Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should 
take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on my 
part. This seems to be ending amicably.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Frankly I don't think we are really disagreeing on much of 
anything. 
> 
> The issue, quite minor, appears to be in one or both parties not 
fully
> seeing the point the other is making. And this can lead to claims 
that
> the counter points are not relevant to the prior point made -- 
though
> relevant in the grand scheme of things. Or one not seeing the
> relevance of such. Or any number of other percieved slights on 
either
> side.
> 
> I think the catalyst of such petty diversions, on both sides, can 
be
> percieved tone (intended or not) -- and not the points of knowledge
> themselves.
> 
> I hate it too when discussions devolve to such.
> 
> And I assume you are LBS. And we have both been here before. :)
> 
> I have actually learned from some of our past discussions and feel
> (perhaps falsely) that I am more alert as to not falling into such
> diversions. Or at least detouring them by staying on the points of
> knowledge. I suspect you have too. Though getting better, neither 
of
> us appear to be at optimal state yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > Sorry Akasha,
> > 
> > This is the point at which a conversation via the web gets 
tiresome 
> > and nit-picky. First I claim the irrelevance of your 
contribution, 
> > then you claim the irrelevance of mine.
> > 
> > This reply is in no way an attempt at rebuttal.
> > 
> > Perhaps, if we had been in the same room we would have enjoyed a 
> > mutually enriching conversation. Sorry it didn't work out that 
way.
> > 
> > As I stated originally, I normally really enjoy the astuteness 
of 
> > your contributions.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I 
agree 
> > with
> > > the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good 
> > points
> > > does not however make a good counter to the two points in 
question.
> > > They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at 
hand.
> > > 
> > > 1) Elements or predictions of the model or hypothesis, need 
> > not "yet"
> > > be observable phenomenon (e.g. 13 dimensions of string theory) 
for 
> > the
> > > model to be useful,  e.,g., after explaining observed 
phenomenon, 
> > > they suggest or make testable predictions. (However, it is 
best if
> > > these model elements can themselves be observed someday --  a 
> > problem
> > > that string theory has. )
> > > 
> > > This first point came out of a discussion whereby a devic 
model was
> > > suggested to explain SV. Peter said this would be difficult to 
be
> > > accepted by science "until observed". While not disagreeing 
with 
> > his
> > > endpoint, I suggested that theoretical models often have 
components
> > > that are not "yet" observed when the theory is proposed and 
cited 
> > many
> > > examples from the history of science. A small yet important 
> > distinction. 
> > > 
> > > More specifically, the distinction I was making suggested that 
a 
> > model
> > > that proposes "energy and information intense structures" (aka 
> > devas)
> > > to explain SV effects should and would not be rejected out of 
hand
> > > just because the model itself involves some yet to be observed
> > > phenomenon (beyond the yet to be unobserved SV effects that it 
is
> > > trying to explain). The key is whether the primary effects are
> > > observed by rigorous studies. If they are, then the theory 
> > deserves a
> > > closer look. 
> > > 
> > > Per my point #1, you stated "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."
> > > 
> > > OK, but a bit off the point. You are countering points I never 
> > made or
> > > disagreed with. Since the discussion was about explanatory 
models, 
> > I
> > > keyed on the one relevant point you made on this topic: how 
ideas 
> > for
> > > such explanatory models arise. 
> > > 
> > > Thus my point #2: 
> > >  
> > > 2) It doesn't matter from where the inspiration for a 
scientific 
> > model
> > > / hypthesis / explanation comes from -- it could come from a 
> > dream, an
> > > drugs, ritam, a thought experiment, OR from more traditional 
means.
> > > What matters is that the idea embodied in an explanatory model 
> > itself
> > > provides a reasonable explaination for results arising from 
> > rigorously
> > > conducted, well designed research. And that it provides a 
basis for
> > > further research by making  predictions. 
> > > 
> > > You then decided to further ignore the points of the debate up 
to 
> > that
> > > point, and based on two sentences of contribution up to that 
point 
> > and
> > > proclaim THE new definition of the discussion "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." Ok, no one was arguing that, but 
if 
> > you
> > > want to make some points on it then fine. 
> > > 
> > > So if you want to argue these two points I was actually 
making, I
> > > would be happy to read your critique. I may be wrong and well 
> > welcome
> > > sound analysis of such. 
> > >  
> > > If you want to introduce some new points and point out their 
> > relevance
> > > to the disuccion, thats great. I simply suggest that a highly
> > > dismissive tone is not so consucive for such.
> > > 
> > > If you would rather write a lot of well-written, yet 
irreleveant 
> > (to
> > > the points in question), summaries from the history of science,
> > > perhaps to demonstrated to us your knowledge of such, thats 
fine 
> > to.
> > > Just don't suggest you are effectively addresing the two 
points in
> > > question. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote:
> > > > 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/
 



Reply via email to