I think what needs to be stated in this context is the reality that nature is not layered. There is always something new to discover and learn and it sometimes does not happen in step by step fashion in a "method". How much "science" that is claimed to be understood is irrelevant in this context.querious wrote:{{["A" reason, to keep this statement in context- JeffreyW]}} The only reason to read his stuff lies in the entertainment value of seeing what kind of crazy stuff someone with little knowledge of science comes up with as explanations for well known phenomena. Knid of like asking a kid why the sky is blue and forcing them to come up with something.oz93666 wrote: But there are also many many simplistic errors , that a well educated school boy could spot !!! In science we have to get back to experimental verification ... this will clear the smoke of many pipe dreams .
I think the real power in Mr. Mathis's arguments rests in that he does NOT need to play the credibility game, which denies the layered characteristics of scientific progress. Which he states in some of his articles. Which is why I sometimes glance over his writings. Sure, lots of errors are made, but that is where a lot of magic can happen. Sometimes a human being can cut straight to the core of the issue without playing the credibility game. It is fascinating to know that many layers of nonsense can be avoided to get to the heart of the matter.
This means that scientific progress does not necessarily need to be layered. You just don't go to school, get your A's and B's, get your degree, get your master's then your PhD, then make GREAT DISCOVERY all in a row like that. Sometimes, like in my case, you take biology, chemistry, geology, calculus, algebra, physics, etc... leave school for a little while, go back... read random articles online.. then WHAM. It hits you. A major insight absent position at any academic institution or research organization. Where's the bureaucratic institution to confirm the discovery? Where's the credibility? Who says its a major insight? Those systems are not in place! Yet, it is a real discovery!
Same with Mr. Mathis. I read all sorts of people's writings who are given the label "crank" because they might have something really important to say! I have 6 years of being on the receiving end of such ridicule regardless if I am educated. It is strange. Very strange how society works.
A major scientific discovery in physics academia is on par with the Medal of Honor in the military. Both are the highest awards in each respective society. Yet, with major scientific discoveries there does not need to be an approval process as with the Medal of Honor.
It just happens, and the confirmation of it only sometimes happens long after the discovery was made. Same with Mathis. If he makes a great discovery, there is not going to be some approval process, you just have to take it for what its worth and try to make sense of it.