Another very valid point. However, since I am not a educator, I must rely on those with the background to educate. Parents are clearly in a supportive role with respect to acquisition of knowledge. I see my parental role as a teacher of how to integrate with society, not as being the primary educator. I help my children with their homework and teach them my standard of morals and ethics. I teach them what I have learned through the "school of hard-knocks" and try to make sure they are a passionate person in anything they believe in.
Again, another very good point you have raised with respect to parents. But, if I may have a small rebuttal...
If a parent is one of the blind, who will ensure that the child is not blind?
OIC!
Its interesting … no one tells a parent what their role is … the parent assumes one automatically … this is along the same lines as the discussion we had previously, where some here, assume the role of 'teacher' (at IIS).
I am in full support of the roles OIC assumes as a parent.
Science requires the seeds of rational thinking before we even mention the technicalities of electrons, photons, blah, blah, etc, etc and rational thinking surely starts at home.(?). And despite the knocking they receive, even politicians are parents making the same choices.
Perhaps even more fundamental than rationality, is understanding the 'ins' and 'outs' of cause and effect, responsibility and consequence ...
How does Gaede or Mathis rate in this area ?
How do others who pass judgements on discussions they are not involved in as "just wastes space", rate in the responsibility area ?
Is this also a missing fundamental with pseudoscientists ? Teach 'em that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that gravitationally caused nuclear fusion can't possibly cause a star to ignite, that all mathematicians are deluded .. and we'll have a better world ! Don't worry that none of the thinking behind all this has ever (or will ever) result in anything of value for society ...
After all, computers and the like, never originated from fundamentals such as accountability to workers burdened by having to manually crunch ridiculuous volumes of paperwork, etc.
She'll be right .. tell 'em a bed-time story and don't worry about the consequences !
I feel guilty because over the years I have ranted against everything but I would like to think I have never wanted to "silience" anyone I was ranting against.
Above all I would like to think I never had any power to influence anyone on my ideas...certainly never convinced anyone here.
However I still suggest not to worry about this chap I think it is better to air views etc rather than possibly drive them underground by seeking to ban publication whatever....
He has that … how can I say it ? …. well, he sort of has that "Brian Cox" look, don't you think ?
So, coming back to the point in question, he doesn't even see himself as accountable to reality, eh ? (Not surprising judging from his written work, either).
He has that … how can I say it ? …. well, he sort of has that "Brian Cox" look, don't you think ?
So, coming back to the point in question, he doesn't even see himself as accountable to reality, eh ? (Not surprising judging from his written work, either).
Cheers
It's the point behind my post. Are these guys the way there are because of a limited grasp on reality?
At least he has didn't portray himself with a halo.
Another culprit … Deepak Chopra … ever heard his mumbo jumbo which makes frequent use of QM terminology ? Chopra's is a master of deliberately confusing real science with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. His following is huge too, (unlike Gaede & Mathis), which I find very disturbing …
Quote:
Chopra has been criticized for his frequent references to the relationship of quantum mechanics to healing processes, a connection that has drawn skepticism from physicists who say it can be considered as contributing to the general confusion in the popular press regarding quantum measurement, decoherence and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
I've seen Richard Dawkins have a go at him, (as only Dawkins can), and I notice that Phil Plait also had a few words to say about him, recently.
Plait's well chosen words below really summarise my feelings on much of this as well…
Quote:
Of course, it’s true I’m unhappy he’s distorting reality to make a buck. But what makes me really unhappy — yes, even angry — is that he’s shortchanging the Universe. His Universe is small and scary and unexplainable. The real Universe is huge and magnificent and artistic and understandable using math and science.
Very cool words from Mr Plait … he gets my vote on this issue.
Chopra's ramblings are nothing but deceptive and dis-empowering for his gullible followers.
I also notice marked similarities between his ramblings, and certain recent posts here, which seem to me, to fit squarely inside meta-physical interpretations of physical reality, using QM concepts techno-speak.
For me, QM principles support QM. Extrapolating such outside of the quantum world, only serves to add confusion to those not intimately familiar with the well thought out reasons for their invocation in the quantum world.
It's the point behind my post. Are these guys the way there are because of a limited grasp on reality?
At least he has didn't portray himself with a halo.
Regards
Steven
Don't worry about that one, Steven. That will come to pass soon enough!!!
A limited grasp of reality and a huge ego. Or a preoccupation with fantasy, or they live in some other parallel reality and their presence here is just a holographic projection of their twisted sense of self
It's so farcical in its premise it's laughable. Catastrophic global flooding...next minute, they'll be saying they have proof of Noah's Ark!!! Oh, and the Earth is only 6000 years old, of course
The only thing that's been "electrically hardened" is their brains, or what passes for a brain amongst that lot. Most likely all that mud that was produced by their flood!!!!
It's so farcical in its premise it's laughable. Catastrophic global flooding...next minute, they'll be saying they have proof of Noah's Ark!!! Oh, and the Earth is only 6000 years old, of course
The only thing that's been "electrically hardened" is their brains, or what passes for a brain amongst that lot. Most likely all that mud that was produced by their flood!!!!
Quote:
Because geologists are human.........
Yep I can back him on that. I did geology at Uni for a year and never encountered a geologist that wasn't human.
I've had another thought about why these guys rebel against science. This thought actually casts the whole thing in a slightly different light, which I haven't really thought about too much before.
See, there are some scientific theories for which it is very difficult for the common man in the street, to clearly identify evidence for them having directly resulted in practical applications. For example: Evolution and (somewhat) unfortunately, I think …. the heliocentric view of the solar system. (Perhaps the 'Theory of 'Global Warming' is another ? )
These theories, whilst having resulted in scientific revolutions which emancipated the scientific minds of the times, (and therein led to many practical inventions in the longer term), I think, have little direct, immediate and practical applications from a common-man's perspective.
If their impact has truly been more on philosophy, religion and culture and other areas outside of their immediate branch of science, then I can better understand why the reception of these, is not met with more open arms throughout society and also resulting in the parallel development of pseudosciences.
It also exposes the 'softer ground' one may have to stand upon during debates with these folk, as well. An awareness of this 'softer ground' is important to have in one own debating arsenal.
Cheers
Last edited by CraigS; 21-07-2011 at 11:21 AM.
Reason: Oops meant heliocentric view of the Solar System
I can tell you why most rebel against science....because they couldn't handle it at school. They never liked the subject to begin with and/or they just couldn't get their heads around it. So, they dismiss it and then think they know better, because "common sense" or something else they feel is more "plausible" tells them otherwise.
Or, you get those that were alright with science, but think they know better and that their ideas have more veracity than the accepted ideas. When they get "slapped down", they resent it and then go on a personal crusade to prove everyone else is wrong and that they're right.
And, as you said yourself, some feel disconnected with science and what scientists do. They wanted to be a part of it but they can't, so they become overtly antagonistic towards science and scientists.
Plus, you get those that were good at science and have degrees and experience in their fields. But for some reason, only known to them, they go off into cloud cuckoo land with some wacky idea of theirs that they can't put down because they're obsessively compulsive in pursuing it. Even if it's clearly wrong and flies in the face of all logic, rationality and breaks every scientific principle (or even "common sense").
Yeah Carl there are those who are as you say .. then there are the dissident scientists, which I think overall, have a way bigger impact than those who simply bear a grudge.
Worse still are those dissident scientists with political bias, who are embedded within a system where they have to justify their theories on an 'immediate applications' basis.
Yeah Carl there are those who are as you say .. then there are the dissident scientists, which I think overall, have a way bigger impact than those who simply bear a grudge.
Cheers
Some of those are in my fourth category...and sometimes, they get it right. But not all the time.
It's so farcical in its premise it's laughable. Catastrophic global flooding...next minute, they'll be saying they have proof of Noah's Ark!!! Oh, and the Earth is only 6000 years old, of course
The only thing that's been "electrically hardened" is their brains, or what passes for a brain amongst that lot. Most likely all that mud that was produced by their flood!!!!
Dont you like the ending Carl?..
.
The final choice of hypothesis—or, rather, the temporarily popular choice, since by the nature of the process there cannot be finality—will depend on which one geologists find most useful in helping them to do what they then want to do. Because geologists are human, egotistical and political motives are an inseparable part of the process, and the science will always have to trickle around declarations of finality and conspiracies to dismiss alternatives. Acquiescence in pretenses of “secure knowledge” will lead only to a self-congratulatory sterility. Curious minds will wander off to see things with new visions.
Now you cant are with that????
What did he say???
Waste of time ...these people give legitimate sudoscientists a bad name.
The final choice of hypothesis—or, rather, the temporarily popular choice, since by the nature of the process there cannot be finality—will depend on which one geologists find most useful in helping them to do what they then want to do. Because geologists are human, egotistical and political motives are an inseparable part of the process, and the science will always have to trickle around declarations of finality and conspiracies to dismiss alternatives. Acquiescence in pretenses of “secure knowledge” will lead only to a self-congratulatory sterility. Curious minds will wander off to see things with new visions.
Now you cant are with that????
What did he say???
Waste of time ...these people give legitimate sudoscientists a bad name.
alex
That, Alex, is nothing more than hot air being spouted by someone trying to be philosophical about something he doesn't understand. The only thing sterile about all of this is his mind.
Carl your avatar is a constant reminder of reality.
I think the net is responsible simply because even someone like me can publish an idea...but on the positive the net can educate someone like me.
I dont waste time really with sites other than here or conventional science on the basis there is not enough time for me to learn with what is established science..and if I want alternative it will fit within what it must fit within... I understand MM experiment and agree it does all it does but hasnt found the eather thats all.. seriously blame the net you can learn everything in a couple of days..as I have done many times... and then your an expert...open a site and off you go..I never opened a site but had one opened under me to my surprise..anyways it is easy for these folk to bang their drums for what ever reason the net makes the drums louder than in the past.
Speak your truth clearly and quietly etc
Re the first chap......I found the attacks on my heros particularly offensive I find that sort of attack offensive in any context...Not only was Newton not wrong but the Principallia was only one part of his guinius..check his banking credentials...seeing spagetti in the sky how childish...who can we thank for the solar panel really mmm the science was good enough to get the Nobel Prize ... and to have a go at someone who in the face of unimaganable adversity carries on... not just carries on... but where others would have rolled over and given up has accomplished fame and respect for physics argueably the most demanding of all human followings.
Some humility and respect for such greatness even if your of the Universe is the opposite. Mind you I thought Brian Greene was disrespectful unnecessarily to Newton in his Ellegant Universe production...
I think free speech is great but manners please... no one deserves such a lack of respect let alone these great three.
What to do...
ignore him...
alex
)
???
.
many times... and then your an expert...open a site and off you go..I never opened a site but had one opened under me to my surprise..anyways it is easy for these folk to bang their drums for what ever reason the net makes the drums louder than in the past.
