A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 19th 07, 04:05 AM posted to alt.astronomy
bbocquin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE


wrote in message
oups.com...

THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE


You may think that "modern science" is alive and well, but it is not.
Over the last 40, or more, years, science has been eating the
forbidden fruit, poisoning itself and our world. When it becomes
obvious that "Science" cannot solve the distressing problems
threatening our world, it will also be obvious that Science is a sick,
dying puppy.


snips rest for brevity

OK, by replying to this post the inference that I have nothing better to do
is (p.00001). :-0 !

Define Terms:

"Science": Intellectual & practical activity encompassing the systematic
study of the structure & behavior of the physical & natural world through
observation and experiment.

"Forbidden Fruit": Couldn't find anything in my database search. Does it
have anything to do with writing research proposals or asking for grants?

Might make a good research proposal.

"Forbidden Fruit as Missing Causal Factor in Thermodynamics and Entropy
Equations: a Preliminary Inquiry".

"Sick, dying puppy": (Well I take it to mean) "pathology-- terminal in
nature-- that is evidenced in an immature canine."

So the statement: "Science is a sick, dying puppy" must be an "is of
attribution" statement since it certainly can't be an "is of equality"
statement. "Two plus two is a sick & dying puppy." "Two plus two is four."

Uhm...So if something is just an abstraction (science) and cannot be
properly said to be "alive" then how can it be either sick or dying?
Reducto ad absurdum... "I have a five sided triangle."

I think what you might be getting at is *technology*. Scientists give
industry knowledge or *technology*. It is industry (as allowed by various
political entities) that does the actual polluting. You also addressed
Economics, but I think they're in the Business building on campus and not
the Science building on campus. (If you're an economist-- sorry-- I know
you guys use statistics, but do you consider yourselves "scientists"? If
you do then quick! Hide the Forbidden Fruit. (Whatever it is....)

-----

Anyway, nice essay. You remembered to bring your thesis statement &
"controlling idea" full circle and reiterate it at your conclusion.

(Except I think it's "nonetheless" not "none-the-less", but I could be wrong
and at any rate-- poking fun of that would be a cheap shot.)

Seriously though...

Your body paragraphs try to present information as fact without any
supporting evidence.

Here's how it works.

If I say, "People who are prone to delusional thinking are apt to be very
resistant to changing their beliefs." Then I will be expected to prove it.
People aren't just going to take my word for it right?

So I have to say where I got such a crazy idea. "People who are prone to
delusional thinking are apt to be very resistant to changing their beliefs
(Freeman, et. al., 2002)."

At the end of my essay I would then be expected to cite my references. In
this case:

Freeman, D., Garety, P., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Bebbington, P. (2002). A
Cognitive Model of Persecutory Delusions. The British Journal of Clinical
Psychology. November 2002; 41 (pp.331-347)


  #12  
Old February 19th 07, 06:32 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE

On Feb 18, 4:05 pm, Art Deco wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:31 pm, Art Deco wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:


In article .com,
wrote:


That web page tells me everything I need to know - and that is, you're
an
absolute buffoon who will get on like a house on fire with the
saucerheads
as
you're another psycho head who salivates at the thought of disaster.
That
normally suggests someone with no ability to form human relationships.


Thanks for the visit, did you see this page?
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/tlb/19bblsci.html
http://tinyurl.com/bat7e


owd


You're a bible nut. Therefore, you're nuts. Anyone who seems to think the
MMX
experiment is somehow related to Satan deserves to be pointed at and
laughed.
You're not exactly a glowing reference for the quality of science education
in
your neighbourhood.


I want to know what "Apparentivity" is.


Thanks, Art, for asking!


That one word: "Relative" is the root of Relativity. That is
"Relative" to the observer. Now replace 'relative' with apparent. That
is; Apparent to the observer, or "Apparentivity."


So it is something you made up, got it.


The word "Relativity" is made up.

I take it you don't believe
that two different people are able to make observations of the same
event and agree on what happened.


Apparently you asked a question, or made a statement.
Your point is?



Now every time you see the word "Relativity" just replace it with
"Apparentivity" and you will soon begin to comprehend that the "Theory
of Relativity" is a trick of logic and terminology whereby the
observer is made the center of all he observes.


Um, no. Special relativity can be derived mathematically from the main
postulate, that the speed of light in vacuum is identical to all
observers, regardless of the speeds the observers may have relative to
each other. Thus the term "relativity".


The "main postulate" is "made up" and it not a fact verifiable by
repeatable scientific experimant. The "main postualte" is based on
several assumptions.


In short: Einstein's Theory simply returned science to the earth
centric universe of Babylon. Einstein accounted for the evidence of
the rotation of the earth on its axis by the false assumption that the
universe rotates around the earth. (1.)


Obviously you don't understand what relative motion is, and I'm
guessing you've completely misunderstood whatever was actually written
in reference [1]. Also note that this book is apparently a history
text and not a physics text, thus to infer from it anything about what
relativity is or is not, or even what Einstein taught, is a grave
error.


I have always thought that Einstein intended this play on words
(relative motion Vs Apparent motion) as a joke, and it got away from
him.


This is an idiotic statement, and completely groundless -- Einstein was
a physicist who wanted to understand how the universe works. You are
accusing him of lying and fraud.


That conclusion is ony partially accurate. More accurate, I am
accusing Science in general and certain Scientists specifically of
lies and fraud.


Relativity is the biggest scientific hoax (see "Piltdown Man",
among others), the largest single practical joke, to be perpetrated on
humankind.


Patently false -- unlike anthropology, you can do the derivation
yourself, it isn't very difficult.



1. Mason, Stephen F.
A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES
New York: Collier Books, Inc., 1962


"The Theory of Relativity was born of math errors.",
Webber, Charles L., Jr.,
CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY,
V. 11, N. 4, Mar. 1975, p. 221.


If this assertion was true, every physics (and math!) grad student
since the turn of the 20th century would have discovered the truth and
tried to publish the errors. Are you claiming there is an on-going
100-year-old conspiracy to keep relativity propped up on stilts and
hide the truth from the public?


Yes, exactly and specifically. Although to be slightly more accurate,
I believe and often say that this conspiracy began about 127 to 2008
(dates are, and must be, approximate unless we find some signed and
dated document.)

In general (and polite) conversatins I tend to date the conspiracy
from the false conclusions drawn from the MMX.




My own thoughts on this subject
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/tlb/19bblsci.html
http://tinyurl.com/bat7e


owd


http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and
understanding. Solomon


  #13  
Old February 19th 07, 06:37 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE

On Feb 18, 4:23 pm, Art Deco wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:07 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
In article .com,


wrote:
That web page tells me everything I need to know - and that is, you're an
absolute buffoon who will get on like a house on fire with the
saucerheads
as
you're another psycho head who salivates at the thought of disaster. That
normally suggests someone with no ability to form human relationships.


Thanks for the visit, did you see this page?
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/tlb/19bblsci.html
http://tinyurl.com/bat7e


owd


You're a bible nut. Therefore, you're nuts. Anyone who seems to think the MMX
experiment


Ah! See, you have demonstrated the process of Sophistry.


When you read, you need to think, not react emotionally to something
you disagree with.


As to MMX, it was not the MMX that resulted in Delusion, it was the
falsification of the results of MMX, and the wrong assumption what
falsification lead to.


But hey! don't let reality upset you!


However, (without being too upset) if you will watch the conduct and
consequences of Science (Scientists) over the next few years, I'm sure
you will see something you can learn from.


is somehow related to Satan deserves to be pointed at and laughed.
You're not exactly a glowing reference for the quality of science education
in
your neighbourhood.


You are correct! (Ding! Ding! Award the man two fish!)


The public schools make every attempt to brain wash children with the
delusions and lies of modern science -- and I must admit that I
learned a lot.


Thanks.


owd


Have you ever studied the Michaelson-Morley experiment yourself?


I was not discussing the MMX, I was referring to the false conclusions
of others.
see the link, read, think.

http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/tlb/19bblsci.html
http://tinyurl.com/bat7e

  #14  
Old February 19th 07, 07:00 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE

On Feb 18, 7:05 pm, "bbocquin" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE


You may think that "modern science" is alive and well, but it is not.
Over the last 40, or more, years, science has been eating the
forbidden fruit, poisoning itself and our world. When it becomes
obvious that "Science" cannot solve the distressing problems
threatening our world, it will also be obvious that Science is a sick,
dying puppy.


snips rest for brevity

OK, by replying to this post the inference that I have nothing better to do
is (p.00001). :-0 !


Bored, with nothing to do, still, thanks for your reply. ;-)

Define Terms:

"Science": Intellectual & practical activity encompassing the systematic
study of the structure & behavior of the physical & natural world through
observation and experiment.


By your own definition, then, "Science" can not study or make
conclusions or statements about a subject or object which it can not
observe (see, feel, taste, hear or taste) and/or involve in repeatable
and verifyable experiments.


"Forbidden Fruit": Couldn't find anything in my database search. Does it
have anything to do with writing research proposals or asking for grants?


LOL. But if we can get some money from Uncle, split 50/50 less gross
expenses, taxes, tips and air fare.

No, "forbidden fruit" is illogic, or 'sophistry." aka, making
statements of opinion, as if opinion is fact, concerning something
which is not and can not be observed or involved in repeatable and
verifiable experiments.


Might make a good research proposal.

"Forbidden Fruit as Missing Causal Factor in Thermodynamics and Entropy
Equations: a Preliminary Inquiry".

"Sick, dying puppy": (Well I take it to mean) "pathology-- terminal in
nature-- that is evidenced in an immature canine."

Yes, "Modern Science" is terminal in nature -- that is, as modern
industrial civilization collapses, (Peak Oil, Malthusian catastrophe)
moden science will die (not alone.)


So the statement: "Science is a sick, dying puppy" must be an "is of
attribution" statement since it certainly can't be an "is of equality"
statement. "Two plus two is a sick & dying puppy." "Two plus two is four."

Uhm...So if something is just an abstraction (science) and cannot be
properly said to be "alive" then how can it be either sick or dying?
Reducto ad absurdum... "I have a five sided triangle."

I think what you might be getting at is *technology*. Scientists give
industry knowledge or *technology*. It is industry (as allowed by various
political entities) that does the actual polluting. You also addressed
Economics, but I think they're in the Business building on campus and not
the Science building on campus. (If you're an economist-- sorry-- I know
you guys use statistics, but do you consider yourselves "scientists"? If
you do then quick! Hide the Forbidden Fruit. (Whatever it is....)

-----

Anyway, nice essay. You remembered to bring your thesis statement &
"controlling idea" full circle and reiterate it at your conclusion.

(Except I think it's "nonetheless" not "none-the-less", but I could be wrong
and at any rate-- poking fun of that would be a cheap shot.)

Seriously though...

Your body paragraphs try to present information as fact without any
supporting evidence.

Here's how it works.

If I say, "People who are prone to delusional thinking are apt to be very
resistant to changing their beliefs." Then I will be expected to prove it.
People aren't just going to take my word for it right?


Right. In fact, I not only wouldn't take your word for it, but I also
would not take your reference's word for it. I might think about it,
and see if I could verify the idea or concept by independant thought
and investigation.

"Above all else cultivate the power of independent thought." Henry
Sabin

However, I did not write as a scientist to scientist, but as an
individual to other individuals. My purpose, and hope, is that you
might THINK about what I have written - not accept my word as if from
some authority.

So I ask that you visit the link, read and think:
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/tlb/19bblsci.html
http://tinyurl.com/bat7e


So I have to say where I got such a crazy idea. "People who are prone to
delusional thinking are apt to be very resistant to changing their beliefs
(Freeman, et. al., 2002)."

At the end of my essay I would then be expected to cite my references. In
this case:

Freeman, D., Garety, P., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Bebbington, P. (2002). A
Cognitive Model of Persecutory Delusions. The British Journal of Clinical
Psychology. November 2002; 41 (pp.331-347)


In the event I ever do a 'scientific' essay, I will follow your kind
advice.

Again, thanks for your reply, good points, thoughtful, and funny.


owd

http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
Above all else cultivate the power of independent thought. Henry
Sabin
..

  #15  
Old February 19th 07, 08:16 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Phineas T Puddleduck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,854
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE

In article .com,
wrote:


The "main postulate" is "made up" and it not a fact verifiable by
repeatable scientific experimant. The "main postualte" is based on
several assumptions.




Top Web Results for "postulate"
9 results for: postulate
€ [ Nearby Entries ]
€
€ posttyphoid
€ postulance
€ postulancies
€ postulancy
€ postulant
€ postulants
€ postulantship
€ Postulata
€ postulate
€ postulated
€ postulates
€ postulating
€ postulation
€ postulational
€ postulator
€ postulators
€ Postulatory
€ Postulatum
€ postum
€ Postumous
€ postural
€
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the
Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
pos·tu·late ** **[v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, noun
*verb (used with object)
1.
to ask, demand, or claim.
2.
to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or
arguing.
3.
to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
4.
Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
*noun
5.
something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for
reasoning.
6.
Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident,
or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof
of other propositions; axiom.
7.
a fundamental principle.
8.
a necessary condition; prerequisite.


--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
  #20  
Old March 13th 07, 02:01 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Saul Levy Saul Levy is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,291
Default THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE

It's not science that's at fault, it's politics!

Saul Levy


On 17 Feb 2007 12:30:19 -0800, wrote:

THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE


You may think that "modern science" is alive and well, but it is not.
Over the last 40, or more, years, science has been eating the
forbidden fruit, poisoning itself and our world. When it becomes
obvious that "Science" cannot solve the distressing problems
threatening our world, it will also be obvious that Science is a sick,
dying puppy.

Scientists are responsible for the pollution and contamination of our
ecosystem, the poisoning of our rivers, lakes and seas. Our drinking
water is becoming contaminated, and soon will be undrinkable. Modern
scientists will not be able to re-purify what they have contaminated,
and so even scientist will be drinking dirty water.

Scientists are responsible for the contaminated atmosphere, the
polluted air and acid rain -- the air in some cities is not
breathable. This dirty air is involved in the problem known as "Global
Warming." Scientists are unable to clean the air, prevent or control
Global Warming, and so scientists will have to breathe the dirty air
and suffer the unseasonable weather.

The lakes and seas; contaminated and poisoned by modern science, will
begin to die. Fish and animals living in the sea will die too. Modern
scientists will not be able to save the seas, or the fish, and so even
scientists will eat contaminated, dying fish, or go hungry.

Overpopulation: Science cannot control the birth rate, nor can science
satisfy the demand for more food. Available productive farmland is
dwindling every year, and Scientists cannot perform 'miracles' to feed
the starving. This problem will become catastrophic when the food
supply from the seas fails and worldwide drought begins.

Energy Production: Oil supplies will soon begin to fail, and as the
supply falters, the price will rise. This will soon become a mad dog
chasing its tail, with supply failing faster and prices rising faster
still. Scientists cannot replace oil, so scientists will go home to a
dark house.

Scientists will soon learn the "renewable or alternate energy sources"
will not replace the loss of oil. Oh, there certainly will be a
struggle -- they will not give up easily -- but they will fail none-
the-less. Radio and Television Stations will begin to go off the air.
Newspapers and magazines will go out of print. The lights will go out
and scientists will sit together and watch each others eyes disappear
into the darkness.

Space: There has been a lot of fanfare about the Colonization of the
moon, then Mars. But there is no truth in this science fiction pipe
dream, and when the truth is finally out of the bag, all the
scientists who have been laboring on this false hope will be looking
for other employment.

In every field of endeavor, science has been eating forbidden fruit.
When each field runs out of options; when there is no further
reasonable expectation that science can solve the ills it has brought
on this world, scientists will be sent home to look for honest
employment.

Modern Science is dying, and its death will not be an easy or pretty
thing to behold, nor will Science die alone.



owd

http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/
-----
Nothing is more difficult for Americans to understand than the
possibility of tragedy. H. Kissinger

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slow Death for Real Science Shawn Amateur Astronomy 60 March 16th 06 10:53 AM
.Nasa and the Rovers ...Has Modern Science Lost it's Soul? jonathan Policy 6 January 20th 06 03:04 AM
.Nasa and the Rovers ...Has Modern Science Lost it's Soul? jonathan Astronomy Misc 6 January 20th 06 03:04 AM
Would the big bang nugget collapse itself? Luke Valens Amateur Astronomy 9 October 6th 04 04:19 PM
DEATH DOES NOT EXIST -- Coal Mine Resuce -- Proof of Life After Death Fleetie UK Astronomy 2 July 3rd 03 12:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.