New theories are trash ?????

[cladking]

No it isn't. This has nothing to do with the instinct on how to row a boat. This goes all the way back to:

 

 

Where you tell us that 'modern language' is what is preventing us from doing science as well as we ought to, but you can't actually cite anything to back that us. That you feel you are 'probably right'; that you know it in your bones.

 

This is the baloney I am calling you out on. Quit trying to change the subject, or dither away from what you've stated in your own posts. I want you to support your claim about how modern language is holding us back, or admit that there is no support and that your 'knowing it in you bones' is just your personal faith and of no use scientifically whatsoever.

 

I seriously doubt I've ever said that I know in my bones that confused language is impeding science. I remember specifically stating that I hadn't much thought about the impact of modern language on progress in experimental science. At that time I did note that it must surely affect it directly since scientists think anbd communicate in language. I also suggested that the impact on science would necessarily be less important than in other fields because science uses a scientific language for much of their commnication (and some thought) and that scientific language is less susceptible to miscommunication.

 

Remember I also specifically stated that I believe the reason that fields like philosophy and applied science don't progress is that they have done a much less good job of developing their own language; they use modern language to a large extent.

[Strange]

Where you tell us that 'modern language' is what is preventing us from doing science as well as we ought to, but you can't actually cite anything to back that us. That you feel you are 'probably right'; that you know it in your bones.

 

This.

 

Like so many people with their "pet theories" (er, basically all of them) because their theory is based on "visceral/intuitive knowledge" they know they are right. That is why no amount of contradictory evidence will ever change their minds.

 

I seriously doubt I've ever said that I know in my bones that confused language is impeding science.

 

Your confused ramblings certainly give that impression.

 

Remember I also specifically stated that I believe the reason that fields like philosophy and applied science don't progress is that they have done a much less good job of developing their own language; they use modern language to a large extent.

 

Well, philosophy doesn't progress because it doesn't do anything useful.

 

Applied science (which is generally known as "technology" by the rest of the population, remember) does progress.

 

You think I'm talking about people who know the moon is green cheese but I'm talking about knowing how to row a boat.

 

Which is totally different from scientific knowledge.

[Le Repteux]

So now you are saying that scientists won't accept your theory because they will die if they do?

Respiration is such an automatism that has to resist to change without us noticing it, if you try to slow it down or accelerate it, you're in trouble. Of course respiration is an instinct, it cannot change at all, you can train it to dive longer, but once you forget it, it works all by itself. Some automatisms are instincts, but some are learned, and these ones can change, but it takes time. Nothing changes instantly. An individual that would change automatically would have to rely on others not to get destructed, but there is no chance that it happens because everything resists to change, from an atom to a galaxy.

 

Everything changes, but everything resists automatically to change. This seems to be a law of nature, not only for massive bodies, but also for ideas. The problem is that we do not have this feeling that we resist to change when we discuss, we think that it is the other's fault if he does not understand what we say, its him that resists to change, not us. Our conservation instinct is difficult to objectivize, we take it for granted that we are right because our automatisms always act subconsciously to protect ourselves. Some of them are unchangeable, and some are, but which ones are changeable in a discussion, and how to change them?

[Strange]

Respiration is such an automatism that has to resist to change without us noticing it, if you try to slow it down or accelerate it, you're in trouble.

 

This so totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the discussion that I cannot believe you have said it.

 

It is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

 

Rain has to fall down. Do you also want to use that as evidence for the fact that scientists are unable to discover anything new?

 

Produce new evidence and a scientist will change their mind (without suffocating). We have evidence that this happens, so your continued attempts to deny it are getting more and more ludicrous.

 

But note that pseudoscientists, cranks and crackpots would sooner stop breathing than acknowledge the existence of evidence. Perhaps you are projecting your own attitudes on to others?

[swansont]

Respiration is such an automatism that has to resist to change without us noticing it, if you try to slow it down or accelerate it, you're in trouble. Of course respiration is an instinct, it cannot change at all, you can train it to dive longer, but once you forget it, it works all by itself. Some automatisms are instincts, but some are learned, and these ones can change, but it takes time. Nothing changes instantly. An individual that would change automatically would have to rely on others not to get destructed, but there is no chance that it happens because everything resists to change, from an atom to a galaxy.

 

Everything changes, but everything resists automatically to change. This seems to be a law of nature, not only for massive bodies, but also for ideas. The problem is that we do not have this feeling that we resist to change when we discuss, we think that it is the other's fault if he does not understand what we say, its him that resists to change, not us. Our conservation instinct is difficult to objectivize, we take it for granted that we are right because our automatisms always act subconsciously to protect ourselves. Some of them are unchangeable, and some are, but which ones are changeable in a discussion, and how to change them?

 

Nothing changes instantly — true and irrelevant. When e.g. the Gran Sasso results were made public, where it was informally announced that there was a superluminal result for neutrinos, we didn't rewrite physics immediately to incorporate new models that predicted them. Like virtually all anomalous results, that was the right thing to do. Science shouldn't change instantly. Confirmation is a very important part of the process.

 

Any notion that science doesn't change at all is trivially falsified. So where does that leave us? Slow to change is good most of the time but that maybe on occasion it should move faster. No system is perfect. Earth-shaking revelation, that.

[Le Repteux]

Good morning Swansont,

 

Most people think that resisting to change is not a good thing. Numerous psychological studies are about ways to avoid resistance in population of workers. And you have the impression that what I say about it is obvious? This might mean that you are changing a little about me, but I noticed that your thinking was often different from others. My idea is about change and resisting to change, remember? That I apply it to scientists is anecdotal, it applies to everything. I am not making the point that scientists resist a change, my point is my theory about mass, and since it concerns anything that resists a change, I use it to defend itself.

[Strange]

Most people think that resisting to change is not a good thing.

As has been stated before, when it comes to science and new theories (the subject of this thread), resistance to change is not just a good thing it is essential. It is why science works.

 

 

And you have the impression that what I say about it is obvious?

 

Yep.

 

I am not making the point that scientists resist a change, my point is my theory about mass

 

a) This is off topic.

 

b) Newton formulated this (inertia) as a scientific theory centuries ago. You would do well to study his work and methods.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

 

This so totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the discussion that I cannot believe you have said it.

 

It is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

 

Rain has to fall down. Do you also want to use that as evidence for the fact that scientists are unable to discover anything new?

 

Produce new evidence and a scientist will change their mind (without suffocating). We have evidence that this happens, so your continued attempts to deny it are getting more and more ludicrous.

 

But note that pseudoscientists, cranks and crackpots would sooner stop breathing than acknowledge the existence of evidence. Perhaps you are projecting your own attitudes on to others?

Got your left foot on the ground first this morning Strange? Have a coffee!

 

I am talking of a principle that is not very well understood: how is it that change and resisting to change stand alongside? How is it that constancy and change exist at the same place and at the same moment? How is it more precisely that massive bodies resist a change while changing at the same time? And don't answer me that mass induces constant motion: this is not an explanation.

As has been stated before, when it comes to science and new theories (the subject of this thread), resistance to change is not just a good thing it is essential. It is why science works.

Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others. Scientists thus react exactly like they should.

 

a) This is off topic.

The topic is about new theories being trashed, why not use mine as an example? Afraid of publicity?

 

b) Newton formulated this (inertia) as a scientific theory centuries ago. You would do well to study his work and methods.

Newton did not explain how mass and inertial motion were physically linked, he only developed the formulas.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

I am talking of a principle that is not very well understood

 

By whom?

 

Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others.

 

Evidence?

 

Scientists thus react exactly like they should.

 

That has no apparent connection to your previous sentence so I am not sure what the point is.

 

The topic is about new theories being trashed, why not use mine as an example?

 

Because it would be against the rules.

 

Newton did not explain how mass and inertial motion were physically linked, he only developed the formulas.

 

He did explain how they were connected. He may not have explained "why" but (again) that is philosophy, not physics.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

By whom?

By everybody I know. Inertial motion is considered as a result of mass, no other explanation has been found.

 

Evidence?

To me, the way we discuss here means that everybody thinks that the others are wrong, that they thus are resisting for nothing, and that if they could resist less, they would understand better. Is that your case?

 

That has no apparent connection to your previous sentence so I am not sure what the point is.

I just say that scientists are doing exactly what they should, but it also means that it is also what I do.

 

Because it would be against the rules.

Not if we take care to stay in the limits of the rule. There is always a small gap in the rules for us to play with them.

 

He did explain how they were connected. He may not have explained "why" but (again) that is philosophy, not physics.

Philosophy cannot explain the physical part of a phenomenon. If inertial motion exists, there is a physical explanation, and saying that it depends on mass is not physical: its an idea with no physical support. To use an unscientific meaning, its only visceral evidence.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

I'll provide an example of how me and a colleague turned a speculation into what we're calling a "theory".

 

We are interested in a particular virus (a bacteriophage) which infects and kills bacteria. We noticed that the virus could kill bacteria which tended to have a particular protein in their cell wall (lets call it protein A), bacteria which didn't have this protein tended to be resistant. This led to the speculation that protein A was the binding site for the virus.

 

So our first step was to take a susceptible bacteria, and silenced the gene encoding protein A. We then infected bacteria identical in all respects, except for their expression of protein A with the virus. Ones expressing A died, ones with A silenced did not. This EVIDENCE allowed us to deduce that A was critical to viral infection, but it wasn't yet evidence that A was the binding site of the virus.

 

So we crystallized the part of A which sticks through the cell wall of the bacteria, and attached it to an artificial surface, to create a "lawn" of the part of protein A that a virus would see when encountering a bacterium. We then exposed this lawn to a high titration of virus, and analyzed it for the level of viral binding to the lawn. A lot of viruses had bound to the protein lawn. At this point, we concluded that we had substantial EVIDENCE that protein A was indeed the binding site for the virus, and were happy to publish a paper suggesting the theory that our virus of interest bound to the membrane protein A - which was necessary to enable viral infection.

 

So, that's how, in science, EVIDENCE can lead to a SPECULATION becoming a THEORY.

 

It's not through repetition, believing really hard, thinking you are smarter than everyone else, or walls of text.

I bet that your example will be thoroughly ignored by the "scientists via posting on the internet".

 

a) This is off topic.

 

b) Newton formulated this (inertia) as a scientific theory centuries ago. You would do well to study his work and methods.

Not going to happen, he needs all his time to post on the internet, no time left for studying.

Good morning Swansont,

 

Most people think that resisting to change is not a good thing. Numerous psychological studies are about ways to avoid resistance in population of workers. And you have the impression that what I say about it is obvious? This might mean that you are changing a little about me, but I noticed that your thinking was often different from others. My idea is about change and resisting to change, remember? That I apply it to scientists is anecdotal, it applies to everything. I am not making the point that scientists resist a change, my point is my theory about mass, and since it concerns anything that resists a change, I use it to defend itself.

Correction: learned people resist the so-called "change" coming from fringers. Instead, they debunk the fringers' ideas.

[Strange]

By everybody I know. Inertial motion is considered as a result of mass, no other explanation has been found.

 

Most people I know have a very good understanding of inertia. So it seems that, again, you are extrapolating from your own ignorance to the world at large.

 

To me, the way we discuss here means that everybody thinks that the others are wrong, that they thus are resisting for nothing, and that if they could resist less, they would understand better. Is that your case?

 

You made a claim (Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others) which is not true, in my experience, so I am asking what evidence you have for claiming this. In other words, the evidence that will prove me wrong.

 

I'm sure some people think that. You do, maybe. But everybody?

 

I don't think that, so your claim is trivially falsified.

[swansont]

Good morning Swansont,

 

Most people think that resisting to change is not a good thing. Numerous psychological studies are about ways to avoid resistance in population of workers. And you have the impression that what I say about it is obvious? This might mean that you are changing a little about me, but I noticed that your thinking was often different from others. My idea is about change and resisting to change, remember? That I apply it to scientists is anecdotal, it applies to everything. I am not making the point that scientists resist a change, my point is my theory about mass, and since it concerns anything that resists a change, I use it to defend itself.

 

If you aren't applying it to scientists, the it's OT for this thread. Any discussion of your pet theory is OT for this thread. The subject of this thread is the consideration of new ideas in science, and specifically how they are treated here at SFN.

 

Is there anything that's ON topic that you want to discuss?

[cladking]

 

I seriously doubt I've ever said that I know in my bones that confused language is impeding science. I remember specifically stating that I hadn't much thought about the impact of modern language on progress in experimental science. At that time I did note that it must surely affect it directly since scientists think anbd communicate in language. I also suggested that the impact on science would necessarily be less important than in other fields because science uses a scientific language for much of their commnication (and some thought) and that scientific language is less susceptible to miscommunication.

 

Remember I also specifically stated that I believe the reason that fields like philosophy and applied science don't progress is that they have done a much less good job of developing their own language; they use modern language to a large extent.

 

 

For very many years, since long before any rediscovery I may or may not have made, I have strongly advocated for more teaching of metaphysics at younger ages and with far more emphasis all through school. I have long been a proponent of teaching proper scientific observation at very young ages. I believe much more history of science should be taught from middle school on.

 

Perhaps "metaphysical implications" should be added as a final step in the scientific process. Perhaps it should include phrasing of the experimental results in terms most people can understand it and in terms a child might understand it.

 

This is not to turn people into scientific droids but rather to allow them to understand the nature of science and knowledge. We live in a highly techological world and most people misunderstand the nature of technology and science. It's to help everybody to integrate their knowledge which might allow them to better see outside their own narrow specialties. The trash collector will more easily see what the purpose and means of garbage collecting is all about and this might make him a better trash collector.

[swansont]

 

The topic is about new theories being trashed, why not use mine as an example? Afraid of publicity?

 

How you were treated is on topic. The details of your theory are not.

 

So fine. How were you treated? You were asked how one could test/falsify your model, people made some observations and objections, you made a bunch of claims that are inconsistent with existing theories (which are supported by experiment) and people called you on them.

[Strange]

For very many years, since long before any rediscovery I may or may not have made, I have strongly advocated for more teaching of metaphysics at younger ages and with far more emphasis all through school.

 

There are schools in the UK that have started teaching philosophy at a very early age, if not specifically metaphysics. I think this is valuable because the first things you learn in philosophy are how to analyse problems, what questions to ask, and the nature of logic.

 

I don't know what value metaphysics adds.

 

I have long been a proponent of teaching proper scientific observation at very young ages.

 

I don't think observation is the key skill, but critical thinking. In other words, what to do with the observations. And what further observations need to be made.

 

Perhaps "metaphysical implications" should be added as a final step in the scientific process.

 

Societal, ethical and economic implications might be more useful.

[Le Repteux]

Correction: learned people resist the so-called "change" coming from fringers. Instead, they debunk the fringers' ideas.

Good example of how we can consciously add to our natural instinctive subconscious propensity to resist change.

Most people I know have a very good understanding of inertia. So it seems that, again, you are extrapolating from your own ignorance to the world at large.

Explain what is for you inertial motion without saying that it is a property of massive bodies.

 

You made a claim (Everybody thinks that resisting to change is good for him, but no good for others) which is not true, in my experience, so I am asking what evidence you have for claiming this. In other words, the evidence that will prove me wrong.

Tell me again that you love my resisting to change, I love it!

If you aren't applying it to scientists, the it's OT for this thread. Any discussion of your pet theory is OT for this thread. The subject of this thread is the consideration of new ideas in science, and specifically how they are treated here at SFN.

 

Is there anything that's ON topic that you want to discuss?

I think that I have been clear, so I don't insist.

How you were treated is on topic. The details of your theory are not.

 

So fine. How were you treated? You were asked how one could test/falsify your model, people made some observations and objections, you made a bunch of claims that are inconsistent with existing theories (which are supported by experiment) and people called you on them.

Oups, it seems that I can insist.

 

I did not have time to develop much since a few of the interventions were too rude to be left unanswered. So the conversation rapidly turned around my right to develop such ideas in front of the scientific community. Naturally, I new by experience that it was going to happen, and I thus new it would not be easy to be able to discuss my ideas and to defend myself from attacking scientists both at a time. Even if it is what I feel, my theory helps me to understand that scientists do not have the feeling to attack me personally when saying that I am a crank, but I know that outside observers will tend to believe them because they are supposed to know what is right and what is not when it is question of science. The main problem here is that resisting to change is not a scientific question: it is a visceral question, so it is blind to arguments, whether they be scientific or not.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[cladking]

 

 

I don't think observation is the key skill, but critical thinking. In other words, what to do with the observations. And what further observations need to be made.

 

 

 

I may be defining this term a little differently than you.

 

To me "observation" is much more than looking and seeing. This is the meaning in essense and once a child learns about "parallax" a great deal of the subject matter is complete. But all of these terms "looking", seeing", "observing" etc have a great deal more involved than simply reading a thermometer correctly. Unless you know something about optical illusions, interference patterns, and a vast host of other phenomena that can affect observation then you might improperly gather data or see experimental results. "Observation" includes much more than merely the eyeball and even the eyeball isn't a point in space or two points in space but rather two spherical and integrated light gathering instruments that are part of a system for seeing. This system includes two distinct regions of the brain which process the information. What is seen from a moving eye is different than what's seen from a fixed one. What's seen from the front of the lens differs from what's seen from the side. Vision is just one of the senses and observation includes all the senses. Proper observation is a lifelong learning process that is easily not seen because most of it happens outside our consideration.

 

I believe that to a very real extent even visual accuity is learned behavior. A hawk has better vision than a man and can see a mouse from a great altitude because of this visual acuity. But, I doubt that the hawk really sees the mouse at all in the sense we think of it. The hawk sees a distinct form about the size of a mouse doing what a mouse might do so it swoops in and finds it is usually a mouse. A hawk couldn't "see" even a much larger object from the same distance because he hasn't "trained" himself to see it. A person can train himself intentionally or inadvertantly to see things that others can't. It is an artefact of this connected knowledge. No, a man can't see better than a hawk but he can probably see a few specific things better than a hawk sometimes.

 

Obviously critical thinking is of paramount importance to a scienist but this is the sort of thing that is difficult to teach. I think it goes lmost ithout saying that an attempt should be made to force all students in this direction and those who fail at it will naturally gravitate away from science.

 

"Necessary observation" is really a scalar question to me. All easily performed observations that might produce results should be made. "Observation" is also a sort of habit and even looking will have observational overtones. Observation lies at the root of all science and at, before, and after every single step. Knowledge is tweaked based on observation. Knowldge is organized and terms defined based on observation.

 

Of course, parts of this sound absurd to some people; imagine changing definitions to organize knowledge! People don't recognize that utterances are deconstructed by each individual anyway and language is also a tool for thought. Using a better definition can fascilitate thought. How are we to communicate if everyong has a different definition? This is exactly the question I keep asking and is the subject of the thread. We all do a good enough job of thinking in language but we don't seem to communicate because everyone has different beliefs, different definitions, and different perspectives and we never seem to notice. New ideas just get kicked back and forth with little or no understanding by all parties involved.

 

There are schools in the UK that have started teaching philosophy at a very early age, if not specifically metaphysics. I think this is valuable because the first things you learn in philosophy are how to analyse problems, what questions to ask, and the nature of logic.

 

I don't know what value metaphysics adds.

 

 

This could be very good news. A lot depends on specifics. It could put the UK at the forefront of science in a generation or two.

 

"Metaphysics" defines the nature of scientific knowledge. It defines the meaning. It has limited value in progress probably but without knowing what you know and how you know it you are much more likely to misapply it.

 

 

Societal, ethical and economic implications might be more useful.

 

I would consider this a subset of metaphysical implications and best addressed by economists. Of course there's no reason that it can't be included.

 

Generalism should become a specialty in itself and general implications can head the subset.

[swansont]

Oups, it seems that I can insist.

 

I did not have time to develop much since a few of the interventions were too rude to be left unanswered. So the conversation rapidly turned around my right to develop such ideas in front of the scientific community. Naturally, I new by experience that it was going to happen, and I thus new it would not be easy to be able to discuss my ideas and to defend myself from attacking scientists both at a time. Even if it is what I feel, my theory helps me to understand that scientists do not have the feeling to attack me personally when saying that I am a crank, but I know that outside observers will tend to believe them because they are supposed to know what is right and what is not when it is question of science. The main problem here is that resisting to change is not a scientific question: it is a visceral question, so it is blind to arguments, whether they be scientific or not.

 

I just scanned your thread and can't see where you were treated in a rude fashion or were personally attacked. People attacked your idea, which is to be expected in a science discussion. I can't find the word crank or crackpot in that thread.

 

You can't use this as an example of being resistant to change, because there is no objective evidence that the idea is right and lots of indications that it isn't. That's faulty logic. (Ideas are not even considered right until proven otherwise; they have to be accepted on their merit) If an idea is wrong, isn't rejecting it the proper protocol? How can one defend adopting ideas that are wrong? So you have not distinguished this so-called "resistance to change" from the correct attitude of "resisting the adoption a wrong idea".

 

And you seem to have equated "disagreed with the idea" with "personal attack".

[Phi for All]

Good example of how we can consciously add to our natural instinctive subconscious propensity to resist change.

 

What?! Debunking an idea isn't resisting change.

 

If the idea was sound, it couldn't be debunked. I would expect everyone, especially xyzt, to look even harder at the idea then. We would all see that the foundations you created for your idea were sound, and that we couldn't find fault with your logic or methodology. At that point, evidence should be available that will support the idea, and there would still be nothing to refute it. If you shared the parameters of any testing you'd done on models, we should be able to recreate those ourselves and see if our results tally with yours. We'd all still be looking for errors, anything at all that might refute your idea. If we found something, everyone would look at the evidence against to see if IT had merit.

 

But if the idea is easily refuted at the beginning, and no evidence that supports it can be found (or at least not provided by the person with the idea), then why move forward? The methodology is what you have problems with, and no scientist is going to give it up, not when its produced so many fantastic results. The scientific method is the key to getting in; that you don't understand this is like trying to review a movie without watching it, or even buying a ticket.

[Strange]

Explain what is for you inertial motion without saying that it is a property of massive bodies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

 

Tell me again that you love my resisting to change, I love it!

 

I simply asked for evidence. Is this your way of saying that you don't have any?

I may be defining this term a little differently than you.

 

Apparently. Once again you are making up your own unique meanings.

 

To me "observation" is much more than looking and seeing. ... No, a man can't see better than a hawk but he can probably see a few specific things better than a hawk sometimes.

 

I don't suppose you could actually define what you think "observation" means without all that waffle?

 

Obviously critical thinking is of paramount importance to a scienist but this is the sort of thing that is difficult to teach.

 

Not that difficult.

 

"Necessary observation" is really a scalar question to me.

 

What is a "scalar question"?

 

Do you deliberately make up these nonsense phrases? Is it an attempt to sound clever? If so, it isn't working.

 

Using a better definition can fascilitate thought.

 

Only if you share that definition. Science uses a lot of terms with specialised meanings. But the definitions are readily available. Talking to you is like conversing through a program that makes random word substitutions. (And apparently it is our fault, not yours.)

 

How are we to communicate if everyong has a different definition?

 

Poorly. As you repeatedly demonstrate. (But here it seems to be your defintion vs everyone else's definition.)

 

"Metaphysics" defines the nature of scientific knowledge. It defines the meaning.

 

I thought that was ontology.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Strange

[Phi for All]

This is precisely the reason for that topic by the way, otherwise it is fun to discuss our new ideas even if some don't agree with them or if they think they are not scientific.

 

In much the same way you'd have fun running onto a basketball court, grabbing the ball from one of the players and starting a game of soccer with it. Fun for you, frustrating for the people who are playing basketball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gah, I'm done analogizing. I thought it might help, but it's only making sense to those who already understand.

[xyzt]

 

In much the same way you'd have fun running onto a basketball court, grabbing the ball from one of the players and starting a game of soccer with it. Fun for you, frustrating for the people who are playing basketball.

 

Gah, I'm done analogizing. I thought it might help, but it's only making sense to those who already understand.

[Le Repteux]

In much the same way you'd have fun running onto a basketball court, grabbing the ball from one of the players and starting a game of soccer with it. Fun for you, frustrating for the people who are playing basketball.

 

Gah, I'm done analogizing. I thought it might help, but it's only making sense to those who already understand.

You know what? Its not that bad an analogy, because I know it is probably part of my natural behavior.

[cladking]

 

 

I waded through your usual incoherent text. I gather you are trying to say that human vision is complex and liable to being misled. Wow! What a revelation.

 

 

 

No... ..."scientific observation" is complex. This is why it should be taught from a young age.

 

Perhaps you should consider asking questions about specific sentences if you don't understand. If you won't address the evidence then ask what the evidence is. Why keep on with irrelevancies and semantics?

 

Perhaps you can start addressing some points in this thread;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85760-soft-science-and-evidence-of-your-own-eyes/

 

I prefer to talk about the evidence presented and evidence counter to what is presented rather than semantics and your estimation of what the evidence is. Usually at this point someone will tell me exactly how the ancients were able to use ramps while wholly ignoring the fact they are disproven and debunked. Rather than attact the debunkment or exploore the evidence they tell me about magic and how the king was a god.

 

People can't see what they don't expect but I have a great deal of "connected knowledge" of exactly how the thread will go. I have experience and I know what people do when their cherished beliefs are denied. They get out their references and tell me what the reality is rather than talk about the evidence and this is what happens every time a "crackpot" theory arises. Evidence and logic no longer hold sway when we already know the truth. Scientific precepts are powerless in the face of belief. Communication breaks down when people can't see.

 

Watch and see.