From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:44:13 -0000 Archived: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:09:47 -0500 Subject: Cranks Vs Rationalists Hi List Some folk might want a reason for that recommend of 'philosophical skepticism' in my post http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/mar/m15-007.shtml so here it is: dogmatic 'rationalists' don't really have a leg to stand on. They're mostly parroting laymen or rote-learned book-scientists, ignorant of the nitty-gritty of science and just repeating the stuff in the text-books (usually incomplete* & misleading*). Whereas the top-people in science will frankly admit that they don't know what 'reality' is. Just the other day, on 'Start the Week' on BBC Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdbhz http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00zdbhz you could (and still can) hear Brian Greene and Brian Cox admitting that 'eternal universe' and 'steady state' theories are as "justifiable" as the 'big-bang' theory (which the mainstream prefers and so parroting laymen therefore 'believe- in'). In fact, if you insisted on Popper's falsification principle you'd have to admit the 'eternal' or steady-state' calculations forecast conditions accurately, while the 'big-bang' mathematics failed miserably, needing a CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) energy thousands of times higher than the one we now observe. But the mainstream had already opted for 'big-bang' so they just changed their forecasts and the text-books! * Re incomplete & misleading text-books: most book / media presentations of experimental results are severely dumbed-down and over simplified. For instance, you'll hardly ever find a full description of the double-slit experiment. All the versions I've searched out in the last year or so (including that animated one) are missing a vital part. Why? Because that part doesn't agree with the simple narrative of "wave-particle duality" and "probability waves" which is so attractive to rote- learners. In fact, as (iirc) BK Ridley wryly remarked, if you believe that simple narrative, to explain the missing bit you'd have to say that a light-beam not only has a memory but can wilfully refuse to obey the laws of physics! Here's the experiment: stage 1 light ON, only ONE slit open; result = diffraction pattern; stage 2 light ON, TWO slits open: result = interference pattern (bands). And that's all you usually read. But if the light was left ON while that SECOND slit was being opened (to give stage 2 situation), you don't get the interference pattern, even though the situation demands it. You're still seeing the simple diffraction pattern. That would confuse the parroting laymen and rote-learners - so it's omitted. That's only one example of 'impossible' results. Others concern 'inertia'-'momentum' and its effects as shown by gyroscopes. You might remember ex-NASA Dr Richard Haines on video saying "We don't know how to do that". Ie - how to interfere with a gyroscopic 'inertial' compass, as happened during a UFO incident. From the above we can see that "there is no law of nature yet known to us but may be apparently contravened by the action of more recondite laws or forces" (a quote from A.R Wallace - who also thought there was something to be learned in paranormal experiments). That being so, when reading dogmatic claims about the universe, or an accusation of 'irrationality' or 'crankiness' I first ask "Does he have any firm grounds for that statement?" - and the answer is usually "No". Often it's a bit worse than that - see: www.perceptions.couk.com/warn.html#research3 why folk are scared of new or anomalous ideas, and why they have to deny them. 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