Re: JSH: Saying you're reasonable
- From: "mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mensanator@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jan 2006 08:45:31 -0800
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Most people say they are reasonable.
>
> Zealots in any area will happily proclaim that they are right and you
> are wrong.
>
> We know this, as it is not a new aspect of human society.
>
> What distinguishes areas where reason is supposed to hold IS FOLLOWING
> RULES that are supposed to prevent belief from trumping truth.
>
> In the physics field, people can hold onto wrong ideas, but the way to
> clear those out is with experiment: the real world doesn't follow the
> wrong beliefs and you go with the real world.
>
> One of the stories from the past is that part of the resistance in
> Galileo's time to the ideas of Copernicus was that if the sun didn't
> revolve around the earth, then how did God make the sun stand still in
> the battle of Jericho?
By making the Earth stand still. Duh.
>
> But there was no such battle--it was a made-up story, and God never
> made the sun stand still.
Heretic.
>
> People can have beliefs that can be proven wrong--if the proofs are
> accepted.
>
> BUT in number theory today you have areas where there is no practical
> application of a result, and it's hard to show with the numbers that
> ideas are wrong, but it can be done with mathematical proof.
>
> What you have seen with my results is that is not enough if a society
> really wants to believe a result.
>
> The physics world actually has a major problem in areas where it's hard
> to use experiment, like cosmology, and wrong beliefs take hold there,
> and proof against them is dismissed as you can see easily enough by
> doing web searches on a Dr. Halton Arp, one of the most distinguished
> astrophysicists around, who worked with Hubble as an assistant, who is
> also routinely dismissed as a crank by members of the astronomical
> field.
>
> So no, it's not just about attacking some amateur who talks a lot on
> Usenet.
>
> In cosmology, a physicist with a PH.D and a distinguished career can
> get labeled a crank just as well, and his evidence is dismissed as he
> can show that certain objects in the sky are closer than most
> astronomers claim they are.
Evidence is not proof. Duh.
>
> That's it. He can show that these objects are closer than the majority
> claims they are, and his evidence is dismissed because it challenges
> ideas that have been around for only a bit over half a century!
>
> My results challenge ideas that have been around for over a hundred
> years.
So, like Halton Arp, it's more likely that you're wrong. Duh.
>
> The results are simple enough to show in a very easy proof, where I
> emphasize the distributive property and that constants are constant.
Why wouldn't constants be constant? Duh.
>
> Resistance to the proof cannot be on the mathematics as it's too short
> and simple.
But resistance is much easier when it's not a proof. Duh.
>
> SAYING you're reasonable is easy.
>
> Actually being reasonable when cherished beliefs are challenged is
> hard.
Not when the challenges are stupid. Duh.
>
> The people who were certain that the sun had to go around the earth are
> long dead now, and their beliefs refuted, right? But aren't there
> people who will tell you with certainty that the battle of Jericho DID
> take place and that God DID make the sun stand still?
So? That doesn't conflict with Copernicus. Duh.
>
> What makes you different from them?
I don't believe in Intelligent Design. Duh.
>
>
> James Harris
.
- References:
- JSH: Saying you're reasonable
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Saying you're reasonable
- Prev by Date: Re: Saying you're reasonable
- Next by Date: Re: Saying you're reasonable
- Previous by thread: Re: Saying you're reasonable
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Saying you're reasonable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
