Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote
- I'm glad to see I may have some company here, i.e. Redeye. But bear with me a moment while I change the subject back a little. I may pursue this on another board, but I think I should complete my thinking process here first and see if yous can help me out in the thinking department. I'm trying to think logically and objectively, mostly.
- I think Dave's theory is that conventional science is basically sound & has therefore made a lot of progress & that EU theory would merely help astronomy make better progress. Is that an accurate statement?
- Lloyd's theory [me being Lloyd] is that conventional science is hardly any longer science at all and that it's been doing society more harm than good, especially in the last 40 years, by accepting a lot of wrong and often dangerous conclusions, which include:
1. that conventional science is rigorously scientific;
2. that relativity theory, quantum theory, string theory, uniformitarianism, Big Bang & expanding universe theory are correct;
3. that aether theory, electric & static universe theory & catastrophism are wrong;
4. that conventional long-term dating methods & redshift dating are correct;
5. that light & EM radiation are photons or quanta, rather than waves, or have dual properties;
6. that continental tectonic plates drift slowly from mid-ocean spreading zones by some unknown process and subduct under adjacent plates;
7. that the Earth and other solar system planets are 4.6 billion years old and that they have had very few collisions with interplanetary objects for billions of years;
8. that geological processes have insignificant influence from electrical forces;
9. that life evolves very slowly with little influence from electrical forces;
10. that there's no transmutation of elements in normal geology, chemistry, or biology;
11. that drugs, vaccines, surgery, radiation therapy, electroshock, metal dental implants, normal ELF, VLF & EM radiation exposure, microwave ovens, x-rays, genetically modified organisms, food additives, junk food, food processing methods, chemtrails & factory pollutants are all safe or at safe levels;
12. that prehistoric myths are fantasies, but history is accurately recorded and the news media is fair and objective;
13. that consciousness, telepathy, spirit etc are illusions;
14. that our education system is highly effective;
15. that the military-industrial complex & the capitalist profit motive system are largely benign and our political system is the best ever.
- I studied conventional science from 1963, my first year in high school, till about 1973 and studied many less conventional theories since 1969 in all the above categories and I regard all 15 of those broad categories of conventional assumptions as having high probabilities of being wrong.
- Most supporters of alternative theories can see & agree that the first assumption is partly wrong, that at least one field of science lacks scientific rigor. Each observer tends to see the problem only in one or two fields of science, like the blind men each studying a different piece of an elephant, and tends to assume that the other fields don't have similar flaws.
- How many sciences would I have to show lack scientific rigor to prove that nearly all science to a high degree of probability lacks such rigor? And if this is sufficiently shown, could EU theorists then logically afford to ignore this reality and proceed as if science is just fine?
- If the profit motive, greed and similar malevolent influences in society can be shown scientifically to be the primary impediments to scientific rigor in the sciences, would that not prove that those influences need to be addressed and reduced as much as possible before being able to expect the best scientific theories, such as EU, to be given fair hearings for the benefit of society, instead of for the benefit of the few who are insane?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad