Universal knowledge

We have inherited from our forefathers the keen longing for unified, all-embracing knowledge.

We feel clearly that we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole;

I can see no other escape from this dilemma than that some of us should venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second-hand and incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools of ourselves.

1. Schrödinger E. What is life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. February 1943. http://libarch.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/GenofondUA/7717/45433b74d43c9b573f78d5f16a9b5f8f.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed July 5, 2017.

The End of Subjectivism—The Begin of Individualism

“Как для астрономии трудность признания движения земли состояла в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства неподвижности земли и такого же чувства движения планет, так и для истории трудность признания подчиненности личности законам пространства, времени и причин состоит в том, чтобы отказаться от непосредственного чувства независимости своей личности. Но, как в астрономии новое воззрение говорило: «Правда, мы не чувствуем движения земли, но, допустив ее неподвижность, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же движение, которого мы не чувствуем, мы приходим к законам», — так и в истории новое воззрение говорит: «И правда, мы не чувствуем нашей зависимости, но, допустив нашу свободу, мы приходим к бессмыслице; допустив же свою зависимость от внешнего мира, времени и причин, приходим к законам».
В первом случае надо было отказаться от сознания несуществующей неподвижности в пространстве и признать неощущаемое нами движение; в настоящем случае — точно так же необходимо отказаться от несуществующей свободы и признать неощущаемую нами зависимость.”

Лев Толстой

It is amazing how Leo Tolstoy anticipated Fauceir Theory 😉 Well not actually the theory itself, but he made an exceptional point for the development of this theory and all scientific theory in general. He discovered the law that scientific progress requires relativization, the transition from subjective measures to objective ones. And by that the realization comes naturally that the measures are relative.

It was the demolition of the subjective measure of motion (acceleration felt by our inner ear) and its replacement by objective criteria that enabled scientists to appreciate the heliocentric solar system. It was the reference frame introduced by Einstein that allowed for a relative measuring of time (at least in the positive direction), and it is Fauceir Theory that now promotes to a relative measure of everything, including but not restricted to, physical values such as mass and time. The speed of light is no longer a constant and time exists in various (actually unlimited) frames. Only few of them point into the same direction.

Admittedly, that challenges all what we feel about our Universe, and it is hard to grasp it. Though I don’t think that physicists are the main adversaries of Fauceir Theory. The most rigid resistance stems from social scientists. Because it is feared that by accepting the absolute relativity of everything, society is deprived of all moral and ethical bonds and without those bonds a society is destroyed.

Maybe Leo Tolstoy forefelt that and he became fearful. Maybe that explains his decision not to follow this train of thought but instead to become a faithful believer in God later in his life.

It was interestingly an other Russian philosopher, Ayn Rand, who pushed this idea further into the social direction. Accepting the problem she offered a solution, egoism, and as a matter of fact egoism makes people behave rationally and predictably. Egoism is rationalism in a personal relationships, and rationalism is the only acceptable answer to the dethronement of ideologically determined ethical and moral values.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Social Problem: Feminism

“Females are poised to repress men. If unattractive, repellent, or simply unsocial they become feminists to execute their zest for suppression with men in general.”

– Anonymus –

If we want to stop slavery on this planet we have to keep females from enslaving men in the first place.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

You are like what you can understand

This is a rather approximate translation of a phrase from Goethe’s Faust: „Thou’rt like the spirit thou canst comprehend“. An even wider interpretation of that phrase is „You can only understand what the spirit that created you allows you to understand.“ That means in fauceir terminology „The fauceirs of your thinking, are caged by the fauceirs that enslave it, which are social fauceirs.“


Earth-bound spirit in Goethe's Faust

This illustration by Goethe himself shows the earthly or earth-bound spirit who declares in his Faust tragedy part 1 “Thou’rt like the spirit thou canst comprehend, not me.” and vanishes.


Goethe was not only a gifted play-writer and poet but also a naturalist. His scientific work includes the theory of colors. Characteristic of his life and probably his epoch in general is amalgamation of scientific and artistic endeavor. That is nothing unusual, rather comes naturally as both arise from the same spirit and creativity. Not surprising then that his Faust is not only a stage play about an antsy scientists but also lays the philosophical foundation of evolutionary theory, social evolutionary theory in particular.

The phrase quoted above for instance found its repercussion in Marx’ famous thesis “Existence determines consciousness”.

I remembered these phrases when noticing the recent flare of discussions about peer review in scientific publications (Robertson 2013) which states only consequences drawn from discussions several years before (Ploegh 2011), (Rosenbaum 2008).

The measures now taken to improve fairness in peer review don’t touch the core of the problem, which is the reviewer’s subjective understanding. The improvements now implemented merely reduce sheer fraud. If for instance researcher A wants to publish a new idea, but researcher B, the reviewer in this case, is a strong competitor and wants to publish first; then researcher B may delay publication by putting big hurdles in the way. The hurdles might even become so difficult that publication becomes impossible at all. I didn’t believe that this is even possible, but obviously it is. It even has a long tradition. It looks like the Darwin Conspiracy (Davies 2008). We even may go so far to claim that peer review is the product of a social evolution process from Darwin’s more unique conspiracy to a systematic suppression of outstanding research. In a social context even crime may evolve.

Now the new opt-out policy introduced by BMC Biology offers some relieve as researcher A is allowed to immediately try to publish elsewhere. Couldn’t believe that this was forbidden before, but it was. In fact, according to the peer review policy maintained by many prestigious journals, it is not allowed to try publishing elsewhere as long as the paper is in the review process. This is outright monopolizing science. This is equivalent to buying a patent to prevent its application. I can’t believe that enlightened and devoted to scientific progress scientists ever accepted that. The only explanation I can find for the fact that such a policy holds sway over almost all scientific publishing is that the bulk of scientists is mediocre and mean.

Though opt-out policy is a tiny little step to reduce reviewer’s fraud, by far it would not eliminate it completely as everyone can imagine if journal A declines a paper because of reviewer A, the same can happen with journal B and reviewer B. Maybe B is a good friend of A or even the same person. But even if A and B are competitors themselves they share a common interest in fighting a new competitive paper that challenges their both reputation. Moreover taking aside this obvious fraud which might be effectively controlled sometimes as society becomes increasingly aware of it, there is an even greater problem behind. The subconscious aversion of all research that challenges the social environment. Everybody, and every scientist in particular, is caged in a social fauceir that controls almost all thinking. For instance, an academically employed scientists would never accept a social evolutionary concept that declares academic research out-of-date and disposable. But that is what really is at stage.

Humans inability to make proper judgments about entities outside the private cage is the real thread of humanity. As Goethe concludes the second part of his famous Faust

Ein Sumpf zieht am Gebirge hin,
Verpestet alles schon Errungene;
Den faulen Pfuhl auch abzuziehn,
Das Letzte wär’ das Höchsterrungene.

Unfortunately I did not find an authorized translation, so I give my own rather free translation. “A swamp is spreading into the mountains, contaminating all human achievements. Draining that swamp is an heroic task of first and foremost importance.


Davies, Roy. 2008. The Darwin Conspiracy – Origins of a Scientific Crime. First. Golden Square Books.

Ploegh, Hidde. 2011. „End the Wasteful Tyranny of Reviewer Experiments“. Nature News 472 (7344) (April 27): 391–391. doi:10.1038/472391a.

Robertson, Miranda. 2013. „Q&A: Re-review Opt-out and Painless Publishing“. BMC Biology 11 (1) (Februar 28): 18. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-18.

Rosenbaum, Joel L. 2008. „High-Profile Journals Not Worth the Trouble“. Science 321 (5892) (August 22): 1039–1039. doi:10.1126/science.321.5892.1039b.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.