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/