Nasa astronauts are crackpots

[firstlight (Tony)]

You are exactly right Carl, but I think you miss the point. There is no evidence that other intelligences do not exist, the opposite holds as well there is no evidence that they do or have. In fact the evidence from an experiment that has run for 3.5+ billion years, intelligence appears to have only arisen once, and only in the past 2 million years.

His opinions are only conjecture based on evidence that can be tested. Remember that a theory ALWAYS remains a theory. It is NEVER treated as fact by any scientist. the theory is used to make predictions of the universe and if the observations do not fit the predictions, or evidence that he theory is not correct, it is either scrapped or modified. The only people who say that scientists state facts are the people who have a view of the world that cannot be explained by any rational theory and cannot be backed by predictions. Then the scientists are "stifling free thought"? Because the crackpots cannot prove there theory with predictions.

I came away from Charlie's talk with the distinct impression that like any scientist, if the predictions are not met, evidence is produced to the contrary, his views will change. To do otherwise is contrary to science.

[CraigS]

Good onya, Tony.

I am absolutely dumb-founded by the frequency of long postings here, which seemingly serve no other purposes other than the continual 'teaching' of scientific cynicism, and therefore, the propagation of political agendas.

I thought the purpose of this site was to propagate and proactively support the development of the skills of rational thinking, embedded within the scientific process, on behalf of the field of astronomy.

Regardless of the rather obvious intent of deliberate mischief by the OP, what has emerged is a serious conflict of interest for some ... so I actually think the OP has done us all great service !

The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.

Cheers & Rgds

[PeterM]

Good onya, CraigS
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post, Tony's, and Barry's
word for word, make sense.
So much long winded waffle has been posted in this thread.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.

Cheers & Rgds[/QUOTE]

Is not this the dogma for one of the greatest beliefs humans have that can not be mentioend because of TOS rules and is still supported by a large number of people who exist within the scietific community

The mere lack of proof does not in itself negate probability to an open mind.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Is not this the dogma for one of the greatest beliefs humans have that can not be mentioend becasue of TOS rules and is still supported by a large number of people who exist within the scietific community

The mere lack of proof does not in itself negate probability to an open mind.

Trevor;
There is no 'proof' involved in the scientific process .. it is simply not needed.

Because 'belief', and hence 'truth', varies amongst human beings, when practised in accordance with the principals and guidelines of the process, these varying biases are more or less 'smoothed out' (ever tried to publish 'truth' thru a peer-review process) ?

We all know this is not perfect, and no-one has ever said it is .. but why harp on about the infinitesmal instances of sloppy science .. and can you suggest another process which minimises the 'belief' humans bring into such a process ?
This process also does not exclude people with beliefs partaking in the quest .. and this is clearly a benefit !

What I'm seeing here, (not yourself), is an active demonstration of how to be cynical.

Other than the seemingly dying need to win an 'internet argument', and bolster individual egos, (which is a complete waste of time, in my view) can anyone explain the purpose and benefits of cynicism for me ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by firstlight

You are exactly right Carl, but I think you miss the point. There is no evidence that other intelligences do not exist, the opposite holds as well there is no evidence that they do or have. In fact the evidence from an experiment that has run for 3.5+ billion years, intelligence appears to have only arisen once, and only in the past 2 million years.

No, Tony, I wasn't missing the point. I am fully aware of what the point was. I just hadn't added to what I wrote, which I could've easily done but I would've busted this forum's word limit very quickly. Taking you up on the point of the evolution of intelligence....what evidence???. Are you so certain that intelligence appears to have only risen once in 3.5Ga???. What is intelligence in the first place??. Scientists have argued this point till the cows come home for decades and have gotten nowhere. And, by what standards is it going to be measured by???. You mentioned dinosaurs in your first post (as did Prof Lineweaver in his talk). How much do you really know about them??. Some genera of dinosaurs, especially the Dromaeosaurs and Troodontids were exceptionally intelligent animals. Troodontids had even evolved semi-oppossable "thumbs" as the species could grasp and manipulate objects. They also had rather advanced brains, excellent eyesight and smell, and their neocortex was a lot more advanced than even the mammals of the time. However, we'll never know just how much further they might've gone because they had their water cut off by a large lump of fast moving rock. Then you talked about dolphins and their cousins. You're talking about a creature whose neocortex is even more complicated than ours, and larger. Their brain is also very closely matched in size to body weight as compared to ours. In reality, we don't know how intelligent they really are. Just because they can't manipulate objects or produce tools doesn't mean they're not intelligent. They have their own complicated language (which we can't even figure out how to decipher), their social structures are as involved as ours and their lifespans are comparable. All this in a creature that has been this way a long lot longer than we have.

To say that intelligence has only arisen once on this planet in 3.5Ga is nothing more than anthropocentric twaddle, based on both misinterpreted, misunderstood and misrepresented science.

Originally Posted by firstlight

His opinions are only conjecture based on evidence that can be tested. Remember that a theory ALWAYS remains a theory. It is NEVER treated as fact by any scientist. the theory is used to make predictions of the universe and if the observations do not fit the predictions, or evidence that he theory is not correct, it is either scrapped or modified. The only people who say that scientists state facts are the people who have a view of the world that cannot be explained by any rational theory and cannot be backed by predictions. Then the scientists are "stifling free thought"? Because the crackpots cannot prove there theory with predictions.

Tony, there's no need to remind me of how science and scientists operate. I am one

What evidence does he have...actually very little. For a start, scientist have no evidence at all about the presence of extraterrestrial life. None that they would care to actually look at, in fact. And, what little they can speculate on is all based on one example of life that they do know about, the Earth. Anything they care to talk about is pure speculation and based on a statistically insignificant sample. The only thing they can take away from knowing about the Earth is only applicable to here and possibly the Solar System. Extrapolating it to other planetary systems is speculation (basically a hypothesis) until it can be tested on those systems. I wouldn't even call it a theory until it had been thoroughly tested on a good sized sample of systems.

A theory is never treated as a fact by scientists....that is a somewhat misleading statement. Take a look at Relativity, for instance. How many scientists would take as sacrosanct the speed of light barrier. Nearly all of them....well at least that's the impression you get from what many of them express as fact in the general public. However, the situation is a lot more complicated than that. For a start, the barrier only applies to a material object in motion through space. It says nothing about an object moving along with space, nor outside of normal space and time. Then you have the factor of time....here we are pontificating about time and yet we haven't a clue about what it is in the first place!!!!. All we know is that we experience it and that it appears to be linear and one way. Yet even in Relativity, there is no preferred direction to the passage of time and nothing preventing you from traveling in either direction. Except the limitations of our own technology and understanding.

So far as crackpots are concerned and the "stifling of free thought", most of those that quote scientists as stating fact, or believe that they do, are the general public. Which means they must, by definition, all be crackpots. A lot of scientists also make statements of "fact" as well, when they know full well that what they're saying isn't. It's done in order to avoid having to explain to a general public the details of the theories involved and to make it easier on themselves. Most people would lose it the moment a scientist opened their mouth to speak if they went into the details of their subjects. Why do you think most treat scientists as geeks and too smart for their on good. Especially by the media. As for free thought...don't for one minute think that the stifling of ideas and new paradigms isn't occurring within the scientific community. Either in the past or now. There's an old saying..."new ideas in science are only ever accepted once the previous generation dies off", meaning the old guard keep a tight reign on what's acceptable and what's not so far as the scientific paradigm is concerned. It's usually a generational change that sees new ideas become accepted as part of the changed paradigm. Like anyone else, scientists are very precious when it comes to their own pet ideas and explanations. Even those that aren't supported by the evidence, they cling onto them for dear life. Just for one example....Halton Arp and his non cosmological redshift mechanism for quasars and galaxies. Another...Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory. Scientists should never be seen, or treated as being infallible or all knowing. Yet, they have been on many occasions. Or, at least they've been promoted in that air on many occasions. Whether wittingly or not, by both themselves and the general public.

Some crackpots can be safely ignored, but in some instance they can come up with valid points of contention or ideas, despite the nature of the rest of their "fields". Most are dreamers....if their dreams aren't hurting anyone, then why not let them dream on. The word crackpot is a horribly abused one and quite often appended to people who do not deserve to called as such. It's usually used to put people down where those people are threatening the accepted paradigms of the day. Quite a few have turned out to be heroes of science and technology...the Montgolfier Brothers, Tesla, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Einstein, to name a few. All dreamers...all willing to think outside the prevailing little box of ideas and to take a risk that what they were doing was right. Despite any ridicule, misunderstanding or indifference on the part of everyone else.

Originally Posted by firstlight

I came away from Charlie's talk with the distinct impression that like any scientist, if the predictions are not met, evidence is produced to the contrary, his views will change. To do otherwise is contrary to science.

I should hope so.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Yes well count me in on the skeptic's side of things. At a minimum, 95% of so called "U.F.O" sightings are mundane objects that the observer is seeing for the first time or in a new or novel way. Of the remainder, many are hoaxes. The N.A.S.A astronauts are not necessarily crackpots. Some are (I can think of one in particular who rode on Apollo 14) some of the others might well be mistaken, have misinterpreted evidence or even deliberately misled. Making a mistake does not make one a crackpot.

Yes, I agree there are some instances where there is no apparent explanation for the sighting/photo/video, but that does not in any way prove in my books that it is an "object" being "flown" by L.G.M.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I hate the term "UFO", for in the vast majority of instances for there is little or no evidence at all that it is an "object" or that it is being "flown". I really do wish they were called "Unidentified Aerial Sightings" or U.A.S for short -- it would take a lot of heat out of the subject. Until there is evidence that they are "objects" and are being "flown", that is what they are.

I do want evidence before I can be convinced. I want empirical evidence that leads to no other rational conclusion, not some wobbly out of focus video. If it is a visual sighting I want a stack of independent corroboration -- and I want testable proof.

I won't be convinced by the "It's not A or B or C or D or E so it therefore must be LGM" argument.

I would prefer "It's not A or B or C or D or E so at this stage we don't know and will keep looking for an an explanation".

There is simply very little to no credible evidence that there are spaceships being flown around the Earth by intelligent beings from another planet. Hoax videos/pictures produced to deliberately deceive/delude others into that belief are legion. Because of both their large numbers and in many cases technical sophistry, if another "no apparent explanation" video/picture/sighting comes up I'd be much more inclined (via Occham's razor) to conclude: this is a "particularly good hoax" rather than "these are LGM" -- for the former is the most simple explanation surely?

I am not the be-all and end-all by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been watching the sky for more than 40 years with (for most of that time) a knowledgeable eye. I've seen nothing I couldn't explain. A substantial majority of experienced long-term visual observers world-wide are the same.

I am perfectly happy to accept the notion we are being visited by aliens if sufficient credible, empirical proof is produced. I neither "want to believe", nor do I "need to disbelieve" -- I want convincing empirical evidence.


Best,

Les D

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Good onya, Tony.

I am absolutely dumb-founded by the frequency of long postings here, which seemingly serve no other purposes other than the continual 'teaching' of scientific cynicism, and therefore, the propagation of political agendas.

I thought the purpose of this site was to propagate and proactively support the development of the skills of rational thinking, embedded within the scientific process, on behalf of the field of astronomy.

Regardless of the rather obvious intent of deliberate mischief by the OP, what has emerged is a serious conflict of interest for some ... so I actually think the OP has done us all great service !

The 'strawman arguments', which attempt to assert the existence of what is unobjective and independently unverifiable in the first place, and is therefore only supportable by faith-based beliefs or internally inconsistent conjecture … is simply ludicrous within astronomical and scientific communities.

Cheers & Rgds

Craig, you're not even a scientist, so why are you trying to make out like you know something profound about the subject and how it's supposed to operate. You're digging your own grave here mate. You're not arguing about the mechanics of science, but about it's philosophy. Ask 1000 scientists about the philosophy of science and you'll get 1000 different opinions on the subject. There's no cut and dried answer.

I have no agenda to push, despite your protestations to the contrary. All I have ever argued for was treat the subject with an open mind and with scientific rigour. Not to dismiss what's there out of hand just because it doesn't live up to your preconceived notions of what is acceptable or not. If that's the way you want to treat things, especially subjects that may be somewhat difficult to manage and/or study, then you're not a scientist or can't claim to be one if science was your chosen field.

I just highlighted a piece of text above which from all the evidence that I have seen in this forum, you have fallen way short of doing, especially of late. All you have done is proffered opinions of your own which you have somehow convinced yourself as being acceptable in accordance with what you perceive as the known scientific thought, and yet with little or no evidence to back yourself up. In fact, you've misinterpreted or read into articles ideas and/or assumptions that weren't even there. You say that you were impartial in your opinion, yet it was blindingly obvious that you weren't. So who was fooling whom??.

At no time have I ever proffered anything I have said as nothing more than my considered opinion on a subject and only where theory had to be spoken of have I actually done so. You know this full well from our dealing with the twits over at T'bolts and their supporters who have been members here. And on many other occasions. All I have ever done with articles that you've posted (or anyone else for that matter) is considered what they've said and offered my take on the subject. I have very rarely made a point of disagreeing with any of the subject matter. What I have disagreed with is some of the positions taken by others who have interpreted the articles in another light, especially where I've thought they were in error or where I thought they may have misinterpreted something. Nothing more or less. I have never intentionally been dogmatic or intransigent and you know this. All I have ever done was to say "consider the possibilities", no matter how unorthodox your own opinion labeled them or whether you understood them or not. You didn't have to understand them, just consider them.

As far as the last highlighted paragraph is concerned, that is a strawman argument in itself...to dismiss something because you believe it to be unobjective and and not verifiable independently. Have you even bothered to really look at the subject at all, or have you done nothing more than maybe taken a cursory look and then parroted the usual party line that most who dismiss this subject repeat in public. Most likely not. Then you fall back upon the argument of the integrity of the scientific community and its perceived position on the subject. You haven't a clue what they really think. Have you ever polled them in private as to what their views on the subject are, or found out if such a poll has been taken?? Ever asked any of them first hand??? No, I guess not. Then all you're doing is repeating the party line. Where's the objective, scientific approach in that???

I have my own opinions about the veracity of UFO's, alien life and whether they coming here or not. They're neither here nor there when it comes to actually doing an objective analysis of the subject. Something which has been sadly missing and much overdue. Instead of dismissing the whole subject out of hand, which in the light of how that's been done is nothing more than hubris, arrogance and ignorance, it would serve the scientific community and science as a whole if it was taken onboard as a subject to be looked at and studied. Not to dismiss it, or prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but to study it to find out what is happening and how we can come to understand it. That's all science ever should be asked to do as that's what science is ultimately about.

[renormalised (Carl)]

At a minimum, 95% of so called "U.F.O" sightings are mundane objects that the observer is seeing for the first time or in a new or novel way

Agreed, Les, although I'd lower the percentage a little myself, but that's just my opinion. That would still leave 5-10% of sighting that not only have defied explanation, but are in need of one. If it can be proffered at all. Even if out of all of them, maybe 1% were of the LGM variety, then that's what they are. The others could be anything you like. But that's still not to say what we'll find. We may find nothing.

However, to be dismissive of what's there is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand and hiding from what's occurring.

Study what's there and then make a decision based on what you find.

You can't ask for nothing more or less.

[TrevorW]

The reason I'm posting these here is I consider Einstein one of the greatest minds ever

Some Quotes from Albert Einstein

• "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
• "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
• "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
• "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
• "The only real valuable thing is intuition."
• "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
• "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
• "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
• "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
• "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
• "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
• "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
• "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
• "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
• "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
• "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
• "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
• "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
• "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
• "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
• "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
• "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
• "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
• "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
• "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
• "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
• "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
• "...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."
• "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
• "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

[renormalised (Carl)]

I really do wish they were called "Unidentified Aerial Sightings" or U.A.S for short

Ick...another acronym!!!!!. Let's come up with a word or words that can describe them properly. Like "widgets" or "flying thingies"

[renormalised (Carl)]

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."

That's an universal law!!!

Einstein's Law of Income Tax Irrelevancy

[avandonk]

We are all searching for that ultimate mountain of 'truth'. The trouble is most people occupy a tiny hillock even smaller than the foothills and loudly proclaim they have the mountain! They then proceed to defend their 'mountain' against all others occupying similar irrelevant self proclaimed 'mountains'.

We seem to be no better than bacteria in a cesspit wishing to inhabit the biggest turd preferably with a view overlooking all the other turds. Smug in our own superiority we can then proceed to judge all others.

Sad really.

Bert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

Good onya, CraigS
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post, Tony's, and Barry's
word for word, make sense.
So much long winded waffle has been posted in this thread.
PeterM.

Peter, who are you to make that judgement call. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that opinion makes sense, then to call it waffle is nothing more than a derisive opinion set out to try and make light of their posts.

I may write a lot on occasions, but then again I have a lot to say when it comes to expressing myself on various matters, and when the situation warrants it.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

The reason I'm posting these here is I consider Einstein one of the greatest minds ever

Some Quotes from Albert Einstein

• "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
• "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
• "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
• "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
• "The only real valuable thing is intuition."
• "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
• "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
• "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
• "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
• "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
• "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
• "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
• "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
• "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
• "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
• "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
• "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
• "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
• "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
• "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
• "Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
• "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
• "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
• "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
• "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
• "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
• "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
• "...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."
• "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
• "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

I certainly respect the man behind these quotes however even a statement made by a great man need not be followed doggedly. They (quotes etc) are often cute and appropriate but should not be elevated much higher than that in my view.

I would not bother to discuss the merits of each quote but many of the statements (quotes) are rather silly and unsupportable.

So many wise men believing themselves wise try to say wise things and sadly because an author enjoys such recognition from his peers nonsence can be interpreted as wisdom merely because the words represent another way of presenting an often old notion.

For example to say "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
may be a wise comment from a wise man but the reality is to a greater degree that probably the reverse is more the case.

The danger of "sayings" is they are used so often to qualify something that deserve more thought than the application of a throw away line...and the throw away line becomes sort of "the rule"...

Anyways my main reason for posting was to say I absolutely enjoy reading posts more than writting posts I love to witness the engagements of mind and wit...its all good.

alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

We are all searching for that ultimate mountain of 'truth'. The trouble is most people occupy a tiny hillock even smaller than the foothills and loudly proclaim they have the mountain! They then proceed to defend their 'mountain' against all others occupying similar irrelevant self proclaimed 'mountains'.

We seem to be no better than bacteria in a cesspit wishing to inhabit the biggest turd preferably with a view overlooking all the other turds. Smug in our own superiority we can then proceed to judge all others.

Sad really.

Bert

AND thats the truth Bert.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

You know why Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge, Alex???

He said that because ultimately it is.....knowledge is derived from imagination. You can have all the knowledge you like but if you can't see beyond what you already know, you go nowhere. All the great inventions and scientific leaps forward in our time came from the imagination of those people who dared to think outside the box. Incremental progress in those areas then came from those who did the hard graft, and the long plod.

[avandonk]

An inanimate book is full of knowledge to those that can read. The book does not know any of this.
The best computer you will ever own is called a necktop. It is your brain.
I urge you to use it.

Bert

[TrevorW]

Alex matie it's not a case of believing verbatim his words but the underlying impetus for those words.

without imagination and belief in the impossible being possible man would not have progressed much, we'd probably still be living in caves and eating raw meat.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Peter, who are you to make that judgement call. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that opinion makes sense, then to call it waffle is nothing more than a derisive opinion set out to try and make light of their posts.

I may write a lot on occasions, but then again I have a lot to say when it comes to expressing myself on various matters, and when the situation warrants it.

Carl, I have enjoyed and no doubt will continue to enjoy many posts you have made in all manner of threads. But here you seem determined to "win" and I just don't get it. You talk about having an opinion but in your passion you have sidelined others with opinions, perhaps totally unintensionally. As you keep reminding us you are the scientist here and I get impression we are being lectured to and I simply don't like it.
The last thing I want is bad blood here as we are all brought here by our enjoyment and love for this great hobby. If I may, I will agree to disagree with your views contained in this thread.

This thread started with an intentional double meaning that only pointed to a couple of links, it has probably achieved what it appears to have set out to do. The thread author tried another similar double meaning designed to draw in both sides and Mike was quick to nap that one in the bud.
To the thread starter, I say this, research your stuff (you haven't) and you will see much of that is just hand me down stories, years old, old hat and largely yawned at. Seems I touched a raw nerve with the CAPITAL LETTER reply you originally posted - after your derogatory remarks about the late great Carl Sagan then I'm glad I did.
I am not an expert in anything but I do have lots of life experience and believe me that is as good and as standing as any degree anyone will ever get anywhere.

PeterM.