[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
 
 --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon
  as
   we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
   Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
   dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs
  in
   the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And
  we
   are very far from that right now!
  
  But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
  a basis for quantification.  From it we can
  construct
  testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
  with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
  than those in homes with entrances facing in other
  directions.
 
 I think two things are confounded here. There are the
 empirical findings that correlate south facing
 entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc.,
 compared to north facing entranced homes. These are
 empirical facts if the research is done right. Then
 there are the explanatory concepts that either link
 the empirical findings back into known science or a
 new explanatory construct is created (such as in the
 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
 explain the findings.

I'm not sure how you think I confounded these
two.  You said it was a myth until it could be
quantified; I was pointing out that the myth
itself was a means of quantification in that it
could be used to generate testable hypotheses;
studies to test the hypotheses would then
generate data, empirical facts.

You now appear to be referring to a later stage of
the process, one I wasn't addressing at all.





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
  a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
  testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
  with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
  than those in homes with entrances facing in other
  directions.
 
 Yes but...
 
 You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and 
even 
 gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is 
important 
 preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition 
to 
 your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you 
 need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the 
 actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed.

I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal
mechanisms.  Rather, you make causal *assumptions*
to a greater or lesser confidence level, no?



 At this time, 
 no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between 
devas 
 that can't be seen and anything else.




 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
   a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
   testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
   with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
   than those in homes with entrances facing in other
   directions.
  
  Yes but...
  
  You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and 
 even 
  gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is 
 important 
  preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming 
opposition 
 to 
  your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, 
you 
  need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the 
  actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed.
 
 I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal
 mechanisms.  Rather, you make causal *assumptions*
 to a greater or lesser confidence level, no?
 

Its all mythical. There's no such thing as scientific explanation 
in the logical/legal sense of the word.

Scientists talk about underlying mechanisms because its convenient 
and makes it easier to deal with things, but just as someone who is 
fully enlightened is supposed to perceive the world without 
intellectual analysis getting inthe way, scientific reality is 
assumed to be unknowable. The best you can hope for is that your 
stories (theories) about the world have some relationship to reality. 
The working assumption is merely that your predictions won't prove 
incorrect. THEN you're supposed to try to knock holes in your own 
assumption.



 
 
  At this time, 
  no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between 
 devas 
  that can't be seen and anything else.




 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread anonymousff
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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread anonymousff
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
   a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
   testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
   with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
   than those in homes with entrances facing in other
   directions.
  
  Yes but...
  
  You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, 
and 
 even 
  gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is 
 important 
  preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming 
opposition 
 to 
  your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, 
you 
  need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate 
the 
  actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed.
 
 I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal
 mechanisms.  Rather, you make causal *assumptions*
 to a greater or lesser confidence level, no?

***
Yeh, sure. To be technically correct. But this doesn't change the 
nature of the research. One kind of research finds correlations, 
without looking at what may cause the correlations. Another kind of 
research focuses more directly on the processes involved.




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread anonymousff
This came from a talk given by an expert on Vastu sent by MMY to the 
MUM campus to review the campus some years ago. Actually, I think it 
may have been asuras, and not devas. I don't remember very well. 
Anyway, this seemed to be coming, not from MMY, but from the 
traditional understanding of Vastu that predated MMY's interest in 
it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 IN all honesty, Ihave yet to hear an official TM explanation of SV 
 that involved devas. Orientation to the sun is all Ihave heard.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
  
  --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon
   as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs
   in
the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And
   we
are very far from that right now!
   
   But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
   a basis for quantification.  From it we can
   construct
   testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
   with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
   than those in homes with entrances facing in other
   directions.
  
  I think two things are confounded here. There are the
  empirical findings that correlate south facing
  entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc.,
  compared to north facing entranced homes. These are
  empirical facts if the research is done right. Then
  there are the explanatory concepts that either link
  the empirical findings back into known science or a
  new explanatory construct is created (such as in the
  1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
  explain the findings. This, of course, is much more
  difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do
  with the 1% research. But the new construct must
  attempt to link or bridge known science to the new
  explanatory paradigm. The new construct must make
  sense within a scientific zeitgeist. The new
  explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a
  metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about
  self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas)
  governing directional quadrants on a piece of property
  is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very
  far away from explaining research findings that
  haven't even been completed yet!   
 




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread akasha_108
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. 
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
than those in homes with entrances facing in other
directions.
   
   Yes but...
   
   You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, 
 and 
  even 
   gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is 
  important 
   preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming 
 opposition 
  to 
   your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, 
 you 
   need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate 
 the 
   actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed.
  
  I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal
  mechanisms.  Rather, you make causal *assumptions*
  to a greater or lesser confidence level, no?
 
 ***
 Yeh, sure. To be technically correct. But this doesn't change the 
 nature of the research. One kind of research finds correlations, 
 without looking at what may cause the correlations. Another kind of 
 research focuses more directly on the processes involved.

On another front, I have been looking at the correlation / causation
question. At times I do a lot of multi-variate regression work where
say, 10 independent variables clearly explain most of the variations
in the dependent variable. This can lull one into believing that this
demonstrates causality. As a proof it does not, though it may still be
a causal relationship and the relationships can be mapped out using
influence diagrams.

Some interesting links on loosely and formally proving causality are
below:

http://b-course.hiit.fi/naive_cause.html

The scientific research community has adopted rigorous methods to
eliminate the need for subjective judgments about many things, but
when it comes to testing whether X causes Y, they revert to intuition
and hand-waving. This book makes a strong argument that we shouldn't
accept that. It demonstrates that it is possible to turn intuitions
about causation into hypotheses that are unambiguous and testable. 
http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/abt/1/waldmann/cog_sci00.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521773628/102-3865279-2055340?v=glance

online version of the above:

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/book-toc.html




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread anonymousff
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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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.

Don't want to interrupt, but what's LBS?







 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/
 




Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-07 Thread Rick Archer
LBS = LB Shriver, who posted here a lot in the past and espoused a process
= product philosophy.





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Something along the following lines:
 
 A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from everything else  
 by some human being who puts a fence around it. Having done this, 
 that property gets divided on a grid such that different squares 
 on the grid are governed by different devas. Why this should be 
 the case, I don't know.
 
 The entries into the building on the property will sit on top of 
 these abstract squares and therefore be under the influence of one 
 or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance will increase 
 problems in the direction of death because the devas that hang out 
 on that side are Yama (god of death) and other related henchmen. 


Ohmygod.  Do you mean that this whole obsession with
SV might be another manifestation of Maharishi's fear
of death after his heart attack?  Remember the passing
obsession with immortality?






 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/
 




Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Peter
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
are very far from that right now!  

--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Something along the following lines:
 
 A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from
 everything else by 
 some human being who puts a fence around it. Having
 done this, that 
 property gets divided on a grid such that different
 squares on the 
 grid are governed by different devas. Why this
 should be the case, 
 I don't know.

 The entries into the building on the property will
 sit on top of 
 these abstract squares and therefore be under the
 influence of one 
 or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance
 will increase 
 problems in the direction of death because the devas
 that hang out 
 on that side are Yama (god of death) and other
 related henchmen. 
 Just what the devas are that hang out on the north
 side, I don't 
 know. But they are supposed to support prosperity
 and having 
 children, I think. The devas on the east side are
 supposed to 
 support spiritual growth.
 
 Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM
 students the 
 official explanation for the following change of
 policy. In the 
 past, the teacher always faced east in the
 classroom, while the 
 students faced west. The logic was that the teacher
 needed to be the 
 most coherent person present, being the one that
 everyone was paying 
 attention to, and facing east produced the most
 coherence. Now, the 
 policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no
 difference which 
 direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it
 matters for those 
 who are not. The implication is that the faculty of
 MUM are all 
 enlightened, while the students are not.
 
 So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place?
 Why not just 
 focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the
 original plan. 
 It might have been more successful at transforming
 the world than 
 all these impersonal plans to save humanity that
 seem to go nowhere.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
  Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
  behind why a northern facing entrance to a
 building
  lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those
 living
  in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis
 even
  be created that makes rational sense? Also, you
 will
  be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes
 up
  in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
  instead.  
  
  
  
  
  
 

__
  Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
 relief effort.
  http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
 
 
 
 
  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
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/


 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
 we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
 Houston within a scientific paradigm. 

Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet)
observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core science. 

Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the
early 20's but were not observed, albeit indirectly -- by
implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have not
been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A
mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not
observed until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a model
that fits the observable evidence. 

Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka devas)
that explain observed phenomenon   be rejected? I know that there is
no observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect,
then  a model of priordial  energy / information structures is not so
wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual observe these 
energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in science.


Not that I'm
 dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
 the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
 are very far from that right now!  
 
 --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Something along the following lines:
  
  A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from
  everything else by 
  some human being who puts a fence around it. Having
  done this, that 
  property gets divided on a grid such that different
  squares on the 
  grid are governed by different devas. Why this
  should be the case, 
  I don't know.
 
  The entries into the building on the property will
  sit on top of 
  these abstract squares and therefore be under the
  influence of one 
  or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance
  will increase 
  problems in the direction of death because the devas
  that hang out 
  on that side are Yama (god of death) and other
  related henchmen. 
  Just what the devas are that hang out on the north
  side, I don't 
  know. But they are supposed to support prosperity
  and having 
  children, I think. The devas on the east side are
  supposed to 
  support spiritual growth.
  
  Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM
  students the 
  official explanation for the following change of
  policy. In the 
  past, the teacher always faced east in the
  classroom, while the 
  students faced west. The logic was that the teacher
  needed to be the 
  most coherent person present, being the one that
  everyone was paying 
  attention to, and facing east produced the most
  coherence. Now, the 
  policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no
  difference which 
  direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it
  matters for those 
  who are not. The implication is that the faculty of
  MUM are all 
  enlightened, while the students are not.
  
  So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place?
  Why not just 
  focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the
  original plan. 
  It might have been more successful at transforming
  the world than 
  all these impersonal plans to save humanity that
  seem to go nowhere.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   
   Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
   behind why a northern facing entrance to a
  building
   lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those
  living
   in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis
  even
   be created that makes rational sense? Also, you
  will
   be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes
  up
   in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
   instead.  
   
   
   
 
 
  
 
 __
   Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
  relief effort.
   http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
  
  
  
  
   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
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
 __
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
 http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/




 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Peter


--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   Thanks for the explanation. But of course as
 soon as
   we enter the domain of devas we've got
 problems
   Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that
 I'm
   dismissing such an explanation, just that it
 hangs in
   the air as a myth until it can be quantified.
 And we
   are very far from that right now!  
 
 Alternatively, we could get Carlos Casteneda to role
 around on the 
 property until he detects his power spots, then take
 some mescaline so 
 that he can see the devas hanging out on them

LOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony tripping
on mescaline rolling around on the ground with
bugged-out eyes screaming, Right here man, right
here! It's a power spot!

Just in passing, many moons ago while tripping on
mescaline and camping with my friend we both saw these
amazing beings, not well defined, but moving all
around the landscape at night. It was more fascinating
than scary. Anyone else have such an experience?  





 
 
 
 
  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
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread anonymousff
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.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
  we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
  Houston within a scientific paradigm. 
 
 Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet)
 observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core 
science. 
 
 Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the
 early 20's but were not observed, albeit indirectly -- by
 implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have 
not
 been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A
 mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not
 observed until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a 
model
 that fits the observable evidence. 
 
 Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka 
devas)
 that explain observed phenomenon   be rejected? I know that 
there is
 no observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect,
 then  a model of priordial  energy / information structures is not 
so
 wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual observe 
these 
 energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in 
science.





 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/
 




Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Charity Cars, Inc.





lol @peter!!! very funny!!!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Peter 
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV 
  Hypothesis
  --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
  Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]...   
  wrote:   Thanks for the explanation. But of course as 
  soon as   we enter the domain of "devas" we've got 
  problems   Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not 
  that I'm   dismissing such an explanation, just that 
  it hangs in   the air as a myth until it can be 
  quantified. And we   are very far from that right 
  now!   Alternatively, we could get Carlos Casteneda to 
  role around on the  property until he detects his power spots, 
  then take some mescaline so  that he can see the devas hanging 
  out on themLOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony trippingon 
  mescaline rolling around on the ground withbugged-out eyes screaming, 
  "Right here man, righthere! It's a power spot!"Just in passing, 
  many moons ago while tripping onmescaline and camping with my friend we 
  both saw theseamazing "beings," not well defined, but moving allaround 
  the landscape at night. It was more fascinatingthan scary. Anyone else 
  have such an experience?
 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
  ~--  Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! 
  Groups. Make Yahoo! your home pagehttp://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  
   
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   

  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
  around http://mail.yahoo.com 





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



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  









[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread authfriend
--- 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.

Not just *any* old pie in the sky explanation,
certainly.

But a given scientist may have what he or she thinks
is a compelling insight that other scientists find
absurd.  It's then up to the scientist who had the
insight to shape it into a testable hypothesis and run
some experiments.

If the studies' methodology is tight and the data
support the hypothesis, then, no matter how ridiculous
the hypothesis may seem to other scientists, the onus
is on them to replicate the first scientist's studies;
if they come up with the same results, and can't find
an alternative explanation for the data, they pretty
much have to begin to consider the first scientist's
hypothesis seriously.

So it's not any old pie in the sky explanation, but
it IS any explanation, pie in the sky or not, that
has some good data to support it.





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread authfriend
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
 we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
 Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
 dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
 the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
 are very far from that right now!

But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
than those in homes with entrances facing in other
directions.




  
 
 --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Something along the following lines:
  
  A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from
  everything else by 
  some human being who puts a fence around it. Having
  done this, that 
  property gets divided on a grid such that different
  squares on the 
  grid are governed by different devas. Why this
  should be the case, 
  I don't know.
 
  The entries into the building on the property will
  sit on top of 
  these abstract squares and therefore be under the
  influence of one 
  or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance
  will increase 
  problems in the direction of death because the devas
  that hang out 
  on that side are Yama (god of death) and other
  related henchmen. 
  Just what the devas are that hang out on the north
  side, I don't 
  know. But they are supposed to support prosperity
  and having 
  children, I think. The devas on the east side are
  supposed to 
  support spiritual growth.
  
  Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM
  students the 
  official explanation for the following change of
  policy. In the 
  past, the teacher always faced east in the
  classroom, while the 
  students faced west. The logic was that the teacher
  needed to be the 
  most coherent person present, being the one that
  everyone was paying 
  attention to, and facing east produced the most
  coherence. Now, the 
  policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no
  difference which 
  direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it
  matters for those 
  who are not. The implication is that the faculty of
  MUM are all 
  enlightened, while the students are not.
  
  So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place?
  Why not just 
  focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the
  original plan. 
  It might have been more successful at transforming
  the world than 
  all these impersonal plans to save humanity that
  seem to go nowhere.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   
   Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
   behind why a northern facing entrance to a
  building
   lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those
  living
   in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis
  even
   be created that makes rational sense? Also, you
  will
   be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes
  up
   in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
   instead.  
   
   
   
 
 
  
 
 __
   Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
  relief effort.
   http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
  
  
  
  
   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
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
 __
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
 http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 LOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony tripping
 on mescaline rolling around on the ground with
 bugged-out eyes screaming, Right here man, right
 here! It's a power spot!
 
 Just in passing, many moons ago while tripping on
 mescaline and camping with my friend we both saw these
 amazing beings, not well defined, but moving all
 around the landscape at night. It was more fascinating
 than scary. Anyone else have such an experience?  

Often, hanging out in the desert with Rama
or Cachora.  No drugs involved, though.






 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread anonymousff
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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread anonymousff
Dear Judy,

Your comments sound like a description of an idealized scientific 
world, where science is conducted in a sociological vacuum. Please 
refer to my response to Akasha on this topic for more of my opinion 
on this.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [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.
 
 Not just *any* old pie in the sky explanation,
 certainly.
 
 But a given scientist may have what he or she thinks
 is a compelling insight that other scientists find
 absurd.  It's then up to the scientist who had the
 insight to shape it into a testable hypothesis and run
 some experiments.
 
 If the studies' methodology is tight and the data
 support the hypothesis, then, no matter how ridiculous
 the hypothesis may seem to other scientists, the onus
 is on them to replicate the first scientist's studies;
 if they come up with the same results, and can't find
 an alternative explanation for the data, they pretty
 much have to begin to consider the first scientist's
 hypothesis seriously.
 
 So it's not any old pie in the sky explanation, but
 it IS any explanation, pie in the sky or not, that
 has some good data to support it.




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread anonymousff
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
 a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
 testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
 with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
 than those in homes with entrances facing in other
 directions.

Yes but...

You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even 
gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important 
preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to 
your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you 
need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the 
actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this time, 
no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas 
that can't be seen and anything else.





 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
 behind why a northern facing entrance to a building
 lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living
 in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even
 be created that makes rational sense? Also, you will
 be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes up
 in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
 instead.  
 

The cultural answer isthat the invaders didn't like the guys who lived 
south of them.

The scientific answer is that having sunlight hit the entrance of 
your building non-stop all day somehow effectsthe people who enter and 
leave your building--maybe its too hot or blinding?

IN the case of the old U of AZ student union entrance, with its south-
facing brick-encased alcove and 8-foot tall aluminum statue by the 
door, no-one in their right mind would use the main entrance anyway. I 
escorted John Hagelin around campus many years ago and commented that 
we were going to use the main entrance just so he would get a real 
idea what an Arizona summer was like. His comment on being hit by the 
150 degree temperature at the door was Oh my.

Very presidential of him, I thought.


 
 
   
   
 __
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
 http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/





 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/
 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Peter


--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon
 as
  we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
  Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
  dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs
 in
  the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And
 we
  are very far from that right now!
 
 But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
 a basis for quantification.  From it we can
 construct
 testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
 with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
 than those in homes with entrances facing in other
 directions.

I think two things are confounded here. There are the
empirical findings that correlate south facing
entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc.,
compared to north facing entranced homes. These are
empirical facts if the research is done right. Then
there are the explanatory concepts that either link
the empirical findings back into known science or a
new explanatory construct is created (such as in the
1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
explain the findings. This, of course, is much more
difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do
with the 1% research. But the new construct must
attempt to link or bridge known science to the new
explanatory paradigm. The new construct must make
sense within a scientific zeitgeist. The new
explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a
metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about
self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas)
governing directional quadrants on a piece of property
is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very
far away from explaining research findings that
haven't even been completed yet!   



 
 
 
 
   
  
  --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Something along the following lines:
   
   A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from
   everything else by 
   some human being who puts a fence around it.
 Having
   done this, that 
   property gets divided on a grid such that
 different
   squares on the 
   grid are governed by different devas. Why this
   should be the case, 
   I don't know.
  
   The entries into the building on the property
 will
   sit on top of 
   these abstract squares and therefore be under
 the
   influence of one 
   or more of these devas. Having a southern
 entrance
   will increase 
   problems in the direction of death because the
 devas
   that hang out 
   on that side are Yama (god of death) and other
   related henchmen. 
   Just what the devas are that hang out on the
 north
   side, I don't 
   know. But they are supposed to support
 prosperity
   and having 
   children, I think. The devas on the east side
 are
   supposed to 
   support spiritual growth.
   
   Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the
 MUM
   students the 
   official explanation for the following change of
   policy. In the 
   past, the teacher always faced east in the
   classroom, while the 
   students faced west. The logic was that the
 teacher
   needed to be the 
   most coherent person present, being the one that
   everyone was paying 
   attention to, and facing east produced the most
   coherence. Now, the 
   policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes
 no
   difference which 
   direction someone who is enlightened faces, but
 it
   matters for those 
   who are not. The implication is that the faculty
 of
   MUM are all 
   enlightened, while the students are not.
   
   So why all this emphasis on SV in the first
 place?
   Why not just 
   focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in
 the
   original plan. 
   It might have been more successful at
 transforming
   the world than 
   all these impersonal plans to save humanity that
   seem to go nowhere.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:

Could someone tell me what is the vedic
 reasoning
behind why a northern facing entrance to a
   building
lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those
   living
in such a building? Can a functional
 hypothesis
   even
be created that makes rational sense? Also,
 you
   will
be fined 12 points if the term natural law
 comes
   up
in your answer! Please use the term,
 IUWEROQWF,
instead.  





   
  
 

__
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
   relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
   
   
   
   
    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]
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread anonymousff
Love that word: zeitgeist

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 I think two things are confounded here. There are the
 empirical findings that correlate south facing
 entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc.,
 compared to north facing entranced homes. These are
 empirical facts if the research is done right. Then
 there are the explanatory concepts that either link
 the empirical findings back into known science or a
 new explanatory construct is created (such as in the
 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
 explain the findings. This, of course, is much more
 difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do
 with the 1% research. But the new construct must
 attempt to link or bridge known science to the new
 explanatory paradigm. The new construct must make
 sense within a scientific zeitgeist. The new
 explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a
 metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about
 self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas)
 governing directional quadrants on a piece of property
 is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very
 far away from explaining research findings that
 haven't even been completed yet!   




 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/
 




Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Peter
One of those great words that you don't get to use too
often but it really captures your intent at times. 

--- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Love that word: zeitgeist
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  I think two things are confounded here. There are
 the
  empirical findings that correlate south facing
  entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths,
 etc.,
  compared to north facing entranced homes. These
 are
  empirical facts if the research is done right.
 Then
  there are the explanatory concepts that either
 link
  the empirical findings back into known science or
 a
  new explanatory construct is created (such as in
 the
  1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
  explain the findings. This, of course, is much
 more
  difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do
  with the 1% research. But the new construct must
  attempt to link or bridge known science to the new
  explanatory paradigm. The new construct must
 make
  sense within a scientific zeitgeist. The new
  explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a
  metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk
 about
  self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e.,
 devas)
  governing directional quadrants on a piece of
 property
  is just a cultural belief from India. It is very,
 very
  far away from explaining research findings that
  haven't even been completed yet!   
 
 
 
 
  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
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/


 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
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 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
  a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
  testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
  with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
  than those in homes with entrances facing in other
  directions.
 
 Yes but...
 
 You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even 
 gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important 
 preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to 
 your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you 
 need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the 
 actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this time, 
 no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas 
 that can't be seen and anything else.

I agree that a devic model -- even if cast as intense energy and
information structures is not a good starting point. 

The first step is to actually produce some well designed, cleanly
conducted and well analyzed research on SV showing some results.
(Difficult as several have pointed out to get funding for such, but
that, while difficult, is not an unsurmountable obstacle.) 

Positive results, may or may not occur. But if they did, a full blown
explanatory model is not required to publish the results. They can be
cast as anomalous, perhaps related to magnetic directional
sensibilites of birds and some mammals. And the traditional
explanation could be given -- with the acknowledgement that while
empirically hard to fathom, such a tradional explanation may lead to
intestigation of subtle energy and information strucutres.

 





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Cliff
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge Ram.
There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and simple.

I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from the
north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought
back from the south.  I certainly would have.

As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern entrances
would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's where
the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a
southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason there's
no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the
invention of the telescope.  

Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung on
something tangible like direction or a visible planet.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
  behind why a northern facing entrance to a building
  lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living
  in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even
  be created that makes rational sense? Also, you will
  be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes up
  in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
  instead.  
  
 
 The cultural answer isthat the invaders didn't like the guys who lived 
 south of them.
 
 The scientific answer is that having sunlight hit the entrance of 
 your building non-stop all day somehow effectsthe people who enter and 
 leave your building--maybe its too hot or blinding?
 
 IN the case of the old U of AZ student union entrance, with its south-
 facing brick-encased alcove and 8-foot tall aluminum statue by the 
 door, no-one in their right mind would use the main entrance anyway. I 
 escorted John Hagelin around campus many years ago and commented that 
 we were going to use the main entrance just so he would get a real 
 idea what an Arizona summer was like. His comment on being hit by the 
 150 degree temperature at the door was Oh my.
 
 Very presidential of him, I thought.
 
 
  
  
  
  
  __
  Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
  http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 One of those great words that you don't get to use too
 often but it really captures your intent at times. 


Zeitgeist of theory. 
Many conceptual Gestalts. 
I said Gesundheit. 




 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge Ram.
 There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and simple.

Um, perhaps there are some flaws in vedic logic and reasoning systems
that can be argued. But to hold that they do not exist, simply means
that such an observer is, um, in the void. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
 we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
 Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
 dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
 the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
 are very far from that right now!  


Actually, it doesn't matter if a scientific theory hangs in the 
air. Gravity is the ultimate hangs i nthe air theory and in fact, 
gravitational theory launched modern scientific thought specifically 
BECAUSE it hangs in the air.

In other words, there's no theory to explain gravitation besides 
gravitation, whether you're talking Newtonian or Einstein's General 
Relativity: they hang in the air by themselves with no relationship 
to the rest of physics that we can come up with.

That was Newton's REAL contribution to science: science doesn't 
need first causes, but only needs to make testable predictions.

If the Deva Theory of Vastu makes testable (falsifiable) predictions, 
then its at least potentially scientific. If the predictions turn out 
to have somesemblence of correctness, so much the better.

If someone were willing to modify the Deva Theory of Vastu based on 
testing, than it would BE scientific. I'm not holding my breath about 
this last stage, however.





 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Oh, I see. I jumped into this conversation without having read any 
 of its preamble. I thought you wanted to know how SV justifies 
 itself. What I gave you is from the mythology that comes with the 
 Vastu package prior to its adoption by MMY. On the other hand, it 
is 
 a reasonable first place to look for an explanation. Why would 
 anyone else have a justification for it all.
 
 So scientific research on SV, if it occurs at all, will be stuck in 
 the realm of correlation of results rather than being able to focus 
 on demonstration of causality. Much like the limitations of TM 
 research.

You can't talk about causality until you've demonstrated 
correlation, and what makes you think that there aren't more involved 
theories of the physiology of TM kicking around? Do you read post-PhD 
level stuff on neuroscience?


 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
  we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
  Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm
  dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in
  the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we
  are very far from that right now!  
  
  --- anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Something along the following lines:
   
   A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from
   everything else by 
   some human being who puts a fence around it. Having
   done this, that 
   property gets divided on a grid such that different
   squares on the 
   grid are governed by different devas. Why this
   should be the case, 
   I don't know.
  
   The entries into the building on the property will
   sit on top of 
   these abstract squares and therefore be under the
   influence of one 
   or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance
   will increase 
   problems in the direction of death because the devas
   that hang out 
   on that side are Yama (god of death) and other
   related henchmen. 
   Just what the devas are that hang out on the north
   side, I don't 
   know. But they are supposed to support prosperity
   and having 
   children, I think. The devas on the east side are
   supposed to 
   support spiritual growth.
   
   Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM
   students the 
   official explanation for the following change of
   policy. In the 
   past, the teacher always faced east in the
   classroom, while the 
   students faced west. The logic was that the teacher
   needed to be the 
   most coherent person present, being the one that
   everyone was paying 
   attention to, and facing east produced the most
   coherence. Now, the 
   policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no
   difference which 
   direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it
   matters for those 
   who are not. The implication is that the faculty of
   MUM are all 
   enlightened, while the students are not.
   
   So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place?
   Why not just 
   focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the
   original plan. 
   It might have been more successful at transforming
   the world than 
   all these impersonal plans to save humanity that
   seem to go nowhere.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:

Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning
behind why a northern facing entrance to a
   building
lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those
   living
in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis
   even
be created that makes rational sense? Also, you
   will
be fined 12 points if the term natural law comes
   up
in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF,
instead.  





   
  
  __
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
   relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
   
   
   
   
    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
   
   
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   

   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  __
  Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
  http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- 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.

Deva is merely a place-holder word. You can substitute any set of 
scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology, doesn't care 
about terminology, only about results.



 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as
   we enter the domain of devas we've got problems
   Houston within a scientific paradigm. 
  
  Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet)
  observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core 
 science. 
  
  Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the
  early 20's but were not observed, albeit indirectly -- by
  implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have 
 not
  been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A
  mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not
  observed until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a 
 model
  that fits the observable evidence. 
  
  Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka 
 devas)
  that explain observed phenomenon   be rejected? I know that 
 there is
  no observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV 
effect,
  then  a model of priordial  energy / information structures is 
not 
 so
  wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual observe 
 these 
  energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in 
 science.




 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides
  a basis for quantification.  From it we can construct
  testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes
  with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages
  than those in homes with entrances facing in other
  directions.
 
 Yes but...
 
 You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and 
even 
 gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is 
important 
 preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition 
to 
 your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you 
 need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the 
 actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this 
time, 
 no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between 
devas 
 that can't be seen and anything else.

So what causes gravity?

You seem to think that science invoves explanations in some logical 
sense. All a scientific explanations is, is a prediction derived 
from theory rather than directly from any observations that led to 
the theory.





 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge 
Ram.
 There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
 
 I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from 
the
 north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
 slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought
 back from the south.  I certainly would have.
 
 As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern 
entrances
 would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's 
where
 the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a
 southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason 
there's
 no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the
 invention of the telescope.  
 
 Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung 
on
 something tangible like direction or a visible planet.
 


In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: 
should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with 
buildings south of the Equator?

Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on 
how inflexable the SV interpretation is.




 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/
 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Peter


--- sparaig [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.
 
 Deva is merely a place-holder word. You can
 substitute any set of 
 scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology,
 doesn't care 
 about terminology, only about results.

No, you are completely wrong here. The explanatory
concepts must make sense by having quantifiable
properties (i.e., open to measurement) and not be
simple metaphors or placeholders. Placeholders for
what, reality?


 
 
 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as
 soon as
we enter the domain of devas we've got
 problems
Houston within a scientific paradigm. 
   
   Because there are elements in the theory that
 are not (yet)
   observable? That does not seem to be a problem
 for hard core 
  science. 
   
   Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and
 other's) work in the
   early 20's but were not observed, albeit
 indirectly -- by
   implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13
 dimensions have 
  not
   been observed, but a lot of high level physics
 focuses on such. A
   mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time,
 but was not
   observed until 1953. The Big Bang was not
 observed, but its a 
  model
   that fits the observable evidence. 
   
   Why then should a model of energy / information
 structures (aka 
  devas)
   that explain observed phenomenon   be
 rejected? I know that 
  there is
   no observed phenomenon yet, but if research
 did show a SV 
 effect,
   then  a model of priordial  energy / information
 structures is 
 not 
  so
   wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday
 actual observe 
  these 
   energy / information structures. Stranger things
 have happened in 
  science.
 
 
 
 
  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
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/


 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge 
 Ram.
  There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
  
  I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from 
 the
  north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
  slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought
  back from the south.  I certainly would have.
  
  As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern 
 entrances
  would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's 
 where
  the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a
  southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason 
 there's
  no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the
  invention of the telescope.  
  
  Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung 
 on
  something tangible like direction or a visible planet.
  
 
 
 In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: 
 should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with 
 buildings south of the Equator?
 
 Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on 
 how inflexable the SV interpretation is.

I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without
equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern hemisphere.




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
 
 --- sparaig [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.
  
  Deva is merely a place-holder word. You can
  substitute any set of 
  scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology,
  doesn't care 
  about terminology, only about results.
 
 No, you are completely wrong here. The explanatory
 concepts must make sense by having quantifiable
 properties (i.e., open to measurement) and not be
 simple metaphors or placeholders. Placeholders for
 what, reality?

Parts of the theory must be open to falsifiability of some kind, 
yes...

Placeholder is a perfectly accurate term to use here, of course. 
Elsewise, why name something a quark instead of breakfast cereal 
or nonsense poem?

[the latter being the source of the term 'quark' and the former being 
named in honor of the arbitrarily named elementary particle]





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry 
or Dodge 
  Ram.
   There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and 
simple.
   
   I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came 
from 
  the
   north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
   slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently 
fought
   back from the south.  I certainly would have.
   
   As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern 
  entrances
   would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since 
that's 
  where
   the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion 
of a
   southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason 
  there's
   no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them 
before the
   invention of the telescope.  
   
   Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is 
hung 
  on
   something tangible like direction or a visible planet.
   
  
  
  In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the 
question: 
  should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing 
with 
  buildings south of the Equator?
  
  Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve 
judgement on 
  how inflexable the SV interpretation is.
 
 I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without
 equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern 
hemisphere.

COuld you point me to where thisis said? This would go against the 
claimthat it is sunlight that is the determining factor in these 
matters.




 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread akasha_108
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:
Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry 
 or Dodge 
   Ram.
There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and 
 simple.

I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came 
 from 
   the
north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently 
 fought
back from the south.  I certainly would have.

As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern 
   entrances
would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since 
 that's 
   where
the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion 
 of a
southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason 
   there's
no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them 
 before the
invention of the telescope.  

Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is 
 hung 
   on
something tangible like direction or a visible planet.

   
   
   In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the 
 question: 
   should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing 
 with 
   buildings south of the Equator?
   
   Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve 
 judgement on 
   how inflexable the SV interpretation is.
  
  I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without
  equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern 
 hemisphere.
 
 COuld you point me to where thisis said? This would go against the 
 claimthat it is sunlight that is the determining factor in these 
 matters.

I understand the contradiction, but I heard tapes of such. And some in
print interivews in some TMO publications, but I cannot cite. Sorry.
Just passing on what I heard. 







 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Cliff
Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity?  Not for the
last 90 years or so.  Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity?

Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of
years, but has been proven to be a good approximation of reality as
long as nothing is moving too quickly relative to the observer.  But to
consider it fundamental today is equivalent to considering horse and
buggy to being the latest in ground transportation technology.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [...]
 These are
  empirical facts if the research is done right. Then
  there are the explanatory concepts that either link
  the empirical findings back into known science or a
  new explanatory construct is created (such as in the
  1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to
  explain the findings. This, of course, is much more
  difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do
  with the 1% research. But the new construct must
  attempt to link or bridge known science to the new
  explanatory paradigm. The new construct must make
  sense within a scientific zeitgeist. The new
  explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a
  metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about
  self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas)
  governing directional quadrants on a piece of property
  is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very
  far away from explaining research findings that
  haven't even been completed yet!   
 
 I don't know where you learned your scientific theory but its just 
 plain wrong. It doesn't cover such fundamental scientific theories as 
 Newtonian Gravity for instance, which is what modern scientific 
 thoguht is based on.





 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/
 





[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread Cliff
This only goes to prove the point.  South is only south because the
first mapmakers lived in what is now called the northern hemisphere. 
They decided they wanted to be on top (probably men), so they drew
maps with their countries above all those nasty, dark-skinned people
who lived below them.  It's a totally arbitrary direction from the 
point of view of the cosmos.

If SV claims some specialness for south without regard to where the
sun actually lies (north, for most of the year, when in most of the 
southern hemisphere), then it is as arbitrary as I suspect it to be.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   Vedic reasoning is an oxymoron, just like silent cry or Dodge 
  Ram.
   There is no such thing.  It's a system of belief, pure and simple.
   
   I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from 
  the
   north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being
   slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought
   back from the south.  I certainly would have.
   
   As for the scientific reason, that would imply that northern 
  entrances
   would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's 
  where
   the sun would lie.  But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a
   southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this.  Same reason 
  there's
   no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the
   invention of the telescope.  
   
   Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung 
  on
   something tangible like direction or a visible planet.
   
  
  
  In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: 
  should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with 
  buildings south of the Equator?
  
  Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on 
  how inflexable the SV interpretation is.
 
 I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without
 equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern hemisphere.





 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/
 




[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis

2005-09-06 Thread sparaig
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Cliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity?  Not for the
 last 90 years or so.  Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity?
 
 Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of
 years, but has been proven to be a good approximation of reality as
 long as nothing is moving too quickly relative to the observer.  But 
to
 consider it fundamental today is equivalent to considering horse and
 buggy to being the latest in ground transportation technology.
 


The modern scientific method got its start working with Newtonian 
Gravity.




 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/