From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:43:20 -0000 Archived: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:06:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:24:17 -0600 >Subject: Re: Essential Read From Current Encounters List >And so on... >What you're expressing, of course, is classic >anti-intellectualism. I believe I am safe in presuming you have >not heard, or probably ever heard of, the late Richard >Hofstadter's revelatory essay on the subject. >I don't know why I should be shocked that some in our field >would actually defend the proposition that knowledge makes one >rigid, textbooks are a waste of paper, and scientists, >historians, and scholars in general are just a punch of >pointy-heads whose sole purpose is to foil progress. No fair Jerry. That's 'straw man' tactics. None of those concepts/opinions are mine but generated by you, for ease of shooting/shouting down. In fact one must do a great deal of study (necessarily using text-books) before being equipped to realize how text-books can mislead and misdirect. Firstly and most commonly by omission of inconvenient experiment details (i.e. the 'two-slit is almost always described _without_ the part which doesn't fit the wave/particle concepts usually presented). Secondly by peddling 'consensus models' which bear little relation to reality and usually go _way_ beyond what the physical results can justify. Try almost any text-books written in last half-century on Relativity, and also more recent stuff on Quantum (inc. Feynman's lectures, good as they are). A wise student would ignore about 30% to 50%, sometims more (but how can we be wise before doing the study?). Ironically, reading Feynman intensively should bring you his confession that he 'rigs the figures' in many lectures, not merely because 'it's complicated' but because some/many photon actions are too 'weird' (anti-intuitive) to fit with his lecture descriptions. And if you take the trouble, as I have, to read some of Einstein's actual early papers, like 'The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity' A. Einstein 1916 - Annalen der Physik (translations available) you should easily see that much subsequent text-book gush is hot air. [Folk might like to also try Weyl's contemporary thoughts, usually printed in those same tranlations - personally I think they're deeper amd more interesting. And for a more extensive modern critique of various 'Relativities' try Tom van Flandern's 'Speed of Gravity' at: www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp along with several cups of coffee.] There seems to be no easy route, no guaranteed '100% correct' texts to read. I.e. - in physics, as in ufology, genuine students have to find their own way. [Unless, if course, you want to be a 'talking-head' poser, or to work as a (gov't) scientist, in which case you probably have to learn just the 'approved texts' to qualify.] Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp