Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
SweetSorrowBitter
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 27th, 2021, 9:52 am

Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by SweetSorrowBitter »

Are there really any good reasons to believe that certain higher order phenomenon can't even in principle be reduced to lower order phenomenon like particle physics and do views like holism also entail a degree of strong emetgentism ?
Let's take for example laws like

1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics

2 Hooke's law is an example of laws of physics

3 the Pythagorean theorem can be described as a law of geometry

Even laws of chemistry are also in a way physical laws applied to chemistry (yet from what I've read , the consensus of philosophers of science is chemistry is not reducible to physics) .

Are there any individual laws of say biology and chemistry ? Or is the interaction of cells and mollecules too complex for them to have laws , would that in itself be a law putting a boundary on possibilities within applied biology/engineering ?
Richard Feynman had a vision of miniature factories using nanomachines to build complex products (including additional nanomachines), this advanced form of nanotechnology (or molecular manufacturing) would make use of positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems. MNT would involve combining physical principles demonstrated by biophysics, chemistry, other nanotechnologies, and the molecular machinery of life with the systems engineering principles found in modern macroscale factories.

None of this for example violates certain laws of physics , but doesn't this also depend on a highly reductionist view ? That higher order phenomenon can be reduced to lower order ones ? What about holism ?
The envision nanotechnology at the atomic , subatomic or supraatomic scale is envisioned by many to be able to permute matter in any way physically possible. Which would theoretically mean protection from diseases , indefinite lifespans , being able to alter traits in any physically possible way and possibly ending things like hunger etc. Does one need to subscribe to a highly reductionist view to have this kind of vision and have a clear fundamental theory that doesn't exclude these possibilities ? One might wonder if there might be things that require more energy than the universe itself but is that going to ever be required to achieve anything that is physically possible I wonder.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Steve3007 »

SweetSorrowBitter wrote:1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics
There's a lot to potentially talk about on this topic (good topic). But I think the laws of thermodynamics are among the more interesting ones to consider when looking at the concept of strong emergentism. Things like Boyle's law are statistical, in the sense that the behaviours they describe are statistical averages of the behaviours of lots of individual molecules of a gas. But when statistical behaviours emerge which are not reducible to the individual particle movements from which they derive, that's arguably when strong emergentism comes in. In the context of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the directionality of time as a result of the second law is a well discussed one.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

SweetSorrowBitter wrote: March 6th, 2021, 12:20 am Are there really any good reasons to believe that certain higher order phenomenon can't even in principle be reduced to lower order phenomenon like particle physics and do views like holism also entail a degree of strong emetgentism ?
Let's take for example laws like

1 Boyle's law which is an example of thermodynamics

2 Hooke's law is an example of laws of physics

3 the Pythagorean theorem can be described as a law of geometry

Even laws of chemistry are also in a way physical laws applied to chemistry (yet from what I've read , the consensus of philosophers of science is chemistry is not reducible to physics) .

Are there any individual laws of say biology and chemistry ? Or is the interaction of cells and mollecules too complex for them to have laws , would that in itself be a law putting a boundary on possibilities within applied biology/engineering ?
Richard Feynman had a vision of miniature factories using nanomachines to build complex products (including additional nanomachines), this advanced form of nanotechnology (or molecular manufacturing) would make use of positionally-controlled mechanosynthesis guided by molecular machine systems. MNT would involve combining physical principles demonstrated by biophysics, chemistry, other nanotechnologies, and the molecular machinery of life with the systems engineering principles found in modern macroscale factories.

None of this for example violates certain laws of physics , but doesn't this also depend on a highly reductionist view ? That higher order phenomenon can be reduced to lower order ones ? What about holism ?
The envision nanotechnology at the atomic , subatomic or supraatomic scale is envisioned by many to be able to permute matter in any way physically possible. Which would theoretically mean protection from diseases , indefinite lifespans , being able to alter traits in any physically possible way and possibly ending things like hunger etc. Does one need to subscribe to a highly reductionist view to have this kind of vision and have a clear fundamental theory that doesn't exclude these possibilities ? One might wonder if there might be things that require more energy than the universe itself but is that going to ever be required to achieve anything that is physically possible I wonder.
First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
Strong emergence is not an "ism". It's not a Philosophical view but a classification term based on the displayed qualities and structure of a specific phenomenon. It's not as if there are 2-3 different competing explanations to choose from.
Strong emergence is identified and verified by our direct systematic observations in science....so our objective observations are our good reasons to accept the irreducibility of such phenomena.
The reduction of a system to its necessary parts is only one out of numerous methods available to science.
The use of different methodologies in science is important to establish a far greater understanding of the relations and roles of all the different parts in a mechanism.
I am not sure that Philosophy has anything to say about this scientific approach. Complexity science deals with complex relations in complex systems. To understand complex phenomena we need detailed observations, not a Normative critique on Science.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8266
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

NickGaspar wrote: March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).


The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link

It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 7th, 2021, 1:55 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).

The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link

It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
That is a common problem caused by philosophers. They just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8266
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

NickGaspar wrote: March 7th, 2021, 3:28 am First of all, strong emergence is not a" view".
It's a Scientific Description about contingency and relations between low level mechanisms and high level features(Necessity and Sufficiency of low level mechanism).
It's a phenomenon studied by Complexity Science (Complex System Science).
A Complexity Scientist wrote:The concept of emergence plays a central role in the science(s) of complexity. Yet while its importance seems substantial, its clarity is not.
[...]
We conclude that the emergence of interest to complexity science researchers is not the causally ‘interesting’ form of emergence which philosophers discuss; ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation. - Link
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 7th, 2021, 1:55 pm It looks a lot like two different things are being discussed here.
NickGaspar wrote: March 7th, 2021, 8:32 pm That is a common problem caused by philosophers. They just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).

This is a bit petty, don't you think? You've discovered that a word can and does carry multiple meanings, as nearly all words can. And you don't like it, because you prefer to ascribe only one meaning to that word. You claim ownership, on behalf of Complexity Science, to the word "emergence", and to the specific meaning that Complexity Scientists intend when they use it as professional/technical jargon. The word is not yours, or theirs, to define as you see fit. Language is a co-operative venture.

So philosophers are not causing any problems here, nor are they ignoring the science. They're just using a shade of meaning that you don't like much. I'll go a little farther: the shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scietists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence". But perhaps it's me that is mistaken?



But there is one point that I find confusing.

You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",

but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".

Is this just down to a typo, or...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 9:42 am
This is a bit petty, don't you think?
-Why is that? I only base my opinion on the epistemic void and the inability of that meaning to expanding our understanding.
You've discovered that a word can and does carry multiple meanings, as nearly all words can.
-We agree words have common usages...not intrinsic meaning.

And you don't like it, because you prefer to ascribe only one meaning to that word.
-Again, I have no problem with different meanings, I only don't find any epistemic of philosophical value in it
You claim ownership, on behalf of Complexity Science, to the word "emergence", and to the specific meaning that Complexity Scientists intend when they use it as professional/technical jargon. The word is not yours, or theirs, to define as you see fit. Language is a co-operative venture.
-And Again I don't have a problem with different common usages of words. I only question their ability to help Science and Philosophy.
So philosophers are not causing any problems here, nor are they ignoring the science. They're just using a shade of meaning that you don't like much.
-They are Using an epistemically null definition and they ignore downward causation in Strong Emergence. That is my position.
I'll go a little farther: the shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scietists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence". But perhaps it's me that is mistaken?
-Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's defintion is based on direct observation of the phenomeno. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.



But there is one point that I find confusing.
You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",
but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".
Is this just down to a typo, or...?
You are confusing Weak with Strong Emergence. Weak Emergence allows upwards causation ONLY. Downward causation is a common Phenomenon in Strong emergence. I.e. the brain produces the mind and the mind can move our hands or stress our organism through unsettling thoughts.

The following short video explaining those basic concepts and relations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p9qlpnzzY
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8266
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

NickGaspar wrote: March 7th, 2021, 8:32 pm Philosophers just ignore the science.(i.e. downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact.).
Pattern-chaser wrote:But there is one point that I find confusing.
You say "downward causation by the strong emergent phenomenon of mind properties is an observable fact",
but the Complexity Scientist I quoted says "‘emergence’ in complexity science ... does not allow for downward causation".
Is this just down to a typo, or...?
NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am You are confusing Weak with Strong Emergence. Weak Emergence allows upwards causation ONLY. Downward causation is a common Phenomenon in Strong emergence. I.e. the brain produces the mind and the mind can move our hands or stress our organism through unsettling thoughts.

You seem to be evading my point? You posted how we should respect the opinions of scientists working in the field of complexity, but you are in direct opposition to just such a scientist. He says "does not" and you say "does". And he, the scientist, explicitly states that he is talking about "emergence" as it is used in complexity science. According to the logic you have already suggested, you are wrong, and the working scientist is right.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8266
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 9:42 am The shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scientists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence".

NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's definition is based on direct observation of the phenomenon. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.
Why, when the "emergence" under discussion is not the "emergence" that complexity scientists investigate, and this topic does not concern complexity science, even in the smallest way? The meaning you insist upon is irrelevant to this topic.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 11:24 am

You seem to be evading my point?
Am I, what is your point?
You posted how we should respect the opinions of scientists working in the field of complexity,
- I wrote we should respect the Established Science...not a scientist's opinion.
but you are in direct opposition to just such a scientist. He says "does not" and you say "does".

-Who is this scientist who says "does not''? (does not...for what?)


And he, the scientist, explicitly states that he is talking about "emergence" as it is used in complexity science.
-Who is this scientist and why we should listen to his opinion if it is in conflict with established Science?
According to the logic you have already suggested, you are wrong, and the working scientist is right.
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???
I don't follow you.!
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 11:30 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 9:42 am The shade of meaning in use in this topic is, I believe, not the one that Complexity Scientists use. This topic doesn't seem to be about complexity science at all, not even a little bit. This topic seems to be using the definition you despise, the everyday understanding of "emergence".

NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 10:47 am Since this is a philosophical forum, all concepts should be based and defined by our current epistemology. Complexity Science's definition is based on direct observation of the phenomenon. So if we want our Philosophical endeavors to remain as such we should take in to account those observations and update our definitions.
Why, when the "emergence" under discussion is not the "emergence" that complexity scientists investigate, and this topic does not concern complexity science, even in the smallest way? The meaning you insist upon is irrelevant to this topic.
-My point was that the science in the Op is wrong.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8266
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:49 pm
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???
I don't follow you.!
If you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.

Take care; I'm done here.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by NickGaspar »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 1:02 pm
NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 12:49 pm
-You need to help me. WHo is this scientist and what is he saying ???
I don't follow you.!
If you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.

Take care; I'm done here.
Ok I got your link. You say that the authors of that paper say that Strong Emergence doesn't allow downward causation?

-"You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will."
-If the definition of emergence doesn't describe actual phenomena and their properties in real world then the definition in this thread is philosophically useless. If our conclusions don't include or explain reality then why on earth should we use that definition?
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by BobS »

NickGaspar wrote: March 8th, 2021, 1:47 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 8th, 2021, 1:02 pm If you don't follow me, follow the link I posted with the original quote, so that there would be no confusion as to who wrote what I quoted, and what else they had to say. But I can't be bothered with this sub-sub-thread any more. You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will.

Take care; I'm done here.
Ok I got your link. You say that the authors of that paper say that Strong Emergence doesn't allow downward causation?
Pattern-chaser wrote: -"You stick with your meaning (of "emergence"), taken from a discipline that has nothing to do with this topic, and do with it as you will."
-If the definition of emergence doesn't describe actual phenomena and their properties in real world then the definition in this thread is philosophically useless. If our conclusions don't include or explain reality then why on earth should we use that definition?
I'm sticking my nose in here only because the guy with whom you were discussing this said he was done, and hasn't posted anything further over the last 12 hours. So if someone is going to ask you to comment further, I guess it has to be me.

I've now read the paper and viewed the YouTube video that you linked to. Although I can't claim to understand it all (complexity science being completely outside my experience), it seems to me that the authors, after surveying the literature (or at least some literature) and conducting an admittedly non-representative survey, claim that strong emergence (though they don't always use that term) is not generally accepted in the field of complexity science, although they don't say it very clearly, and also seem to contradict themselves.

In their summary at the start of the paper, for example, they state: "We conclude that ... ‘emergence’ in complexity science, while intriguing to many, is still fully consistent with most forms of reductionism and does not allow for downward causation."

With my limited understanding, I take that to mean that (according to the authors of the paper) "emergence" in complexity science does not include strong emergence.

Yet they go on in the first sentence of the body of the paper to say that "Many phenomena that arise out of complex, adaptive systems are called ‘emergent’ by complexity science researchers [citations]. Such emergent phenomena are considered to be unpredictable and irreducible."

I take "irreducible" in that sentence to be referring to the concept of strong emergence.

So I don't know what the hell they're saying at the very start of the paper, unless it's the contradictory proposition that complexity science doesn't allow for strong emergence but does allow for it.

Then, after discussion of much stuff that I sort of follow but can't keep track of in my head, in the very last paragraph of the paper they say this: "We assume that the research program of complexity science is a reductionist one (although not a simple reductionist approach, see section 5.2). In that case, why is it that complexity researchers seem so committed to non-reductive materialism, and hostile to reductionist rhetoric? One explanation is that reductionism is considered to be naïve, and also to make the world seem to systematic and boring, eliminating all mystery, novelty, and excitement. Non-reductive materialism might then have some public relation value over reductionism."

That paragraph seems contradictory to me: the first sentence suggesting that the "research program of complexity science" is limited to weak emergence (since, they say, it's a reductionist program), and the very next sentence saying that researchers are "committed to non-reductive materialism" (i.e., strong emergence?). But then they end up by suggesting that the rejection of reductionism (i.e., the commitment to strong emergence?) is, in the end, all about PR.

So, the bottom line is that I'm confused.

What sense do you make of that paper?
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?

Post by Atla »

'Complexity science' isn't even really a science. It's about taking arbitrary parts of the universe that are too complicated for humans, and then coming up with ways to handle them, and handle the 'interactions' between them (which are further parts of the universe). Trying to explain reality through 'complexity science' is totally backwards.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021