--- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > salyavin, you can apologize til the cows come home! How dare you cause me to > question my scientific theories about conflict on FFL! With your writing on > controversial topics so clearly and humorously and kindly all at the same > time! Helping me clarify my own thinking! You will never be forgiven! Never! > Ok, I feel better now (-: > > > My favorite point of yours was the one about ideas not being so wonderful if > they suggest the throwing out of well tested theories. But salyavin, isn't > that what science is always doing? For example, I googled Mitochondrial Eve. > I'm guessing that that discovery caused a lot of well tested theories to be > thrown out. So I ask: what do you think makes a theory a better theory?
Yes, science is continually being changed and improved with new ideas replacing old ones but this happens when someone makes a new discovery and/or realises the old ones are inadequate to explain what we experience. Mitochondrial Eve is a case in point. No one knew what to expect when the human genome was sequenced but there it is, we know how DNA copies itself and which bits get passed on but Eve wasn't so much an old idea being thrown out as an extension of what we already knew, that we have changed over the ages and because of the mutations that occur in foetal development due to DNA not being as good at it's job as it could be and making the occasional error. I don't put levitation in the same category as that sort of knowledge extension because things going upwards without using opposing force runs against everything we have experienced so far and can expect based on our understanding of physics and physiology. As far as we know there aren't structures in the brain that can create a force that pushes down or cancels out the way small things are attracted to large either in Newton's sense of a force pulling or Einstein's sense of objects following a path through space time which is curved due to massive objects. Some people accuse science of being closed minded about things like this but it aint true, physicists would be *overjoyed* if someone could levitate because it would mean there are new things to learn, which means research grants and big exciting new machines to build and play with and finally, maybe, a greater understanding of how the universe works. Which is all anyone wants really. > AND isn't it possible, in the context of earthquakes, to give validity both > to the idea of collective stress and to the idea of tectonic plates? Isn't it > possible that we don't yet have the instruments capable of measuring > collective stress nor its effect on tectonic plates, or even on weather for > that matter? And hopefully real scientists wouldn't care how hard won their > ideas were. They would still be open to reasonable ideas, even ones that blew > theirs out of the water. They would, see above (I'm not reading ahead, sorry). Trouble with the idea that TM can switch off earthquakes is that we know how they work very well indeed and for stress to be the cause there would have to be a time when earthquakes stop once all stress is released (there would also have to have been a time before people got stressed when there were no earthquakes, unless dinosaurs didn't do their programme either). So the proposal is that stress trapped in the nervous systems of animals cause earthquakes by spreading itself through some unknown medium that permeates the world and *started* volcanic activity in the first place, which it has to have done unless earthquakes were happening randomly anyway which seems unlikely if the cure is to be a long lasting one - you can't have two types, one natural and one stress related, and claim the one that trashes LA during the next age of enlightenment is caused by something other than stress because that isn't what you theorised would be the outcome of worldwide meditation. Trouble is the Earth will be volcanically active for billions of years yet (and always has been) so as part of the cure you are also going to have to freeze the tectonic plates and stop molten rock bubbling up from the core, and probably stop the earth spinning too to prevent centrifugal forces from heating the core. Good luck with that, but there's no harm in trying. The problem is a lack of a known mechanism between brains and rock that could account for seismic activity, it just isn't as good a theory as the one we've got. The only way you'll prove it is by stopping earthquakes. This is probably considered quite easy by people who think the universe is a creation of mind, but these ideas are always too wishy-washy and full of vague concepts like "stress in collective consciousness" itself, what does that actually even mean? Where is the stress held? See what I mean about poor theories raising more questions? > Last but not least, I understand about the importance of testing. But I > consider modern pharmaceuticals and I see an industry that does testing and > helps some people, but whose products have bad side effects ALMOST ALWAYS. > What is going on with that in terms of the scientific method? Science is just a tool it has no moral sense and it is actually working well when someone designs a drug to target a particular illness. Whether the side effects are worth it is up to you but you can't deny the power of it. New things are coming up all the time like DNA based drugs to target illness more accurately. Same thing with weapons, science has come up with some humdinger bombs but it's up to us whether to use them or not. GM foods too, all debates that will rage for ages. > I admit that with all of my wooly mindedness, I still think of myself as, if > not exactly a materialist, then at least a pragmatist. Go figure! > > > ________________________________ > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis > > > > Â > > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > salyavin, I know of two jyotishis who made predictions about the last US > > election. Yep, one chose Obama and one chose Romney. Does that mean that > > Obama chooser is the better jyotishi? > > That a pivotal decision like who's going to be running the country could be > open to interpretation in a horoscope that's supposed to > be a mirror of what's happening on Earth doesn't say much about > it's veracity. > > I'd say the fact they chose opposites must mean they were projecting their > own "wants" onto it. But if it was as unequivocal as I'd expect > it to be then we wouldn't need elections we'd just do what "nature" told us > to. > > Chillingly, this is what the TMO wants us to do and they still > form a lot of action plans based on jyotish readings, muhurts they call them. > My first run in with them was during a NLP campaign > and they said they had consulted the jyotishees for a muhurt > for the press conference to kick off the campaign. > > Trouble was, the time and day they gave was the worst for holding > a press conference. Best time is *always* friday morning as you > get your coverage in the saturday paper and that is the biggest > seller of the week, always. This was pointed out but once "nature" > has spoken that was it, no more discussion. Now why would "nature" > not know that? The press officer speculated that maybe "nature" > didn't want us to succeed. > > No wonder they failed so completely with thinking like that! Imagine > a government based on random astrological timings. Shudder. > > And what if it does? Why does that matter? Because basically we humans want > to be happy. So even when we're infants, we become little scientists, > observing what we need to do in order to be happy, making adjustments here > and there along the way. We could even use turq's analogy of surfing the > waves. We all want to be happy while surfing the waves of life. > > Yep, we are born scientists, ever curious, open minded and keen > to learn. If it wasn't for grown ups forcing their religious beliefs and > values on us I'm sure we could achieve much more both individually and as a > species. > > > Now Adyashanti says deeper than the > > impulse to seek pleasure and avoid pain is the impulse to awaken. Whoops, > > I got into rereading his book The End of Your World.ÃÂ He also says that > > you can't have truth without love and you can't have love without truth. > > But I guess this is off topic ha ha. > > > Anyway, at this point I'm wondering about knowledge and science and > > belief. Firstly I think we all agree that there are only probabilities > > of certainty. Meaning that not even science knows anything with 100% > > certainty. It seems like the main difference is that some thinkers think > > that direct observation is the way to the most valid knowledge. While > > other thinkers think that the knowledge of trusted others also has high > > validity. One assumes that that is also based on observation. > > > > Meaning, aren't even beliefs based on observations? > > Are you asking if received or cognized knowledge can be as valuable > as that gained empirically? > > If you are then yes, ideas can come from anywhere, yogis, scientists, poets, > it's all just people thinking about stuff and making guesses > no matter what they tell you. But going through a falsifiable testing process > is the key otherwise you can't be sure you know something. Evolution, > relativity, quantum physics, geology etc. have all been tested to the max and > there appears to be no argument against, but you never say it's 100% in case > something you didn't know turns up tomorrow. > > But if an idea raises more questions than it answers then you can > be sure it's on shaky ground. A good theory collapses doubt. A bad > theory falls apart under load. > > Another way to know you might be on the wrong track is if you have > a bunch of well tested ideas that will have to be thrown out if > you accept the new one. When the TMO claim that Earthquakes are > caused by stress in collective consciousness, accepting it means you > have to throw out geology and it's understanding of plate tectonics. > Which seems most likely? To a hardcore TMer we know the answer, but would it > stand up in court, would it pass reasonable doubt on a sober > examination of the evidence? > > It's never impossible to overthrow knowledge but a new idea has to > offer a better explanation than the old one. Basically the TMO would > have to convince geologists that their hard won ideas are an inadequate > explanation for our experience of the ground shaking. > > Science generally progresses when someone spots a gap between the theory and > the evidence. They then propose an alternative which takes the new data into > account. This is either well received or resisted until it's proved beyond > reasonable doubt. Then it becomes a scientific truth. These are open to > re-interpretation always which > is the big difference between science and religion. We convert for > evidence. > > But good luck to anyone in taking on biology or physics these days, you'll > need to know as much about either as they do before they'll take you > seriously. Unless you can levitate, in which case we'll have > to throw out every text book we have and replace them with something > written by John Hagelin. That'll be a turn up! I hope I live to > see it. But I'm not holding my breath.... > > So it doesn't matter where ideas come from, gurus or whatever, it's > all in the testing and arguing later, that's the most important > bit. Just accepting something because the guru says so is absurd > and it doesn't matter how wise they seem on a personal level or how > overwhelmingly blissful it is in their presence or how cosy and reassuring > the beliefs are. > > If you meant something else and I've been waffling on irrelevantly > I apologise ;-) > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:27 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh dear scientific salyavin, > > > > > > I am the only one who's doing the heavy lifting in favor of astrology > > > here and I wasn't even too interested in the first place. I have clearly > > > articulated the scope, parameters of how I use astrology and the goals I > > > have. Considering the limitations of astrology and the reputation of > > > astrology I have a very scientific approach that you should be proud of > > > salyavin !!! > > > > > > You surely missed the generous compliments Ann, raunchy, Share, Steve, > > > Jim, LG, empty bill and others (non-active posters) offline have directed > > > my way. Surely this is not some dumb, naive audience I'm dealing with > > > here. > > > > Generous compliments mean nothing as far as whether astrology has any > > actual reality outside of you saying nice things about people you've > > been interacting with for *years* on a chat forum. That people believe > > it is no surprise to me, people still believe in god etc. People can > > be weird in how they chose to see the world. Approval, eternal life > > and predictability are going to feature pretty high on most people > > wish list of things they'd like to be true. > > > > That you may have a handle on personality analysis says nothing > > about the working of horoscopes as they are open to interpretation. > > > > As I say, to convince a sceptic like moi you need to make predictions > > so we can see how it fares against the randomness of reality. What > > was the one I suggested the other day? > > > > > You must suffer from some Oppositional defiance disorder? > > > > I "suffer" from Inability to suspend disbelief due to lack of > > evidence order. The more I look into it the less convinced I am. > > > > > > > > As Barry would say - what purpose does it solve? Whose suffering are you > > > helping to resolve? > > > > > > John will come across as stupid with his predictions. No one can > > > legislate reality, no one has an insight into reality. That's what > > > happens studying with that idiot Sanjay. > > > > "no one has an insight into reality" Ah, here's something we agree on. > > > > > > > > I said I don't know how astrology was cognized, I don't care how it works > > > - it does, but your arguments are irrelevant. > > > > Not if you want to understand how it works. "Cognized" is a great word, I > > love how it supplants "worked out" in the minds of new agers. > > No more do we have to test hypotheses against heavily checked data, > > someone has "cognized" the truth! > > > > But I shouldn't be harsh, ideas can come from anywhere, all science > > starts with a guess, but ideas have to be tested against reality > > and this is where astrology fails as you yourself admit. > > > > Remember, the plural of anecdote is *not* data. People believing > > things is *not* evidence. Double blind testing is the only way > > to work out what is from what isn't and it's been done hilariously > > with astrology many times. People can't pick out their horoscopes > > from other peoples. In one test loads of people were given the same > > reading and asked how accurate it was, guess what? They all rated > > it as highly accurate. Simple psychology, we see what we want to > > see and fill in the cracks without realising. > > > > Astrology is people thinking about people. It's anthropomorphism > > taken to it's ultimate conclusion and includes actual planets > > and stars - except they are really avatars acting in the same way! > > Good dodge whoever thought of that ;-) > > > > > > > > They assigned certain inner qualities on to planets and yes they use the > > > actual mathematical calculations and astronomy. Apparently it has some > > > validity, no one has ever been disappointed with my interpretations. > > > > No, of course they haven't. But it isn't a proof that astrology > > is a science based on positions of stars and planets. It's *you* Ravi. > > > > As Richard would say - go figure, LoL! > > > > I'm trying but it doesn't work. Must be my mahadashum do you think? > > >
