omg, I mean Akasha: You usually have very astute observations to make on FFL. In this case, I am quite disappointed. The question is not by what mental mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow up on.
In the case of August Kekule, he was already a chemist. He was exploring the question of the structure of the benzene molecule in his waking hours because he considered the question to be meaningful. Why? Because he knew that benzene existed as a chemical and that there was a growing body of understanding of how chemicals are made of molecules, which in turn are made of atoms. This was the understanding that chemists had (still do). On the basis of that understanding, his thought processes proceeded, some in waking some in a dream. Why did he follow up on his dream? Because he knew on the basis of all his preparation as a chemist and all his thought on this particular topic, that he was on to a solution. In Einstein's case, it would be quite naïve to suppose that his background in physics had nothing to do with the thought experiments that he chose to make. For example, consider Special Relativity. The equations for calculating time dilation and length contraction are called the Lorentz transformations. Why not the Einstein transformations? Because Einstein didn't invent them. Another physicist names Lorentz did. So why was Special Relativity considered the special discovery of Einstein? Essentially, this discovery was not made in a void. It represented a natural evolution of the physics of the time. Einstein introduced the notion of the speed of light in a vacuum being constant, which required a new interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations (etc.) Now, General Relativity was a much bigger departure from mainstream physics, in that it was not developed to resolve any anomalies that physicists were already aware of and trying to explain. But it still arose as a result in a thorough grounding in the ideas of physics at the time. By way of contrast, let us consider the great wealth of occult or spiritual theories that exist about the way the world works. These can be found in such places as religions, superstitions, FFL and the web in general, the TMO, seminars passing through town, etc. There is so much contradiction between one set of theories and another, that it would be very difficult to do a systematic, scientific assessment of them all, even if one had the will to do so and could come up with testable hypotheses, money and a lot of time. So why would anyone bother? There would have to be some belief that a particular line of investigation might bear fruit. That includes the belief of the scientists involved, as well as of the institutions that support the research financially and institutions that support it enough to consider it's peer review and publication. Typically, such a belief exists because of prior experience, of which the accumulated experience of the scientific disciplines themselves is a significant part. Testing the predictions made by SV will only be made by people who have a vested interest in SV being a worthwhile way to build. The testing will be extremely expensive and difficult to control for. Rigorous studies are highly unlikely. And hypotheses that have no support in the mainstream paradigms must show an extraordinary level of rigor and result before anyone in the mainstream will bother to look at them. (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun; also consider the mainstream scientific reaction to studies on the Maharishi Effect, in particular, the attitudes expressed by the editor of Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution.) Now, what about individual choices? Those who trust MMY and have the money have every right to build according to SV. If they feel good about the result, this may be for any number of reasons. But, whatever the cause, we should delight in their happiness that is, unless this line of reasoning should result in undue manipulation or suffering; in which case, we have a sociological problem (like those found in recognized cults), and not an architectural one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > > for how things work and test it rigorously. > > By that standard, Science should have rejected August Kekule's > discovery of the benzene molecule -- made of six atoms of carbon > chained together to form a ring, plus six atoms of hydrogen, one per > carbon. He "discovered' it in a dream -- of a snake biting its tail. > Did the scientific community exclaim "My God!!! We can't accept that > hypothesis, no matter how well it explains observed phenomenon. It > CAME from a dream!!!. OMG. A dream. Science cannot be based on > dreams!!!!!" > > In practice, Science doesn't give a snake's ass about where a good > hypothesis came from, as long as it bears fruit. > > A lot of good science comes from analogies. Analogies don't prove > anything, by themselves, but they can be a ferile ground for > brainstorming and hypothesis generation. Analogies are "soft" not hard > science. > > And actually a lot of Enisteins work did not come from labored > pondering of existing scientific equations. A major source of his > insights came from pondering the ramifications of "thought > experiemnts". Such as, "what will happen if I shine a flashlight while > standing on top of a train going 90% the speed of light?" -- more > specifically, what will be the speed of that flashlight? Or the twins > paradox -- how will twins "differ in age" if one travels near the > speed of light and returns to earth. It was the paradoxes found in > these thought experiements that forced Einstein to think of deeper > explanations. He didn't come upon Relativity by simply tinkering with > Newton's equations. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/