Chapter 1 -3 Scientific Research Methods

From Darwin's Theory of Evolution to modern biology, scientists have always faced a paradox: science proves something to be true, but just a few years later, science itself overturns it. Conversely, things once considered superstitions in the past are now confirmed by science. Is there a possibility that what is considered superstition today will be validated by science tomorrow? The forefront of science is not truth, but a continuous process of self-denial. The entire history of scientific development is a process of negation of negation. Therefore, modern science does not fear being denied, because the more it is negated, the more dialectical it becomes, and the closer we get to the truth. After all, we only understand that 4%, yet we seek to understand and explain the entire 100%...

Returning to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: What is science?

Consulting several dictionaries on the definition of science: Science refers to the application of universally recognized truths or general principles discovered, accumulated, and accepted. It is an organized system of knowledge based on testable explanations and predictions about the form and organization of objective phenomena, knowledge that has been systematized and formulated. A more understandable explanation is that science comprises the knowledge that can be systematically written into textbooks.

However, from an academic perspective, if we were to make a rigorous distinction, could we add a word or two in front of the "science" in these textbooks and call it "pure science" or "narrow science"?

I increasingly believe that true science, in the broad sense, might be the simple pursuit of knowledge, the spirit of relentless inquiry, the method based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, the understanding gained through practice, and the notion that blind faith in books is worse than having no books at all. We must not overemphasize the correctness of science while neglecting the true purpose of our pursuit of science.

Many historically renowned scholars, while advancing along the path of science, have had to confront an increasing number of questions beyond the scope of observation and experimentation. When facing issues related to the origins of the universe and life, they expressed the sentiment that: "The end of science is Metaphysics". Is this merely a coincidence?

In his later years, Newton turned to theology and believed in God because he astonishingly discovered that what science could not prove, theology could explain, and even surpass.

Einstein, during his student years, abandoned his religious beliefs and was a staunch atheist. However, he later remarked, "When scientists climb a high mountain, they find that theologians have been sitting there for centuries." He may not have believed in the existence of God, but he believed in some kind of imperceptible presence in the universe. "Just like the coffee cup on the table, it was placed there by someone. Similarly, the planets in the universe require a force to arrange them, as they move along predetermined orbits."

Prof. Yang Zhen-ning recalled, "When I was 20, I thought I could explain everything in nature with my knowledge. But as I gradually deepened my understanding of nature and felt its indescribable wonders, I came to believe that it is highly possible that there is a Creator in this world." When asked by a reporter, "Do you believe there is a God in this world?" Prof. Yang replied: "If by 'God' you mean a human-like figure, then I think there is not. But if you ask if there is a Creator, then I think there is, because the structure of our entire world did not come about by chance. Chance alone couldn't create something so wonderful... So, where does this immensely powerful and influential entity come from? You can give it any name you want, and as long as this name does not involve a human figure, I think everyone can accept it."

This shows that although scientists cannot prove the existence of a Creator in this world, nor can they prove the non-existence of a Creator, they cannot definitively assert whether it exists or not. However, there is a consensus that the world we live in did not come into being by chance.

As Teacher Liu Feng states in his book "Unlock Your Higher Dimensional Wisdom": "Our greatest limitation in the three-dimensional space is, in fact, our limited three-dimensional cognition."

Humans have always believed that, up to now, scientific and technological developments have been accumulated from years of practical data statistics and empirical experience, ultimately forming a comprehensive knowledge system which we call science. On our Earth where we live, the description of the vast majority of scientific and technological matters pertains to things in the three-dimensional world, especially with all of the academic authorities of science adhering to the principle of practicing three-dimensional premises as a scientific basis. This principle highly conforms to the scientific thinking within three-dimensional space, meaning that "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth," and everything stems from empirical evidence. Finally, it's through empirical evidence that we are informed of what things are scientific and what things are inconsistent with scientific principles.

However, where do our initial practices and creative thoughts come from? Almost no scientist denies that their initial ideas in invention and creation come from the sudden inspiration of "intuition". This "intuition" gives us an important hint that humans can gain wisdom from higher dimensions and then use three-dimensional practice to verify its correctness, forming scientific knowledge. Although this higher dimension is invisible to the naked eye, it can be "perceived" and certainly exists. All religious wisdom systems in this universe hint to us that there are higher spatial levels beyond the limited space humans can see.

Three-dimensional practice verifies three-dimensional truth, and higher-dimensional practice verifies higher-dimensional truth. Trying to use three-dimensional practice to verify higher-dimensional truth is logically flawed, like pointing at contour lines and saying, "This is the mountain." Essentially, the exploration and interest in this field by scientific pioneers also originate from the fundamental meaning of scientific research: the spirit of exploring the unknown drives those on this path to continually advance.