Re: A Consortium of Scientists


"Peter F" <notdisclosed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:da6lcn$1ul0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:da518a$1d0a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
> <snip>
>> So long as we can keep the intellectual child alive in our minds and
> hearts,
>> there
>> is hope.
>> g
>
> Am touched by your impassioned optimism.
>
> And, I like how you write to define, promote, and defend this by you
> envisioned opportunity for cognitive-intellectual consensus based on
> scientific facts and principles.
>
> Besides, I am pleased that you so far (or up till recently) have not
> been completely put off by my _realistically vague_ worldview;
> one that I have been inclined and perversely motivated to _already_ have
> acquired.
>
> That is, acquired but obviously not managed to smoothly communicate and
> 'flawlessly' formulate.
>
> Even just a noticeably less flawed finish would be more than fine with me.
>
> On the other hand, perfection is in this case forever beyond reach. As a
> matter of principle, that is.
>
> I leave it open for anyone to try to find a specific plug to pull that
> would
> make it sink;
> Or, for anyone to suggest or help me to make some specific improvement.
> Even a single sentence-reconstruction-suggestion would be warmly welcomed.
> ;->
>
Peter, I am optimistic only in the sense that I believe the BEST of all ways
to deal with reality is to... well?... deal with REALITY.

The GREAT ideas of science have NOT come primarily from observation and
controlled experimentation, but have come PRIMARILY from creative
imagination. Now hold on... I did not say that the product of creative
imagination
does not have to ACCORD WITH observation and controlled experimentation.

Just any old cockamamie notion, not bearing any resemblance to what nature
is capable of revealing to those who question her, physically, as to how she
"does her thing" is nothing but BS. But the GREAT ideas of science offer,
in
every instance, an explanation that fits the "feedback from nature" better
than
any previous notion.

Thus, as I veiw it, Aristotle was a GREAT synthesist. Until Ptolemy came
along
and offered his epicycles (or "circles on circles") there was scant
technology to
see that a problem existed with the circles of the planets doing little
whirlymagigs
here and there. With Ptolemy's refinement, the question of "what about
those
troubling little whirlymagigs" in a perfect heaven (assumed to be everything
"above" the earth) was as good as it got... although puzzling. Ptolemy,
however,
eased the puzzle a bit by at least ADDRESSING THE ISSUE of them. With
his explanation, the whole thing "worked better" with Earth as the center of
everything.

Then Copernicus came along and peed off just about everybody. In the mind
sets of some, he veritably called Roman Catholic Orthodoxy (relating to
heaven
being perfect) a lie. However, his depiction of nature's feedback fit the
observable
facts better.

Then along came Galileo, who had the advantage of a bit of technological
advance, and who saw the four little "dots" on a plane around Jupiter and,
looking at various times, saw that they were in different locations at
different
times. Remember what the representatives of the church did when he handed
them his telescope and said, "Here, look for yourself."

Some looked and said they saw nothing. (Hey, they didn't want to be burned
at
the stake over seeing something that was unorthodox.) Others of them
REFUSED
to even take the telescope in hand. (They didn't want to burn, either.)

Galileo saw sun spots, too. Also he noticed that when Venus was "full" it
was
SMALLER than when it was "crescent." (It was closer to the earth.)

If the heavens were not static, and not perfect, then something had to
give... and
usually when something has to give it is not the established dogma. But
that's
normal.

My only point here is that GREAT ideas of science usually cause havoc in
entrenched religious, academic and other "establishments" at first.

But, at the same time, NEW AND DIFFERENT ideas that don't fit the facts
are a dime a dozen at any moment. Anybody can come up with one of those.
They "Great Randy" has done an enormous service to nature's feedback by
exposing fraudulent claims by people who make a living "talking to the dead"
and such. There's always that kind of BS coming down the pike.

GREAT ideas of science are no less wacky than the fraudulent ones sometimes.
But they pan out.

Dr. Einstein did not base his great, original ideas about how it seemed to
him
nature works. He just stated how it seemed to him it WOULD work, and that
was original. It was NOT merely learned from observation by him, or
experiments
by him. It was creative and speculative. But it was pretty damned right
on...

So, why is he famous? Nothing special. His predictions just fit the facts
better
than any before him, on certain issues, and when less creative people did
the
observations and crunched the math and did the experiments.... GOOOOOLEEEE !
Most of it checked out.

If you have something that can be stated clearly and will check out...
fantastic.
If it doesn't check out, then at least you were sincere, and not committing
a deliberate
fraud, and trying to bilk somebody out of something.

Right?

So, if you have a good idea. Why don't we talk about how it can be set up
to challenge
physical reality to show that it won't run up the flagpole and flap?

Meantime, my big desire is to try TOGETHER with any and all who will join
the effort
to list WHAT ISSUES need to be addressed by ANYbody's new and different
idea.

FOR EXAMPLE: I have an issue with the statement made frequently by
physicists.

I've heard it at least a thousand times, and you have too. I will put it in
a separate message
in order to try to draw attention to the issue.

Get ready. It is about as insulting as Copernicus was. Just wait and see.
I will call it, just
for fun, "Gil's red shift dilemma."

Til then,

g


.