Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Peter Gariaev, wave genetics, and the problem of being a dilettante

There's an inherent problem with skepticism, and the heart of it is that you can't be an expert in everything.

There are, in fact, damn few things that I do consider myself an expert in.  Judging by my ability to read technical, peer-reviewed papers, I can handle myself decently in the fields of evolutionary biology and population genetics (which I focused on in college, and which I teach every year) and historical linguistics (the subject of my master's degree).  Outside of that... well, I'm a dilettante.  So despite my B.S. in physics, research papers in Science on just about any topic in physics lose me after the first two sentences.  Even in biology -- a subject I've taught with (I think) at least some degree of competence for 27 years -- I am instantaneously lost in the details in scholarly papers on a variety of topics, including (but not limited to) cellular biology, physiology, ecosystem dynamics, and most of biochemistry.

Now, let me say up front that there's nothing inherently wrong about being a dilettante.  Dilettantes make good high school teachers, and my opinion is that it's more fun to be a generalist than a specialist.  Dilettantism was positively celebrated in the 18th and 19th centuries, when it was the sport of gentlemen (and more than a few gentlewomen) -- some of whom have some significant and far-reaching research to their credit.

But being a generalist does bring with it a problem, and that is that it leaves you unqualified to weigh in on topics where specialized knowledge would be required to know if the person in question was even making sense.  And the specialists aren't much better off -- because even they are out of their element in all but their chosen field.

So how, as skeptics, do we make a decision about whether someone is a groundbreaking pioneer or a spouter of bullshit -- when the field in which they are making their pronouncements is less than familiar to you?

I ran into an especially good example of this a couple of days ago, when a friend asked me what I thought about Dr. Peter Gariaev.  I hadn't heard of Dr. Gariaev's research, so I did a little digging.  And what I found left me with the same impression my friend had -- his comment was that it "sounded like a bunch of woo."

But let's face it, relativity sounded like a "bunch of woo" when it was first proposed.  So did quantum mechanics.  So, honestly, did the germ theory of disease.  None of these ideas were particularly intuitive; none gained instant acceptance; all three seemed, for a while, to be blatant nonsense.  So let's look at some of Gariaev's writing, and see if he's an Einstein or a Schrödinger -- or a David Icke or a Richard C. Hoagland.

Here are a few paragraphs from Gariaev's own website about his theory, called "Wave Genetics:"
The quintessence of the wave genome theory may be represented as following: genome of the highest organisms is considered to be a bio-computer which forms the space-time grid framework of a bio-systems.

In that bio-system, as the carriers of a field epi-gene-matrix - wave fronts are being used, which are assigned by gene-holograms and so-called solitons on DNA – distinct type of acoustic and electromagnetic fields, produced by biogenetic apparatus of the organism/bio-system under consideration and being a medium of strategic regulatory data/information exchange between cells, tissues and organs of the bio-system.

It is also vital to note that the holographic grids/frameworks, which are also the elements of fluctuating structures of solitons, are, in fact, discrete simplest cases of code-originated information, anchored in chromosome continuum of an organism...

A group of scientists headed by P P Gariaev and M U Maslov, developed a theory of so called fractal representation of natural (human) and genetical languages. Within the confines of this theory it is said that the quasi-speech of DNA possesses potentially inexhaustible “supply of words” and, moreover, what had been a sentence on the scales of DNA–“texts” “phrases” or a “sentence” becomes/turns into a word or a letter on the other scale. Genetical apparatus can be viewed as the triunity of its structure-functional organization consisting of holographic, soliton and fractal structures.

This theory allows a refined quantitative comparison of symbolic structure of any texts including genetical. Thereby a possibility has been wide open to approach a deciphering of a lexicon of one’s own gene-code, and accordingly, more accurate composition of algorithms of addressing a genome of a human with an aim of potentially any type of programming of one’s vital activity such as treatment, increasing one’s life expectancy and so on and so forth.

Empirical tests of wave genetic theory in the light of “speech” characteristics of DNA demonstrate strategically correct stance and direction of the research.
Made it through all that?  There's lots more, but it all pretty much sounds like what you just read.  Lots of use of words like "holographic" and "fractal" and "soliton;" not much in the way of data.  As far as his qualifications, Gariaev himself apparently has a Ph.D., even though nowhere could I find any mention of where it's from.  To be fair, this may just be that his biographical details aren't widely known outside of his native Russia.  So given that, is there a way we can parse his research, despite not being molecular biologists ourselves?  (Well, maybe some of my readers are, but I'm not.) 

When I run across something like this, the first thing I look for is to see where he's been published.  And when you look at his publications list, an interesting pattern emerges.  Back in the early 1990s, Gariaev was publishing in what seem to be reputable, peer-reviewed journals -- the Journal of the Society of Optical Engineering and Laser Physics, for example.  Even back then, though, you could see what appears to be a trend toward oddball interpretations of science, with his solo paper "DNA as source of new kind of God 'knowledge'" (published in the Act and Facts/Impact series, N12, pp. 7-11).  I'm just going off the title, here -- I wasn't able to find the paper itself -- but unless he was using the term "God knowledge" metaphorically, which doesn't seem very likely in a scholarly paper, I think this one already shows that he'd gone off the beam.

Since then, though, he's not had a single publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, with the exception of a 2002 paper in the International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems.  His other publications have appeared in places like the Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions (and lest you think that I'm being too harsh, here, a quick survey of other articles they'd published include one having to do with using "Qigong" to treat cancer, one trying to use quantum mechanics to explain telepathy, and one called "A Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousness"). 

Other papers by Gariaev have appeared in DNA Decipher Journal -- which just this summer published a paper called "Quantum Intelligent Design in Contrast to Mindless Materialists' Evolution."

Mercy me.

So, if Gariaev is the next Einstein, why no papers in Nature or Science?

Why, too, is he cited all over -- but only in places of highly dubious reputation, like Above Top Secret and Godlike Productions?

And don't start with me about how he is a Maverick and a Pioneer and the other scientists hate him and are suppressing his work because it is too revolutionary.  C'mon, now.  How many careers were made based on the ground broken by the likes of Einstein and Schrödinger?  Peter Higgs just won the Nobel Prize, for fuck's sake.

I may not be an expert in biophysics; but I do know that if Gariaev really had shown (as he has claimed) that "genetic traits can be changed, activated and disactivated by use of resonant waves, beamed at the DNA" and that this was going to allow humans "to regrow vital internal organs, in vivo, without the requirement of difficult, dangerous and expensive surgical procedures," then he'd be elbowing Higgs out of the way to get to Stockholm.

So we can, as generalists (or as specialists outside our particular specialty) still use the principles of skepticism to come to some sort of judgment about what we read.  Fortunate for me; a dilettante I always have been, and (I'm afraid) a dilettante I always will be.  If it weren't possible for us to think through such situations, we'd fall prey to just about every crazy claim that came along.

Some of us still do, of course -- which is why it's absolutely critical to train your brain to be, well, absolutely critical.


  1. I think he does have a PhD. But there were frauds with PhD before, it's a far more parsimonious explanation than this whole fractal linguistic computer gibberish, to me at least

  2. i am bioinformatics student at university of vienna, and I also stumbled on this character - at first what i read looket to me like... well it looked unsirious. but then again, everything that I red from his works had solid scientific backgound - appart from light phisics which is not my area. I will definitly turn my attention to this aspect to, because it could be very important.... there are some very interesting aspects that are reveald to me from his work, it is sometimes refreshend to learn from somebody that look like is half way lunatic :-D i apologize for my english. greetings

    1. He does have legitimate research; some of which is peer reviewed by the university of Toronto Canada. Not all of his claims can be validated, but in terms of certain experiments done on animals, and with respects to the transduction of DNA samples non physically from one location to another; his claims can be backed up by independent study from non-biased sources. That is to say; that there is a practical aplication to his theories, and we may one day have the evidence to validate all of his claims. Perhaps one day someone in the states will pick up the torch, and start applying his methods to clinical research. Until that day we are left with a breathtaking and mind boggling theory with vast implications; as well as some solid research; which in turn leads to many dead ends.

  3. Good article. I can't help but think though, that perhaps you have judged prematurely. The majority of true scientists were rejected early on, many are still unrecognized (Royal Raymond Rife, Wilhelm Reich, Nikola Tesla to an extent, etc); even Einstein had an 'Anti-Einstein' foundation. Point being, just because someone is not published in 'Science' or the like, or is not openly embraced by the current establishment, certainly is not valid reason to judge the totality of their work.
    One's judgment toward a certain 'discovery', whether it be real or fictitious, depends largely upon what scientific paradigm they choose to favor. The majority of those who oppose his research are of a materialistic inclination, and the majority in his favor are of metaphysical inclination; there is philosophical bias on both sides, however this does not in itself imply that Gariaev et al are of the same philosophical 'bend' as their 'fans'.

    The Bohm model of the Holographic Universe theory is not a paradigm that has been studied as extensively as others, unfortunately, and it is this paradigm within which Gariaev performed his research.

    I believe that rather than having the scientific and lay establishments simply criticize his efforts, they should instead seek to either validate or invalidate it through experiment; this has not been done mainly because the equipment is very expensive and uncommon, however if one is capable of transmitting genetic data via encoded light-waves to induce a perfect transmutation, why not try and validate it!

    Considering the postulate that "genetic traits can be changed, activated and disactivated by use of resonant waves, beamed at the DNA", it may seem unlikely, though this does not rule out the possibility.
    The study of cymatics coupled with the discoveries of Raymond Rife have provided strong evidence that we are fundamentally oscillatory beings, in which case a resonance-based genetic regulation may appear somewhat more plausible; also considering the simple fact that music can change the way we feel both physically and emotionally, a case may certainly be made by one more qualified than I.

    1. Good comment. Skeptics /organized/ often criticize and almost never validate or invalidate the theory which seems strange to them. In Czech Republic they dehonest publicly R.R.Rife and many other researchers which are only "sharlatans" for them.

    2. Nice Cymatics presentation:

    3. I am not sure about the research in discussion, but I am sure that the attitude in this comment is healthy and consonant with the best scientific practices. Before airing to the world that you are suspicious, or that you do not "believe" such or such claims, better test, then accept or reject.

  4. The link below describes Luc Montagnier, a Nobel-prize winner who essentially agrees with Gariaevs main assertion:
    "The joint winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2008, Luc Montagnier, is claiming that DNA can send ‘electromagnetic imprints’ of itself into distant cells and fluids which can then be used by enzymes to create copies of the original DNA. You can read the original paper here [PDF]. (Source) Montagnier also filed for a U.S. patent on the technology of detecting phantom replica of DNA in water:"

    "Dr. Montagnier’s breakthrough is that he copies DNA fragments, at a distance, without adding the DNA fragment into the PCR medium. What Dr. Montagnier has shown is that the shadow of DNA, where that DNA is located at a short distance away, is enough to create copies of that DNA in a PCR medium.

    Dr. Montagnier uses the PCR technique to multiply DNA in a PCR medium, not by adding DNA into the medium, but by using special light to cast a shadow of a DNA fragment onto the PCR medium. He calls it “imprinting” the PCR medium with a “phantom DNA” imprint. (See also Garaiev and Poponin’s “phantom DNA” imprint.)

    The DNA fragment is not physically in the PCR medium. This is potentially a huge breakthrough." - - A highly recommended read.

    Consider the basic fact that our thoughts are electrical - i.e., they are purported to be the result of electrochemical processes in the brain; is it not logical to then suppose that perhaps electromagnetism is a rather fundamental aspect of our material existence?-Given that it is the facilitator of all human thought?

    1. Sure, the processes behind what we call "thoughts" are electrochemical - but it is a complete non-sequitur to go from there to "you can use light to make precise DNA sequences out of a PCR medium". Especially when the research you quote is touted as evidence of a mechanism behind HOMEOPATHY - a practice that is proven not to be effective.
      What was it that convinced people that General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Evolution, were actually true, despite initial pushback? Their applicability and replicability. When the same gets done for "DNA lasers", then we will treat it as fact. Before that it can only be considered an unfounded hypothesis, and there is no need to rush declaring it potentially true - you don't get points for endorsing something you had nothing but blind faith in, even if it turns out to be true.

  5. May the light of your skepticism (which is brilliant), Mr. Bonnet, further illuminate aspects of the truth of phantom DNA. Perhaps the truth of it is just that it is a good story. What if the truth of it is close to what Dr. Montagnier is in the process of finding? The world improves--either way.

  6. We just got a record on clean water quantum equivalents of DNA. By this we walked a long 30 years. Our method is an analog method of L. Montagnier , but very different from his method. Montagnier's article caused a great uproar in the scientific press , because he showed something principal new ideas in biology and genetics and physics . This is what I wrote and published a lot , but the western scientific elite prefer not to notice us. The paradox is that Montagnier is in the same position. Prospects for our opening phantom DNA and their method of quantum broadcast enormous.
    I began to prepare materials for patenting of method quantum broadcast of DNA and genes. There is other way . We started joint research with the Institute of Cell Biophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences in respect of quantum programming stem cells.

  7. Perhaps this is simply a fraud Garaiev, Article DNA- The "Wave biocomputer" he quotes a German institute of neurology, but researched the site and did not find any reference to Garayev, colleagues or Wave Genetics. Here's the link:

  8. Here's an example of LWG as it works in practice.

  9. Yes, Sir, you're an uneducated dilettante, who to discuss P. Garyaev has to study physics and biology for some good ten-fifteen years first. You try to say here something you have no idea what, at all.

  10. Nine of his programs are on line, for free. Have anyone tried one of them by any chance ? Otherwise, what can we say ??

  11. I read through this paper (among some others on the topic):

    And it is definitely legitimate science.

    Note that scientific journals also publish garbage sometimes. Self-publication allows one to easily append or correct their work and avoids the peer review process, which is sound in theory but sometimes unprofessional or even corrupt in practice.

  12. İnsan hücreleri programlıdır. İnsanoğlu hücrelerini yönlendirebilir hedefleyebilir odaklayabilir. Hücreler duygu ve düşüncelerle yönlendirebilir. Buna örnek kanser olduğunu anlayan bir insanın zaman içinde hastalığı yenmesini verebilirim. Hücreler atomik etkileşim halindedirler. Bu şekilde bir hücre diğer bir hücreye programını kopyalayarak genetik geçişi yapabilir. Bunun için uygun şartların oluşması gereklidir. Ayrıca elleriyle şifa yada enerji verebilen insanların olması gibi. Allah bazı insanlara farkına varamadıkları yada açıklayamadıkları özel yetenekler vermiştir. Bu yetenekler bilimle açıklanabilir fakat henüz bilim bu seviyeye ulaşmış değildir. İnsan hayatındaki bir çok mucizenin bilimsel dayanağı budur. Atomdan kopan elektronlar gibi vücuttan kopan hücreler mucize etkiler yaratabilir. Ümit Edikli 05.11.2017

    1. Google translation from Turkish
      Human cells are programmed. Mankind can focus on cells that can be directed. Cells can lead to emotion and thought. I can give a person who understands that cancer is an example, to defeat disease over time. Cells are in atomic interaction. In this way, a cell can make a genetic transition by copying its program to another cell. Appropriate conditions must be established for this. It is also like having people who can give energy to healing with their hands. God has given special talents to some people that they can not understand. These abilities can be explained by science, but science has not yet reached this level. It is the scientific endurance of many miracles in human life. Cells that break away from the body, such as electrons that break off atoms, can have miraculous effects. Ümit Edikli 05.11.2017

    2. I must remind myself, rather than reading the comments, it is far better to poke oneself in the eye with a sharp stick.

  13. One of quite famous Chzech "alternativs" Petr Chobot which lives partly in Peru with shamans and studies their techniques often mentioned in his lectures that P.Gariaev was his professor on University (? in Leningrad - Petrohrad) and was involved in secret project of remote viewing (Ural). I know from Ch.´s father that his son really studied in Soviet Union and was in this project ... he told me that even KGB was interested in theese remote viewing tests.

  14. I would be careful to pronounce the unknowable.
    ... the author does not know the Russians ...
    .... and fed the poisonous thoughts ...

  15. My mother has stage 4 leukemia. I contacted Dr. Gariaev in regards to his treatment. He sent a series of audio recordings that my mother was listening to on a daily basis. From our own experience his treatment did absolutely nothing for her, in fact her health got worse. I would suggest for people to save their money.Maybe his theory sounds promising but in this reality it does not work.

    1. Could u plz send some kind of evidence for this case.btw i wish the best for ur parents

  16. It is sad dear sir, how far behind some of our scientific materialists are, and how little we give any sort of lee-way to these concepts! If there is ANY truth to non locality of consciousness, extended human functions, and as we are now discovering , the human aura (WHICH IS REAL), why do idiots like you always stonewall, pretend to be smarter by acting like these are "woo woo" idiots when they put their careers, and reputations on the line by ACTUALLY having the balls to explore these ideas!

    People like you, just confirm to what is funded, accepted, and fundamentally biased- and pass it off as supposedly being dispassionate supporters of science who only support the facts, because you know, its in mainstream journals and peer reviewed!

    Harvard still sometimes gets samples from "Qigong" masters, and actually, there are many programs, among private contractors, and yes, universities that do take this stuff somewhat seriously, but the scientific establishment, seems to think certain subjects are taboo, and instantly "faceplants" on their desk, as your meme infers, and worse.

    Whether true or not, we need a LOT more research to know, and at the very least, developing new models, funding technologies to detect and treat, and then- going much, much further with it. In otherwords, if we could understand the placebo effect, maybe finally nail what intuition may be, or understand what these mysterious eastern practices are about and how they work (which if you even tried "qigong" for a few months, you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt its not woo woo, and its effects can be felt, whether you believe it or not!)

    Sorry bro, I like your style, but generally, this is the typical "skeptic" hiding behind peer approved opinion to look down and talk about things, that one day- you may be proven entirely wrong about.

    Yea, its true, there is a lot of woo woo. An unfortunate thing in our ageism, and generally, people who make connections without really understanding the larger details and complexities. However, that doesn't mean even the most woo woo, doesn't have a tidbit of truth in there.

    For a long time, people have discussed auras...and...well, look at it now. Biophotons, ultraweak photon emission, photons in microtubules, magnetic fields, and we are finding, much more about electromagnetism in the body, and its signaling processes in genetics and biology in general! Yet scientific materialists still trudge along....

    Skepticism is healthy. But this "Act" like science is dispassionate, balanced, non-biased, and doesn't have its own dogmas (full of holes), is simply not the case. Peer Review is great. But we need less circle jerking.

    1. Peer review is without an alternative - if claims aren't fact-checked, all we are left with is blind faith and argument From authority. No one says that woo doesn't have a tidbit of truth to it - but how that truth is described is the problem
      . For instance, auras - living beings do emit infrared and even some visible light, though this is too weak and undetectible by human eye, perfectly explained by what you call "scientific materialists", and no aura-reader has yet demonstrated their purported ability to detect auras or provide any precise information on the person they are reading (James Randi publicly put these claims to the test). So, while there is something that we could label as an "aura", that doesn't make the claims of aura-readers true - because what they described the Aura to be is radically different. That is not a bias, or circle jerking. Qigong is also nothing more than relaxation exercise, just like Reiki or acupuncture - and those who don't take their claims beyond that would not be called "woo pedlers". But when you claim unsupported things,like curing cancer, that is when you Step into woo teritory, and the only way out is not "us being more open-minded", but demonstrable evidence.

  17. In an interview, Dr. Gariaev explains how his research is being actively suppressed by corporate interests. The reason why he no longer publishes in more famous academic journals is because he isn't being allowed to.

    This very website, like many other skeptic website, may very well be set up by the cabal disinformation system aimed at discouraging people from seeking information which diverges from the asserted paradigm.

  18. In an interview on youtube, Dr. Gariaev explains how his research is being actively suppressed by corporate interests. He is not the first one that this is happening to. It is also logically consistent to see why it would be.

    The reason why Dr. GAriaev is no longer publishing in more famous academic journals is because he isn't allowed to.

    This very website may well be set up by the cabal aimed at disinformation and discouragement of the public seeking information which diverges from the asserted paradigm.

  19. HOW BOUT ;) #georgelakhovsky #louiskervran #transmutationbiologique #Biophysical studies have recently reconfirmed ancient #sacredknowledge that, indeed, #humaneyes emit light, as first observed in rat eye retinas and reported in 2010 (Wang, et al).41 Spontaneous #biophotonemission measured by the researchers is comprised of #softphoton scattering from continual atomic conversions pervading the network of fine blood vessels behind the retina, which forms a loose spiral centered behind each eye. The lens of the eye may not only focus environmental light onto the retina, but also focus ultra-weak #biophotons re-emitted from the retina into a beam centered along the line of sight. Such findings confirm Maya elucidations of the solar circuit completion by #ocularphoton emissions.
    #Barefoot contact with the #piezoelectric pyramid stones provides electrical currents that excite atomic reactions within the blood by increasing the rate of molecular dissociation of gas molecules adsorbed to metal surfaces, effectively increasing the rate of gas absorption into metals. Just as #Qigong and #Reiki adepts practice regular meditation in conjunction with #earthing lifestyles at #sacredsites, related #holisticenergy balancing practices such as #acupressure, #acupuncture, #cupping and #moxibustion #spontaneouscombustion ;) are resonantly amplified by sacred #bioelectrification lifestyles that excite the body's nuclear #transmutation processes.
    The renewed #holistic view of all living organisms as #biologicalnuclearreactors –that #resonantnucleartransmutations are safely occurring all around us and within us in every moment of our existence– shows modern scientific feats of '#atomsmashing' to be entirely unnecessary for inducing #nuclear#transmutation. As exhibited by biological nuclear reactions, precision control of resonantly tuned reactions allows safe #nuclearconversion of isotopes with a natural simplicity that has also been achieved in the field of genetic engineering. Crude initial genetic splicing methods have given way to more advanced '#wavegenetics' techniques involving irradiation of living organisms with pulsed laser light or #infrasound to induce mass spontaneous #geneticenhancements in entire populations by #coherentbiophotonfieldstimulation,#TransmutationsNaturellesNonRadioactives, Librairie Maloine S.A., Paris, 1963. #TransmutationsàFaibleÉnergie, Librairie Maloine S.A., Paris, 1964. #TransmutationsBiologiques, #métabolismesaberrants de l'#azote, le #potassium et le #magnésium '#electroculture #magnetoculture, l'#electrohorticulture, l'#electroagriculture, la #cosmoelectroculture, l'#agriculturecosmotellurique, la #cosmiculture, #magnaculture ...#ELECTROMEDICINE #Bloodelectrification #DrKaali & #PeterSchwolsky

  20. I trust that his research will have future.. some day...

  21. A nice and a honest article. I am puzzled by some of the Gariayev's claims myself, even if I am less puzzled by some of his overall concepts.
    Still, the reservation '.. why hasn't he been published by 'Nature' leaves me untouched. Why?
    Reacting to the Sheldrake's 'New Science of Life' the Nature's editor wrote, among other things: "This infuriating tract... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." In an interview broadcast on BBC television in 1994, he said: "Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy."

    Is this a reaction of an editor of a renowned science magazine? It makes my stomach turn from the renowned magazines in general and from the hardcore 'scientific' bigots in particular.
    It is a reaction of a vanity hurt by something it cannot identify with, undermining it's own belief of omniscience.
    It is not an iota better from the similar reactions of the religious bigots of today or of the centuries passed.

  22. This is healing Gariaev's matrix for stronger immunity. The talk is in Russian language. But the music - sound waves - universally understood...
    Milla, blogger

  23. The reason we have a schism that is keeping us from being on the same wave length is entirely on you - the seen and unseen are already unified in science, you are just bitter that what most scientists describe as "unseen" is not to your liking (you would like the fictional to be true, such as spirits, souls, and gods). The current models cannot really "expire", since they don't have an expiration date - models change according to data, not speculation. And there are data indicating that some models should be revised, of course, and there always will be such revisions (since models are based on data, so more data with time will indicate different models than those made with less data) - but that is not what you ask. You don't want to upgrade scientific knowledge, you want to downgrade to your preferred religious texts, force them on all of us, and stick to them forever. And I am truly sorry, but you need to have some solid evidence as to why such an action would upgrade our understanding of reality. Until then, you just have to live with the looming possibility that your assumptions are wrong - that is the foundation of science. You can never declare anything a definitive fact that will 100% remain unchanged forever.