Re: A Skpetic Apologises

"Ongobay" <ongobay@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfn2h7$n23$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I was going to bit by bit make a comment about what you've posted.... but
> there is a good film on in a moment so i'll make this short

>
> Good post, hopefully some interesting debates will start soon, im not 100%
> skeptic and im not 100% believer, i lie in the middle somewhat. Some of
the
> opinions you have given would suggest you were quite a conspiricy
theorist,
> and very non trusting, at the same time if im calling you non trusting
does
> this make me too trusting and mean im just going along with the flow......
> believing anything which is said. I started out a believer but after each
> brick wall ive hit ive become more skeptical...... guess you gotta keep
the
> faith....... but by keeping the faith would you not just be a sheep,
> following and believing everybody.
>
> Keep up the good work!
> Ongobay
>
It's not that I'm a conspiracy theorist, Ongobay, it's just that I was
trying to illustrate a deep mistrust in claims made by people in general. If
I observe something in nature, whether good or bad, I tend to believe it as
animals and plants know no shame or subterfuge (to an extent). They do
precisely what they're programmed to do - survive. And those observed
behaviours are usually repeatable across generations and little personal
interpretation is necessary. People, on the other hand, are far more
complicated. They lie, cheat and - most of all - tend to BELIEVE without
adequate foundation.

For instance, the notion that random numbers occur in nature is so well
embedded that you could reasonably expect to be called a fool for
challenging it. Pooh. Nature COULD NOT proceed with randomness built-in.
What we (scientists) call random is, in my opinion, almost an admission of
failure to understand the processes that are going on. We are too vain to
admit that nature knows better and we therefore invent theories, figures and
whatever else is necessary to show that we have mastered the concept.
Untrue - but 50 years down the line the original "notion" is now embodied as
law in everyone's mind. I have this problem with several issues.

I don't think that mutations are necessarily random. The random mutations
are probably selected against over time and eradicated. The more successful
mutations were more deterministic in origin. For instance, there is a plant
(I cannot remember its name at the moment) that, on its leaf undersides,
during a particular butterfly's egg-laying period, develops cluster of
little yellow spots. These yellow spots look exactly like another one of
those butterflies has already laid its eggs there, so the butterfly, upon
seeing them, won't lay. What are the odds of RANDOM mutations producing the
desired result? Plants and animals react to their environments far more
quickly than we like to think. And far too quickly for the idea of random
mutation to be acquiescent. I do firmly believe that we have followed
millions of years of evolution through genetic mutation, but the mutations
are reactionary, deterministic and not random. We just aint figured it out
properly.

The point I was getting across about theories was the longer the theories
are around, the more people tend to believe in them without sufficient
foundation. I wasn't attacking the meaning of "theory" nor comparing it to
"law". Look at Einstein. The guy firmly believed in the cosmic ether and,
for all his life, tried to work a cosmic ether constant into his work
without success. All his evidence suggested that he should forego the notion
of an ether, but he refused to. Despite the lack of evidence, he chose to
continue to believe and account for the cosmic ether. What one was trying to
illustrate is that once a theory has abounded for a couple of generations it
is almost impossible to dispel (if wrong) because the populace wantonly
believes the theory as law. And everybody wants to believe in things like
UFO's coming from other intelligence sources - despite the mountain of
evidence against this being a reasonable proposition. It's a fanciful
theory, people like it and some people will go to extraordinary lengths to
fabricate supporting stories. After a couple of generations, more people are
willing to believe than ever. And they do.

"Rosifer" <noone@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7lmuhvogid2cn0vi5obtg8471emtbst4co@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "asdasdasd"
> <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> ;
>
>
> > Pooh. Nature COULD NOT proceed with randomness built-in.
>
> Why not?
>
> Random mutation is the basis of the theory of
> evolution; have you any other explanation to
> offer?
>
> Or do you not believe in the theory at all?
>
> >What we (scientists) call random is, in my opinion, almost an admission
of
> >failure to understand the processes that are going on. We are too vain to
> >admit that nature knows better
>
> What exactly does nature know?
>
> > and we therefore invent theories, figures and
> >whatever else is necessary to show that we have mastered the concept.
>
> Theories, by definition, don't pretend that
> concepts are mastered. That is why they are
> theories and not laws.
>
> Theories are subject to change as new data becomes
> available.
>
> Isn't this how it should be?
>
> >Untrue
>
> What is untrue?
>
> >- but 50 years down the line the original "notion" is now embodied as
> >law in everyone's mind.
>
> What "original notion", and what is significant
> about 50 years ago?
>
> > I have this problem with several issues.
>
>
>
> Rosifer
>
>

Einstein was an original thinker he developed his famous theory

BEFORE he could actually prove it scientifically,

he left school with a report saying "This boy won't amount to much",

after , yes , after , he discovered The Theory of Relativity,

he had to study for and pass Maths O Level,

otherwise the Scientific community wouldn't have taken him seriously,

Gea

"asdasdasd" <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> wrote in message
news:6d7250f4db3dfdaeff529faa4d9f4ff7@free.teranew s.com...
> I don't think that mutations are necessarily random. The random mutations
> are probably selected against over time and eradicated. The more
successful
> mutations were more deterministic in origin. For instance, there is a
plant
> (I cannot remember its name at the moment) that, on its leaf undersides,
> during a particular butterfly's egg-laying period, develops cluster of
> little yellow spots. These yellow spots look exactly like another one of
> those butterflies has already laid its eggs there, so the butterfly, upon
> seeing them, won't lay. What are the odds of RANDOM mutations producing
the
> desired result? Plants and animals react to their environments far more
> quickly than we like to think. And far too quickly for the idea of random
> mutation to be acquiescent. I do firmly believe that we have followed
> millions of years of evolution through genetic mutation, but the mutations
> are reactionary, deterministic and not random. We just aint figured it out
> properly.
>
> The point I was getting across about theories was the longer the theories
> are around, the more people tend to believe in them without sufficient
> foundation. I wasn't attacking the meaning of "theory" nor comparing it to
> "law". Look at Einstein. The guy firmly believed in the cosmic ether and,
> for all his life, tried to work a cosmic ether constant into his work
> without success. All his evidence suggested that he should forego the
notion
> of an ether, but he refused to. Despite the lack of evidence, he chose to
> continue to believe and account for the cosmic ether. What one was trying
to
> illustrate is that once a theory has abounded for a couple of generations
it
> is almost impossible to dispel (if wrong) because the populace wantonly
> believes the theory as law. And everybody wants to believe in things like
> UFO's coming from other intelligence sources - despite the mountain of
> evidence against this being a reasonable proposition. It's a fanciful
> theory, people like it and some people will go to extraordinary lengths to
> fabricate supporting stories. After a couple of generations, more people
are
> willing to believe than ever. And they do.
>
> "Rosifer" <noone@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:7lmuhvogid2cn0vi5obtg8471emtbst4co@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "asdasdasd"
> > <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> ;
> >
> >
> > > Pooh. Nature COULD NOT proceed with randomness built-in.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > Random mutation is the basis of the theory of
> > evolution; have you any other explanation to
> > offer?
> >
> > Or do you not believe in the theory at all?
> >
> > >What we (scientists) call random is, in my opinion, almost an admission
> of
> > >failure to understand the processes that are going on. We are too vain
to
> > >admit that nature knows better
> >
> > What exactly does nature know?
> >
> > > and we therefore invent theories, figures and
> > >whatever else is necessary to show that we have mastered the concept.
> >
> > Theories, by definition, don't pretend that
> > concepts are mastered. That is why they are
> > theories and not laws.
> >
> > Theories are subject to change as new data becomes
> > available.
> >
> > Isn't this how it should be?
> >
> > >Untrue
> >
> > What is untrue?
> >
> > >- but 50 years down the line the original "notion" is now embodied as
> > >law in everyone's mind.
> >
> > What "original notion", and what is significant
> > about 50 years ago?
> >
> > > I have this problem with several issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rosifer
> >
> >
>
>

"asdasdasd" <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> wrote in message
news:6d7250f4db3dfdaeff529faa4d9f4ff7@free.teranew s.com...

> The point I was getting across about theories was the longer the theories
> are around, the more people tend to believe in them without sufficient
> foundation. I wasn't attacking the meaning of "theory" nor comparing it to
> "law". Look at Einstein. The guy firmly believed in the cosmic ether and,
> for all his life, tried to work a cosmic ether constant into his work
> without success. All his evidence suggested that he should forego the
notion
> of an ether, but he refused to. Despite the lack of evidence, he chose to
> continue to believe and account for the cosmic ether. What one was trying
to
> illustrate is that once a theory has abounded for a couple of generations
it
> is almost impossible to dispel (if wrong) because the populace wantonly
> believes the theory as law.

Einstein certainly did not believe in (what we now refer to) as the ether.

In his famous June 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
(Ann. Phys. 17, 891) we find:

<<The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely
stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.>>

You may be thinking of his 1920 address "Aether und Relativitätstheorie". It
is clear that what Einstein meant by "Aether" is what we now call the
gravitational field.

Einstein's "cosmological constant" really is not to do with the ether and is
a concept that has an important place in present-day cosmology.

--
Clive Tooth
http://www.clivetooth.dk

"Gea Jones" <Geajones@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfo87e$np3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

> after , yes , after , [Einstein] discovered The Theory of Relativity,
> he had to study for and pass Maths O Level,
> otherwise the Scientific community wouldn't have taken him seriously,

This is total garbage.

Take a look at Einstein's Maturitätszeugnis grades in 1896. When do you date
his discovery of the Theory of Relativity?

--
Clive Tooth
http://www.clivetooth.dk

It is nothing short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not
yet entirely strangled the holy curiousity of inquiry.
Einstein

[OH and he was dyslexic]

"The Last Danish Pastry" <TheLastDanishPastry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfpc79$hb6a8$1@ID-11651.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gea Jones" <Geajones@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bfo87e$np3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> > after , yes , after , [Einstein] discovered The Theory of Relativity,
> > he had to study for and pass Maths O Level,
> > otherwise the Scientific community wouldn't have taken him seriously,
>
> This is total garbage.
>
> Take a look at Einstein's Maturitätszeugnis grades in 1896. When do you
date
> his discovery of the Theory of Relativity?

> 1905, but really 1902
> --
> Clive Tooth
> http://www.clivetooth.dk
>
>

Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not
understand it myself anymore.
Einstein

"The Last Danish Pastry" <TheLastDanishPastry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfpc79$hb6a8$1@ID-11651.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gea Jones" <Geajones@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bfo87e$np3$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> > after , yes , after , [Einstein] discovered The Theory of Relativity,
> > he had to study for and pass Maths O Level,
> > otherwise the Scientific community wouldn't have taken him seriously,
>
> This is total garbage.
>
> Take a look at Einstein's Maturitätszeugnis grades in 1896. When do you
date
> his discovery of the Theory of Relativity?
>
> --
> Clive Tooth
> http://www.clivetooth.dk
>
>

	#1
asdasdasd	Re: A Skpetic Apologises - sort of... "Ongobay" <ongobay@Xhotmail.com> wrote in message news:bfn2h7$n23$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > I was going to bit by bit make a comment about what you've posted.... but > there is a good film on in a moment so i'll make this short > > Good post, hopefully some interesting debates will start soon, im not 100% > skeptic and im not 100% believer, i lie in the middle somewhat. Some of the > opinions you have given would suggest you were quite a conspiricy theorist, > and very non trusting, at the same time if im calling you non trusting does > this make me too trusting and mean im just going along with the flow...... > believing anything which is said. I started out a believer but after each > brick wall ive hit ive become more skeptical...... guess you gotta keep the > faith....... but by keeping the faith would you not just be a sheep, > following and believing everybody. > > Keep up the good work! > Ongobay > It's not that I'm a conspiracy theorist, Ongobay, it's just that I was trying to illustrate a deep mistrust in claims made by people in general. If I observe something in nature, whether good or bad, I tend to believe it as animals and plants know no shame or subterfuge (to an extent). They do precisely what they're programmed to do - survive. And those observed behaviours are usually repeatable across generations and little personal interpretation is necessary. People, on the other hand, are far more complicated. They lie, cheat and - most of all - tend to BELIEVE without adequate foundation. For instance, the notion that random numbers occur in nature is so well embedded that you could reasonably expect to be called a fool for challenging it. Pooh. Nature COULD NOT proceed with randomness built-in. What we (scientists) call random is, in my opinion, almost an admission of failure to understand the processes that are going on. We are too vain to admit that nature knows better and we therefore invent theories, figures and whatever else is necessary to show that we have mastered the concept. Untrue - but 50 years down the line the original "notion" is now embodied as law in everyone's mind. I have this problem with several issues.

	#3
Gea Jones	Re: A Skpetic Apologises - sort of... Einstein was an original thinker he developed his famous theory BEFORE he could actually prove it scientifically, he left school with a report saying "This boy won't amount to much", after , yes , after , he discovered The Theory of Relativity, he had to study for and pass Maths O Level, otherwise the Scientific community wouldn't have taken him seriously, Gea "asdasdasd" <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> wrote in message news:6d7250f4db3dfdaeff529faa4d9f4ff7@free.teranew s.com... > I don't think that mutations are necessarily random. The random mutations > are probably selected against over time and eradicated. The more successful > mutations were more deterministic in origin. For instance, there is a plant > (I cannot remember its name at the moment) that, on its leaf undersides, > during a particular butterfly's egg-laying period, develops cluster of > little yellow spots. These yellow spots look exactly like another one of > those butterflies has already laid its eggs there, so the butterfly, upon > seeing them, won't lay. What are the odds of RANDOM mutations producing the > desired result? Plants and animals react to their environments far more > quickly than we like to think. And far too quickly for the idea of random > mutation to be acquiescent. I do firmly believe that we have followed > millions of years of evolution through genetic mutation, but the mutations > are reactionary, deterministic and not random. We just aint figured it out > properly. > > The point I was getting across about theories was the longer the theories > are around, the more people tend to believe in them without sufficient > foundation. I wasn't attacking the meaning of "theory" nor comparing it to > "law". Look at Einstein. The guy firmly believed in the cosmic ether and, > for all his life, tried to work a cosmic ether constant into his work > without success. All his evidence suggested that he should forego the notion > of an ether, but he refused to. Despite the lack of evidence, he chose to > continue to believe and account for the cosmic ether. What one was trying to > illustrate is that once a theory has abounded for a couple of generations it > is almost impossible to dispel (if wrong) because the populace wantonly > believes the theory as law. And everybody wants to believe in things like > UFO's coming from other intelligence sources - despite the mountain of > evidence against this being a reasonable proposition. It's a fanciful > theory, people like it and some people will go to extraordinary lengths to > fabricate supporting stories. After a couple of generations, more people are > willing to believe than ever. And they do. > > "Rosifer" <noone@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:7lmuhvogid2cn0vi5obtg8471emtbst4co@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "asdasdasd" > > <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> ; > > > > > > > Pooh. Nature COULD NOT proceed with randomness built-in. > > > > Why not? > > > > Random mutation is the basis of the theory of > > evolution; have you any other explanation to > > offer? > > > > Or do you not believe in the theory at all? > > > > >What we (scientists) call random is, in my opinion, almost an admission > of > > >failure to understand the processes that are going on. We are too vain to > > >admit that nature knows better > > > > What exactly does nature know? > > > > > and we therefore invent theories, figures and > > >whatever else is necessary to show that we have mastered the concept. > > > > Theories, by definition, don't pretend that > > concepts are mastered. That is why they are > > theories and not laws. > > > > Theories are subject to change as new data becomes > > available. > > > > Isn't this how it should be? > > > > >Untrue > > > > What is untrue? > > > > >- but 50 years down the line the original "notion" is now embodied as > > >law in everyone's mind. > > > > What "original notion", and what is significant > > about 50 years ago? > > > > > I have this problem with several issues. > > > > > > > > Rosifer > > > > > >

	#4
The Last Danish Pastry	Re: A Skpetic Apologises - sort of... "asdasdasd" <asdasdasdasd@dasdasdasd.com> wrote in message news:6d7250f4db3dfdaeff529faa4d9f4ff7@free.teranew s.com... > The point I was getting across about theories was the longer the theories > are around, the more people tend to believe in them without sufficient > foundation. I wasn't attacking the meaning of "theory" nor comparing it to > "law". Look at Einstein. The guy firmly believed in the cosmic ether and, > for all his life, tried to work a cosmic ether constant into his work > without success. All his evidence suggested that he should forego the notion > of an ether, but he refused to. Despite the lack of evidence, he chose to > continue to believe and account for the cosmic ether. What one was trying to > illustrate is that once a theory has abounded for a couple of generations it > is almost impossible to dispel (if wrong) because the populace wantonly > believes the theory as law. Einstein certainly did not believe in (what we now refer to) as the ether. In his famous June 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Ann. Phys. 17, 891) we find: <<The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.>> You may be thinking of his 1920 address "Aether und Relativitätstheorie". It is clear that what Einstein meant by "Aether" is what we now call the gravitational field. Einstein's "cosmological constant" really is not to do with the ether and is a concept that has an important place in present-day cosmology. -- Clive Tooth http://www.clivetooth.dk