News Briefs 26-05-2009

Jameske’s down, so into the breach I go dear friends, once more…

Thanks Jameske.

Quote of the Day:

The proposition, foisted upon us by a materialism based on classical physics – that we human beings are essentially mechanical automata, with every least action and thought fixed from the birth of the universe by microscopic clockwork-like mechanisms – has created enormous difficulties for ethical theory. These difficulties lie like the plague on Western culture, robbing its citizens of any rational basis for self-esteem or self-respect, or esteem or respect for others. Quantum physics, joined to a natural embedding ontology, brings our human minds squarely into the dynamical workings of nature…

Professor Henry Stapp

  1. No Chinese Newton
    It’s interesting to read that, up until the XVIIth century, Chinese scholars still believed that the Earth was flat.

    I would have imagined that Marco Polo would have shared with them such notions as the sphericity of the Earth. But then again, maybe he did share this with some scholars, who preferred to keep this powerful knowledge a secret for themselves.

    Knowledge is power; but in science, if you don’t share your power, you’ll find that in time you’ll lose it.

    And this worries me because there are in our age several fields where the pursue of Science is kept a high profile secret —we now label them as ‘Matters of National Security’. How much time and money has it been lost because a few politicians and generals want to keep something for themselves and not share it with the rest of the world?

    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. NIH?
      Well, like many cultures, the Chinese suffer from NIH – Not Inverted Here. This is very common, even today.

      Maybe it was as simple as that. Ego combined with relative isolation. They dominated the part of the world they considered interesting, and every now and then tired straggly traders got there. Why would they believe those guys?

      It is not how fast you go
      it is when you get there.

  2. Conspiracy believers?
    If a person uses the grey matter between their ears to evaluate the ‘facts’ presented about some particular event or situation and through intelligent and reasoned thought concluded that these ‘facts’ do not make sense or fit the scenario in question, does that necessarily make them a ‘conspirary believer’?

    I think not.

    These persons may be sufficiently interested to seek out and research what others have concluded – again evaluating these ‘facts’, some of which they may accept and some of which they may not. This does not necessarily mean they are swayed or persuaded by beliefs (false or true) of others, simply that they have given them consideration.

    To throw all these persons into a box labelled ‘conspirary believers’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’ seems to me to be an insult to anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence who prefers to make up their own mind about things.

    Regards, Kathrinn

    1. science
      A lot of science teachers, even at university level, tell us that science starts with a hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is tested, using methods that can be replicated by other scientists. This is a fine method.

      But saying that the hypothesis is the starting point is utter bullshit.

      Science starts with observation.

      Not by “eureka”, but by “oh that looks funny”.

      You can observe a lot, just by watching.
      (Yogi Berra)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.