UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 18

Re: Defending The Indefensible - Golubik

From: Viktor Golubik <Diverge247.nul>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:42:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 07:12:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible - Golubik


>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:53:45 -0000
>Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible

>Martin Shough and Mike Good are at opposite ends of a see-saw
>called 'the popular view of science' - and, for a couple of
>reasons, I think Martin is sitting on the complacent, slightly
>over-reverential end.

>1 - Over-all the science community's attitude could be said to
>be in even worse shape than implied by Plank's saying - "The Old
>Theories only die out when the Old Professors die out". Most so-
>called scientists aren't at the leading-edge and don't even
>understand or know about it; they qualified by memorizing the
>obsolete laws in text-books.

>The mind-sets of even the leading edge boys are dictated
>primarily by those text books. Martin Rees - a few decades ago a
>rising star and a young Turk of theoretical astro-physics -
>recently confessed he's not confident of anything after Newton.

>Yet we know that Newtonian atomism is a delusion: matter is not
>made from identical, self-defined and self-sufficient particles,
>but 'atomism' remains the fall-back for most physicists - Rees
>and later others. Most of science's present generation are still
>informed by a false world-view.

<snip>

Just wanted to add some comment:

Science isn't so complicated. It's merely the progressive
elimination of possibilities. I think most may, unthinkingly,
argue that it's proving something. I would argue that the
residue left after each elimination often contains the truth
"somewhere" and that this "container" simply gets further
redefined. Perhaps there's no end to this process?

Echoing thoughts expressed, we must be constantly vigilant and
not be so quick to weigh what is presently known with what is
not. But, I guess that's difficult for some because it's so easy
to load one side of the scale with books while the other side
remains largely and invisibly unknown in substance. I guess
tilting the scales in this fashion may simply be a classroom
cheat.

In any case, perhaps it becomes too idealistic or difficult to
start in on the weighing process at any moment yet we can each
visualize what a balanced scale might look like with an
hypothesis placed on the other side... hoping it may balance
with the elimination of some of those cherished books on the
opposite end. And, if your lucky, large stacks of them can be
removed. So impressive a feat, that it may be a truth worth
holding on to for a while... the status quo for the moment! Or,
just maybe, a "real" truth that defines one pattern of our
existence.

<snip>

>2 - Scientists, like most of us, cling to what they think they
>"know". Which usually means firm statements about physical
>reality. Let's ignore problems above in (1) and agree that
>'physics', as its name implies, concentrates on the attributes
>of observable matter - about 5% of the stuff of the universe.
>Yet for more than a hundred years well informed folk have tried
>to point out that matter is not what it seems, and they've been
>ignored.

>snip

I'm sure you would agree...

Science simply uses models to characterize and predict events.
The models shouldn't be mistaken for the literal truth. Yet, we
must admit that we certainly have confidence in many and we've
come a long way. Hopefully, closer to understanding some of our
dilemmas.

As the number of objects in our 'world views' have increased so
too has there been a drive to simplify the mess with some
unifying principles. This, in of itself, is a form of a balanced
action-reaction event mimicing nature herself.

Simply put, I think science teachers forget to keep the larger
scale equations balanced... an unfortunate relapse with the
reinforcement of some of the unknowns or an inability to put
subjects into larger context. So, should we blame our teachers
or their teachers before them... or simply rest this one on
societies shoulders or the gulibility of human perception?


golubik






[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com