George Hammond is a friend because of our mutual interest in Cattel 16
personality factor test and intelligence. George is a friend because of his
interest in physics. He has deflected his graduate studies toward psychology,
our interest. From a physics point of view psychology is not much of a science.
A science is not determined by your subject, but your methods and procedures.
Today, in physics the primary approach is building models and testing the
models.
Unfortunately, science is also political. If a reported opinion or judgement is
accepted it slowly becomes
dogma or good science.
History teaches us that all reports and opinions are tentative. Economics
teaches us that each of us
decides where we will spend our time. It is likely that 98% of us spends our
time in the wrong direction.
Each age has been very confident that their approach and conclusion were the
best.
I am not religious. If god does not exist, god will exist if matter decays
radioactively and the universe continues its expansion. Ultimately, only
electrons and positrons will exist. Because of quantum entanglement such
a universe would be conscious and therefore god like.
Based on the current opinions of what matter is, we can not be certain that we
are not thoughts in god's mind
remembering our past. It does no harm in maintaining a permissive attitude
toward
George Hammond or anyone else who is willing to question our wisdom.
I believe science is self correcting, but sometimes explores extreme positions.
>However, just because a conclusion is logical from
> an individual's frame of reference, it is not necessarily sound science.
If history is to teach us, it is the logical but wrong conclusion that leads to
new understanding.
Sound science recognizes that even wrong opinions and conclusions are pointing
toward
what we hope to discover, truth. Truth does not immediately make its self aware
to the observer.
For example E=mc^2 was not orginially thought of as being important by Einstein.
> Like it or
> not, on criterion by which scientific conclusions are judged is whether they
have
> gained acceptance by a critical audience.
I totally agree. Few of us have communicated the painful truth that science is
highly political. At one time it was recognized scientifically that blacks were
inferior to whites. At one time it was recognized scientifically that gays were
psychologically sick. Opinions change.
Current political scientific conclusions does not guarantee that the critical
audience is correct. It does us
no good to stick our heads in the sand and reject anothers opinion as not being
an honest observation.
It is hoped that reporting of honest observations, and honest opinions will
allow us to see the truth when the knowledge base has grown to the necessary
level.
Since science is political, the normal procedures for communicating or the
building of political opinion is
fair game. Psychology needs to recognize this political reality. Consider the
political reality that classical conditioning is useful for helping children
with enuresis. Since O.H. Mower's report in 1942 we have known how to help.
Today, doctors give children pills to stop them from processing urine. Children
die from this approach. This is the current medical opinion.
>
> So that we can understand George's work more fully, will you please direct us
to one
> or two articles that he has published in this area, in * reputable, refereed
> journals *?
Reputable, refereed journals........ Einstein's journal articles were
rejected. Since there exist no physics journal that has been totally 100%
reliable, how can this be the absolute judge of future truth. Psychology
does not have a very good history either.
What you are saying is your time is limited and you want to only consider
reports that has been reviewed by
others, a reasonable approach. Since am not religious, I believe it is fair to
report that God is a taboo topic
in science. As a non-religious person I am willing to consider the merits of
George Hammond's approach, why does your God not allow you to?
Ron Blue
> (Note, his own web sites and books do not count, nor do his
> contributions to Usenet newsgroups.)
>
> - Mike
> --
>
> Ron Blue wrote:
>
> > George has jumped to a logical conclusion relative to his frame of
reference.
> > In current models of physics the
> > best model to date of explaining matter is M-brane theory. In M-brane
theory
> > the universe as we know it is
> > an illusion occurring in a 13 dimensional universe. Other physicist have
also
> > considered that the 13 dimension would be god like. Any point in space is
> > entangled to any other point. Gaussian averages should occur or
> > harmonics should occur. George believes that factor analysis is pointing
toward
> > the most important connection of all - God.
> >
> > Whether George is correct or not is not the rule of reasoning for blocking
him
> > from access to others with
> > a deep interest in psychometrics. Even if he is wrong, this journey is
valuable
> > learning experience for him. Einstein suggested that what is measurable is
not
> > necessarily correct or interesting. What is worth studying
> > is not necessarily observable or understandable.
> >
> > Ron Blue
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Timmerman, Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "TIPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 11:25 AM
> > Subject: RE: Searching for a scientist Physics/Psychology
> >
> > > Does anyone else on TIPS keep up with George?
> > > I think he's worth discussing in some psychology
> > > classes, but not in psychometrics.
> > >
> > > Before you respond to Ron's message, check
> > > out George's homepage.
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > >
> > > Here are some highlights:
> > >
> > > DISCOVERY OF
> > > WORLDS FIRST REAL
> > > SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
> > >
> > > Hyannis MA-- Theoretical Physicist investigating
> > > psychometric Structural Model accidentally stumbles
> > > on long touted proof of God. Discovery hailed as
> > > climax of 2000 year mystery and greatest
> > > religious miracle since Calvary
> > >
> > > also:
> > >
> > > NOTE: You may want to take a short 20 question
> > > multiple choice " God Test " before you read this
> > > website. If you cannot answer at least half the
> > > questions, there is very little chance that you
> > > can comprehend the scientific proof of God
> > >
> > > If you've got a few days over the holidays, go
> > > to www.deja.com and search for "George Hammond"
> > >
> > > TT
> > >
> > > ===============================================
> > > Thomas A. Timmerman, Ph.D.
> > > Assistant Professor
> > > Psychology Department
> > > Austin Peay State University
> > > Clarksville, TN 37044
> > > 931-221-1248
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ===============================================
> > >
>
> *****************************************************************
> * Mike Scoles * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
> * Department of Psychology * voice: (501) 450-5418 *
> * University of Central Arkansas * fax: (501) 450-5424 *
> * Conway, AR 72035-0001 * *
> ********* http://www.coe.uca.edu/psych/scoles/index.html ********
>
>
>
