02-14-2009, 04:13 PM
As far as the whole Uranus thing is concerned, let's remember that our the sun and all the planets are already increasing in their energetic activity, and we know that stars grow over time. It could simply be that Uranus will go through the other densities far later in the development of this particular star.
To me, all these things have never been all THAT hard to believe. I had the "wow, really?" sort of feeling like I think anyone would when I first read them, but I am personally far more skeptical of the taken-for-granted conventional world-view that has been handed to us by our scientists, academics, and philosophers, than I am of the strange. In fact, I find the strange refreshing, in that it hints that there is far more than we are able to know by our rational and limited sensory means. My general attitude towards these sorts of things is simply that "There are far more things in the heavens and the earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies."
So, I would say to the skeptics that perhaps they should turn their skepticism also to the conventional worldview they assume must be the measure against which all others are judged. If you're going to be skeptical, be skeptical of EVERYthing, at least, not just that which is different from the view that most people agree on. If anything, the view that most people agree on ought to be the main one to be questioned.
And lastly, in my opinion, paradigmatic incombatability is not in any way an indication of the validity of evidence. All evidence should be taken on equal grounds, so far as the intellect is concerned.
And then, of course, contemplated in the heart.
To me, all these things have never been all THAT hard to believe. I had the "wow, really?" sort of feeling like I think anyone would when I first read them, but I am personally far more skeptical of the taken-for-granted conventional world-view that has been handed to us by our scientists, academics, and philosophers, than I am of the strange. In fact, I find the strange refreshing, in that it hints that there is far more than we are able to know by our rational and limited sensory means. My general attitude towards these sorts of things is simply that "There are far more things in the heavens and the earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies."
So, I would say to the skeptics that perhaps they should turn their skepticism also to the conventional worldview they assume must be the measure against which all others are judged. If you're going to be skeptical, be skeptical of EVERYthing, at least, not just that which is different from the view that most people agree on. If anything, the view that most people agree on ought to be the main one to be questioned.
And lastly, in my opinion, paradigmatic incombatability is not in any way an indication of the validity of evidence. All evidence should be taken on equal grounds, so far as the intellect is concerned.
And then, of course, contemplated in the heart.