I remember whipping up some gunpowder and stuffing it in a metal pipe to make a "flare". (Un)fortunately it was raining the day of haloween when I tried to light it, the matches I had wouldn't strike, and I chucked it so as not to miss the candy!
I also remember turning a step down transformer around in a circuit (I thought the problem with it was there "wasn't enough electricity" and I thought using the tranformer in step up configuration would fix the problem by "increasing the amount of electricity" - I really knew what I was doing (NOT)). Anyway. They were the good ole days. Glad and mystified that I survived them. On Jan 14, 5:56 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Jan, 15:59, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Don, I even took the golden fiddle with me as a peace offering! > > > I take the same view Orn, perhaps from a Quaker perspective. In fact, > > if I was of draftable age, I might well become a Plymouth Bretheren > > member. Jared Diamond has put the same view in 'Collapse'. I don't > > really believe we can do anything "active" on bringing about (or > > letting come about) sustainable communities until we get to a proper > > understanding of the vile state of politics throughout history. That > > we have no real history ready-to-hand all over the world is surely the > > most damning evidence of conspiracy. Water supply in parts of Peru > > strikes me as a classic. They had technology (admittedly religious > > cult power related) thousands of years back better than now. > > > I suppose one the the words we use as though we know what it is with > > almost no clue is "evidence". I can think here of gel-coated slides > > stuck in an electro-chemical experiment that come out with a few > > 'scratches' on them - "evidence of cold-fusion" - yet surely not to > > the untrained, ignorant eye. But I can also think of mad examples > > from our legal systems, where "experts" convince judges, defence > > barristers and juries not to trust the evidence of their eyes in > > looking at CCTV footage, where, in the end, the whole performance was > > about suppressing the real evidence and the truth is really about mad > > human behaviour in authority situations. > > > I can imagine a few of us in here on the Nico Bento jury. Let's say > > me, you, Fidd, Molly, Gabby, Ian, Chris, Don (add others to taste). > > Apparently quite a diverse group as we often disagree and even 'fall > > out', though probably not so diverse when one considers the whole > > population. It seems impossible to believe we would have convicted > > the fellow because we would have scrutinized the "evidence" (however > > much we might worry about the term's epistemological status) and, one > > hopes, asked relevant questions. Could we have been hornswaggled and > > kow-towed by the now known to be loony "expert" telling us not to > > believe the evidence of our eyes in relevant CCTV footage? I suspect > > the presence of any one of us on the jury would have prevented the > > conviction, even by majority verdict. We know enough. Yet the > > British system did find 12 'men good and true' to convict a man of > > murder with no evidence there was one, and plenty to suggest the > > accused was telling the truth. I guess too, on the inside of the > > later cold-fusion experiments we could learn enough to conclude (a > > long way down the line from the Fleischman-Pons flim-flam), there is > > enough evidence to continue investigation, at least to provide a > > better understanding of electro-chemistry. > > > Your assertions, Bill, on the 'dogma of evidence' could be seen as > > rather tired, or as another example of the religious denial of > > evidence in favour of faith. I find them neither. Your reference to > > Alan Wallace (say) is an exciting possibility, as is the existence of > > your general view across the board whilst 'leaving in' spiritual > > possibilities, strongly held, but not dogmatically imposed. There no > > doubt remain questions, down to whether non-dogmatism could itself be > > dogmatic (as in fatuous undecidable deconstruction taken strongly > > rather than as a weak version). I doubt Nico Bento would have cared > > if one of us had been able to stand up for justice for him. > > > I often wonder whether one can do science at all without passion from > > at least quasi-religious experience, other than the cook-book- > > engineering form (my slap-in-the-face with a wet fish 'realism'). I > > can make gunpowder (and worse) because I can 'destructibly distill > > wood' (charcoal), buy flowers of sulphur (or make it from photographic > > chemicals and lemon juice) and turn urine into potassium nitrate with > > some burned sea-weed, use a pestle and mortar, dissolve the lot and > > dry it out. This is no more 'science' than baking a cake (indeed such > > skills are involved). I can throw numbers into equations ('string > > theory' - though my expertise is in stoichiometry) and wonder whether > > experimental discovery of one-way speeds of light might return us to > > Galilean relativism more powerful than Einstein's. I favour space > > exploration, both up and down. > > That reminds me of the time a friend of mine and I (at about age > 16-17) decided to make some home-made ether. I had some pure sulpher > from an old chemisty set. We mixed that with some cigarette ashes > (for carbon, as a catalyst, so that, when we burned it, we got sulpher > trioxide rather than sulpher dioxide, which we WOULD have gotten had > we burned the sulpher without the carbon), burned it, captured the > smoke in a bottle. Then turned that bottle upside down into another, > slightly smaller bottle (as the one fit into the other pretty snugly) > and shook it up until the smoke was mostly absorbed into the water. > We repeated that process until we had a reasonable strong sulphuric > acid. Then, went down to the local pharmacy, bought some glycerine, > and mixed that in and, voila, we had our own ether. And it was > definitely strong enough to have immediate effects upon smelling it. > And all that was done on my parents' back porch. Ahh, those were the > days!! ;-) > > > 'Why questions' do not miraculously disappear in any of this. I am > > not likely to threaten a set of under-performing lasers with the bible > > (yet in exasperation have been known to do something very similar). I > > am enraged when simple statistical methods are not used to evaluate > > problems in our legal systems, and note it's a scientist that is > > enraged. The problem with science is not that it is value-free, but > > that it can be done by those with perverse values. It is profoundly > > unscientific not to try and discover, to exclude 'data' from > > consideration, not to experiment in experience. I cannot even > > hypothesise there is 'no god' (though I do think most history on this > > is bunk) as a scientist and remain intellectually honest. I make > > epistemological decisions that involve faith and 'epistemic risk'. In > > every scientific activity I can think of one has to exclude (after > > consideration) all sorts of barking dross. The same seems true of > > history in general. It may be true of religion. > > > The fact that I will go through this effort rather than have a life > > with a 'string of broads on the Riviera' after a few bwanking lies > > seems itself to imply I am 'after something deeper'. I may die and > > look back wishing I had done 'more of the enjoyable stuff'! I may > > well have swallowed some moralising incantations and not recovered. > > So might Dawkins. I find most religion stupid, selfish, rotten at the > > core and manipulative. Rather like social science and politics. If > > there was a way to explain all this in 'cold logic' and evidence, one > > might still have the problem of this 'magical experience of all' not > > being communable with everyone else (as they would be too dumb). So I > > am not a man of the gleaming rays of inner peace or virtue that bloats > > to sanctimony at the drop of a patronising Socrates pun or a scrabble > > over crumbs in times of hardship. > > > If we can defend Nico Bento (and properly get near to real social > > justice) we have come far enough. We haven't. I just prioritize this > > as something we could do in ordinary practice as a core of what our > > research programme should be. The 'light' comes later for me. In a > > forced decision, I would burn religious scrolls and books to stay warm > > before turning to others. To dismiss religion in the name of science > > is merely religious. This should not stop us expressing what > > 'religion' makes us feel or what 'science' makes us feel, though > > something does tend to stop us letting people who think mechanics is > > the work of the Devil build our bridges. > > > An inner route to an 'understanding and perspective of One' could be a > > good or bad thing. I doubt it is worth much consideration in a world > > that could put a lot right through some honesty. > > > On 14 Jan, 06:55, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But did ya go to the crossroads and say the right words? > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A > > > > -Don > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:55 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I made a pact with the devil myself GW, but he didn't show. I have > > > > generally found him as unreliable as God. I might get to believe in > > > > politics if we find a way to redistribute the Haitians, establish > > > > decent homes, services and productive jobs. I might even support Pat > > > > Robertson if he could do that. > > > > > On 14 Jan, 00:01, [email protected] wrote: > > > >> Isn't it refreshing to know there are people like Pat Robertson who > > > >> is convinced that he is able to scientifically account for > > > >> catastrophic occurrences such as the Haitian disaster. He understands > > > >> that 200 years ago Haity (I guess he means every Hatian) made a pact > > > >> with the devil. And now 200 years ago they are getting their due. Now > > > >> how come I couldn't have figured that out for myself.; It is so > > > >> obvious and neat and clean. If only we had more thinkers lie him. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: archytas <[email protected]> > > > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > >> Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 6:31 pm > > > >> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: science > > > > >> The sum of energy in the universe is often considered as zero. > > > >> Science is clearly not just about answers. Most of us would say it is > > > >> about asking questions that can be resolved by observation and > > > >> experiment, one reason string theories may not qualify as physics > > > >> (yet). > > > >> Problems in social science often arise because we are dealing with > > > >> interpretations rather than 'nature' (though science accepts > > > >> observations are theory > > ... > > read more »
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
