Weight is observable, mass is imagined, and a call to action

Weight is observable, but mass is conceptual, and the actual nature of matter is ultimately indeterminate. In conventional physics, mass is fixed, and matter warps space at Einsteinian scales. That's a convenient way of modeling the observable world, and results in many accurate predictions, so it's become commonly held that the existence of fixed properties for matter, such as mass, is a 'fact' by scientists in the USA.

However, one could equally say space is a fixed Euclidean framework, and gravity warps matter at Einsteinian scales. It's just shifting the equations around so that a different variable is fixed, which may be more complicated to represent, and may be more difficult to imagine, but still totally equivalent. Which is warping: space or matter? We can't tell. We are accustomed to the weight of objects not observably changing due to gravity, and so it is natural for us to think of mass as 'fixed.' Yet it could be that in reality, space stays fixed and matter warps. No experiment could distinguish between the two.

But the latter view, that space is fixed and warps matter, can even be convenient in some cases. What if mass DOES vary in size, in the same way as weight varies by gravity, at Einsteinian scale? That provides one possibility for modeling the 'crushing of matter' in black holes , when the distance of nuclei is less than their size. And there's string theory, within which a fixed Euclidean space could be the base three dimensions in a more sophisticated multidimensional representation of reality.

Thus mass as a fixed property value is a meaningful concept, and very useful for most cases. But it's still an imagined property of the universe, convenient to us at the scale we see it. Scientific theory can't get as far as defining the three basic dimensions (space, time, and mass) without running into irresolvable epistemological alternatives as to what actually exists. So Popperians say, not only is weight observable and mass imagined, but also go on to say, just as mass is imaginary, all of science is just an imagined 'model of reality'--A very meaningful and extremely powerful model, because it provides a huge number of useful predictions and possible explanations. Nonetheless, it is still never more than an imagined model in epistemological terms.

Sadly, very few Americans now alive have reached the same conclusion, however rational the Popperian view is. And the problem has been getting worse for a while. On Wikipedia, the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) states that scientific theory defines what 'facts' are 'true'' about 'reality:'

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

The Academy of Science still has a Popperian definition, but the AAAS definition says scientific theories 'define' facts of reality. The majority of Americans do not know there is more than one definition of scientific theory, and only know the AAAS definition. The public therefore assumes that science states the existence of matter with fixed mass to be a factual reality, and that mass is not an imagined property of the Universe, but 'real' in an absolute sense. While that might not seem so important, the consequences are horrifying.

Many consider science's claim to define reality as a license to overrule it with their own preferred beliefs, olr to unjustificalby use it a foundation for a beliefl. For example, people choose to "believe in" EVOLUTION as 'the scientific explanation' which 'explains away' the existence of God. Any Creator more intelligent than human beings were 5,000 years ago would similarly use evolution as a tool, but historical biases have created hate-filled debates on the topic. This would only be a matter of religion, but now the same phenomenon is happening with GLOBAL WARMING, in the opposite direction: people choose not to be 'believe in' the existence of global warming. Its existence should not a question of belief.

Scientific conclusions gauge the likelihood of future events based on a predictive model, and one does not 'believe in it, one understands the meaningfulness of the predictions. The existence of global warming is scientifically rather unquestionable, as it is based on the laws of thermodynamics and easily repeatable experiments on atmospheric gasses. There are problems with estimating how fast global warming is, but its existence is rather undeniable, without totally rewriting the laws of physics. So there isn't much question of what one 'believes in.' If one doesn't understand the theory, one should accept the conclusions of those that do. Few do so.

In the USA, distrust of a discipline that has declared it is defining 'facts' about 'reality' is rampant. An entire Presidential Administration denied that global warming even exists, rather than fund research on how fast the problem is becoming increasingly irreversible, losing critical time for gathering data. This is a matter of survival of the human race. It shouldn't be up to grabs on what one believes. By defining itself as stating 'facts' about 'reality,' science is turning itself into religion, about which one may have different beliefs, based on some superior authority of intuition that has been worshipped in the USA ever since John Adams wrongly said 'natural rights' are self evident. Other nations have chosen others, so natural rights are clearly not self evident. But the fallacy is taught at such an early age, self-evident intuition is still held to be completely superior to the Western empiricism which actually led to Jefferson's choice of natural rights. In exactly the same way, by asserting that science defines 'facts' about 'reality,' people assume their intuitions about its conclusions must be correct, without trying to understand the reasoning and scientific observations leading to modeled predictions.

At this rate, those who intuitively 'disbelieve in' global warming, who shouldn't even exist, will destroy the world. They shouldn't even exist. So what to do about that? Should we let the arrogance of science, in stating it defines "facts about reality," be the cause of the demise of the human race?I call philosophers to contact the AAAS and say its definition of scientific theory should be changed:

https://www.aaas.org/

Please join me in this cause :)