Are we Anti-science? NO

People accuse us of being anti-science. We understand why. On the face of it we've evaluated the scientific method, found it wanting, and rejected it. We exposed the logical fallacy of scientific truths.

Truth

Truth isn't falsifiable so, technically, there's no hypothesis for it. What if it isn't testable either? That means it's unscientific. And yet it's still the truth. We're watching a philosophical train wreck in slow-motion.

A Theory of First Cause

Stylalized ball-and-stick water molecule

First cause isn't the same as the Big Bang. The Big Bang, or more accurately we should say nucleosynthesis, is an effect, not a cause. Popular Science (SciPop) promotes speculation about a possible first cause.

SciPop

For centuries the scientific mainstream has been building a narrative of godless existence (SciPop). The purpose of SciPop is to account for human existence in a way that requires no supernatural cause.

Scientific Hypotheses

For a hypothesis to be a truly "scientific hypothesis" it must be possible to design experiments that can test and either confirm or refute predictions which have been made using the hypothesis.

The Scientific Method

One of the ways that popular science (SciPop) attempts to be rigorous and hold itself accountable is through use of something called the scientific method. It's a systematic approach to investigation.

Is Simple Still Best?

If we're supposed to accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumption, lets compare how many assumptions have been made between the popular science paradigm (SciPop) and Matty's Paradigm.