Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jun 2005 20:39:14 -0700
In <slrnd9teot.5h.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
>>O'Barr: The purpose of science.
>> Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr)
>>
>> The very purpose of science, and the research
>> associated with science, is to make our reality
>> understandable.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your first misconception. The purpose
>of doing science is to try and understand nature. If
>nature is hard to understand, you'll just have to
>get over it, since nature isn't going to change for
>your sake. Studying science is about making what
>scienists discover about nature understandable.
O'Barr comments:
Thank you, Bilge, for saying what I said. It is
always nice to be in support of each other. Your
statement: 'The purpose of doing science is to try
and understand nature' is perfect. And your
statement: 'Studying science is about making what
scienists discover about nature understandable' is
perfect! All of these are important points! Thanks,
thanks, thanks! And the purpose of all this
understanding is to allow us to control our reality,
to improve our lives, and the lives of others. Thank
you for your insights!
O'Barr wrote:
>> When things are seen that do not make sense, then
>> science is used to make them make sense. This is
>> what progress is all about.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your second misconception. Scientists
>don't decide for nature what makes sense. Nature
>tells scientists what makes sense. Progress is all
>about being able to overcome preconceptions and
>accept what nature did rather than insist that
>nature cave in to your misconceptions.
O'Barr comments:
It has been my experience, that in all fields of
science, we have always found that nature is as
logical as it can be, once we come to fully
understand her. Of course, nature often does not
make much sense when we are ignorant of what nature
is fully doing. Thus, those who say they believe in
SR, as if it were a religion, they are ignorant of a
lot of what nature really is, and thus nothing makes
sense to them. But you knew that already.
O'Barr wrote:
>> These things that do not make sense might all be
>>facts, but just because they are known facts do not
>>mean they make sense.
Bilge wrote:
> Therein lies your third misconception. If you find
>that facts don't make sense, the answer is not to
>try and change the facts to fit your idea of what
>makes sense, but to change your idea of what makes
>sense to fit the facts.
O'Barr comments:
Only a man who is defeated would say such a silly
thing. Why should we give up understanding nature,
when we ourselves are part of nature? I have not yet
seen anything that would cause me to give up. Why
are you so helpless that you are now ready to just
let things be, no matter how silly they might seem to
be? That is not the way an intelligent man would
react! Shame on you! I have full faith that when
all is known, everything will make perfect sense!
In fact, this will be one key to the fact that we
know everything, when everything begins to make
sense. You have lost the power of being an
intelligent being!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Whether it is the sun that comes up every morning,
>> or tides, any fact can be mysterious or
>> unexplainable.
Bilge wrote:
> Especially if you want to play scientist without
>having studied any science.
>
> [*usual drivel snipped*]
O'Barr comments:
I appreciate the compliment. It is easy to tell
when a man is defeated, both by what he says, and by
what he does not say. For example, I said the
following in the post you are responding to:
*************************************
Take an inertial reference line upon which two
observers are moving with relative velocity between
them. Let a photon pass along this line from one end
to the other. The actual relative velocities between
this one photon with each of these observers have to
be different. Any and all independent observers will
confirm this. Logic demands it. Yet, in SR, these
two observers will each measure the velocity of the
photon going by them to be the same. This is not
logical. This is not reasonable. This is a mystery
that needs to be explained and justified. And no SR
expert has the means to explain it.
**************************************
Now I said more than this, but your failure to
address any of the important things that were
presented by me shows to me that you have agreed to
all these point. And you have agreed to these points
because there is no way you can argue against them.
So I appreciate your last response. It tells me that
you are again defeated, and all you can do is pick at
unimportant points that have little to do with the
substance I am presenting. Therefore, I thank you
again, Bilge, for being wise enough not to fight
against the prick! You know a lost cause when you
see it, and LET is superior to SR in all ways. You
are a loser! And SR is a loser. And you know it!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- From: Bilge
- Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- From: Harry
- Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- References:
- O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- From: Bilge
- O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
- Next by Date: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: The purpose of science.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
