The purpose of science should be the pursuit of knowledge, and the understanding of the universe, without any dogmatic limits except the harm that knowledge might cause to mankind. This self-evident definition of a positive science, which many scientists would subscribe, however does not guide today the practical world of science.
We are neither advancing in our knowledge of the general principles that define the Universe, and its ultimate laws of existence - beyond the detailed descriptions provided by our instruments - nor we are limiting the harmful side effects of many discoveries of science in human societies, from weapons to pollution.

Why...? Mathematical reductionism

On one hand the excessive emphasis on mathematics considered by many scientists the only language of truth that can describe the laws and properties of reality limits a lot our capacity to understand the universe. Mathematics describe very well the... mathematical properties of the Universe. As light describes very well its visual properties, or verbal theories such as evolution, describe better its temporal properties.
We cannot though know all the information of reality with a single language, a simplified mirror that our mind puts on that Universe.
In that sense the scientific method, the mathematical method, due to the simplicity of mathematics as a language, has created some a priori false dogmas about what reality is, that handicap enormously our knowledge of it.
The main of those errors introduced by the language o mathematics is abstraction . Mathematics reduce all organisms and species of the Universe to abstract points defined by a Greek, Euclid, 2300 years ago as "Forms without parts". Once we have reduced living beings, complex species, some of the size of stars, to a very simple thing called a point or number, we can talk 'mathematics'. Yet that leaves an entire range of properties and parts, and causes of reality that the syntax of mathematics will never be able to describe.
It is evident that the species of the Universe are not points, and so their external characteristics such as their speed position and momentum, are not necessarily as important as their internal characteristics such as perception, or organic structure, that mathematics do not describe.
Those properties of reality that the abstr action of points without parts, of numbers cannot perceive are precisely the organic properties of real points, of real species with organic, internal parts. A human being is not a mathematical point of an equation of productivity though mathematics and companies that use mathematical equations might think that, when they fire the human worker. A star is not a point of a galaxy but a gigantic species... A tree is not price of wood but a living being. Those classic examples show how reduccionist a mere mathematical analysis of reality can be. We men however have other languages such as visual perception, verbal thought, logic, that help us to understand those other organic properties of species and organisms. So we should not reduce ourselves in our search for an explanation to the Universe, to mathematical properties.

The linguistic method

It is much more logic to consider in our search for knowledge, the 'linguistic method', that considers all the information man gather with all his languages. The linguistic method tries to perceive all the properties of the Universe, with different languages, and when the different languages describe the same properties probably we have found a certain truth, and illuminated our understanding of reality far more than when we simplify the Universe into a mere set of abstract numbers. Our mind is modular. It comes from the combination of multiple senses, languages, and states of perception. So it should be our perception of the Universe. Instead the 'scientific method', in the way it is understood by so many scientists, makes reality as simple as the syntax of mathematics, a game of abstract, dead points without parts, whose inner parts, inner feelings, instincts of survival, perceptive capacity, and minds we don't care for.

The lethal consequences of abstract reductionism

Which leads to the second practical fact about mathematical science. Since mathematics cannot describe the living properties of species, scientists tend to consider the universe and the beings that exist in that Universe, a great mechanical machine, a thing, an object. All becomes then abstract, dead, without rights in front of a scientist that manipulates reality without any concern for the inner re actions of those 'points'. The cruelty and harm that science has done to nature and mankind is beyond doubt. Weapons of mass destruction, pollution, the extinction of forests and species, perhaps the very same extinction of man, by scientific machines, from nuclear bombs to advanced robots that are programmed with abstract numbers to kill life, has a lot to do with the dogmas, and false perceptions of the Universe caused by abstract, simplifying numbers.
Why a scientist should care about pollution if he does not feel this planet as a living organism, but as a point without parts? Why a scientist should fear robotic weapons if they are 'abstract machines' according to his simplifying mathematics? Who cares if we destroy the living beings of this planet, including human beings, substituted by machines in work places, killed by scientific nations when they do not display the same awe for abstract machines and mathematical science, if they are points without parts, abstract mathematical objects?
Ignorance of the organic nature of the Universe brings that cruelty of science with nature and mankind, since mathematics simplifies life into abstr action and then once mathematics have killed the Universe, the scientist think to be manipulating a dead reality, and has no remorse, no consciousness of what he does.

The organic Universe

Yet the Universe is a living organism, when we perceive it with all our languages, and do not simplify all the follows of energy, information and communication that shape such living organism.
We are living beings, that exist in a living planet, that is itself a cell of a living galaxy. The growth of social organisms from simple atoms to complex molecules to cells, to humans to social organisms, is a organic process, that can apprehend and know when we use many languages and put our logic and mind to it. Then we respect that Universe, and love this living planet.
We might say that ignorance and evil go together in mathematical science, as knowledge and harmony of behavior with the living universe go together with a linguistic method of knowledge, the method used in this book to advance our understanding of reality.
We exist in a living organism, the living universe, made of multiple micro-organisms that grow in size and social organization from atoms to galaxies. All those organisms who perceive the Universe with different languages, from mathematics the language of perception of future robots, to words the human language, to light, the animal language, to gravitation probably the force that atoms and masses use to perceive the space-time, display in their behavior and nature, living properties, which we can understand, and compare, not necessarily measure, to have a wider, more complex, and harmonic vision of how the Universe works as a living organism. And what are the laws of survival and extinction that create and destroy those organisms.
In this web we explain to you those laws, and using the linguistic method, and all its languages of perception, from images to words, from numbers to logic, try to give you that 'modular sense' of a living Universe, and a living planet, of which you are an interconnected part, that have to care for the body of this planet, and the social organisms of humanity, as your cells care collectively for your body.
As Socrates said, knowledge -real knowledge- not abstract, reduccionist science brings also a moral senses, because many of the fundamental laws of the living Universe, are non-quantifiable behavioral laws which humans have described through theory of evolution, through ethics, through the analysis of behavior. The man that knows those natural laws, and feels the organicism of the Universe, tends to respect that Universe, and feel only a small part of it. The man who ignores those laws and kills with abstract numbers the Universe, tends to have no morals, destroy without noticing the living world that surrounds him and act with the enormous arrogance, feeling a unique intelligence, a unique species.
This is too often the scientist, that under the myths of abstr action things himself, a special, unique species, that knows the only language of truth, his simple numbers. "God has waited 5000 years to find an intelligence so great as his to be able to understand the Universe" said Kepler when he found a mere mathematical property of that Universe: the law of planetary movement. How much more enlightening is the sentence of Plato, which hints to the living nature of reality. This World is indeed a living being, gifted with a body that we might call the Universe, and a mind that we might call "God", the bio-logic laws that rule such Universe.
If you are a dogmatic scientist, who cares less for knowledge than for your mathematical and mechanical religions, of power, and anthropocentrism, as Kepler did do not need to enter this site. If you care for knowledge and wonder about the mystery of it all, you are welcome, to open the keys to those mysteries.

Aberration of perception: the level of truthness of different sciences.

The biological nature of science, and knowledge, implies a simple fact: knowledge is neither neutral, not truth in itself. Knowledge has always a goal: to inform positively and help to survive the species who knows.

Since all species and levels of The Universe display the same organicism, the same formal structure, the same organic nature, and the same laws, it is then self-efficient, that all sciences might understand the nature of the Universe. That is why the Chinese by merely observing the game of nature, animal life and human societies, could infer the main Laws of the Universe that all species follow.

Each Organisms has different languages and senses of information and creates different mirrors-maps of the Universe in its mind, depending on what its senses perceive. This implies that The Universe is always more detailed than the relative perception our language shows. When we come closer to an event, the aberration of perception diminishes and we see more, we communicate more with the Organism and we have more Information on it. Thus there is a direct relationship between our knowledge of any Organism in detail, and the distance between our form and that Organism both in space [far away forms are not perceived in detail], and Information. We talk of a law of aberration of perception:

Max. temporal or spatial distance from  the species = Max. error of perception

        What means that Organisms which are far away in space or in its type of information, are not properly defined either because their form-dimension is far away from us [small or big forms are not perceived in detail], or because the age-dimension is far away [Organisms extinguished, or yet not created].

Aberration of perception thus applies also to social sciences... We cannot know much about the life of Neolithic societies, nor we can expect that theories so arrogant as the abstract big-bang, based in mathematical extrapolations, can be taken seriously. Indeed, there is also errors of perception in mathematics, which are specially important in abstract Euclidean Mathematics, where Organisms are perceived as points without parts, and organic processes of Energy and information are considered constantly homogeneous [as it is the Big Bang. Those errors are specially important in Economics in which men are points without organic rights, manipulated through abstract economical prices...

Aberration of perception becomes clearly observable in human sciences which are precise only in the range of detailed perception closer to the human Organisms.
      The law of aberration of perception is fundamental to relativistic knowledge: the further in time or space a form is, the less and worse we see of its more subtle, more complex waves of information.

The principle of Uncertainty is a consequence of this. It basically invalidates Physics of sub-particles as a serious needed science. It does not bring any new knowledge, since all Organisms have the same properties, and sub-particles cannot be studied with detail, with canon shots and analysis of atomic debris, as physics do.

In physics we see only through interposed metal-senses far away systems in space [astronomy] or time=Informative complexity, [physics]. So we loose information or energy perception [Uncertainty Principle]. Thus those sciences are largely irrelevant for true knowledge.

Why then sub-particle physics has so much prestige, and money, when fundamental sciences for man such as History have no budgets?

Merely because they are helpful to make weapons.

Survival and knowledge. A classification of science from a human perspective.

For all what has been said it is evident that in a biological Universe, knowledge is both relative to the language we use to perceive reality, (all knowledge is linguistic knowledge first), and knowledge is practical, it has a purpose: to help the survival of the species that use such knowledge to play the game of existence.

It follows that a science that cannot achieve those goals should be forbidden.

Thus physics of weapons, of high energies should be forbidden for its side effects against mankind since the excuse of knowledge on so remote species is just that: an excuse.

We should eliminate such science as irrelevant and dangerous to man.

It follows that we understand the Universal game better when we study a plane of existence from which we receive more information and energy. Which happens to be biology, medicine, and Human History, where we have direct information, without the need of interposed expensive machines of perception.

So when we study biology or sociology, the richness of information becomes obvious to us. Those sciences are far more telling of reality... of the Thoughts of God. Indeed, the more important science is history which studies the social games of Organisms among humans. Therefore in this web purposedly we will study in far more depth, the Human Organism, and his collective social forms: economic ecosystems and Historic societies. Both sciences are far more relevant than Physics or Astronomy when we apply the two standards of knowledge: aberration of perception (maximum in Physics, minimal in History), and importance to our survival (Maximum in History and Minimal in Physics.)

The true guide to science should be the use of knowledge, to improve the survival of our species. Yet physics creates robots and weapons that compete and extinguish man in fields of work and war. Thus it is self-evident that the study of robotics and particle physics should be forbidden, and the enormous amount of money dedicated to it, employed in understanding the Economic ecosystem  and history, the human social organism, which are far more important to our survival. Medicine, History, biology, and the study of economic ecosystems to increase the production of Human goods (goods natural to our organism and languages of perception such as education, art, food, health care, housing) should be in that sense the fundamental sciences of man.

Today those sciences are totally under funded in a precarious state of knowledge. Some of them like abstract economics only care to reproduce machines and increase the productivity of companies (which means to extinguish workers and put machines in their place, so the ratio capital=machines Vs Humans diminishes).  So paradoxically in our societies the most funded sciences, abstract physics (and its derivates, weapon and robotic research), and abstract economics (with his worship of machines and money, the organic elements of the metal-earth), are the sciences that foster the extinction of mankind.

We could end up this reflection with a simple map of all Universal sciences, that classifies them according to their language, and usefulness for man. Such classification places physics, and the arrogant abstract scientists that study them, in the bottom, not in the top of our valuation of knowledge:

In the graph, we differentiate in sciences, those forms of knowledge which should be limited, like abstract economics and physics because they evolve machines, that can displace man as top predator of the Earth; and those forms of knowledge which should be promoted, such as agriculture, history, art or medicine, since they enhance the common welfare of man and promote human senses, human goods and man as top predator. The guide to such division should be not the excuse of 'knowledge'; but the goodness and badness for man of a given science.

Indeed, what scientists forget is that abstract knowledge is meaningless without a purpose, and specially that a extinct species knows nothing. That is indeed the future of abstract science: to ignore everything that matters about God and the Universe. It is then necessary to refound sciences from a human perspective, according to the goals of mankind, not of those cultures and ideologies based in money and weapons that today direct the research of science, towards negative goals, such as the evolution of machines, and weapons, and the search for industrial profits, that fog our perception of truth and only can end with our extinction.