04-15-2013, 08:47 AM
(04-14-2013, 03:52 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:my point was there is nothing hidden or new with respect to what we're talking about, and his opinions on the subject were quite public.(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: some kind of point with that? If you bothered to read einstein!
Hey, chill!Not everyone can be as smart as you, to actually read the complete works of the world's most celebrated scientist! Some of us have to be content with the occasional cool quotes!
Quote:Or, we might content ourselves with scientists like Nassim Haramein, who make physics fun, while they explain the solutions to Einstein's formerly unsolved equations.I'm sure he's up for the Nobel Prize with his incredible contributions to making physics entertaining.
Quote:as opposed to deductive reasoning from first principles. I.e. you can basically start with inductive reasoning and create postulates from which to derive a system of physics (as Larson did) or you can continually create mechanisms, fields, forces, agencies in an ad hoc manner (free invention).(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: You'd know th at free invention was essential for him.
Sorry, guilty as charged!I don't even know what you mean by 'free invention.' Care to educate me or should I google it?
Quote:you've lost me with that. It sounds like you are somehow conflating use or non use of intuition with bias? And lip service? Free of distortions in their perceptions? What does that have to do with use of the intuition?(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: many if not most, embrace intuition. The knowledge framework is the box, not the perception faculty.
They give lip service to it but they have their own biases, just as we all do. Surely you aren't suggesting that scientists are free of distortions in their perceptions?
Quote:Also, if knowledge were the box, then they'd be neutral to new, 'unproven' information, rather than cynical. Healthy skepticism is fine, but most go beyond skepticism and into cynicism or even closed-mindedness. A scientist cannot expand his box if it's locked up by a negative view of everything outside the box. At the very least, the realm outside the box should be viewed with interest and curiosity!
The knowledge and intelligence of many scientists necessarily affords tremendous insight into the viability of so called "new" info. As a rule, most "new" info (I.e. from hand waving non scientists) is simply not new to them.
(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Name one? That's easy, if I broaden the request to include my original statement, which wasn't just about intuition but about anything outside their established box.you're again conflating ridicule of the intuition with some kind of perception of bias and close mindedness.
The entire quackwatch.com team. Most mainstream MDs. Dr. Mercola. Dr. Weil.
Quote:essentially the same. A little less with light pollution.(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: it's same photons in space as it is in the atmosphere.
You didn't answer my question. You just stated what appears to be a fact to you, but it doesn't address the question. Photons might be the same, but that doesn't mean we see them the same.
Just about all our probes use stars as fixed reference points to ensure accurate guidance. Our orbiting spacecraft routinely record stars - yes the same stars we see on earth. It's almost embarrassing to have to point this out.
Quote:At any rate, even if you are a scientist, it's still all just theory, unless you've actually been up in space and report back. And even then, being that the so-called 'experts' in various fields have been known to lie to the public for political reasons, then we, the ignorant masses, cannot be certain that it's true.
"Ignorant masses" being intentionally confused by disinfo from websites which promote conspiracies such as bring4th.org. yes Monica, some things can't be known for certain but there is a point where conspiracy purveyors get shamelessly absurd.
(04-14-2013, 03:00 PM)zenmaster Wrote: This forum is a disservice when spreading bullshit and giving any credence to bullshit. Why would people want to learn from a place that promotes disinfo?
Hmmm...can you define bullshit? How does one recognize bullshit?
[/quote]
That which is blatantly false, not feasible, untenable, nonviable. One recognizes bullshit as it runs contrary with known facts from experience.