Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!


I am an autodidactic self teaching life long student.

“Self-education is the essence of genuine learning. Self-education provides the vitality that enables us to turn information into knowledge and to use it in such a way that it adds meaning to life. Indeed, without the dynamism of self-education, we fail to develop our own interests to the degree that they become driving forces in their own right. When our motivation arises from internal sources the value of lifelong learning becomes readily apparent to us.”

“Adult learning is more than alternative education, self-help, self-study, or training. Self-directed inquiry can free you from the cultural traps of today’s postmodern world. When you think for yourself, you take control of your life. Intellectual ability and critical thinking soon become substitutes for paper credentials. You’ll enjoy a higher quality of life, make smarter career choices, and begin to see ways to better our society.” – Autodidactic Press Books

I am a Systems Scientist with a specialty in Systems Analysis in Computer Science and Neuro-Linguistics focus.

I study Belief, Faith, Knowledge, Agreement Realities, Consensus and how they aid or cripple people. I study cults, and how beliefs impact interpersonal interactions and inter-group dynamics in the wider culture and within subcultures.

I am a skeptic. As a systems scientist I make my living being skeptical, it’s an essential skill for finding out how things actually work. Inherently a major portion of my learning skills are using questions to inquire into how things work and many of those questions are “show me the evidence” or “how can I verify your claims” or “how can that experiment be done at home” …. One of my aims is to find out what the actual alleged evidence for a claim is and then attempt to validate or refute that (however the case may turn out to be).

Regarding climate science, I am not a professional climate scientist however I’ve been studying it for a long while now. Climate science is a vast field which is precisely why I ask questions of experts and of those asserting any claims especially claims that it’s “established science” as that means that they must present hard evidence with verification tests that can be used to validate or refute their claims. Failure to present the evidence along with the means to verify their claims means that it’s not “settled science” and certainly not verifiable science (the current state of String Theory for example). Non-verifiable scientific claims are highly problematic indeed.

Anyone who claims they know everything about a field of science is, well to be polite, pulling the wool over your eyes.

While I’m not a professional climate scientist I have over the last ten years or so been learning a lot about climate science attempting to ascertain if the wild claims of those soothsaying doomsday scenarios with the Catastrophic AGW Hypothesis have any merit to their claims or not. It is a strange journey into the depths of many fields of science indeed. Strange because at times the “wild claims seem like they are so much soothsaying of doomsday”.

Even stranger still is the vehemence that people spew when you ask them basic questions to explain the science so that one might comprehend what they are asserting and the evidential basis for it so that one can verify or refute their claims.

Why is it that people are so angry when they are asked basic science questions? It’s like it’s an annoyance to them, an inconvenience to provide the evidence and how they arrived at their conclusions. That is against the Philosophy of Science and the Scientific Method which have as a key essential aspect skepticism and asking questions to find out what is valid science and what is not.

Sorting out the nonsense from the real stuff is much harder due to the volume of material. Fortunately there are some straight forward sanity checks that can be applied that bound the problems and put them into perspective.

Still much to learn and much to test and validate or refute.

I am committed to the pursuit of excellence in science, science education, writing, my career and in my interpersonal relationships.

I have written simulation systems software, civil engineering Modeling, CAD and Rebar Design software used in the construction of buildings, bridges and the construction of chemical weapons destruction facilities.

I do know something of software models of the real world.

I have written complex financial calculators used by large banks to manage, or mismanage as the case may be, vast sums of capital.

I know many computer languages from Assembly Language (that’s the actual binary instructions that make computers work) on up to very advanced object oriented computer languages. I am creating a very high level computer language.

I have designed innovative and sophisticated yet very simple Cellular Automata that was used in a commercial product to generate solutions guaranteed to produce a path through a complex maze. In Wolfram’s Cellular Automata nomenclature it’s an Eden Generator with a Simple Rule Pattern Matching Engine.

I question authority. Shamelessly. Boldly.

I have no invisible friends. I exist in objective reality and think that all my friends should too.

I am a freethinker who makes us of rational and critical thinking tools.

I value proven knowledge over faith, belief, delusions, dreams, possibilities that violate the laws of Nature, and consensus based thinking.

I am a human being.

I am willing to stand corrected about any facts in objective reality. If you find that something I’ve written can be shown to be factually incorrect please let me know and once verified I will correct it.

I am pwl aka pwvl.

Ask me questions. Tell me about you.

All the best,

Peter William Lount.

4 Responses to “About”

  1. I am trying to reach the individual who was posting comments on the News Cut blog yesterday. My name is Tyler Suter, and you had posed a question to me. Seeing as though that particular subject is not closed for comment, I thought I would send you my response this way:


    For the sake of those that would like to consider my response, I will again cite the original statement:

    //science is a map and not the territory

    The analogy is striking in that, from what I gather and what is inferred, in my estimation, a territory exists regardless of its map. Before elaborating, it might be useful to note that I am not a scientist by trade; I am inspired by many scientific pursuits, but I do not claim to have a methodological understanding that would allow me to approach the aforementioned analogy in purely scientific terms. Never the less, I am a curious soul – no pun intended – and I find such analogies to be inspiring as thinking points.

    I’ll begin with the less controversial of thoughts that were provoked by the statement.

    A map is a tool that one uses to navigate or study the terrain, but inevitably variables exist in any given terrain that can not be accounted for by a map; whether it is due to the nature of a map, which lacks the sophistication to express said variables, or it is due to a cartographer’s inability (either unaware of an existing variable or unable to express some sort of anomaly), is beside the point.

    I also gather that the analogy recognizes the existence and consequence of certain rules, or laws, that subsist as a function of nature (the ruling body within a given terrain), and therefore a map and its cartographer, a scientist in this case, is constrained by the law of nature; so, this prerequisite must be recognized when identifying and explaining the existence of an object or theory. Therefore, a credible theory can only exist by following every rule under the jurisdiction of nature. Moreover, if one is angry about what is identified by science, anger should be directed at the terrain and not at the cartographer (i.e. the scientist).

    Anyhow, I need to get back to work. I’d love to dabble in this all day, pwl, but my boss is giving me that oh so familiar suspicious eye – scares me every time.

  2. pwl said

    Yes you reached the right person.

    Oh, it’s better to have this conversation over on the article that I set up for it… Could you re-post your above comment here. Once you’ve done that I’ll delete it here and respond to your comment. Thanks very Tyler.


  3. pwl said

    Tyler I moved your comment to the article I set up for that dialog here.

  4. AusieDan said

    Hi pwl
    I made a comment at WUWT on the “on being a scientist” post and also in Tips & Notes.
    I agree with your suggestion.
    Here is my comment to Anthony Watt.
    (Incidentally, towards the end of my comment, I got your initials wrong.
    I appologised on WUWT.)

    I made the following comment on your post re “On being a scientist”.
    I realise that it may be more suitable on Tips & Notes.
    So here it is.
    I strongly urge you to make PWL’s suggestion the subject of a complete post.
    I believe that is idea is very powerful.
    By that I mean – power for good.

    Pwl says:
    Now, it would be really great if we could collect together ALL the alleged climate science papers of “note” and request all the data and methods from the authors …..
    mark the status of their compliance with the scientific method standards, those that provided data, raw data, details of manipulations, methods, statistical equations, software, etc…, everything needed to reproduce the paper’s conclusions (or refute it). Oh, and a list of all papers that it references and a list of all papers that reference it. In addition a list of all the “claims” or “conclusions” and “assumptions” made in each paper would be fantastic so that as each “claim, conclusion, or assumption” is refuted it becomes clear which papers are refuted and nullified in part or in whole.
    Then we grade the papers and see how well the climate scientists and their papers actually stack up against the standards of the scientific method and the standards of the philosophy of science.
    This project is as important as the Surface Stations project, for it cuts to the very heart of the matter.

    I agree completely with Prl.
    This may be the way to get the attention of the media, and with that, the attention of the world’s politicans.
    Since ClimateGate, all the major AGW claims have been disproved, but the politicans just continue unabashed. The voting public in many countries now see AGW as a failed concept, so governments are now pushing AGW restrictions through administrative fiat.

    This will only be stopped if the true facts can be brought out in the light of day.
    Prl’s proposal merits much thought and discussion.
    It would require direction by a group of people of the highest intregrity and standing, including senior scientists, but also judges and others from various walks of life.

    To get it started it requires a group of entheusiasts who can at the apropriate time step back when a committee of heavies is formed.

    Anthony or moderator Charles, this deserves a post on its own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: