Scientific iniquity

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Scientific iniquity

Postby John » Wed 07 Aug 2013 5:48 pm

Visiting The Scientific Boot Fair
The constant inaccuracy and self contradiction in much of so called scientific discovery and theory serves to emphasise that the only viable source of knowledge about prehistoric global events is that body of mythology preserved in worldwide tradition.
The events so related were intellectually and emotionally shattering. They were discordant with virtually all past human experience and some effects were devastating. It was commonly thought that they must be - can only be - the work of the Gods. No conceivable human input could be imagined. We were merely spectators, helpless victims of some insuperable external power. These events transformed human experience worldwide and prompted a resultant and deeper understanding of our place in the natural order of events. Their ‘having been’ was preserved in verbally accurate recordings, a practice that was viewed as a sacred duty. Alien images that appeared in the sky were honoured and copied as mysterious drawings on stone. These stories were venerated and passed on, word perfect, down the generations even to this day.
This intensely human behaviour is more a fact than the jumble of often pseudo scientific ‘discovery’ and mumbo jumbo that frequently parades as ‘theory’ in our modern society. The history of science is one of continuing false assumptions, presumptions and pure fantasy that is gradually superceded by ever more rational (though still at least partially incorrect) ideas. Science’s greatly (and rightly) revered leading figure lists are jam packed with evidence that all these people and their ‘discoveries’ were (are) actually wrong in at least some important measure, sometimes even totally so.
Who would want to educate themselves in physics by following Aristotle’s irrational mystical ideas, yet tragically they were to dominate western science for 2000 wasted, muddled years. Who (now) would use Claudius Ptolemy’s geocentric planetary model to understand the Solar System, yet - though it was quite wrong - it went unchallenged for 1400 years because amazingly it so closely predicted the planetary phases and - most importantly - bolstered establishments plain and ignorant ideology. Copernicus et al finally established what Anaxagorus had already taught 2400 years ago, both that the system is heliocentric and the correct order of the known planets in the system.
I call on those who criticise and undervalue the use of pure logic, which use, based on even only a few incontrovertible facts, shows true ways and means, to provide other reliable means of solving existing problems: show us the scientific instruments available to ancient thinkers such as Anaxagorus - a deafening silence will ensue from that quarter no doubt. Who thinks the brilliant, personally amazing and sometimes wildly wrong Stephen Hawking is right about black holes?
Incorrect theory is eventually and gradually superceded by slightly better theory that (though almost certainly not quite right) is better and facilitates further progress. This is so in the case of Quantum Theory, which to achieve its goal must, no matter how ‘briefly’, theoretically accomplish the impossible and invent, manufacture or assume some previously nonexistent matter to fill an otherwise unfillable gap in its processes. OK, OK! Practicality demands we use it until we get a more correct methodology - which is what will happen. What we should not do is pretend that it is incontrovertibly correct! Claiming as incontrovertible proof matters verified by this process is fraught with intellectual danger! How the blazes can theory based on an impossibility be incontrovertibly correct?
Whilst my admiration for the work of Velikovsky is unshaken it is my belief that no man is ever fully correct when he introduces and expounds new ideas. I mention all the above to justify my belief that Velikovsky cannot possibly be the very first (and only) completely correct theoretician. Where precisely he is wrong will be a matter of argument for many years. Personally I do think he was completely ‘up the pictures’ in one area - ironically in his professional judgement. He posits the positively silly idea that a whole generation of mainly unrelated individuals can be afflicted with an amnesia regarding (for them) recent momentous events and (as I seem to recall) that this amnesia is somehow inheritable! A ludicrous, utterly ridiculous, psychiatric impossibility - selective to boot as only some things are ‘forgotten’ while other, equally devastating events are fully remembered! So - the shadow of Velikovsky submits to his humanity and shares his failings with us all. This was nonetheless a very great man and we are all indebted to his work.
There is no doubt at all that the Earth and the Solar system have been subject to huge, sometimes catastrophic upheavals - some perhaps yet to come. Frankly, in other fields I find the explanations of the ice age(s) as the result of polar shifts as unconvincing as the stories of the ‘birth’ of the Moon from a planetary collision rather than a relatively recent capture (perhaps made in the dispersal of a Saturn based system) and the sheer unlikelihood of the intricacies of tectonic plate theory which has great continental lumps travelling in contradictory directions with no apparent common driving force.
The Americas are supposed to have tectonically drifted away thousands of miles to the west and that led to the birth of the Atlantic Ocean. But where is the evidence that the Pacific has reduced on such a massive scale? No explanation for it retaining its size is mentioned let alone discussed. If that shrinkage is due to unparalleled subduction perhaps that is another indication of why the volume and diameter of the Earth has hugely expanded. No mention is ever made of the known fact (yes - real actual fact!) that whole civilisations, one upon the other, including whole geologic strata, lie metres deep under the constant accretion of material bombarding and being exuded from Earth every moment. If this is not happening, how is it that the past is always deeply buried? These accretions plus volcanic deposits can only increase the girth of planet Earth yet absolutely no scientific attention is paid to this glaring anomaly. These and many, many other such questions knock unanswered on the doors of establishment science! Maybe the Earth is constantly expanding - this offers a more probable explanation of so called continental drift and particularly the huge Atlantic Ocean together with an undiminished Pacific. I do not proffer this as a theory I personally support (as yet!) but it seems worthy of serious investigation. If continents really have moved, a rational explanation can only help. Presently, plate tectonics is a blandly accepted totally unproven theory, lacking like an expanding Earth, any apparent explanation. Yes - the tectonic plates are clearly defined and shift visibly in locally disastrous fashion, but…
In closing I suggest that the role of the Sun is greatly underestimated when considering Earth’s cataclysmic weather history.
John
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron