Science is Stoned
If I told U I'd have 2 kill U
<snip>
The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This
analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of
"facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the
transient perception of truth.
For members of the general public with no training in the sciences,
the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific
establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by
interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than
a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang
theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the
theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as
"fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a
hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious.
And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory,
despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
<snip>
Dan Bloomquist
If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
> http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
> <snip>
> The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
> a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
> of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
> house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Well, you must have missed it:
http://main.amu.edu.pl/~kastom/bacon.html
As Lefty would say, try again...
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the
> [big bang] theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is
presented as
> "fact."
What space age discovery are you referring to? I thought it was still a
viable theory. What other theory is in competition with it? What
experimental data is insoncsitent with the big bang theory?
--
...I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
Gregory L. Hansen
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
>In misc.survivalism If I told U I'd have 2 kill U
><knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the
>> [big bang] theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is
>presented as
>> "fact."
>
>What space age discovery are you referring to? I thought it was still a
>viable theory. What other theory is in competition with it? What
>experimental data is insoncsitent with the big bang theory?
Remember from his message that all the data that's been collected these
past few decades are self-serving "verifications". Since the
"verifications" are in quote marks, they don't count. We need to find
unquoted verifications that got the researchers fired.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Willcox
> http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
> <snip>
> The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
> a house of stones.
Given enough research money you can prove anything.
hanson
news:cl37du$2je$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <cl376m$cet$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote:
> >In misc.survivalism If I told U I'd have 2 kill U
> ><knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the
> >> [big bang] theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is
> >> presented as "fact."
> >
> >What space age discovery are you referring to? I thought it was still a
> >viable theory. What other theory is in competition with it? What
> >experimental data is insoncsitent with the big bang theory?
>
> Remember from his message that all the data that's been
> collected these past few decades are self-serving "verifications".
> Since the "verifications" are in quote marks, they don't count.
> We need to find unquoted verifications that got the researchers fired.
>
True, and even more so when you consider that all theories are
merely stories that attempt to describe a property, process or an
event more or less quantitatively (quantitatively = a simple comparison
to an arbitrarily chosen standard familiar to human experience like
the length of your foot).
In this light I think that the all time best story that was ever concocted
was when Gamov et.al conjured up the Bang Bang.
It was a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
It was genius because its slogan, *"Let there be light"*, resonated
with the religious folks and proved to them that their holy scriptures
were "right" and that science had finally proven their spiritual beliefs.
And so the coffers opened and, Hallelujah, the shekels were doled out
with the blessuings of the Vatican from the public treasuries into R&D
in astronomy and astrophysics which in turn spawned funding for all
kinds of fields in physics even down to industrial activities.
ahahaha.....ahahahanson
Don Priebe
> concocted was when Gamov et.al conjured up the Bang Bang.
> It was a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
> It was genius because its slogan, *"Let there be light"*, resonated
> with the religious folks and proved to them that their holy scriptures
> were "right" and that science had finally proven their spiritual
> beliefs. And so the coffers opened and, Hallelujah, the shekels were
> doled out
> with the blessuings of the Vatican from the public treasuries into R&D
> in astronomy and astrophysics which in turn spawned funding for all
> kinds of fields in physics even down to industrial activities.
Which is the basic plot of the book "Angles and Demons" by Dan Brown. A
MUST READ!
--
Don in Upstate NY
Roland PJ
>
>
> If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
>
>> http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
>> <snip>
>> The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
>> a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
>> of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
>> house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
>
>
> Well, you must have missed it:
> http://main.amu.edu.pl/~kastom/bacon.html
>
> As Lefty would say, try again...
Dan, I'm not sure what your aspect is on this, but...
The Bacon article's interpretation of Idols is interesting to me, maybe
because the Christian dogma I've been brought up with relates it to
physical things.
That's all. Thanks for the link.
Roland
hanson
news:t6edd.1445$5i5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[hanson]
> > In this light I think that the all time best story that was ever
> > concocted was when Gamov et.al conjured up the Bang Bang.
> > It was a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
> > It was genius because its slogan, *"Let there be light"*, resonated
> > with the religious folks and proved to them that their holy scriptures
> > were "right" and that science had finally proven their spiritual beliefs.
> > And so the coffers opened and, Hallelujah, the shekels were doled out
> > with the blessuings of the Vatican from the public treasuries into R&D
> > in astronomy and astrophysics which in turn spawned funding for all
> > kinds of fields in physics even down to industrial activities.
>
> Which is the basic plot of the book "Angles and Demons" by Dan Brown.
> Don in Upstate NY
>
[hanson]
Wow, thanks Don. IIRC I posted that notion first back in the late 90's,
and I was bitterly attacked for it by the web-lice and net-fleas in
sci.astro & sci.physics. A quick google reference shows 11-06-01 in
news:KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
but it goes back further to my *@quick.net archive that I couldn't find.
Anyway, I probably wasn't the first one with this notion neither. After
all, Gamov/Gamow's BB was cooked up back in the 40's and dubbed
"Big Bang" in 1950 by Fred Holye. ........ahahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA.........
So, at least for somebody it has already been "A MUST READ!", I'd say.
Wish Dan Brown luck from me.
ahahaha.....ahahahanson
Harry Conover
> http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
> <snip>
> The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
> a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
> of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
> house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This
> analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of
> "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the
> transient perception of truth.
>
> For members of the general public with no training in the sciences,
> the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific
> establishment.
> <snip>
Perhaps you're missing something important here. The general public
is for the most part concerned with science, but only with the
technology producets that are derived from science and made available
to them. Last time I checked, there are no CF water heaters available
to them from Sears, or J.C. Penny.
From what I have observed over the past 50 years, the technologist
have been damn fast in picking up on the new breakthroughs in science,
and exploiting them to produce and sell viable commercial based on the
technology that evolved from the new scientific breakthoughts.
As examples of this I would offer Wi-Fi networks, laser based products
such as Optical CDs and $19 laser based levels.
Perhaps you would like to share with us precisely where to see either
the shortfall in science, or for that matter the transition between
recent scientific breakthroughs and current technology based
commercial products.
Are you, for example, not impressed with the current applications of
DNA techology, lasers, or communications technology.
Don't be shy. Post for us what you see exactly as the shortfalls. Tell
us what "new verification" of scientific concepts you refer to, and
describe for us exacly how science how these have adversely affected
the advancement of technology and commercial products.
Harry C.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address
If I told U I'd have 2 kill U <knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
><snip>
>The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
>a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
>of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
>house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This
>analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of
>"facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the
>transient perception of truth.
>
>For members of the general public with no training in the sciences,
>the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific
>establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by
>interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than
>a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang
>theory.
Present the evidence for your claim first, then maybe talk about the
factors (psychological, social, political, etc.) that you think are
misleading scientists and the public. What you start with and write
the most about is what we will conclude has the most influence on
what you believe.
>Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the
>theory,
After much ponderous rumbling, you wave a hand in the direction of the
idea of evidence. Evidence seems to be of little interest to you, if
you only care to write one brief, uninformative half-sentence about it
in about 20 lines of text. After showing us this blurry telephoto of
sanity, you resume your ponderous rumbling:
>yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as
>"fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a
>hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious.
>And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory,
>despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
><snip>
--
David Canzi
Roland PJ
> knews4...@yahoo.com (If I told U I'd have 2 kill U) wrote in message news:<36caa37d.0410...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>http://www.rense.com/general58/bbang.htm
>><snip>
>>The French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré once compared science to
>>a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made
>>of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a
>>house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This
>>analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of
>>"facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the
>>transient perception of truth.
> Don't be shy. Post for us what you see exactly as the shortfalls. Tell
> us what "new verification" of scientific concepts you refer to, and
> describe for us exacly how science how these have adversely affected
> the advancement of technology and commercial products.
Harry, I think you are promoting engineering over science, and even
commerce over science. The 20'th century was the century of engineering.
We suffer the outcome today.
Rolando
Garry
preaching to choir on this one. A researched opinion, no bad. You get a
single gold star. Quit being pissed off that the universe isn't as black
and white as you thought it was. Sucks doesn't it?
Now get outta here and get some "verifications" of your own and take it up
with NASA or something.
Garry
Ph D., Heuristics
"If I told U I'd have 2 kill U" <knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36caa37d.0410...@posting.google.com...
Don Kelly
"Don Priebe" <pri...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:t6edd.1445$5i5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
If it is no better and no more factual than the Da Vinci code - why bother.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
>
>
saict
Who's suffering? Humanity has never had it so good.
Harry Conover
>
> Harry, I think you are promoting engineering over science, and even
> commerce over science. The 20'th century was the century of engineering.
Actually, if you read my words more carefully, you'll discover that I
was promothing nothing. I was simply trying to make the point (perhaps
poorly) that technology and engineering has its foundations in
science, and without a basis in scientific fact technology and
engineering can accomplish nothing.
Just as an example, there is no known principle to science through
which energy can be produced from a water molecule. Therefore, you can
put as much effort into technology and engineering as you wish,
however it will never yield a water fueled automobile.
On the other hand, were science to discover a completely new concept
through which the two hydrogen atoms in the water molecule could
easily undergo fusion and liberate both helium and energy, then
engineers would have a basis on which to perform their design work.
Unfortunately, such a scientific principle does not exist which makes
this possible.
Because there are only a few major scientific breakthroughs made each
century, I seriously doubt that a water powered car is anything you're
going to see very soon, if indeed ever.
Unfortunately, laymen tend to confuse technology/engineering with
science. In reality, they are two very different subjects, and while
technology/engineering is based on science, the reverse is not true.
Harry C.
Bill Ward
Rolando, if you think engineering technology is causing you
to suffer, why don't you just get off the internet and
suffer in silence?
Regards,
Bill Ward
Dan
"Don Kelly" <dh...@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pBkdd.773850$M95.592228@pd7tw1no...
Good idea, bad writing, and tediously long.
Dan
Dan
"Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com>
> Cause and effect were associated with predictability. It was
> known simply as common sense, and good craftmanship.
Call it what you will, it was good science.
Just as the Bible, Shakespeare, and Mark Twain could describe the
human condition through observation.
Dan
John Chatelle
> Unfortunately, laymen tend to confuse technology/engineering with
> science. In reality, they are two very different subjects, and while
> technology/engineering is based on science, the reverse is not true.
>
> Harry C.
It happens all the time. Often, devices (engineering) yield in a
Kuhnian sense, an inexplicable phonomonon which science must reconcile
with existing but seemingly deficient models. Michaelson-Morely comes
to mind. Clearly that is engineering pushing science. Refinement of
radioactive material also comes to mind. What about Talearkhan?
That is also inexplicable by current models.
Space engineering is also pushing new models, especially now with
dark energy forcing the universe apart; and dark matter holding the
Galaxies together. Engineering pushing science.
Thank you Thomas Kuhn for your pivotal 1962 essay: "The Structure
of Scientfic Revolution". He shows clearly the great diffuculty of
change in models whether new ideas come from other fields, unexpected
discoveries, or .... results from new devices (engineering).
john C.
ZZBunker
>
> >
> > Harry, I think you are promoting engineering over science, and even
> > commerce over science. The 20'th century was the century of engineering.
>
> Actually, if you read my words more carefully, you'll discover that I
> was promothing nothing. I was simply trying to make the point (perhaps
> poorly) that technology and engineering has its foundations in
> science, and without a basis in scientific fact technology and
> engineering can accomplish nothing.
But, nobody ever said that engineering is
is in the buisness of doing idiot things like
"energy" production for Feynmann cretin
born-again physics.
Which is why specialize in robots, rather
than IBM Beddy Crocker shit, like physics does.
> Just as an example, there is no known principle to science through
> which energy can be produced from a water molecule. Therefore, you can
> put as much effort into technology and engineering as you wish,
> however it will never yield a water fueled automobile.
We never said you could make an automoblie.
It's water *wheels* we use to
hose down energy morons like chemists.
> On the other hand, were science to discover a completely new concept
> through which the two hydrogen atoms in the water molecule could
> easily undergo fusion and liberate both helium and energy, then
> engineers would have a basis on which to perform their design work.
> Unfortunately, such a scientific principle does not exist which makes
> this possible.
We already have the theory to perform the desgin on.
Since it's two hydrogen atoms in heavy water that do the fusing.
Bill Ward
(ZZBunker) wrote:
Not exactly, ZZ, Maybe your junior high science teacher can
explain it to you.
Regards,
Bill Ward
ZZBunker
Since the morons in physics don't even know
what technology is, that's obviously why
our baseballs are not faster than yours,
but are computers are faster yours,
in that our computers actually
have radioactive batteries in them,
rather than morons things like chemists
use:
A lawyer and a grad student hooker from Los Angelos
Community College, and a Turing machine.
Our rockets are bigger. Our bombs yield
more yours. Our jets not fly higher,
they have no pilots, and radar signature,
that a scientist pyramid builder in
Iraq could see.
>
> Harry C.
ZZBunker
Well, since my junior high science teachers
were all Einstone wannbee physicists, that's ovbiously
why the idiots are still using chemists
and elevators in their experiments,
rather than intelligent robots.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward
Bill Ward
(ZZBunker) wrote:
If you're a robot wannabe, you're on the right track. The
pay's bad and the working hours are terrible.
But study hard and you may make it yet.
Regards,
Bill Ward
charliew2
> "Don Priebe" <pri...@iname.com> wrote in message
> news:t6edd.1445$5i5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> In this light I think that the all time best story that was ever
>>> concocted was when Gamov et.al conjured up the Bang Bang.
>>> It was a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
>>> It was genius because its slogan, *"Let there be light"*, resonated
>>> with the religious folks and proved to them that their holy
>>> scriptures were "right" and that science had finally proven their
>>> spiritual beliefs. And so the coffers opened and, Hallelujah, the
>>> shekels were doled out
>>> with the blessuings of the Vatican from the public treasuries into
>>> R&D in astronomy and astrophysics which in turn spawned funding for
>>> all kinds of fields in physics even down to industrial activities.
(cut)
I rather like the "boiled down" laymen's interpretation of the scientific
basis for the big bang: In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded!
This statement tends to make the "scientific" explanation look a bit less
scientific, doesn't it?