XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:06:00 +0000 (UTC), stevefct
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:39:37 +0000 (UTC), stevefct
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> You dogded my guess that the Rudy Rucker event never happened.
>>
>> >Meaning what? Want the title of the book he wrote it in? Or are you
>> >saying Rudy lied?
>>
>> When faced with a personal account of an event that violates physical
>> laws it is entirely reasonable to suspect that the account is false.
>> Flat out lies is one possibility, error is another. We know that
>> people do lie and they do make mistakes.
>>
>> BTW, please learn to snip. 350 lines for a one line response is
>> unreasonable.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Silberstein
>>
>> Do in order to understand.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Boy, come on you can do better than this. Your understanding of the
>limits of science is zero. Inside joke.
>You know better than this. Your quote, 'When faced with a personal
>account of an event that violates physical laws it is entirely
>reasonable to suspect that the account is false.'
>
>That is exactly what all the experts in physics first thought when the
>initial results of testing for the speed of light in different
>directions came back and the speed of light seemed a constant no matter
>what.
Sorry, but those were not simply personal accounts. There was a large
body of reproducible and reproduced experiments. That is what the
history of modern science is all about. You don't have that, you have
one single personal account.
>Know what the experts did?
In a fair amount of detail, actually.
>When they thought in their little fixed
>mental cages, experts who were not mentally agile enough to break out?
>They first concluded the testing results had to be wrong. SO MUCH YOUR
>CONCLUSIN ABOUT RUDY HERE, isn't it?
Nope, not even if you shout. When you have something other than an
unreproducible personal account let us know.
>Even worse, their precious little 'had to be true theory about the
>existence of ether' seemed to be wrong as well.
Actually, the aether was suspect from the very beginning. It was not a
"had to be truth" theory at all, it was a "this seems to work, but it
is not terrible satisfying" proposal.
>So the experts were wrong about what they assumed had to be true, ether.
>And wrong about what they assumed couldn't be true, the speed of light
>being the same no matter what the frame of reference. Only Einstein
>showed the ability to break away from rigid and wrong ideas.
Because he had lots of evidence and he made a good predictive model.
When you have the ability to make accurate predictions based on
whatever model you have let us know. Right now you have nothing. It
does not behoove someone with as little as you to be as condescending
as you are.
> There were
>others equally able, equally smart, smarter in math, who could have done
>the same as he did, but their minds were too rigid, too fixed with what
>they thought had to be right. Its not intelligence, its a close cousin
>mental ability. Edision had it, Rod Sterling had it, Einstein had it.
Sterling was a pretty good television writer. That is pretty much it.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
