Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 15:23 On 6/7/2010 3:40, BURT wrote: >> >> And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901) >> he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of >> experience. >> >> So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen >> the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them >> what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a >> sanatorium etc.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > How can atoms in the form of a round arc hang above and radiate the > spectrum? Won't these atoms fall or move in the atmosphere as a gas? > > NO. Science has its Pot O Gold and Leprachon. Its explanation is a big > lie that they want you to believe because they have convinced > themselves that they are smart. > > Show how a circular arc can float in the sky without changing position > as matter always does over time. > > No. Rainbows can't be explained by atoms. > > Mitch Raemsch Well you are missing the point Burt. The point I am trying to show is that there is information that somehow people receive, not everyone can make use of it, but geniuses well placed like Pascal, Newton, Bacon, Cantor, they do make use of that information. But these people were scientists probably from birth. And they would have to be geniuses to be able to understand what they were being shown or told since often there may not be familiar words to use to explain the concepts. Now I showed you one modern example that is not communication by dreams, but similar, in that imagery from Peru as seen from space. The missile man. And we also have an artifact in the form of an Ica stone and there are a bunch of other similar artifacts that all tell us, that about 2 million years ago, someone launched two 20km long nukes at the moon, one impacted at the south pole, and there was outgassing from that blast, since the interior is a terraformed space. So ok, that's a lot to swallow. No matter what the source of that information is. So using the Baconian method, rather than believing blindly, we have done some empirical science and sent probes there to see if there was water there. There is. Not satisfied with the results from Clementine (sponsored by the Pentagon) which used ground penetrating radar to find water ice, we sent more probes there this time with impactors. Now the Indians have said there is carbon in that water, which is what we really want to know. Are there signs of life in that water that supposedly came from inside the moon? And so we are still investigating it at the speed at which molasses flows uphill in the winter. Why does it take so long? The whole notion that the moon is anything but rock is the realm of science fiction. And every step along the way, as science marches on, the majority of people work to prevent science from marching forward. Yet by perseverance science marches on. But prior to Bacon, you could argue that all people had to go on was faith. Galen was right about a lot of medicine and his medicine was used for a very long time until around the time of Bacon. But Galen never dissected humans. Only animals. So his medicine was full of human anatomy, that just is not there. It is only in the anatomy of some animals. Bacon however and his movement caused people to examine cadavers, and by that science progressed. By not taking things on faith. That may not seem like a big leap but to be a believer, and think that the information you are being given is coming from God or angels or some religious enlightenment, and then to say well hold on, are they telling us the truth? That would be heresy. And even a personal type of heresy in private because a s a person, you now have to decide that the people who are giving this information are not perfect. Or perhaps God is not perfect. And that is a very difficult step to make. To say well, we can't trust this information, we need to prove it to ourselves through empirical means. But lets not make assumptions about the credibility of our sources, lets just do fact gathering, for the sake of it, and see what THAT shows us, so we don't have to call anyone a liar, or make and judgements about sources, lets just look at the facts, and since God made nature (according to these people who were themselves religious people working for the Church in many instances as monks or theologians) since God made nature we are just examining Gods good works. And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age. To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment.
From: purple on 6 Jun 2010 23:27 On 6/6/2010 8:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > On 6/6/2010 1:09 PM, rick_s wrote: >> On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote: >> >>>> >>>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. >>> The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was >>> based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history >>> and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not >>> objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure >>> is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great >>> future of science and not until then. >>> >>> Mitch Raemsch >>> >> >> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras? >> >> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen > > Butchers dissect animals. Are they scientists? Science is a method, not > a body of knowledge. Bzzzzttttttt! Wrong. Your knowledge and understanding are as thin as BURT's. "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding." http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html And even that's overcomplicated. The definition given when I was in school was simply: Science is the study of nature. If you don't get it you're as mentally deficient as BURT whose definitions are all self-serving. See also: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 23:30 On Jun 6, 12:23 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 6/7/2010 3:40, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > > >> And in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by Richard M. Bucke (circa 1901) > >> he relates the experiences of these people as being the same type of > >> experience. > > >> So probably Cantor was trying to somehow tell people that he had seen > >> the light in a manner of speaking and he had no way to explain to them > >> what that meant, which led to his eventual depression and stay in a > >> sanatorium etc.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > How can atoms in the form of a round arc hang above and radiate the > > spectrum? Won't these atoms fall or move in the atmosphere as a gas? > > > NO. Science has its Pot O Gold and Leprachon. Its explanation is a big > > lie that they want you to believe because they have convinced > > themselves that they are smart. > > > Show how a circular arc can float in the sky without changing position > > as matter always does over time. > > > No. Rainbows can't be explained by atoms. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Well you are missing the point Burt. The point I am trying to show is > that there is information that somehow people receive, not everyone can > make use of it, but geniuses well placed like Pascal, Newton, Bacon, > Cantor, they do make use of that information. > > But these people were scientists probably from birth. And they would > have to be geniuses to be able to understand what they were being shown > or told since often there may not be familiar words to use to explain > the concepts. > > Now I showed you one modern example that is not communication by dreams, > but similar, in that imagery from Peru as seen from space. > > The missile man. And we also have an artifact in the form of an Ica > stone and there are a bunch of other similar artifacts that all tell us, > that about 2 million years ago, someone launched two 20km long nukes at > the moon, one impacted at the south pole, and there was outgassing from > that blast, since the interior is a terraformed space. > > So ok, that's a lot to swallow. No matter what the source of that > information is. So using the Baconian method, rather than believing > blindly, we have done some empirical science and sent probes there to > see if there was water there. There is. Not satisfied with the results > from Clementine (sponsored by the Pentagon) which used ground > penetrating radar to find water ice, we sent more probes there this time > with impactors. > > Now the Indians have said there is carbon in that water, which is what > we really want to know. Are there signs of life in that water that > supposedly came from inside the moon? And so we are still investigating > it at the speed at which molasses flows uphill in the winter. > > Why does it take so long? The whole notion that the moon is anything but > rock is the realm of science fiction. > > And every step along the way, as science marches on, the majority of > people work to prevent science from marching forward. > > Yet by perseverance science marches on. But prior to Bacon, you could > argue that all people had to go on was faith. > > Galen was right about a lot of medicine and his medicine was used for a > very long time until around the time of Bacon. > > But Galen never dissected humans. Only animals. So his medicine was full > of human anatomy, that just is not there. It is only in the anatomy of > some animals. > > Bacon however and his movement caused people to examine cadavers, and by > that science progressed. By not taking things on faith. > > That may not seem like a big leap but to be a believer, and think that > the information you are being given is coming from God or angels or some > religious enlightenment, and then to say well hold on, are they telling > us the truth? That would be heresy. And even a personal type of heresy > in private because a s a person, you now have to decide that the people > who are giving this information are not perfect. > Or perhaps God is not perfect. > > And that is a very difficult step to make. To say well, we can't trust > this information, we need to prove it to ourselves through empirical > means. But lets not make assumptions about the credibility of our > sources, lets just do fact gathering, for the sake of it, and see what > THAT shows us, so we don't have to call anyone a liar, or make and > judgements about sources, lets just look at the facts, and since God > made nature (according to these people who were themselves religious > people working for the Church in many instances as monks or theologians) > since God made nature we are just examining Gods good works. > > And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age. > To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical > means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I see that for personal reasons; that is for you to remain great; the state of science must be. But this is pure nonsense. Science has just began. The same with a somewhat older beginning of civilization. Science isn't gathering facts. Those are data. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 23:30 "purple" <purple(a)colorme.com> wrote in message news:873786F2t9U1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 6/6/2010 8:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >> On 6/6/2010 1:09 PM, rick_s wrote: >>> On 6/7/2010 0:25, BURT wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. >>>> The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was >>>> based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history >>>> and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not >>>> objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure >>>> is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great >>>> future of science and not until then. >>>> >>>> Mitch Raemsch >>>> >>> >>> Well what about the atomists? What about Aristotle, Galen, Pythagoras? >>> >>> Galen dissected animals, if he was not a scientist what was he? >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen >> >> Butchers dissect animals. Are they scientists? Science is a method, not >> a body of knowledge. > > Bzzzzttttttt! Wrong. Your knowledge and understanding are as > thin as BURT's. > > "Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to > understand better, the history of the natural world and how > the natural world works, with observable physical evidence > as the basis of that understanding." That is the GOAL of science. Science is the method of achieving that goal, and the scientific method is how it is accomplished > http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html > > And even that's overcomplicated. The definition given when I > was in school was simply: > > Science is the study of nature. Well .. if you were given it in school, it MUST be right in every detail, mustn't it.
From: rick_s on 6 Jun 2010 15:53
On 6/7/2010 4:30, BURT wrote: >> >> And that is like independence day for humanity. The coming of age. >> To stand up and dare to defy doctrine and investigate through physical >> means. Fact gathering, pure science, and experiment.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I see that for personal reasons; that is for you to remain great; the > state of science must be. But this is pure nonsense. > Science has just began. The same with a somewhat older beginning of > civilization. > > Science isn't gathering facts. Those are data. > > Mitch Raemsch I didn't make myself and I don't even remember signing on or agreeing to be born, in fact most of my information is gathered from greats like Bacon, Newton, Cantor, Descartes etc. I think that your definition of science is not broad enough to include all the work that people have done that was informal science. By your definition philosophy is not science. I think philosophy is also science. And in fact I would even go further than that and say that skinning animals and treating aliments with herbs eons ago still required a type of scientific methodology. Trial and error in many cases. But I will be honest with you that I don't know how to include data that is extraordinary. Even small steps small advances in science are rigorously attacked by the people in those fields and not always in a constructive way. Sure skepticism is part of the scientific method and it is necessary to test hypothesis but science would move faster if people were more open to change and more open to other ideas and possibilities except they can't seem to put aside their own interests often financially motivated, and the bulk of scientists should realize that often it is that type of motivation that prevents science from advancing. Science should be more altruistic. People should be able to see through these detractors or look at motivation to see if objections are valid objections. I will give you one example. Dentistry. Do you think we can make space age materials that can work better than our teeth we have? Stronger bacteria resistant, etc? Of course we can but dentists fear they would be out of a job. So I can tell you from experience that the stuff they put in your mouth is designed to fail. And that my friend has caused this who entire experiment on earth to fail. And it has failed. Now was it doomed to fail? Was it predicted that it would fail? Was it an argument of the Gods with some saying they won't fail, and some saying they will, with both sides taking sides, one camp trying to help mankind succeed and one trying to help man fail? That is what it might be from one perspective. But perhaps it is just that sh*t happens. And we failed because we just couldn't make it type I civilization like many other planets in the universe, who just could not make it that far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_stone_detail.JPG That's the moon. At the bottom where the missile hit. We failed. |