Method of revaluation of incredible evidence.


          To all whom it may concern be it known that I, Gaby de Wilde, artist, subject of the Dutch Queen, of Dutch nationality, a citizen of the independent monarchy of the Netherlands governed by members of the House of Orange Nassau, residence of Enkhuizen, in the Province of North-Holland the Kingdom of the Netherlands, have invented a new methodology of science in the most general sense thereof I hereby declare ofwhich the following specification to be a full, clear, exact and acurate description of the invention, such as will enable others skilled in the art to which it appertains to use the same.


          Good, now that we have successfully used the scientific method for a long time it's time for something new. The old method was all about eliminating bad looking evidence in favor of things that look good. An assumption that may lead out an above average chance for success but it really doesn't say anything substantial about the substance of the topic. It's a judgement based on faith alone, now this proved to be most useful and to the point. But we should also refer to it as the short way. There also is a long way of course. It's a bit chicken to stay in the domain of things we already know and think of your research as innovation.

The new scientific method

          The new scientific method is all about looking for good excuses to research something that has as little rational values as imaginable by the researcher. The research should not live up to any expectations neither should it have any goal of any kind. Reading the previous art one should favor the oldest or even the most vague documents available. That's the stuff no one looked at jet.
          Everything that was unattractive in the old scientific method is attractive in the new and visa versa. Write a short paper some day, and look at the horror on peoples faces when you explain the impossible. Or fail to explain something simple using way to much words mostly evading the subject. Go try do the math on a poem. I can assure you everyone will be amazed whatever you come up with. It's new and hip. Just do what you always do and try to get it really wrong. Imagine what fun you would have. And you will of course discover new things. Not like in the old method that we already know what we are looking for. That kills the whole adventurous part.


          Instinctively the reader (you) knows that playing a piano has no real use at all. This while we both know that learning to play such instrument may be a wonderful experience. Looking at the art as a kind ofscience it becomes evident how different it is from physics where a wave is reduced to half a cycle and it's harmony discarded as noise. Hertz does not begin to annotate waves. It's an abomination compared to musical notes. Thats putting it quite mildly still. The art of waves is far ahead of the science.
          For years we have questioned 'how' birds fly. We could research 'why' they fly with just as much effort. The questions "'why' this 'new scientific method'?", " 'why' to ask such a strange question?" is answered with "because we can". I guess birds also fly because they can, they also fly to go places and they fly to get away from things. Already I have figured out something related to 'how' they fly by simply wondering 'why'. The thing is that 'why' it's not one question. The bird can fly away from things in the first place in order to survive. In the second place he or she can fly towards something. And in the third place they fly because they can. In order to mimic the flight of a bird we could start by looking at 'how' the flying away works. I could coin the new-scientific theory: "As flying away is the main reason 'why' birds fly it is also the main part of 'how' they fly." The next question could be "what are humans trying to fly away from?".


          From utilizing the least credible evidence all kinds of almost dogmatic sub questions may arise and reveal new perspective in their random context. All research is ultimately about the researcher him- or herself. Humans have proven to be clairvoyant, so a researcher dedicated to his or her research should be able to guess what he should be looking for. The new scientific method presents the ultimate tool to pursue that what we call day dreams, visions, gambling skills or just luck. This gut feeling[1][2] may be the dumbest of the 3 brains you have, ultimately it can tap into timeless reality. This entirely defeats the primitive thinking your other 2 brains do. In optimal configuration the thinking brains only have to validate your vast numbers of creative outbursts. The gut is extremely easy to train as it already knows everything.


[1] -
[2] -