two, we have the
phenomenon of “pecking to death” which
Gurdjieff refers to in The Tales in respect of
Mesmer.
Two people, Braid and Charcot profited from
this, able to claim it as their field.
In the field of health there are frequent
incidents of the suppression of specific
treatments by the commercial establishment.
Some of it is, of course, legitimate
discouragement.
1. Science abhors a theory vacuum. In an area where
these is no explanation for a phenomenon some
scientists will normally step forward with some
manufactured idea. The magnetism of Earth provides a
good example. It is as though the words “we don’t
know” are difficult to pronounce.
2. Cognitive bias: And also outright cheating by
inventing data are sometimes detected. Famously
Mendel, the “Father of Genetics,” was called out for
fabricating some of his experimental results. The polite
way to talk about this is to label it cognitive bias, since
in some situations at least, cognitive bias rather than
outright cheating is a plausible explanation.

9. MATHEMATICS AND REALITY
As a discipline, Mathematic is a very
sophisticated modeling capability. It is
unusual in that, within in own context, it is
never wrong.
Gurdjieff stated, “All life is mathematics.”
This is possibly true for the mathematics of
Objective science, a form of discrete
mathematics.
Einstein said, “As far as the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do
not refer to reality.” This is true for most of
contemporary science.
The scientific abuse of Mathematics …
1. When Mathematics and Reality Agree: There
are some situations (counting is the best example)
where the mathematics is the reality. It is possible
that the mathematics of Objective science
provides a much wider example—but we do not
know for sure.
2. The Map is not the Territory: Beyond the above
examples, mathematics is simply creating a map,
and the map is not the territory. It can only model
a situation. In this role it can be very useful. It can
be accurately predictive. It may even point to
further areas to investigate.
3. Extrapolation: When the map is not the territory,
extrapolation is unjustified. It is an error—an error
that contemporary science frequently makes.

10. ”
“
Is the Absolute subject to number
or
is He the creator of number?
G’S HYDROGENS
A QUESTION TO PONDER

11. THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT
In its day the Catholic Church controlled the
dissemination of “knowledge.” Its hegemony
was destroyed by the printing press.
The “Scientific establishment” gradually took
its place. It now controls the dissemination of
“knowledge” as it controls funding (for
experiments), the availability of expensive
facilities and the scientific media.
It has become very protective of the “status
quo.” Consequently, many ridiculous theories
are promoted and supported.
Many of the successes claimed for science are
actually engineering successes.

12. ”
“
You do not need to be a master carpenter
to detect a wobbly table.
Anon

13. A LITANY OF SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS
Assertion Observation
Objects called Black Holes are deemed
to exist—regions of spacetime where
gravity is so strong that nothing—
no particles or EMR—can escape the
gravitational pull.
Their existence is predicted
mathematically by the theory of general
relativity. It is generally believed by
astrophysicists that you will find them at
the center of galaxies.
There is no physical evidence that such
objects exist.
This is a good example of extrapolation
taken too far. The math has been
confused with the reality. It is unlikely
that such objects exist and, by their
supposed nature it will never be possible
to prove that they do.
The Universe is pervaded by “dark
matter.” About 85% of the matter in the
universe is of this invisible form (it does
not absorb, reflect or emit
electromagnetic radiation).
This is presumed to exist because gravity
is not able to explain the motion of
galaxies. Thus more matter that you
cannot see is hypothesized.
Dark matter is a truly bizarre idea. The
strange thing is that anyone takes it
seriously. Surely it would make much
more sense to try to rethink how
galaxies behave. The gravity explanation
is probably wrong. Most likely it is
electromagnetic forces that account for
galactic behavior.
Dark energy is a theoretical form of
energy that was hypothesized to explain
the apparent observation that the
Universe does not “expand” at a
constant rate. The “expansion” appears
to be accelerating. Since the 1990s, dark
energy has been the most accepted
premise to account for the accelerated
expansion. Dark energy is estimated to
make up 68% of the total energy in the
present-day observable universe.
The universe is expanding, with the
galaxies generally moving away from
each other.
This is “proven” by the red-shift
detected in the electromagnetic
radiation from other galaxies.
Eventually, in the distant future, all the
galaxies will disappear from the sky
There are several explanations of red
shift other than “distant objects are
moving away.” Work done by Halton
Arp demonstrated that there were
quasars associated with specific galaxies
that had much higher red shifts than
their local galaxy. This discredits the
doppler explanation for red shift.
The universe is not expanding.
Objective science definitely does not
regard the universe as expanding.
Naturally, dark energy is unobservable
and thus takes its place with other
unobservable things, black holes and
dark matter. From the Objective science
perspective, the universe is not
expanding and dark energy does not
exist.
There is a Strong Nuclear Force. It is
6x1039 times stronger than gravity. It
binds together the fundamental
particles (such as quarks) to form larger
particles. It also keeps the protons and
neutrons of an atom's nucleus together.
It operates only when particles are close
to one another (roughly the diameter of
a proton apart). It gets weaker as
subatomic particles move closer
together. Protons in an atoms nucleus
repel one another because of their
charge, but the strong force overcomes
that, keeping the nucleus bound
together.
This Strong Nuclear Force sounds like a
tailored invention to try to explain
something that is not well understood.
Where else in reality do we find a force
that behaves in this way? If it applies at
this low level why does it not manifest at
higher levels?
Most likely the current atomic model is
wrong and some manifestation of the
electromagnetic force is what keeps
Protons together. The supposed
existence of this force violates the “as
above, so below” principle of Objective
science.
There is a Weak Nuclear Force. It is only
10-13 the strength of the Strong Nuclear
Force. It is required to explain beta
decay, where a neutron in a nucleus
changes into a proton and expels an
electron and a neutrino. The idea was
invented by Enrico Fermi. It is an
attractive force that works at an
extremely short range of about 0.1
percent of the diameter of a proton. It is
deemed to contribute to nuclear fusion
interactions.
The Weak Nuclear Force is similar to its
cousin, the Strong Nuclear Force in that
it looks to be an imaginative invention
of something that does not actually
exist.
From the Objective science perspective
it does not go with “as above, so below.”
Without these two forces the whole of
the Standard Model of atomic particles
would collapse. It provides the model
for what is supposed to occur at
subatomic levels.

14. BACK TO BASICS: THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
Moving Object: An object is moving in space in a
given direction. If you remove the whole of the
universe except that object, is it still moving?
There is no “right answer.” The question reduces
to: “Is motion intrinsic or relative?”
The Spinning Bucket: A bucket half-full of water is
spinning and thus the edges of the water climb up
the bucket giving it a concave surface. If you
remove the whole of the universe, is the bucket still
spinning and will the water still climb up the sides?
The question reduces to: “Is spin intrinsic or
relative?”
Newton adopted the “intrinsic” viewpoint.
Objective science takes the “relative” viewpoint.

15. MACH AND WEBER
Mach and Weber are likely to emerge as the new
scientific heroes.
Ernst Mach based his physics on the idea that
the answer to the two thought experiment is
“no.” Hence he assumed that mass and motion
are relative to the context.
His book, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and
Historical Exposition of Its Principles is still in print.
Wilhelm Weber developed his own
electromagnetic and gravitational theories. He
proposed a credible model of the atomic nucleus
that needed neither the strong nor weak forces
to explain atomic behavior.
For more details read: Weber’s Electrodynamics by
A.K. Assis
Ernst Mach
1838 - 1916
Wilhelm Weber
1804 - 1891

16. A CHANGE IN THE DYNAMIC
There was no means of challenging
the scientific establishment until
the success of the SAFIRE project.
Because of its success the current
theories of astrophysics will
gradually become discredited to be
displaced by an electric universe
model of some kind.
This creates an opening for a
“popular articulation” of Objective
Science.

17. BASIC CONCEPTS OF OBJECTIVE SCIENCE
Concept Description Concept Description
Materiality Everything is material. Even the
Absolute is material.
A medium, aether, permeates the
universe acting as a substrate that
supports its materiality. Space is not a
vacuum.
A cosmos is a living being (an ordered
system). Galaxies, planets, men,
plants, even bacteria are cosmoses.
Cosmoses contain other cosmoses.
Something is a living being if it has an
individual existence: it has a lifetime,
it eats, breathes, and perceives and it
reproduces in some way.
Aether
Cosmos
Life
Laws
Atoms
The Trogo-
autoegocrat
Substance
All laws derive from the Law of Three
and Law of Seven.
An atom of a substance is the smallest
quantity of the substance which retains
all its properties, including its cosmic
properties.
If something is not alive, it is a
substance. It is found either within a
cosmic unit or outside of it.
Cosmic units consume each other or
the substances of each other at every
level below the Absolute. At death
their substances become food.

18. DATA AND INFORMATION
Most of the data of contemporary science can be
trusted and can be useful IF you understand how
it was derived.
Information includes theories, opinions, gossip,
propaganda and misinformation. It can be true or
false. Only information that is true has any value.
In Man, information lives in the formatory
center. It is undigested and often repeated. Its
repetition is a form of lying.
Knowledge and information are not the same
thing. For example, information can be store in
computers but knowledge cannot - because a
computer never knows whether something is
true.

19. KNOWLEDGE
Everything is material. Both knowledge and
information are material. There is a limited
supply of each which varies very little over time.
Probably, knowledge can be stored only in Man
(or higher beings) as it requires intellectual
capability for its production.
There is a knowledge of Man #1, #2, #3, #4, #5,
#6, #7 and higher.
Knowledge of The Work is C influence or B
influence. It manifests as information that
requires digestion.
If digested, it becomes knowledge. Being is
required for knowledge to ascend to a higher
level. Only high levels of being are capable of
digesting some knowledge.

20. WHERE TO GO WITH THIS
The intention of the Hydrogens book
and this series of seminars is to begin a
campaign to change the narrative.
The intention is that there will be a non-
atheistic narrative world view that is
credible.
The SAFIRE project has made this
possible because it has put the World of
Physics in crisis.
So, maybe, we can take advantage of that.

21. THE
Q & A