Re: Rule Britannia, Britannia RUES the waves.
johnwe...@lycos.com
jay_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ah, yes, wave up wave of blacks, asians, muslims.
> For years the UK welcome mat has been out for the scourings of the
> third-world. As the USA, the UK has followed a twisted path allowing
> their respective countries to be flooded with non-Whites. And the twit
> Mayor of London still claiming that London welcomes all. Sounds like
> those dorks in Washington, DC!
>
> Jay
>
> http://www.natall.com/
Someone recalled on another site the 1960's speech by Enoch Powell, a
MP. "Rivers of Blood", was it's title, it's thrust the coming racial
conflicts in a UK then starting to experience a tide of non-White
immigrants. Do you think the Brits are starting to learn?
John Wesley
norton@cybertrails.com arminius
<jay_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120760585.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ah, yes, wave up wave of blacks, asians, muslims.
> For years the UK welcome mat has been out for the scourings of the
> third-world. As the USA, the UK has followed a twisted path allowing
> their respective countries to be flooded with non-Whites. And the twit
> Mayor of London still claiming that London welcomes all. Sounds like
> those dorks in Washington, DC!
>
> Jay
>
> http://www.natall.com/
>
entitled "Rivers of Blood". The title refered to the then increasing flow of
non-Whites into the UK. Perhaps today's incident will stir the masses.
Hank
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I doubt it, primarily on the grounds that this was unlikely to have been the
work of our citizens.
FFF
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Komin
Britannia rules nothing .
will there be more in 2012 ?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The Chinese Navy.
alan truelove
>> Mayor of London still claiming that London welcomes all. Sounds like
>> those dorks in Washington, DC!
The difference might be that the DC Mayor takes Cocaine ("Bitch done
'set me up' !) goes to jail, and then gets re-elected by our DC Voters
(who are 'disenfranchised - not allowed by the rest of the country to
have Senator or Congressmen)
alan truelove
>> Mayor of London still claiming that London welcomes all. Sounds like
>> those dorks in Washington, DC!
The difference might be that the DC Mayor takes Cocaine ("Bitch done
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
lowered himself to the level of a racist moron skinhead.
He was so out od touch that he was in shock when Britain gave India its
freedom,most people could not care less.
He loved the idea of the empire,but when people came to live in Britain
the so called mother country he slagged them off.
He was health minister in the early 1960s,the department advertised in
West Indian newspapers for people to come and work in the health
service,he later said they should not have come,but who would do all
the crap jobs,the white racists ? don't think so.
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
without huge losses.
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
British especially on a day like this.
I love the way the people,the police and the health service pulled
together,I love the fact that we are a multi faith,multi ethnic
society.
As for the Royal Navy I think you will find that they still have a
great reputation among people who know about these things.
Britain gave up its empire as a matter of policy,this is also something
to be proud of.
I am from Scotland but I am thinking of all the people I know who live
in London,I hope they are as well as they can be in the circumstances.
I am going to go to London this weekend and spend some money,I hope
tourists will not be put off by this attack.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> The Chinese navy is a minor outfit,would not be able to invade Taiwan
> without huge losses.
>
Chinese military capability is expanding as fast as its economy ie >10% per
annum. Has done for the past 25yrs and shows no signs of slowing. In a couple of
decades it will rival the US in terms of wealth and power.
A few decades further and it will be wealthier than the EU, US and Japan put
together.
mick
came to Britain worked hard and integrated. It's not been perfect but
they have positively contributed to British society. To be fair to most
muslims who arrived in the 60's, 70's and 80's they di the same. The
problems stem from a rise in exremism in the youth, not all of which
are disaffected. I remember from Uni in England meeting many young
English muslim males who were on the verge of extremism they felt it
was necessary for their religion. Lets hope this changes.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
If it turns out that the bombers were 'home grown' then things are going to
suddenly look very grim for all concerned in the UK.
Ken
into North and South America, Africa, Asia etc. was tremendous. Nobody
seemed to complain back then. So why are so many people complaining about
the mixing or races now? Because of white immingration to non-white
countries, the world's races have been mixing both culturally and
genetically for centiuries. Why the suddern concern now?
Ken
"arminius" <richard nor...@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:qoqdnVmI-qQ...@sedona.net...
johnwe...@lycos.com
Kind readers, the above poster is the end result of valuable DNA loss
in two horrendous wars coupled with the influence of Anglican faggotry.
John Wesley
Gary Walker
aquaduct, sanitation, writing, bath houses, irrigation, railways, public
order, health and schools,...what 'ave the British ever done for us??!!"
Britons often ask ..."apart from,.....err...umm,..'diversity'....what have
Africans, Arabs and Indians ever done for us?"
Gary Walker
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
health service for example and they are not all in the low grade jobs
either,people from India and Pakistan do all sorts of jobs from doctors
and nurses to business people,and of course they run restaurants and
corner shops where I can buy what I need 365 days a year.
You are right about the Romans thing,it is not fashionable to admit
that the British presence in the empire was good in many ways for the
occupied countries.
Gary Walker
indigenous Britons have no work is another example of "us" providing for
"them". How odd you should see it the other way around.
<ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1120866674.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quiquirib...@yahoo.com
just a few words.
While in the US Navy and while working as a technical advisor to the
French Navy, I had occasion to interact with folks from the Royal Navy.
Their good reputation is well-deserved.
It was a good post to which "John Wesley" replied. His own post was
another example of his sexual fantasies running amok.
Eric
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
want to do?no let migrants apply for the jobs ?immigrants moving up the
job/status ladder is common in many societies,I suggest you read some
books on American history,maybe Boorstein's THE IMMIGRANT EXPERIENCE"
for example.
If you live in the sort of area I live in ,a Scottish council estate,
you would know that too many of my working class brothers and sisters
do not believe in working for a living.
Of course there are people who are actually unemployed but lots of
people cannot be bothered working,while often migrants are glad of the
chance and do not turn their noses up at crap jobs.
For the record I do work for a living.
But you are not interested in other people's point of view cause you
are just a racist with little knowledge of history.
Gary Walker is a very British sounding name,guess you did not have
Irish or Polish grandparents,or maybe Dutch or German background,the
more you look at it the more the pure Brit idea is undermined by
people's actual life stories and family histories.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I think you'll find that all those crap jobs have few takers because they
uniformly have crap pay. If cleaning the public loos payed £100k a year I'd jump
at it. Immigration is an excuse for keeping wages low, especially in
non-exporatable jobs.
ib011...@blueyonder.co.uk
health,also I am sick paying for your dole money,a crap job is often
the first step to a better job,you are not getting a choice anymore,the
new deal is coming for you.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Well, if you are talking to me I'm not on the dole.
I made plenty of money a few years back and just do a bit now and then.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
If you all look *really* carefully you will see that the relevant words are:
"Britannia, rule the waves"
****NOT****
"Britannia, rules the waves"
It is an injunction to do something (which was actually done, but not when the
song was written)...
Rule Britannia
a song by Thomas Augustine Arne, 1740
When Britain first at Heav'n's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain;
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
The nations not so blest as thee,
Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
Still mor majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
To thee belongs the rural reign;
They cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guide the fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
robert bowman
>
> Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
> Britons never will be slaves.
" We have fed our sea for a thousand years
And she calls us, still unfed,
Though there's never a wave of all her waves
But marks our English dead:
We have strawed our best to the weed's unrest,
To the shark and the sheering gull.
If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!"
Rudyard Kipling
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Big Woody
events like the anti-Chinese violence in 19th Century California. Much
of the opposition was from laborers whose wages and living conditions
were being down-graded. The Chinese, who had come from worse conditions
and who were willing to work under conditions of near slavery, sharing
unsanitary living quarters with dozens of others, were utilized by the
wealthy as cheap labor and to cheapen labor. Mixed with the bigotry so
often found in people's tribal instincts, it was the Chinese who
suffered the wrath rather than the wealthy.
We see much the same among Asian laborers in Saipan and in NYC
sweatshops, among Pakistani laborers in the UAE, among Latin Americans
in the US, etc. Corporations use them to drive the labor market down,
as they also do now with globalisation and the export of jobs, and the
government resists political pressure to tighten the borders- not from
compassion, but because it's good for business.
There are two fundamental ways to deal with it. To, as did 19th Century
Californians, turn on the immigrants and their families, who in
actuality are looking for a better life as our own ancestors did. This
is the Buchanan, Le Pen, etc. way. Or to realize that global poverty is
a local problem and to seek answers to that poverty and to the
expolitation of that poverty by corporate interests. The latter may
also recognize that while every place is multi-cultural, and every
culture has multi-cultural origins, placing two widely disparate
cultures side-by-side in significant numbers will create tensions,
which in turn may be exploited to divert attention from the real
interests of each.
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Doug Freyburger
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > Immigration is an excuse for keeping wages low, especially in
> > non-exporatable jobs.
> There are two fundamental ways to deal with it. To, as did 19th Century
> Californians, turn on the immigrants and their families, who in
> actuality are looking for a better life as our own ancestors did. This
> is the Buchanan, Le Pen, etc. way. Or to realize that global poverty is
> a local problem and to seek answers to that poverty and to the
> expolitation of that poverty by corporate interests. The latter may
> also recognize that while every place is multi-cultural, and every
> culture has multi-cultural origins, placing two widely disparate
> cultures side-by-side in significant numbers will create tensions,
> which in turn may be exploited to divert attention from the real
> interests of each.
Free trade reduces proverty on both sides. Trade is not a
zero sum game. When the US Constitution was signed it
created the largest free trade zone in the world at the
time because the constitution banned both import and
export taxes on commerce between states. To this day no
sales tax can be collected on items purchased from out of
state. The long term result of this free trade block was
the US gradually going from a collection of colonies
delivering raw materials back to the founding nation to
the most prosperous nation on the planet.
The UK is an excellent example of the value of international
trade and the song that instructs Britannia to rule the
waves is part and parcel with why the UK is in the G8.
The wages in non-exportible jobs are going to be low no
matter who fills those jobs.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
That's not true if better paying or more interesting jobs are available.
vivent_l...@lycos.com
> Free trade reduces proverty on both sides.
This is the theory, but has not been the effect of "free trade" policy,
which has instead maximized exploitation.
Eric
robert bowman
> The long term result of this free trade block was
> the US gradually going from a collection of colonies
> delivering raw materials back to the founding nation to
> the most prosperous nation on the planet.
And it was in the spirit of free trade that the representatives of the
Northern manufacturers imposed the import tariffs that led to the Civil
War? The US is hardly an example of free trade unless you can rationalize
protective tariffs and government subsidies as some sort of 'free trade'.
Romauld
: And it was in the spirit of free trade that the representatives of the
: Northern manufacturers imposed the import tariffs that led to the Civil
: War? The US is hardly an example of free trade unless you can rationalize
: protective tariffs and government subsidies as some sort of 'free trade'.
The "Free Trade Economic model" is exactly that: it's still a model,
as no-one has ever even come *close* to actually trying it, since it
was invented.
The misconceptions that we live in a free world, democratic nations and
a free-trade economy are three of the four most dangerous (in my opinion)
that have been inculcated over the past 50 years.
~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
Know who you are before you start.
Know who you plan to be by the time you've finished.
robert bowman
> The misconceptions that we live in a free world, democratic nations and
> a free-trade economy are three of the four most dangerous (in my opinion)
> that have been inculcated over the past 50 years.
The irony is the members of a toltalitarian state no more recognize their
environment than a fish notes the water he swims through though they can
readily see their neighbors fallacies.
Does the fourth misconception have anything to do with religious madness?
Romauld
: Does the fourth misconception have anything to do with religious madness?
Very tangentially. It has to do with the difference between Science and
science, and the way that the education and media systems of the western
world have been manipulated to conflate the two over the last fifty years.
I rant on the subject occasionally.
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> Very tangentially. It has to do with the difference between Science and
> science, and the way that the education and media systems of the western
> world have been manipulated to conflate the two over the last fifty years.
>
> I rant on the subject occasionally.
Tee it up and swing when you're ready. Sounds interesting.
Eric
Romauld
: Tee it up and swing when you're ready. Sounds interesting.
Since I'm at work this is non-alcohol-fuelled and a lot shorter than
normal but it goes something like this.
200 years ago science was about finding things out. It was the way
that you 'cut away' that which was false from that which was true.
It was a way of life, a philosophy, a technique, and above all it was
a method. Everyone who interacted with it knew this. People would
run away from *home* in order to be scientists.
Since WWII, a new concept has evolved in modern Western society.
I believe it to have been deliberately created, or at the very least
nurtured, because it is so amazingly useful to those in power, *anyone*
who is in power. The creation of Science, as opposed to science: the
idea, amorphous but present behind every bad newspaper article or
inadequate schoolbook, that in some way the world will be saved by
a marching, inevitable force that owes nothing to actual science at all.
The red robe of the pontiff has been replaced by the white robe of the
modern messiahs. The population have been conditioned to accept without
questioning anything which has 'scientific' attached to it, regardless
of its idiocy. I cannot imagine a more heinous perversion of every good
thing that the scientific method was intended for than to use it as the
new mystic oracle of population control, unquestioned and unexamined.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The reason is simple.
People do not want freedom, they want the fruits of freedom.
They want wealth, certainty and security.
Half the population is below average intelligence, and most of the rest are fools.
S.
"arminius" <richard nor...@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:qoqdnVmI-qQ...@sedona.net...
>
> <jay_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1120760585.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Ah, yes, wave up wave of blacks, asians, muslims.
>> For years the UK welcome mat has been out for the scourings of the
>> third-world. As the USA, the UK has followed a twisted path allowing
>> their respective countries to be flooded with non-Whites. And the twit
>> Mayor of London still claiming that London welcomes all. Sounds like
>> those dorks in Washington, DC!
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> http://www.natall.com/
>>
> About forty years ago a Member of Parliment, Enoch Powell gave a speech
> entitled "Rivers of Blood". The title refered to the then increasing flow
> of
It was totally prescient. He was an extraordinary man, a Professor of
Classics at 28, the youngest ever man to reach the rank of Brigadier in the
British Army, at 39 (most would be 50+), fluent in 6 languages, including
Hindi and Urdu, etc..........
He was the greatest Prime Minister we never had.........
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
appreciate the post. Let's see whether it spurs any interesting
conversations this time, and if not, the next time.
Eric
robert bowman
> The red robe of the pontiff has been replaced by the white robe of the
> modern messiahs.
Years ago, Eric Hoffer pointed out that True Believers are quite happy to
believe anything and he wasn't the first to make the observation.
Doug Freyburger
>
> 200 years ago science was about finding things out. It was the way
> that you 'cut away' that which was false from that which was true.
> It was a way of life, a philosophy, a technique, and above all it was
> a method. Everyone who interacted with it knew this.
It is still all of that. That is exactly what actual science
really is and what is has been since the process was formalized
in the era of Isaac Newton and Galileo.
> People would run away from *home* in order to be scientists.
Folks do go away to college with that in mind ;^)
> Since WWII, a new concept has evolved in modern Western society.
> I believe it to have been deliberately created, or at the very least
> nurtured, because it is so amazingly useful to those in power, *anyone*
> who is in power. The creation of Science, as opposed to science: the
> idea, amorphous but present behind every bad newspaper article or
> inadequate schoolbook, that in some way the world will be saved by
> a marching, inevitable force that owes nothing to actual science at all.
>
> The red robe of the pontiff has been replaced by the white robe of the
> modern messiahs. The population have been conditioned to accept without
> questioning anything which has 'scientific' attached to it, regardless
> of its idiocy. I cannot imagine a more heinous perversion of every good
> thing that the scientific method was intended for than to use it as the
> new mystic oracle of population control, unquestioned and unexamined.
Often someone who is not a scientist will claim that Science has
become a religion in mainstream society. Actual practicing
scientists will call that person a moron for saying so. What you
have pointed out is how and why that disconnect has happened.
Science as such hasn't changed its goals, it methods, its philosophy
when actually practiced by actual scientists.
The way the mainstream views scientists has changed considerably,
for the worse. People who have no clue what science actually is
make up a load of crap about it rather than learning what is
actually is.
The theory that this arose deliberately is quite interesting. I
offer a less nefarious view based on history of science in the late
19th through late 20th centuries:
Once the machine gun was invented in the mid-1800s, science,
technology (something very distinct from science) and industry
combined to build worse and worse weapons. Fast battleships with
rapid fire turrets, tanks, chemical weapons. All of these inventions
conflated during WWI when they were used in quantity. The
resulting slaughter gave scientists, engineers and industrialists
a bad reputation. The WWII additions of carpet bombing, fire
bombing, fission weapons, and then post-WWII thermonuclear weapons
and ICBMs only made it worse.
Consider the origin of the Noble Prize system. Alfred Nobel got
rich from inventing dynamite. He became an arms manufacturer
who sold much of his dynamite to the military. When his brother
died the press accidentally thought it was he who died. The
article was "Merchant of death dies". He left of bulk of his
fortune to award prizes for peace and knowledge to counteract
the explosive he had created.
Science of 1870 went from a quest to discover the true nature of
the universe to science of the World Wars one through three, a
tool to create worse and worse weapons of impersonal slaughter by
1950. More and more scientists saw the public view them as
villians. More and more scientists came out as pacifists. By
the time I first started working directly with space program
scientists in 1978, a significant percentage of them completely
refused to work on any military project of any kind.
I think to a great extent, scientists themselves got viewed as
instruments of evil from mustard gas through hydrogen bombs.
They knew that science itself is morally neutral. So they
started depicting themselves as instruments of good. Stress
came to advances in biology and medicine. DNA, enzyme lock and
key, more and more vaccines, anti-biotics. Stress also came
to civilian projects over military ones. In the US project
Vanguard worked hard to get the first American satellite into
orbit. Using military boosters to put Explorer 1 into orbit
infuriated many.
Certainly politicians have used this trend, but in my opinion
it is the scientists themselves who began the movement. It was
done deliberately. The public misconception of Science as a
religion is an unintended consequence that was noticed and
exploited by cunning politicians and non-scientists.
ObAsatru - The idea that science is morally neutral is
completely consistant with the ancient Lore. Call science an
amalgam of wisdom, literacy, technical skill and thinking
through consequences. All of those components are well
discussd in the ancient Lore. And they are all used as much
by Surt's team as by Odin's team. As in modern science, it
is how the knowledge is applied not the knowledge itself that
makes all of the difference.
But just try telling someone who thinks in terms of Science
The Good or Science the Evil that science itself is actually
morally neural. Try telling someone who thinks in terms of
Odin being the *source* of wisodm not its best known
collector that wisdom itself is actually morally neutral.
Hail Asgard!
Doug Freyburger
Romauld
: The reason is simple.
Disagree, actually. Several *parts* of the reason are simple.
: People do not want freedom, they want the fruits of freedom.
Yeah, funny how that seems to have changed somewhere between
1917 and 1960
: They want wealth, certainty and security.
Yep. Always have. Those who drove social change have always been a
minority, but have, in the past, frequently swept the mob along
with them. Funny how that so rarely happens now.
: Half the population is below average intelligence,
Pretty much by definition, yeah...
: and most of the rest are fools.
To quote one of the finest dramas ever produced by English television:
"You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment."
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Recently, a script from Dirk Bruere at Neopax arrived, in which they said:
>
> : The reason is simple.
>
> Disagree, actually. Several *parts* of the reason are simple.
>
> : People do not want freedom, they want the fruits of freedom.
>
> Yeah, funny how that seems to have changed somewhere between
> 1917 and 1960
>
> : They want wealth, certainty and security.
>
> Yep. Always have. Those who drove social change have always been a
> minority, but have, in the past, frequently swept the mob along
> with them. Funny how that so rarely happens now.
The mob is a lot fatter than it used to be.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Recently, a script from Doug Freyburger arrived, in which they said:
>
> : Often someone who is not a scientist will claim that Science has
> : become a religion in mainstream society. Actual practicing
> : scientists will call that person a moron for saying so. What you
> : have pointed out is how and why that disconnect has happened.
>
> That is what I set out to do: thank you.
>
> : Science as such hasn't changed its goals, it methods, its philosophy
> : when actually practiced by actual scientists.
>
> That's why I coined the science/Science distinction.
I think it's got even more complex than that.
Science used to be about finding the Truth or Reality.
Now neither Truth nor Reality are deemed necessary for science.
Here's an extract from the book I'm writing which addresses that:
The greatest magickal paradigm, or belief system, that we currently have is
science yet few people know what it is. The most common understanding is a vague
notion of 'doing experiments and discovering things about Nature'. That, though,
is only part of the story. Science attempts to find or define facts. That is,
seemingly irreducible items of data that (nearly) everyone can agree upon and
link these into a theory in such a way that it makes predictions. These
predictions, or pointers to new facts, are then tested by experiments to see
whether those supposed facts actually exist. If they do, the theory continues
onwards. If not, the theory is shown to be false. A theory is deemed scientific
if it makes testable predictions that distinguishes it from existing theories
and which could in principle falsify the theory. Overall, it is a fairly good
way of going about things and has indeed led to the modern age. However, it does
rely on a number of unspoken assumptions. The first is that there is an external
reality that we can all agree upon. The second is that this reality is
independent of our belief in it. The third is that this reality is essentially
unchanging, or if it does change it does so in a manner that is logical. The
fourth is that the regularities discovered, that is, the Laws of Physics, are
either consequences of more fundamental Laws or that the particular Law somehow
exists separately from what is being observed. There are quite a few subsidiary
beliefs that have subsequently grown up across the past century or two. The most
notable is that mathematics can describe this reality and that the logic
underlying mathematical processes is the same as that which governs reality.
There are also articles of faith shared by most scientists, if not all. The most
obvious is the belief that we can ultimately understand the nature of reality,
and the most modern is that this reality is a unity. That is, it is all linked
into one undivided whole. It is this latter belief that spurs the search for a
Theory of Everything or TOE for short. Finally there is one more prejudice that
says that the most aesthetically pleasing theory is the one to be preferred, all
things being equal. Which is remarkable in its own way for being an
acknowledgement that reality shares our sense of beauty, or more likely that we
get our sense of beauty from the deepest features of the world around us.
To understand this we need to take a different view of the nature of theory.
This is best done by using an analogy, specifically the children's picturebook
game of 'join the dots and make a picture'. Typically there are dozens of dots
on a page, seemingly random, and each dot is numbered. As the dots are joined
together by moving a pencil from one to another in numerical sequence a
recognisable picture appears. In science the dots are facts, or data elements
and the picture one draws is the theory. The complications arise from a number
of sources. First, the dots are not numbered so we do not know in what order
they need to be joined. Second, we do not know how many dots there are, or
whether we have missed any in our current part of the drawing although we do
know with certainty that we do not have all the dots. Additionally, we do not
know exactly where to look for our missing dots except by joining up the ones we
have as best we can and seeing if the resulting picture suggests an area worth a
looking at in greater depth. It's a bit like saying: "I think this might be
snout of a dog - let's have a look for some dots where its nose should be!" So,
we have a look and find some more dots there and people say, "The picture must
be a dog". However, there is a lively debate between those who think it's a dog,
and those who think it's a cat. Then a heretic comes along and claims the
picture is actually a Tyrannosaurus Rex! After a while, when it is obvious that
the animal has very short front legs, very big back legs and a very long tail
there is a paradigm shift, and now the picture is that of a dinosaur. Then a
crank comes along who says that it's not really anything anyone has seen before
and that the best way of joining the dots is not to make a picture at all but to
make the shortest possible line that can link them all together. Amid much
ridicule the crank persists and shows beyond doubt that his method leads to the
discovery of a far greater number of dots than the 'looks like an animal'
method. Now it is claimed that picture is not of an animal but of an abstract
painting of beautiful and subtle symmetries. So we come to the modern view of a
scientific theory, that it is just the most efficient way of joining the dots
that leads to more dots.
This is in fact strongly related to another facet of the nature of a theory,
which is that it is the shortest explanation for linking diverse numbers of
facts by looking at what they have in common. For example, we have the diverse
facts that if you drop a brick it falls. If you drop an apple it falls. If you
drop an elephant it falls. What could possibly link bricks, apples and
elephants? The answer is the Law of Gravity - that if you drop (almost) anything
it will fall. So we have joined the brick, apple, elephant and 'falling' dots
and come up with a famous picture. What we have done is reduced millions of such
facts down to one simple idea, or in terms of information theory, we have
created an algorithmic compression of the data. The Laws of Physics (or any
science) are then simply the large scale patterns or symmetries that we see in
our abstract picture.
The problem with this efficient new method is threefold. First, except for very
simple systems there is no way, even in theory, that one can determine whether
one has the best picture. Indeed, there may well be better ones or any number of
others that fit the facts just as well. It means that if we come up with a TOE
that fits all known facts it is very likely we can never prove it is the best,
or only, such theory. Second, we mistake the picture we draw for being reality -
it isn't. The map is not the territory. Third, the picture gets drawn solely
from using data points everyone can agree upon. That is, it's a map of consensus
reality and by definition cannot handle subjective information. The problem here
being that all we have to work on is a theory our brains builds from sense
impressions. Indeed the very idea of brains and sense impression is itself a
theory concocted by our minds in order to explain itself. A manifestation of
this latter problem occurs in at least one area of science, that dedicated to
understanding the nature of consciousness and many scientists suspect that it
may well spill over into other areas from Quantum Mechanics to cosmology. This
leads to interesting views of magick. One such is it that it is an engineering
of states of consciousness within the above 'grey areas' of the scientific
paradigm. The other is that mind underlies everything and that science is merely
one manifestation of magick. Peripherally related to this is the kind of science
mythology whereby facts lead to theories which lead to more facts plus
technologies based upon the successful theory. The true situation is that it is
often the other way around, and that theory follows on from engineering and
technology, or to put it another way, invention precedes theory not follows it.
In a magickal paradigm where 'belief is all' the only thing that makes any sense
are the results. And in the game we are playing the most intractable of the
rules are known as 'The Laws of Physics'. However, like all the rules we can
revise or change them by joining the dots differently (and maybe only
temporarily) to draw a more suitable picture. All we have to do is create one.
Romauld
: Often someone who is not a scientist will claim that Science has
: become a religion in mainstream society. Actual practicing
: scientists will call that person a moron for saying so. What you
: have pointed out is how and why that disconnect has happened.
That is what I set out to do: thank you.
: Science as such hasn't changed its goals, it methods, its philosophy
: when actually practiced by actual scientists.
That's why I coined the science/Science distinction.
~R