The Manner in Which Mental Constraints or Axioms Color Scientific Research

This morning I read an article about the universal dark flow by a London based "science writer." Of course, this is nothing new at all. In fact, as I have been remarking for lo these many years here, evidence of a vectored evolution of the universe is manifold. Moreover, it breaks down as an ordered transfinite series along the lines that Vladimir Vernadsky limned. The lithosphere, the biosphere and the noosphere. All of these interacting with each other in a potentially negentropic fashion governed by the lawful overarching character of the human species creative mentation. That in its essence taken as a completed true infinity of simultaneity.

Which brings us to the issue of the multiverse. Our brave author referenced above sees this dark flow as evidence of... a multiverse. Contrary to claims by some that string theory or "grand unification theories" are mathematically beautiful, they instead are quite ugly. Who in their right mind would call the so called landscape of string theory claiming that there are 10⁵⁰⁰ possible universes anything other than hellishly deranged?

And yet these men of genius are paid quite well for this "quantlike" gobbledygook and even get million dollar prizes for spewing such mental detritus. For my money, they are no more sane than for instance the demented ramblings of the notorious Mohamed El Naschie.

The problem is one of ideological blinders. If your critically unexamined worldview is conformal with a pantheon pagan paradigm of bestial distinctly unhuman relations of a Hobbesean war of each against all then your conclusions about science will be predetermined along that trajectory. Take for example the late Steven Hawkings crazy drivel about the danger of contacting alien civilizations which would presumbably be gunning to destroy humanity. Etc, etc, ad infinitum...  A truly bad infinity.