Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

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
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: November 9th, 2022, 9:11 pm I uphold the principle of Requisite Determination, thinking that it is ontologically impossible for something to have some determinable property without having any determinate property belonging to that determinable property.
There is a disjunctive reductionism about determinable properties:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dete ... /#DisjRedu

"The most common reductionist strategy takes determinables to be identical to disjunctions of (ultimately maximal) determinates (…). On this view, for example, color is identical to a disjunctive property having every maximally specific color shade as a disjunct.
Disjunctivism explains several features of determination: Requisite determination is accommodated since the instancing of a disjunction requires the instancing of a disjunct."


From the perspective of disjunctive reductionism, it is logically impossible to instantiate a determinable without instantiating any determinate of it, because there is a contradiction implied: ((Fa v Ga) & (~Fa & ~Ga)) –> ((Fa v Ga) & ~(Fa v Ga)) – because (~Fa & ~Ga) <-> ~(Fa v Ga) [De Morgan's Law #1]
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: November 9th, 2022, 9:30 pmFrom the perspective of disjunctive reductionism, it is logically impossible to instantiate a determinable without instantiating any determinate of it, because there is a contradiction implied: ((Fa v Ga) & (~Fa & ~Ga)) –> ((Fa v Ga) & ~(Fa v Ga)) – because (~Fa & ~Ga) <-> ~(Fa v Ga) [De Morgan's Law #1]
In this formal example, the determinable property is (identical with) the disjunctive property of being F or G.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: November 9th, 2022, 9:28 pmOne might say that point particles ARE angular momentum per se. It would seem not possible for them to have internal properties. Then again, there's considerable room between quarks and the Planck scale for things to happen.
"Intrinsic property" and "internal property" aren't synonyms. "Internal" means "situated or existing within or in the interior of something; of or pertaining to the inside" (OED); and an intrinsic property of a point-particle (qua 0D object) cannot be internal in this sense, since it lacks an interior or inside.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intrinsic-extrinsic/
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!
Cambridge Dictionary" wrote: Proofnoun A fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true.
I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:45 amWhat you describe isn't proof, it's something more like confidence. This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm I disagree. It can be shown that "A causes B" with regard to experiment, verified by an independent observer. If you drop a rock it falls to the floor. Why?
We don't know. That's sort of the point of scientific investigation. So far, we have no valid explanation for gravity. We know that rocks drop to the floor, but we have no idea why. Our reference is apparent reality, if only because it's the only reference we have. Reality is always right. So is the evidence — assuming no observational or measurement errors — but all else is speculation.


Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm F=Gx(M/R^2)

F = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass of object
r = distance between centers of the masses

If you say A does not cause B, then you imply that planets don't orbit the sun. Consequently, it's not inductive reasoning to say A causes B. When it is shown by experiment that the rock falls to the floor in accord with the same principle that explains how planets orbit the sun; that's proof - not merely that A causes B, but that reality is consistent in nature, and that generalised principles can be described, and employed to predict what will happen when the rock is dropped. It falls to the floor, every time! Only a lunatic or a philosopher would think otherwise!
"F=Gx(M/R^2)" is a mathematical model that seems to fit the evidence. Thorough testing has shown us this. But "F=Gx(M/R^2)" is not an explanation for gravity. It's a simple mathematical model of how gravity seems to work, but it can't and doesn't tell us why.

This is what you don't seem to get. There is no "principle that explains how planets orbit the sun", but only our models that we have curve-fitted to the evidence. It's not an "explanation".

Finally, of course science is inductive. How could it be otherwise? Science is evidence-based and evidence-centric. It attempts to go from the specific to the general, which is what induction is. The evidence is specific, and the theory/hypothesis/etc is general.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.
Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."


"proof
* The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration."


So there is a broad sense of "prove"/"proof", in which empirical science does prove things or provide proofs; but there is also a narrow logical sense, in which proofs are sound deductive arguments. (An argument is sound if and only if it is inferentially valid and its premises are true.).

"[A]s part of his formal system, Frege developed a strict understanding of a ‘proof’. In essence, he defined a proof to be any finite sequence of statements such that each statement in the sequence either is an axiom or follows from previous members by a valid rule of inference. Thus, a proof of a theorem of logic, say φ, is therefore any finite sequence of statements (with φ the final statement in the sequence) such that each member of the sequence: (a) is one of the logical axioms of the formal system, or (b) follows from previous members of the sequence by a rule of inference. These are essentially the definitions that logicians still use today."

Gottlob Frege: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/

Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm
Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode
Keep in mind, though, that the premises ("laws") of a DN argument are universals established inductively.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:32 am Almost everyone except philosophers are sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate that scientific proof is proof of the hypothesis specified in relation to the evidence offered - and does not imply some absolutist concept of truth with a capital T - but a valid condition within the specified range, open to revision in light of further evidence. Your failure to describe, and allude to such a qualified concept of proof is a demonstration of the one eyed myopia of the tradition from which you speak, because clearly, science does provide proof - and everyone knows that but you!
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:45 amWhat you describe isn't proof, it's something more like confidence. This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
Mercury wrote: November 9th, 2022, 12:21 pm I disagree. It can be shown that "A causes B" with regard to experiment, verified by an independent observer. If you drop a rock it falls to the floor. Why?
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 11:42 amWe don't know. That's sort of the point of scientific investigation. So far, we have no valid explanation for gravity. We know that rocks drop to the floor, but we have no idea why. Our reference is apparent reality, if only because it's the only reference we have. Reality is always right. So is the evidence — assuming no observational or measurement errors — but all else is speculation.
Right, but we know that a rock dropped will fall to the floor - every time. Because there is a thing called gravity. We know how it works. We can model it mathematically. Gravity explains how everything else acts - so you cannot say this rock - when dropped, may or may not fall to the floor. Because that would be to negate the principle we see operating in everything else.

The absolute nature of reality is another question entirely. The mechanism of gravity aside; we know that:

F=Gx(M/R^2)

F = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass of object
r = distance between centers of the masses.


such that....if you say A does not cause B, then you imply that planets don't orbit the sun. Consequently, it's not inductive reasoning to say A causes B.

Let me try and express this another way:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge." Daniel C. Dennett.

Do you see how there's a cross referenced form of scientific proof here; where the rock must fall to the floor because the planets orbit in the heavens? The problem with the problem of induction is that it excludes all this -it has scientists snatching an hypothesis from thin air, and working methodologically, left to right through the scientific method, reducing the scientist to the absurdity of checking that every swan in the world is white - before he can claim knowledge.

And this is my point; in the philosophical tradition that was excluded by a massive overemphasis on Cartesian subjectivism, there is scientific proof.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Consul wrote: November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.
Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."
OK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

GE Morton wrote: November 10th, 2022, 1:30 pm
Consul wrote: November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm Are there any proofs qua sound deductive arguments in empirical science? Yes, because there is the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... on/#DNMode
Keep in mind, though, that the premises ("laws") of a DN argument are universals established inductively.
Even if the nomological premise of a DN argument is an inductive generalization from empirical cases, a sound deductive argument including it is still a proof.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pmOK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).
"In a deductively valid inference, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. In an inductively strong inference, it is improbable (to some degree) that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true. In an abductively weighty inference, it is implausible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The abductive type of inference tends to be the weakest of the three kinds."

(Walton, Douglas N. "Abductive, Presumptive and Plausible Arguments." Informal Logic 21, no. 2 (2001): 141-169. p. 143)

Only deductively valid arguments are logically conclusive in the sense of it being "impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." That is, in a sound deductive argument the probability of the conclusion's truth is 100%.

For example:
1. For all materials x, if x is copper, then x conducts electricity. (nomological premise)
2. This material here is (a piece of) copper. (premise)
3. Therefore, this material here conducts electricity. (conclusion)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pm But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
To say that empirical science cannot prove anything is to say that there cannot be any sound deductive arguments in it. But given the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation, there are proofs in empirical science, even if the premises used aren't a priori axioms but principles based on and inductively derived from experience.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pmOK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:

This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
You keep repeating the same thing, but you haven't addressed anything I've said.

My main point is that there's a massive over-emphasis on subjectivism in Western philosophy. The conspicuous absence of a philosophical tradition describing, developing and defending scientific knowledge as proof, as truth, as a moral authority etc, should act as a clue. Considered in relation the vast number of anti-science, metaphysical subjectivist philosophers in the Western cannon - whose arguably specious arguments you cite as if they were inviolable laws of nature; against the indisputable fact that science surrounds us with technological miracles, should at least give you pause for thought. The normative reliance on science in industry, agriculture, medicine etc, etc, against a philosophical tradition that argues, almost without dissent 'science cannot prove anything' - should tell you something is wrong. We can consider the works of each of those philosophers in turn - from Descartes to the present day; about 400 years worth, or you can move yourself one inch onto my territory, and consider the argument I'm making - that there's something missing.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Sy Borg »

If we dig deeply enough, we might doubt everything. However, scientific testing is the most reliable means of working out what is real or not. The proofs, gained after exhaustive testing, are reliable enough to be considered to be true. As Kant et all pointed out, knowing the absolute truth is out of reach for us large-ish simians, so that is a qualifier to note. Once noted, one can safely put that proviso aside and move on.

When it comes to what's real and what's not, I figure that everything is real, be they physical things presence or subjective notions. Then there's the quantum realm and, seemingly, the grey area between macro and quantum entities. As far as I'm concerned, that's all arcane physics stuff - entanglement, superposition, tunnelling, non-locality - which will be increasingly leveraged in future technology. So that realm's applicability to our everyday lives is tiny.

The fact is that different scales are rather like different worlds. Consider the world of microbes under a microscope glass - or how scary they look under an electron microscope. The world of insects is alien to us too, as would the world of giant whales. So it's to be expected that a realm that is so much smaller than ours would be radically different.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Gertie »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:11 pm
Consul wrote: November 10th, 2022, 12:12 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 10th, 2022, 11:30 am@Mercury: I think your "qualified concept of proof" is a simple dilution of the word's meaning, to suit your needs.
Meanings of "to prove" in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

"prove
* to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test.

* to subject to a testing process (any natural, prepared, or manufactured substance or object).

*to establish (a thing) as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.

* to show the existence or reality of; to give demonstration or proof of by action; to evince.

* to establish the genuineness or validity of (a thing or person); to show to be such as is asserted or claimed."
OK, I won't waste any more of our time quibbling over the definition of "proof". I will observe, though, that the normal expectation when one sees "proof", without explicit qualification, is for conclusive proof, like a maths proof, which is undoubtedly correct (if we accept the truth of the underlying axioms).

But, as I said to Mercury some posts ago:
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:45 am This isn't just pedantry, it's much more important than quibbling over word-meaning. It's about how science functions. Science is an inductive discipline. It cannot be otherwise. It starts from observations or measurements — evidence — and tries to go from these specifics to the general: theories/hypotheses/etc. The universe did not come with a rule book for humans, so this is the only possible way we could ever apprehend the functioning of the universe.

And because science is inductive, it cannot prove anything, but only disprove it by/with a contrary/contradictory example. This is fundamental to science, and therefore to an understanding of science. It matters, even to non-philosophers.
Right. I think it helps if we're clear about the differences between What Works, What Is and What Is Knowable.

Gravity is a good theory because from what we observe it works. Same for evolution.

But the irony with evolution is that it tells us we're not 'designed' for complete and perfect observation and reasoning (ways of knowing), rather we're 'good enough' for functional utility - what works.

Never-the-less the scientific method has produced an incredibly complex, coherent and reliable physicalist model of the universe and how it works. So it's getting something right, at least at levels of resolution we can make sense of.
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