Nasa astronauts are crackpots

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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.

It is more than obvious why he said it Carl.
On a personal level I am happy to support such a notion and use it in defence of my lack of knowledge in certain areas however that seems a grab driven from ego rather than a reality that you really need to know stuff.

I can imagine a whole universe working whichever way...GR, push electric or even one with God...means zip really other than I could hold a conversation with anyone in their universe limiting myself to their approach and belief...but at the gutz of it my imagination needs many facts (knowledge)... I could not hold a view of any universe in my mind without knowing a great deal or rather imagination wont get me all the way.
I am very happy to have a good imagination... one can invent things, make up movies and run them in your head, or imagine multiple senerios without much more than thought...

Actually we should post each quote separately and discuss its merit or inconsistency within reality...using various realities of course

Keep up the great work
alex
As you know and demonstrate there is a great deal to understand before you can even comment upon even the existence of pop 1, 2 3 starsz etc and as you well know one needs a great deal of knowlegde before you can "imagine" the next step.

Maybe I take for granted that I enjoy a powerful imagination and I could see how one not blessed with such could see it as more important ..and I am not suggesting that you have anything other than a wonderful imagination..I have noted you enjoy aq powerful imaqgination but suggest your knowledge is what pays the bills finally.

Really our ideas are similar I think it is imagination that takes things forward but in our world the reality is imagination is feared to a degree and something we dont want in our workers, or our subjects... in fact we dont want them to have any more knowledge than they need to do their job or fit their role in the system.

I like the fact your posts are lenghty by some folks standards...it shows you give matters considerable thought...

alex

[CraigS]

Carl, mate, you have taken my words out of context in order to discuss another topic which relates to the philosophy of science. Let me explain ...

My following words are simply referring to the UFO sightings topic:

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

A different, third-hand (informationally) proposed ‘over-and-done-with strawman’, was made to criticise a respected scientist, who most surely, is clearly aware of the issues surrounding intelligent-being-driven UFOs ...

Originally Posted by renormalised

With respect to Prof Lineweaver...everything he may have said at Astrofest on this matter was nothing more than supposition and conjecture, based on very little or no evidence. He can't verify any of the assertions he has made, so all he has proffered is nothing more than opinion. It's not even based on theoretical grounds.

You have subsequently put your position forward on this, and I have no particular further comments to make.

Let’s just drop the personal stuff and appeals to authority .. no one else wants to see it, and I assure you, it will make no difference to UFO sightings, nor their implications.

Back to the topic ... my above comments apply to the observational/empirical science of astronomy. My underlined word: ‘existence’, in an observational science, requires hard evidence. I’m not the only person attempting to let this be known here.

Observational astronomy is as far removed from the philosophy of as science as it gets .. and that’s why UFO sightings are discarded. I agree with you that philosophy and theoretical science bridges this gap.

I’d be happy to discuss science philosophy, but this thread is clearly about the impacts of UFO sightings on observational astronomy.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by 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.

I can not disagree but hold to my observation and comments upon same.

I am lucky it is of no concern that arguement devides into black and white I can entertain opposite views similtaneously with no problem... such is driven by a recognition that truths are not necessarily absolute... and mostly that being right is unimportant ..learning of others views etc is important (to me) and grasping an understanding why so many folk need to be right is interesting. I enjoy folk telling me I am wrong so I can consider my thoughts with exterior input...

Lets pick another...God does not play dice
a throw away acceptable to the audience of the time providing an assurance that reason prevails etc (fitting the world as it then was)
alex

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.
On another note. My brother is a lawyer - he's very intelligent and is about as narrow in his head as it is possible to be.
Imagination he has not - common sense he has not - wisdom that he has is derived from others.
I am a scientist and move freely in the world as an acceptable version of a human - my brother is stuck in UK unable to be anything but a tourist in any other country.
This cartoon is what I feel my life is about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

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.

I'm not in the business of winning, Peter. Never was. What I have been trying to do is to show that there's more to science and to anything else which maybe (even indirectly) connected to the subject than what meets the eye. What gets to me is when I try and explain something and then someone totally ignores what I've said, or doesn't seem to follow what I've said then continues on to deride mine or others comments and opinions. Whether that is unintentional or not. Especially when those others (not yourself, though) have gotten into their heads that they have some profound take on what the subject of science is about, when they've had little or no training or a background in any of the fields that have been discussed. You can read all you like from a book or get info off the net, but that doesn't make one an expert or insightful into any subject. Just means they read a lot and pick up a few things.

Nor am I in the business of lecturing people, either. This isn't a classroom, for a start. And I'll only offer my knowledge if someone asks me to provide it. However, I won't dictate word and verse to them and expect a paper back from them to see if they've been listening. I'm more interested in their opinions on what they learn from me than anything. That's why I like letting people here bounce questions off of me

Yes, I agree, this thread was loaded right form the start. But I can also see the other intentions of the poster, even if they were understated in his initial post. The idea of accusing men who have distinguished careers and reputations as being crackpots being the height of ridiculousness. However, he was getting carried away in some of his replies and it wasn't warranted.

Like I said to your earlier in the piece....we have differing views and that's perfectly fine by myself. I'm very happy with that

You just repeated the goodwill

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by jenchris

Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.
On another note. My brother is a lawyer - he's very intelligent and is about as narrow in his head as it is possible to be.
Imagination he has not - common sense he has not - wisdom that he has is derived from others.
I am a scientist and move freely in the world as an acceptable version of a human - my brother is stuck in UK unable to be anything but a tourist in any other country.
This cartoon is what I feel my life is about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmYDgncMhXw

Good one (the cartoon, that is)

Geez, if they think that of engineers, what would they think scientists have!!!!!

"Aaaarrrgghhh....it's a SCIENTIST!!!!!. Send them out to Area 51 for analysis, stat!!!!!!"

[renormalised (Carl)]

Lets pick another...God does not play dice

Actually, he plays poker and mahjong. I could never beat the bugger!!!!!. Must've marked the cards and loaded all the chips

[renormalised (Carl)]

As you know and demonstrate there is a great deal to understand before you can even comment upon even the existence of pop 1, 2 3 starsz etc and as you well know one needs a great deal of knowlegde before you can "imagine" the next step.

They build upon one another, Alex. Imagination fires the mind to create the knowledge which leads forward to, and acts as a template for further imagination. But ultimately it all boils down to having that imagination to begin with

I have noted you enjoy a powerful imagination but suggest your knowledge is what pays the bills finally.

Yes, but that imagination allows me to dream of a world where bills have never existed, and how much more satisfying an existence is that.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

My imagination allows me to lie about why I can't pay my bills.....
My dog ate my homework was never ever close to the mark.
My Latin teacher said to me "If you spent as much time doing your homework as inventing reasons not to do it, you'd be top of the class."
The only subject I didn't get an A in was Latin
Semper somnare

[xelasnave]

Quoting Carl.....Yes, but that imagination allows me to dream of a world where bills have never existed, and how much more satisfying an existence is that

Minimising ones outgoings is the smartest thing you can do in my view.
I live most humbly, eat simply pay cash or go without...it was tuff to change from where I once was with monthly outgoings (business etc) that if you could hold on to would mean you would be well off. Not owing anyone is the key...if I had my time over I would sleep on the ground rather than take out a mortgage and without one its peace at last. I could mortgage and buy whatever really but never tempted.

But simple brings a clearness of mind, for me, I really enjoy having less to look after maintain etc.... but thats old age for you.

I can spend my time thinking about nothing which is the most complex matter I have ever engaged upon..strangely.

I have found what I imagine will happen does happen...that indicates to me that imagination in a very real thing in terms of outcomes...

Ok whilst still asserting knowlegde is important I agree with the quote with minor reservetions as outlinned.

alex

[PeterM]

[QUOTE=jenchris;765355]Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.

Good one Jen, not reflux, more like an antacid .. to settle things down. After all we are all in this (hobby) together and together we get more out of it.
PeterM.

[TrevorW]

Always respect anothers point of view, rightly or wrongly

Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

I care not that we do not have proof of thier existence, I fear not that they may or may not exist, the universe is a wonderous place its vastness and diversity beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals.

Philosophical ain't I

[renormalised (Carl)]

[QUOTE=PeterM;765384]

Originally Posted by jenchris

Oh Dear, it seems there's a bit of reflux going on.

Good one Jen, not reflux, more like an antacid .. to settle things down. After all we are all in this (hobby) together and together we get more out of it.
PeterM.

I have a box of Losec tablets, if we all need any. Just don't take too many....I won't have any for later!!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by PeterM

....After all we are all in this (hobby) together....
PeterM.

Well, only if their last name isn't McDonald. I have Campbell blood in me and the McDonald's and Campbells (especially my side, the Argyll Campbells) are sworn enemies

Gotta go grab me claymore

Just in case

[Jen]

on ya Baz

[firstlight (Tony)]

Carl, I just pointed out there was no evidence that such intelligence existed, conversely, there is also no evidence that it did not exist. If you have the evidence then that would be a revolution in our understanding and should be celebrated. When are you publishing?

I am in no way that could be considered a scientist, not even an academic, so I can't flash my Phd and stand on a pedestal above the great unwashed. I do have an understanding of what the scientific method is, and how it is used to advance the greater knowledge.

You said that some scientists act like the theories they work with are facts, "or that is the impression the give" I think was your quote. Do they do this deliberately, do you think? Or simply this is how it appears when reported? As a scientist you know that any theory that cannot be supported with predictions and observations WILL be discarded, because to ignore it will make any subsequent conjecture collapse like a house of cards. SOME scientists find it hard to let go of their theories and perceptions, those that held the Steady State Theory come to mind in the face of the Big Bang Theory. But their position is unsupportable, whether you subscribe to the BBT or not because for the main it works. Einstein is another that some believe has it all wrong. No problem, come up with another theory that works, the can make prediction that run counter to the prevailing theories and yours will prevail. A scientist will also use theories as basic assumptions so that they might further their own research and theories, I don't think that means they hold them up as immutable laws, does it? It just means they need to use the best foundation to base their work on, undermine it by proving the basis is wrong, again our knowledge is advanced, and again their own research may show the flaws in the accepted theory. I think I would be correct in saying that there would be a considerable number of scientists trying desperately to dismantle the current best theories, also a lot of people who would say "Einstein is wrong, I'm right" without any evidence to support either conjecture.

I know that you understand all this, I just wanted to show that others understand that as well. I also wanted to say I don't know what non-terrestrial or other terrestrial intelligence would look like because I have not seen any evidence of it, nor I suspect has anyone else. If we have evidence let us celebrate it, but I suspect my anniversary port will mature for quite some time yet . I was a bit concerned that the thread had become somewhat heated, and I'm glad to see that there seems to be a bit of cooling in the postings.

Cheers
Tony

PS There's a word/character limit? How does Jen get away with all her emoticons?

[Jen]

Originally Posted by firstlight

PS There's a word/character limit? How does Jen get away with all her emoticons?

its a secret Tony

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'll get back to your post tomorrow, Tony. But, yeah....there's a character limit on the textbox you use to write your replies. 12000 characters, I believe. I maxed it out one day when I was replying to a thread

[renormalised (Carl)]

Carl, I just pointed out there was no evidence that such intelligence existed, conversely, there is also no evidence that it did not exist. If you have the evidence then that would be a revolution in our understanding and should be celebrated. When are you publishing?

I have no more evidence than you have, so you won't be reading anything anytime soon

Wish I did though

Mind you, I don't know what good it'd do me. So I'd probably be better off without it.

[CraigS]

Hi Tony (and all);

The point Carl has been making is quite a legitimate aspect of how philosophy interacts with Science. The only issue I have, is that it should never become mixed up with interpretation of the results of the observational testing components of the process.

For example, you could take any of the big questions in philosophy say, Zeno's paradoxes about motion vs. placement, the tree falling in the woods question, the issue of whether sensory input or rational thought provide the "true" path to knowledge, whether the universe is inherently subjective or objective, etc, and find a fairly direct link to various physics theories.

There is much historical evidence of how philosophy interacts with science: Mach’s philosophies helped Einstein formulate General Relativity, and even the postulates themselves have strong philosophical components. Einstein probably wouldn’t have faced up to the counterintuitiveness of relativity, if he didn’t feel confident that all observers should be able to observe the laws of physics in a uniform way. Quantum Mechanics requires one to become comfortable with counterintuitive ideals and in this case, Einstein’s philosophies become an impediment.

Newton’s third law: he noticed that momentum is conserved in closed systems if forces come in equal and opposite pairs, But what makes this a Law ? Newton only had the chance of testing a tiny fraction of all the possible forces and situations, in which those forces appear, and yet he generalised what he saw, into a Principle. Was it a philosophical stance that gave the idea its wings?.. So does philosophy always precede theory? I suspect that most philosophical propositions, probably precede in science before they become formalised into theories by successful testing, so in this sense, philosophy translates into creative imagination in formulating theories.

However, if a carefully designed test returns a negative result, (when compared with the original postulation), under the same philosophical stance and for the sake of consistency, one has to equally face up to the consequences of that result, and alter the philosophical postulation accordingly.

I have no problems with UFOs, exo-life intelligent or otherwise, ‘existing’ within a philosophical postulate. This should never be confused with the outcomes of an objective, verfiable test, designed to translate this into evidence for a scientific theory (or hypothesis, or even informed conjecture), and a single ad-hoc observation, in an uncontrolled environment, does not come close to what is required to do this.

If it was me who saw such a thing ? .. Well I’d probably revel in the moment, ponder the possibilities, laugh it off ... and get on with an attempt at a productive life. Becoming obsessed with what I’d seen, and then going on assuming that others should believe in ETs as a result, would then be counter to this entire above philosophy, which is intertwined, but entirely separable, within science.

Cheers & Rgds to all.