The 12th planet
Chris Douglas
I have now read a lot of material on the 12th planet. It is the most
interesting thing on the internet today. Their is so much to read on the
ZetaTalk pages. It takes hours to read it all. I don't think that
Nancy should have to answer all of the questions that are asked by
people who haven't even read the material. It seems like she spends
more time arguing with people who don't believe her than she does
answering questions to people interested in what she has to say.
I believe that even if Nancy is wrong there is still a lot to be learned
by this.
Chris Franks
Chris, some of us have taken the hours to read all that stuff, and
Veilikovsky, and Sitchen, and other story tellers. I suggest that you
read the article in the current issue of Discover magazine that touches
on some of the possibilities that could be in our future.
Mt personal objection is to certain people who will, for some unknown
reason, latch on to a fairy tale and treat it as if it had really
happened, and that they alone have been treated to the status of
interpreting it. If you tell me that you drove your car from New York
to San Francisco and it took you only 3 days, I have no idea if it is
true or not, but I have no real reason to doubt you. But, if you
tell me that you did it in 3 hours, or that you passed thru Honolulu on
your way, or that you used only 2.3 liters of gasoline to do it, or any
number of other (im)possibilities, then I think you might see why I
object to SOME of the things NAncy says... they are just not possible.
It was possible for Stanford to win the national championship; they
lost to Kentucky by fewer points than Utah did, but they did lose this
year. Will they win next year? It is possible. Did they win last
year? Impossible. Some of the Zetatalk is possible but
unconfirmed. Other parts of it are impossible. Since it claims to
be infallible, then why believe any of it?
Erik Max Francis
Chris Douglas wrote:
> I have now read a lot of material on the 12th planet. It is the most
> interesting thing on the internet today.
And, perhaps not by coincidence, it's also one of the most nonsensical.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm:+37.20.07/-121.53.38
\
"I've got the fever for the / flavor of a cracker"
/ Ice Cube
T...@astro.net
In article <6fru72$i2s$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Jaso...@webtv.net (Chris Douglas) wrote:
>I have now read a lot of material on the 12th planet. It is the most
>ZetaTalk pages. It takes hours to read it all. I don't think that
>Nancy should have to answer all of the questions that are asked by
>people who haven't even read the material. It seems like she spends
>more time arguing with people who don't believe her than she does
>answering questions to people interested in what she has to say.
>I believe that even if Nancy is wrong there is still a lot to be learned
>by this.
There is NOTHING to learn from this. It's TOTALLY bogus. But there will
always be fools that believe such nonsense....
You have wasted a LOT of your time....
Tom
Dave Tholen
Chris Douglas writes:
> I have now read a lot of material on the 12th planet. It is the most
> interesting thing on the internet today. Their is so much to read on the
> ZetaTalk pages. It takes hours to read it all. I don't think that
> Nancy should have to answer all of the questions that are asked by
> people who haven't even read the material.
I've read the material that she's posted here, and I've pointed out the
many errors she has made in that material.
> It seems like she spends
> more time arguing with people who don't believe her than she does
> answering questions to people interested in what she has to say.
There's a reason for that.
> I believe that even if Nancy is wrong there is still a lot to be learned
> by this.
Hopefully you've learned the truth.
And I hope that Paul Schlyter read your posting and finally realized
why I don't ignore her postings.
John Ladasky
In article <6fru72$i2s$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Chris Douglas <Jaso...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I have now read a lot of material on the 12th planet. It is the most
>interesting thing on the internet today.
My *God*. (That is, if I had one.)
>Their is so much to read on the
>ZetaTalk pages. It takes hours to read it all.
I can't believe that someone has come out and said that what has
impressed them most about Nancy's material is how *much* of it there is.
The Unabomber's treatise was 30,000 words long. Does that make it more
impressive than, say, the Declaration of Independence, which is a mere
1,400 words long?
You want to be impressed by hours of reading? Here's a couple of
astronomy Web links to get you started. As you read further and further
into this copious material, hopefully you'll be as impressed as you are
with the lady who channels alien voices.
http://www.cnde.iastate.edu/staff/jtroeger/astronomy.html
"An Astronomy Course for Middle/High School Students."
This starts out very easy and chatty, but it has links to
more sophisticated material as you require it.
http://www.raben.com/planet/index.html
Raben Software & Graphics, the home of the shareware PlanetWatch
solar system atlas for Windows. Watch the computer predict the
movement of the planets in the night sky.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html
"Johannes Kepler: The Laws of Planetary Motion"
A discussion of the findings of the early 17th-century astrono-
mer. First essentially correct explanation of orbital motion,
though it didn't get it perfect. Gravity wasn't understood
quite yet. No interaction between multiple bodies.
http://www.amara.com/ftpstuff/nbody.txt
This may be a tough link for the math-phobic person to read.
Runge-Kutta methods, among others described, are used to extrapol-
ate the future positions of the planets from what is presently
known about their masses, positions, and velocities. These equa-
tions account for the interaction between bodies in the way that
Kepler's laws can't. These same equations are the ones that allow
us to perform very precise planetary flybys and landings from
hundreds of millions of miles away. You need to understand the
"three-body problem." It has been mathematically proven that there
is no *finite, exact* solution to a the general case of more than
two bodies exerting forces on each other. However, infinite series
can converge on the exact solution. According to Nancy, an object
quite a bit more massive than the Earth is presently inside the
orbit of Pluto. Why is it, then, that the graviational influence
of this body has not affected the motions of other bodies? My
numerical methods still tell exactly where to look for the planets.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Stars/parallax.html
"Determining distances through parallax"
Parallax is the use of simple triangulation, the kind you learned
in high school geometry, to measure distance. It's the "angle-
side-angle" theorem applied to real life. If you were a Boy
Scout, you might have learned this method of evaluating distances
with a compass and a baseline of known length. Can you think of
any reason why the same trigonometry that reliably shows you how
far away an object is, on Earth or elsewhere in the Solar system,
would suddenly fail when applied to Nancy's "12th planet"? Appar-
ently, she can. She hasn't shared this reason with us. Maybe
you can ask her.
Understand these last two links especially, and you will under-
stand exactly why Nancy *must* be wrong -- or else, just about all of
physics is wrong. The burden of proof in science is on the person propos-
ing the new idea. I will stick with the physics which my experience has
taught me will work, until Nancy can offer a legitimate scientific defense
for herself.
If all of this material still isn't enough, please go to your lo-
cal library. I'll bet that there's a shelf full of astronomy books, ten
times as much material as ZetaSquawk. Impressive, eh?
>I don't think that
>Nancy should have to answer all of the questions that are asked by
>people who haven't even read the material. It seems like she spends
>more time arguing with people who don't believe her than she does
>answering questions to people interested in what she has to say.
We *have* read her material, more than we'd like. I haven't kept
up with the cancerous growth of the ZetaSquawk site, but I read a whole
year's worth of her stuff on Usenet last year. And I've read a few Web
pages of hers, and have asked pointed questions. Do I deserve answers,
Chris? Don't you deserve answers, too? Actually, I already know that
there is no way that my questions can be answered in a way that resolves
the contradictions Nancy has put forth. I also know that most of this
was covered last year. But we're rehashing the debate, for newcomers
like yourself.
And if she spends more time arguing with people who don't be-
lieve her than she does basking in the praise of adulating fans, maybe
that should tell you something. Maybe she doesn't have very many adu-
lating fans. Maybe there are some *really obvious problems* with what
she has to say. Problems so obvious that a guy who has been trained as
a biologist (yours truly) ends up giving lectures on astronomy.
>I believe that even if Nancy is wrong there is still a lot to be learned
>by this.
The basic lesson to be learned, Chris, is the lesson of the Inter-
net's dark side. It is wonderful that everyone can be a publisher now --
we can all speak equally loudly in the marketplace of ideas. But that
also implies that every reader *must* be a skeptic. Nancy pushes a few
buttons on her keyboard, and lo, centuries of scientific fact crumble to
the ground. Or do they? Do you know the other side of the story? Or
does Nancy just have your attention now because she's spamming the news-
group? *Many* newsgroups have cranks, and their mode of behavior is
remarkably similar. You must be new to not just sci.astro, but all of
Usenet, if you haven't encountered her kind before.
A public admission of admiration for Nancy -- I thought I would
never see the day! But for everyone who posts, there are a hundred lurk-
ers who never post. Statistically, there are a *lot* of people out there
who admire, perhaps even accept, Nancy's pseudoscience. Pseudoscience
backed up by nothing more than her claim that she speaks to little green
men! It is for them that I continue to monitor Nancy, and respond to her
nonsense.
Read _Demon-Haunted_World_, the last book by Carl Sagan.
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw. - John Ladasky
Chris Douglas
Star date
0001
1000
0100011
Thank's for the links John. I wanted to re-cap last years party. Hear
me out. I don't have the cut and paste capability but I'll do my best.
On 3/26/98 John posted this.
John says >
>Greetings, fellow sci. astro fans.
I am definately part of your audience, John.
>In recent weeks, we've seen the unwelcome
return of Nancy. . .
Last year, we debunked her on her own front
lawn and she disappeared from Usenet.
Why'd you do that?
> Many of Nancy's neighbors stopped by. . .
Most were amazed to hear that they had a
world famous celebrity living near by.
Who's that lady that's not in the big picture?
(picture not available)
>This unidentified young lady chatting with Don
and Mark confided that she was from the CIA.
>You can clearly see that our activities were
being closely monitored by the Zetas.
>Since Nancy lives in a secure compound, we
could not just walk up and knock on the door.
Instead, we called her on the intercom.
Hello Mark Gingrich and Chris Franks. Where's John hiding?
(picture not available)
>And finally, the true star of the day, Comet
Hale-Bopp. This image was taken from the
secret files of the MJ12. From the position
of the objects, one can deduce that the image
was photographed in deep space from one of
the MJ12 Area 51 flying saucers.
>Nancy was quite pleasent and patient with us.
I may have taken a few of these statements out of content, but you did
say these things didn't you John. Or at least you posted them. I know
I have no say here.
It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice. I'm sorry
if I have offended you in any way Mr. Ladaski. This will be my last
post (in this name anyway. . . just kidding).
Happy April Fool's Day!
Richard A. Schumacher
>>Their is so much to read on the
>>ZetaTalk pages. It takes hours to read it all.
> I can't believe that someone has come out and said that what has
>impressed them most about Nancy's material is how *much* of it there is.
>The Unabomber's treatise was 30,000 words long. Does that make it more
>impressive than, say, the Declaration of Independence, which is a mere
>1,400 words long?
If they like "Zetatalk" they should get the "Urantia" book.
Thousands of pages of utter drivel, err, that is, Seventh-
Day-Adventist heresy to wade through. Good for weeks of
mind-numbing fun. The non-fiction material you cited
probably wouldn't hold their interest.
John Ladasky
In article <6fug31$kcg$1...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Chris Douglas <Jaso...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Star date
>0001
>1000
>0100011
>
>Thank's for the links John. I wanted to re-cap last years party. Hear
>me out. I don't have the cut and paste capability but I'll do my best.
>On 3/26/98 John posted this.
>
>John says
> >Greetings, fellow sci. astro fans.
>
>I am definately part of your audience, John.
>
> >In recent weeks, we've seen the unwelcome
> >return of Nancy. . .
> >Last year, we debunked her on her own front
> >lawn and she disappeared from Usenet.
>
>Why'd you do that?
It was abundantly clear from her posts that she hadn't even
looked at Hale-Bopp through a telescope, though she was making a great
deal of noise about it. We wanted to give her the opportunity. We
also felt that absurdity is often best countered by more absurdity. It
*was* fun. And the silence that followed was golden!
> > Many of Nancy's neighbors stopped by. . .
> > Most were amazed to hear that they had a
> > world famous celebrity living near by.
>
>Who's that lady that's not in the big picture?
>(picture not available)
>
> >This unidentified young lady chatting with Don
> >and Mark confided that she was from the CIA.
>
> >You can clearly see that our activities were
> >being closely monitored by the Zetas.
>
> >Since Nancy lives in a secure compound, we
> >could not just walk up and knock on the door.
> >Instead, we called her on the intercom.
>
>Hello Mark Gingrich and Chris Franks. Where's John hiding?
>(picture not available)
Me? I have nothing to hide. The machine that I'm using right
now has a corrupt copy of Netscape Navigator, so I can't post the
link. But in the group shot near the top of Paul's page, I'm the
bearded blond guy on the left.
> >And finally, the true star of the day, Comet
> >Hale-Bopp. This image was taken from the
> >secret files of the MJ12. From the position
> >of the objects, one can deduce that the image
> >was photographed in deep space from one of
> >the MJ12 Area 51 flying saucers.
>
> >Nancy was quite pleasent and patient with us.
>
>I may have taken a few of these statements out of content, but you did
>say these things didn't you John. Or at least you posted them.
I posted the *link.* The text you show above is from Paul Laugh-
ton's report from the ZetaStock star party.
> I know I have no say here.
Yes you do, everyone has a say in cyberspace.
>It's nice to be important but it's more important to be nice.
My importance is questionable. :^) However, I have a great deal
of concern for manners, and for Nancy's self-importance. If you had been
around last year, you would see that, as is common with net.kooks, the
froth originated from Nancy. As she was asked to defend her position,
the "Zetas" started to insult people. Nice chaps, those Zetas. Once it
gets to this stage, where someone is attempting to push misinformation
by being louder than thou, my gloves come off.
>I'm sorry
>if I have offended you in any way Mr. Ladaski.
You haven't. But I will be completely honest in my concern
about you. I am glad, though shocked, that you stated that you find
Nancy's posts interesting, perhaps even credible. There are many
people out there who think that responding to these pseudoscientific
demagogues is a waste of time. But the public's opinion of *real*
science is influenced by what they see as they go through life, either
on The X-Files or on Nancy's Web pages. I hope that you, and others,
will take the time to read the astronomy links that I posted, and to
develop an informed opinion about Nancy.
>This will be my last
>post (in this name anyway. . . just kidding).
>
>Happy April Fool's Day!
And to you! Wish we were on Nancy's front lawn right now! :^)
mi...@webtv.net
I agree with Chris that the Zetatalk material is fascinating and makes a
lot of sense. Scientific theories are just "theories" and by next year,
you may be spouting completely different theories to explain things, yet
you will feel just as right then as you do now. You don't mind
adjusting your theories as you learn, but we regular people have to sit
back and watch while you try to figure out the world for us, and it's
especially irritating that you insist on telling us what is okay to
believe, and when to believe it. We're not supposed to go around you
or get ahead of you? The Zetas are more advanced, more knowledgeable,
and their theories me sense to me, so I'd rather read Zetatalk than an
astronomy textbook that is already out of date or soon will be. I'll
bet your own theories will be matching theirs more and more, as your
knowledge catches up to theirs.
Chris Franks
Oh dear Milly, there are no Zetas. They are the product of a creative
but troubled mind. Scientific theories match what you can see for
yourself. What the "Zetas" say does not match, and what they say
exists, can already be shown to not exist. What the astronomy
textbook says may not be complete, but it is not wrong when it describes
what was observed at the time it was written.
It sounds to me like you really would vote for Al Bundy for President,
or would invite Homer Simpson over for dinner. Your WebTV was built by
my fellow engineers using science, not Zetatalk.
My 13-year-old son gets irritated when I tell him how the world works.
He thinks I am cruel for making him do his homework instead of playing
Nintendo 64. I don't tell him what to believe, but I make him face
the consequence of his choices. He saw SL9 and Hale Bopp in his
telescope when Zetatalk told him that there was no comet there, just a
nova. He can tell the difference and I hope that you can too.
'Droid
Chris Franks wrote:
>
> mi...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Chris that the Zetatalk material is fascinating and makes a
> > lot of sense. Scientific theories are just "theories" and by next year,
> > you may be spouting completely different theories to explain things, yet
> > you will feel just as right then as you do now. You don't mind
> > adjusting your theories as you learn, but we regular people have to sit
> > back and watch while you try to figure out the world for us, and it's
> > especially irritating that you insist on telling us what is okay to
> > believe, and when to believe it. We're not supposed to go around you
> > or get ahead of you? The Zetas are more advanced, more knowledgeable,
> > and their theories me sense to me, so I'd rather read Zetatalk than an
> > astronomy textbook that is already out of date or soon will be. I'll
> > bet your own theories will be matching theirs more and more, as your
> > knowledge catches up to theirs.
>
> Oh dear Milly, there are no Zetas. They are the product of a creative
> but troubled mind. Scientific theories match what you can see for
> yourself. What the "Zetas" say does not match, and what they say
> exists, can already be shown to not exist. What the astronomy
> textbook says may not be complete, but it is not wrong when it describes
> what was observed at the time it was written.
Whilst I agree with you overall, it is not always true to say what is
published is correct and just incomplete. A common mistake until
recently was the length of the day on Mercury.
'Droid
John Ladasky
Yet another post from WebTV endorsing Nancy!
I will again suggest that it is reasonable to suspect that Nancy
has purchased herself some WebTV access under different names, in order to
make posts like these.
In article <6g1sl6$ku7$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
<mi...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I agree with Chris that the Zetatalk material is fascinating and makes a
>lot of sense. Scientific theories are just "theories" and by next year,
>you may be spouting completely different theories to explain things, yet
>you will feel just as right then as you do now. You don't mind
>adjusting your theories as you learn,
Hi, "Milly." I'm a scientist, though not an astronomer. Astron-
omy is a hobby of mine, my profession is Immunology. You're right, scien-
tists don't mind adjusting their theories as they learn. I have a publi-
cation in review that overturns some previously-published ideas (though I
must admit that the ideas are not exactly earth-shaking) from some very
prestigious laboratories. I have no doubt that the paper will be pub-
lished. My colleagues evaluate *evidence*, and they do it fairly. I have
some new *evidence* to evaluate.
Ms. Nancy's main problem is that she HAS NO EVIDENCE. There is
nothing that an independent observer can do to check her facts. Her
"Zetas" speak only to her, and her "12th planet" remains invisible. At
this time last year, several of us, including yours truly, went to her
home with binoculars and telescopes, and invited her to show us her
"12th planet." This is supposedly a very bright object -- 2nd magnitude.
You know what second magnitude is, "Milly?" Bright. Bright enough that
even a city-dweller should be able to see it.
Needless to say, Nancy did not accept out offer. It's easier
to shout over the Net than to look out your apartment window.
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said, "Extraordinary claims
require extrordinary evidence." Nancy's claims for her "12th planet"
would require a complete overhaul of our understanding of gravity, and
she has even made a claim that would require us to rethink something as
basic as trigonometry. For that kind of claim, I require extraordinary
evidence. A photo of the "12th planet" would be a fine place to start.
>but we regular people have to sit
>back and watch while you try to figure out the world for us, and it's
>especially irritating that you insist on telling us what is okay to
>believe, and when to believe it.
A scientific attitude is always intially skeptical. We have
models of the universe, and as long as they *work*, we proceed to ask
new questions using the assumptions of the old models. Inevitably, we
run into contradictions that require us to revise the models. See, the
great thing about science is that there's little incentive to conduct
"me-too" research. "Me-too" research can get published if it is import-
ant to confirm a previous finding. But it's not nearly as exciting as
getting evidence that overturns some fundamental ideas. The reputations
of great scientists are made this way.
Nancy would like to have the notoriety of a famous scientist.
She just doesn't want to be bothered with the gathering of any evidence.
You don't *have* to believe anything. But in the face of the
modern, technological world, my evaluation of your sanity would be
questionable if you chose to believe in a woman who claims to be speak-
ing to extraterrestrials, over centuries of scientific evidence.
And, don't forget, you too can do science! Skeptical? Try some
experiments yourself. Can you talk to the Zetas? Not without Nancy to
intervene.
>We're not supposed to go around you
>or get ahead of you?
From the point of view of a scientist, you cannot "go around"
or "get ahead." The type of evidence that scientists accept is the
kind that you can hand to them, and which they can demonstrate for them-
selves.
>The Zetas are more advanced, more knowledgeable,
The Zetas are imaginary. Also quite insulting, for folks so
advanced. Also completely unable to express their thoughts in the lang-
uage of mathematics, for someone so knowledgeable.
>and their theories me sense to me,
The theories do? Then perhaps you can explain them to me. I'm
really interested! And do the established theories fail to make sense
to you? Have you even checked them out?
>so I'd rather read Zetatalk than an
>astronomy textbook that is already out of date or soon will be.
This is sad. A lot of stuff in astronomy textbooks is changing,
it is true. But an understanding of gravity and orbital mechanics?
This stuff has been essentially unchanged for over a century. There was
a minor correction several decades ago. A *small* discrepancy in the
orbit of Mercury had not been explained. Einstein's theory of general
relativity provided the minor correction needed to set this straight.
>I'll
>bet your own theories will be matching theirs more and more, as your
>knowledge catches up to theirs.
O.K., I'll wager you $1,000 U.S. that we will *not* see Nancy's
"12th Planet." Wager to be paid on Jan 1, 2004, which is after the
supposed closest approach of the fictional object. Send me email and
provide me with your real name and mailing address if you're serious.
Bob Officer
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:38:46 -0700, mi...@webtv.net wrote:
>I agree with Chris that the Zetatalk material is fascinating and makes a
>lot of sense.
I would like to know just what you read that makes sense...
NOTHING Nancy Writes make any sense.
>Scientific theories are just "theories" and by next year,
>you may be spouting completely different theories to explain things, yet
>you will feel just as right then as you do now.
What we are talking here are not "heories" but mathematicly models of
how the universe is put together. The orbits of planets, comets and
even nacy's mythical 12thlanet must follow all the same rules. All
the planets, and comets to date all follow the same predicted rules.
Nacy's Mythical 12th plant breaks all the know rules of motion and
energy. Which would you doubt modern sciences understanding of how the
universe works,or Nancy Mythical Zetas from another planet?
>You don't mind
>adjusting your theories as you learn, but we regular people have to sit
>back and watch while you try to figure out the world for us, and it's
>especially irritating that you insist on telling us what is okay to
>believe, and when to believe it.
Hey I am an oridinary person, sure Astronomy is my hobby not my
profession. It doesn't make my photo have any less data than the pro
using the 100,000 telescope. No one tells me what to believe. I trust
the orbit prdiction, because when I go to find something it is always
where it was predicted to be...
> We're not supposed to go around you
>or get ahead of you? The Zetas are more advanced, more knowledgeable,
>and their theories me sense to me, so I'd rather read Zetatalk than an
>astronomy textbook that is already out of date or soon will be. I'll
>bet your own theories will be matching theirs more and more, as your
>knowledge catches up to theirs.
The on;y evidence so far that ZETA exsist, is Nancy's own ZETA talks.
Which she copywrites. Not the ZETAs, Nancy owns them Not the zeta whom
she claims directs her writing...
Our theories and knowedle is already years beyond the Mythical Zeta's
so called knowelge...
But then I think poor old nancy has a webvt account and she has
started using sock puppets
No right thinking person that has opened a science book would even
think Nancy is even close to reality...
To reply remove the NO.SPAM. from return address
Return Address is bobo at vornet dot com
To add an anti spam device is voting NO on
SPAMs and UCEs. Have you voted yet.
Dave Tholen
mi...@webtv.net writes:
> I agree with Chris that the Zetatalk material is fascinating and makes a
> lot of sense.
I can only hope that Paul Schlyter reads your article and finally
understands why I correct Nancy.
Chris Douglas
OK. That wasn't my last post. I havn't read any of this since
4-1. Sorry the binary numbers were backwards on the star date. I
forgot my math.
The reason I'm responding is that John still thinks that a webtv
adress must be Nancy. Why do you think like that John. Are other
people not entitled to there opinions. Are you trying to scare people
away be insulting them? Are you angry because the Zetas insulted you?
I was going to stop reading sci.astro but its too much fun. I will
read some of the material you gave me John. I admit that I don't know
very much about astronomy. I am not a scientist either. However math
and science are my favorite subjects. I didn't take any advanced math
and science classes in college. I took business classes instead.
Isn't science the discovery of the laws of material nature? We
didn't program the laws, we are still learning of them. Just because a
person may know more about certain laws of physics than another dosn't
always make them more intelligent. It sometimes seems that you are
implying that certain people are stupid. Maybe you think that these
people don't exist. I don't know what you think. You have made another
comment about webtv users. If you don't like what people say then maybe
you shouldn't respond to them. If you do respond in a negative way then
you are engaging in a conflict. You can't scare everyone away with your
big words.
Chris Douglas
Now a response to Bob. You also think thing about webtv. You say
that what Nancy says doesn't make sense. What about what you say. You
should check your spelling and punctuation before posting. Too many
spelling errors. Note capitalization also.
Science doesn't explain why so many ancient cultures believed that
the planets were gods or demigods. I believe there was intelligent life
on this planet longer ago than are history records. I also believe that
there was much truth in the myths. They may not have explained it in a
way modern scientists can understand. Does that mean people should
ignore them? Also, one of my science teachers in high school told us,
‘‘The more we know the more we realize we don't know.’’
Doug Weller
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:03:01 -0500, in sci.astro, Chris Douglas wrote:
>
> Science doesn't explain why so many ancient cultures believed that
>the planets were gods or demigods. I believe there was intelligent life
>on this planet longer ago than are history records
You're right. But not before the archaeological records. This really doesn't
belong on sci.astro, but on sci.archaeology or alt.mythology.
Doug
Chris Douglas
‘‘Science does not know how we learn and remember, nor how we think
and commuinicate, nor how the brain stores information, nor what the
relationship between language and thought is. Science does not know how
living cells interact with nonliving matter. It does not know what the
origin of the universe is, nor how old the universe is, nor what the
ultimate fate of the universe will be.’’
[Chales M. Vest, professor, president of MIT, in the International
Herald Tribune, January 16, 1996, p.8]
Greg Neill
Chris Douglas <Jaso...@webtv.net> wrote:
: 荘Science does not know how we learn and remember, nor how we think
: and commuinicate, nor how the brain stores information, nor what the
: relationship between language and thought is. Science does not know how
: living cells interact with nonliving matter. It does not know what the
: origin of the universe is, nor how old the universe is, nor what the
: [Chales M. Vest, professor, president of MIT, in the International
: Herald Tribune, January 16, 1996, p.8]
Maybe so, but Science knows enough to say that none of the above
involves pixies or faery dust.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill, | "Mystics are they who are baffled by the obvious,
HNSX Supercomputers Inc. | yet posses a complete understanding of the
gne...@sx.nec.com | nonexistent." - unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Douglas
Very good point Greg. I suppose you're right.
John Ladasky
In article <6gq3l3$t9b$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Chris Douglas <Jaso...@webtv.net> wrote:
>=91=91Science does not know how we learn and remember, nor how we think
>and commuinicate, nor how the brain stores information, nor what the
>relationship between language and thought is. Science does not know how
>living cells interact with nonliving matter. It does not know what the
>origin of the universe is, nor how old the universe is, nor what the
>[Chales M. Vest, professor, president of MIT, in the International
>Herald Tribune, January 16, 1996, p.8]
Good quote, Chris. But may I add an important comment on this
observation? As I said in an earlier post to our dear Nancy, science
does not, indeed cannot, prove things. On the other hand, it can DIS-
PROVE things. Science proposes models that explain the data that has
been observed. Models that ignore data that everyone can see are unsci-
entific. We can operate under the assumption that a model is true,
until new information is acquired that contradicts the model. Then the
model is revised. The model is *not* the truth, but as more and more
data is taken, the model excludes more and more possibilities. In this
way the model approaches the truth.
Look, it's not discussed much, but science starts from certain
unproveable axioms, just like a religious philosophy. The first and most
important is that there is an objective reality that we can all experi-
ence. If I look up in the sky and see a star there, you can see it, too.
If we can't start there, we can't talk about science. Subjective and
metaphysical aspects of life are probably important to all of us person-
ally, but these are not in the domain of science. Establishing the exist-
ence of new bodies in the solar system, however, is clearly a scientific
question.
Jon
The comments you made about science were excellently worded. Really
good prose. As an Math/English major I always look for clear writting
that is both fluent and scientifically sound. I wish your comment
would be included in freshmen science books.
If science could only be humble (there's a lot to be humble about),
tolerant, (not all humans should have to use one method of thinking
even if it is a good one), and still work objectively as possible,
something might actually get done.
John Ladasky
In article <353d4898...@news.gamewood.net>,
Science *is* humble. It is the only major philosophical system
that starts from the premise that it cannot (at least presently) address
all questions of human interest. Most religious philosophies start from
the premise that all questions (at least, the important ones) can be
addressed by divine revelation -- from their own god(s), of course. I
find that to be a pretty arrogant stance.
I think that science is also tolerant. Science allows religion
more space than vice versa. Specific religions may have tenets which
are scientifically unworkable (e.g., the Christian creation myth), but
that doesn't mean that the Big Questions (e.g., existence of a divine
creator, whether said divine creator has an interest in human affairs)
aren't still out there for the thinking person to contemplate. One may
also make the accomodation that many religious people in scientific pro-
fessions have made -- namely, to see religious scripture metaphorically
rather than literally. A literal reading of certain religious tenets,
on the other hand, absolutely contradicts scientific findings. Take
for example the Christian creation myth vs. the scientific fact of evo-
lution.
Is there anyone here who has insisted that humans should use
scientific thinking exclusively? I haven't heard such a claim. I cert-
ainly don't operate that way myself. However, this *is* the astronomy
newsgroup. And the question being discussed here is whether there ex-
sist two heretofore undiscovered, massive bodies in our solar system.
That sounds like a scientific question to me. Sorry, in *this* instance,
I don't see any other method of thinking that is appropriate. Nancy's
unproveable claim that she receives telepathic revelations from space-
men does not deserve your patience.