oooh you're gonna make me use my head aren't you?!!!!
Ok its gonna hurt (like filling out tax returns) but i can do that!
I'll respond but need a bit of time!
The Higgs boson and God particle
- Thread starter Kmal
- Start date
oooh you're gonna make me use my head aren't you?!!!!
Ok its gonna hurt (like filling out tax returns) but i can do that!
I'll respond but need a bit of time!
Ok here is quote number 1:
''Some people have a lot invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes fight to enforce those paradigms even if scientific guardians are overturning those paradigms''
Who are the scientific 'guardians'? I never used the word 'guardian'
Quote 2:
''Some people have nothing invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes ignore to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers are proving those paradigms''
By some people do you mean members of the general populace or do you mean people from the scientific community?
Quote 3:
''Some people have everything invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes continue to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers/guardians are overturning those paradigms''
I think that to say someone has 'everything' invested in a paradigm is a little strong. But yes somepeople have a lot invested in a paradigm. For example a professor may have made a career out of teaching their paradigm and may have written books on it....they might be reluctant to let it go if it affects their career adversly
Conventional wisdom is often wrong...it often just becomes a convenient foundation to build a perception of reality upon
I think that some research is favoured over others for sure
For example we are all very aware of the global warming debate. there are powerful forces aligned on both sides of that divide. For example the oil industry might want to argue against man made climate change in order to protect their industry, so they will fund research that affirms their claims
powerful people often fund the research that helps justify their actions and can also influence what research gets published
I'm not sure what you're asking me here?
...and these factors may affect what perceptions see the light of day and which are buried, denied or fought against
A zeal for the truth if that's what you mean? which is not to say they are free from the desires of the ego
Its a nice quote.....he's an elderly man looking back on his life and seeing his endeavors as an almost childlike enthusiasm.....finding joy in unlocking the worlds mysteries like a child playing among rockpools by the sea
He also acknowledges that there is an ocean of truth that he hasn't fathomed....that shows he is aware of his own limited understanding and also a kind of reverence for the mystery of existence.....that lends a further spiritual dimension to his particular seeking
I'm still not sure what you mean by the 'opposite case'?
I'm talking about the following:
We (humanity) are on a journey of discovery. Its an ongoing journey, which i see as a cool and beautiful thing. There's no point stopping, setting up camp and declaring that we have arrived at the 'truth'.....its an ongoing process.
Just when we have stopped and set up camp another person comes along and says 'hold on there is more to see over that horizon'. Some people grumble and say 'no there isn't i'm staying here...you're a liar or a madman!'
So i believe that the various claims of the mystics, for example that we are all connected in a sort of energetic web and that material reality is given form by consciousness may now be shown by science to have some truth to them
Ultimately i think this reality is an illusion (maya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)) which opens the door to unlimited possibilities.....however i also appreciate that to others who do not share my perception, such a view will appear completely mad!
lol
Yep, I switched the 'pioneers' with 'guardians', to look at it from the other side. Because protecting and pioneers doesn't sound.....compatible. But I'd say they are within the same positions? :|
The guardians are most likely what would be called as 'scientific community'. :| Or the status quo, depending on how you're seeing it.
Anyone, someone and everyone.
I can see why it'd be different, but my point is to express a zealousness in indifference / not caring / "I SAID I DON'T GIVE A DAMN DAMMIT'
Was it only career (and all that entails) that's within stake, truly?
I have no comments upon this, I consider this as your personal opinion/observation and thus, respect this, but I personally see there's some grain of truth at some time, some place, with some people, even when it's not yours or mine.
NOOOOOOT my point. You've got a point, but that's not what I'm talking about.
My point is there are invalid/incomplete/imperfect/worst, zany theories (and their believers, and their grains of truth, and their perspective) before, during, and after the right theory (for now) has been made.
Question A : Do you agree that there may have been invalid/incomplete/imperfect/zany theories out there in this world; that there are people who believed it?
Question B : If you do agree, do you also agree that the amount of those are more than the amount of (currently) proved / valid / scientific theories?
Question C : If you also agree with A, would you say that the supporters of the theories generally sees the theory as more valid/scientific/perfect than other theories?
But does that have any effect in people's zealousness?
Yep; their perceived truth; their perspective.
True, it's nice.
I think we're focusing on different things; you're mostly talking about what to see, while I'm talking about how people see.
The same entrenchment in one's dogma and theory, the same unwillingness to budge, to be wrong, to accept; the same zeal in protecting their own perspective, but from the seeker's side.
And my original point is about the possibility that the other person is indeed, in your words, a liar or a madman.
I'm calling them untested; and still potentials. But to each their own. Agree to disagree! <3
Not always mad, just different-- some of the time. :|
and always consider looking in from the outside -- do we also do the same thing? Are we calling their view mad? If so, how different are we from them?
No seriously what the hell are we talking about here, it's not even RELATED ANYMORE!
I call quits. Otherwise Mods will strike moi with the banhammer. Thank you for the reasonable discourse, [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2259]Kmal[/MENTION].
From what i gather the process usually goes as follows:
A person(s) make a discovery and then share it with the scientific community. Sometimes they experience resistance from some people, but if they perceivere then often their discovery will be acknowledged and assimilated into the current understanding
Most people don't seem too fussed. They'd be better off putting their energies into areas that resonate with them. I do however believe that our current culture does not really encourage people to question and to have an enquiring mind
Mostly school is designed to get the workers of the future to get used to a 9 to 5 existence of clocking in and out, obeying rules and instructions and carrying out boring, uninspiring tasks (that's not necesarily the fault of the teachers...it comes from above)
No i'm just giving examples of the what i perceive to be some of the reasons why some people are not open to new possibilities (in the field of science)
There are some things that are pretty objective. For example at one time the conventional wisdom was that the world was flat. Also it was also conventional wisdom at one time that the earth was at the centre of our solar system
Sure we can all put forward our hypotheses and then the task of science is to test the validity of those. What i'm saying is lets not be afraid to make suggestions and to explore new possibilities
I wanna steer away from making judgement about the amounts of things......i think what is most important is that there is a culture of free speech where people can discuss possibilities without being insulted or ridiculed like Prof. schactman in the clip i posted above
A culture where people are open to possibilities but also aware that its important to keep one foot on the ground at all times (ie test theories with science) is i think a healthy one
well zelousness might be cancelled out by the bias of elites. Some people believe that Tessler was murdered and his work suppressed.
There are certain objective 'truths' within consensus reality. For example there is a consensus that the earth is round not flat, within our current perceptual paradigm
Ok....i think there are various ideas for example between left brained and right brained thinking/ between aristotle v's platonic thinking / thinking v's feeling that would definately be worth considering when thinking about how people are perceiving
I would rather not see a thinking v's feeling split as i think that a balance between the two is the best approach hence my respect for both abstract thinking visionaries and for empirical testers of theories
If Prof Schactman hadn't pushed through his research then the world would have been denied his discovery
I don't think Prof Schactman was a madman or a liar but he was vilified at first. I think its best to judge each case on its merits
Ok but at the risk of sounding mad i have experienced phenomena which is in my mind creating a body of evidence pointing to the often held perception of the nature of reality as being mistaken. I am also not the only person who has experienced such phenomena and people who have spoken to tens of thousands such as Carl jung also talk about things such as synchronicities.....at what point does something become assimlated into a persons perception of reality?
I'm not calling anyone mad....i just think it's unwise to not consider new possiblities
You're welcome, its been a pleasure
I'm sure we can both agree that science is going through some very exciting times (when wasn't it?!)