|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
THE COLLAPSE AND DEATH OF MODERN SCIENCE
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |