Read-Only said:
Says who? You?
Scientists and Virtue
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Says who? You?
Oh, sure - and I have just shown how TOTALLY foolish you were by ignoring my statement that you quoted about "what if." You should be completely embarrassed because of it by the time you read this post!
Yes - and a few thousand other prfessionals. What's solved is solved - it's time to build on that and move on to better things rather than wasting time and resources on what as already been established.
That's absolutely fine with me. Go ahead and waste your life trying to learn from people who know next to nothing themselves. See how far it gets you.
As to what and who I am, your opinion of me doesn't affect me in the least. I know what I've done with my life (and I enjoyed doing it very much) and your thoughts about me will have no effect on the price of rice in Japan. I care not what you think. So goodbye - perhaps you'll wake up one day.
Give me a break. The scenario I described is totally possible and probably happened (but maybe not by Einstein.) Is your imagination really that repressed that you cannot fathom that possibility?
and this is the quote you're referring to:
I think anyone can see how I might have missed the tail end of that. It's the sign of a bad conclusion when you bring in more information at the end. The first sentence doesn't insinuate "things already past and resolved" at all; it addresses all "what if's."
And I'm not embarrassed by missing that part at all - and contrary to your belief it doesn't render the conclusions I've made wrong. "What if's" in the sense you use them usually refer to things like "if I hadn't gotten on that train that day maybe I wouldn't have been mugged." In that sense you'd be right, "what if's" are generally useless because you can't change what happened.
The way I'm using them though is to illustrate a point about the current "scientific establishment." How they cast off musings, regardless of their merit, because there aren't 50 pages of mathematical proofs to back them up. The person providing these musings is then slandered. This causes science to stagnate and hinders progression. This kind of "scientist" can't even consider or entertain thoughts outside of their safety bubble.
Again, here is what I said and hopefully you can understand what I mean by it:
Read-Only said:
and this is the quote you're referring to:
Read-Only said:
I think anyone can see how I might have missed the tail end of that. It's the sign of a bad conclusion when you bring in more information at the end. The first sentence doesn't insinuate "things already past and resolved" at all; it addresses all "what if's."
And I'm not embarrassed by missing that part at all - and contrary to your belief it doesn't render the conclusions I've made wrong. "What if's" in the sense you use them usually refer to things like "if I hadn't gotten on that train that day maybe I wouldn't have been mugged." In that sense you'd be right, "what if's" are generally useless because you can't change what happened.
The way I'm using them though is to illustrate a point about the current "scientific establishment." How they cast off musings, regardless of their merit, because there aren't 50 pages of mathematical proofs to back them up. The person providing these musings is then slandered. This causes science to stagnate and hinders progression. This kind of "scientist" can't even consider or entertain thoughts outside of their safety bubble.
Again, here is what I said and hopefully you can understand what I mean by it:
me said:
it seems
No, it's not even close to being the same thing. One is about the future in which there are opportunities and choices to do things; the other is a wasted effort dwelling on past events where there is NO ability to change the outcome or conditions.
The first is certainly worth discussing - the second would just be idle chatter that cannot be of use to anyone.
now that is 'fine' moderating... charm, compassion and imposing all in one. (thanks for the lesson)
You never could see the forest for the trees, could you Read-Only?
OK, then - YOU tell me the benefit of a never-ending discussion of "what if Einstein had not had the math to support his claim." Just what practical value could be derived from it? Who would benefit? Why? AND how is that a better use of time than working on current things??? Eh?
Read-Only with a post that doesn't insult? Am I dreaming??
Okay, all I would like you to do is answer what would probably happen in this scenario:
"If Einstein didn't have the math to support his claim, and he took it to a group of prominent scientists of the day, how would they treat him?"
Read-Only said:
The practical value is the insight into the nature of the scientific establishment. This isn't an outlandish scenario, it happens even today. I'd say anyone thinking about this, especially if they never thought about it, would benefit in some way.
The reason, in this situation, it's a better use of time than working with current things is because it's impossible to have an example of this in the present or future. The example would have to include someone who worked outside the realm of accepted science and was deemed later to be correct. The example HAS to be from the past.
Physicist Nassim Haramein will probably share a similar experience to Einstein (and has already experienced parts of it) but since it all hasn't come to fruition yet, it remains to be disputed.
Last edited:
Read-Only with a post that doesn't insult? Am I dreaming??
Okay, all I would like you to do is answer what would probably happen in this scenario:
"If Einstein didn't have the math to support his claim, and he took it to a group of prominent scientists of the day, how would they treat him?"
The practical value is the insight into the nature of the scientific establishment. This isn't an outlandish scenario, it happens even today. I'd say anyone thinking about this, especially if they never thought about it, would benefit in some way.
The reason, in this situation, it's a better use of time than working with current things is because it's impossible to have an example of this in the past or future. The example would have to include someone who worked outside the realm of accepted science and was deemed later to be correct. The example HAS to be from the past.
Physicist Nassim Haramein will probably share a similar experience to Einstein (and has already experienced parts of it) but since it all hasn't come to fruition yet, it remains to be disputed.
No insult intended in this post, either - just logic and rational thinking accompanied with a big dose of reality - as opposed to wishful thinking.
Rehashing the past is in no way going to change how things are handled in the present OR the future. It's still just idle and wasted effort.
Do you actually think that rehashing Einstein from different angles is somehow going to lend more credibility to Haramein and those like him? That sounds much more like some sort of blind religious faith than it does science.
Your absolutely right Read-Only. What could we possibly learn from the past that could help us understand who we are and what were doing? To see trends?
Although your statement does apply to one area, war. We certainly havent learned how to avoid war.
Your absolutely right Read-Only. What could we possibly learn from the past that could help us understand who we are and what were doing? To see trends?
Although your statement does apply to one area, war. We certainly havent learned how to avoid war.
Of course I'm right - you are once again failing to think deeply enough. It's certainly not JUST war - humans in general seem to lack the ability to learn much at all from history.
So you agree with EndLightEnd's sarcasm?
In a sense. People like to study history and many of them make it a lifetime endeavor. But the thing is, translating the events found in history into something that is actually applied to what humans do going forward is RARELY accomplished. Thus the old saying about "history repeating itself" - despite it having being studied.
Now lets take the possibility that there were at least a few people at some point of time in history, approached authorities or intellectually superior people of their time frame with ideas and thoughts about the unexplored laws of nature. Do you think that its possible that they got pushed away because of lack of scientific evidence? Do you think that many of such fields which went neglected or laughed at could have some traces towards the unexplainable part of nature?If so, what all steps must we take to ensure that our generation wont be repeating the same mistakes over and over again?
Last edited: