🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gm9in1ldq1fl1d3d6div44m3aj1600e2nv@4ax.com>, Don Homuth wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:

>>And any theory that isn't evolution from random molecules is 'theology'.
 
> Describe the Theory you want to discuss in non-superstitious terms.

You are missing the point. The point being that terms like 'theology' 
and 'superstitious' are used to counter any theory that isn't the status 
quo. One particular 'scientist' on usenet, is a professor of chemistry in 
Georgia. He will call people creationists at the drop of a hat and claim 
'science' to support whatever he believes and that anyone else's ideas, 
no matter how well supported by fact are invalid. Dr. Lloyd 
Parker, look him up on google sometime. That's the kind of behavior I am 
talking about.

But if you want an example of a theory that laughed at and can be 
supported by fact and evidence, is that the sphinx (giza, egypt) is 
significantly older than science currently tells us. On the order of 2-3 
times older. It's supported by star alignments and weathering of the 
stone in addition to the facts that the head is so obviously smaller out 
of proportion to the body that it may have been a recarving and that 
ancient egyptian records only indicate the mounment was restored with no 
mention of it's initial construction. There is more, but those are the 
big points. Of course anyone who believes that is laughed at and 
countered with conventional conjecture which is based on facts that fit 
this model as well.  
 
>>That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that anyone who suggests 
>>that there might be a different theory, a different explaination than the 
>>accepted status quo is attacked, ridiculed, whatever it takes to supress 
>>the ideas, rather than the enlightened ideal. 

> There "might be" all sorts of "different" theories.  Are any of them
> based on Evidence?

You're not getting it. See above. 
 
>>> Knowledge cannot be suppressed over the long term. 

>>Define 'long term'. Some concepts easily go on for hundreds of years, 
>>some for thousands. Belief is powerful thing.
 
> In the modern era, more than a decade.

That's nothing. There are theories with supporting evidence far older 
than a decade that are still laughed at. The supporting evidence is not 
even addressed, it's ignored by 'science'. 
 
>>> Less so in the modern era.  Problem is defining what Knowledge really is.
>>
>>More so 'long term'. 

> Not really.  Time was when a coterie of True Believers could have
> things pretty much to themselves.  But given the free flow of
> Information, that's about impossible any more.

'science' as it's own mechanisms to stop ideas that conflict with the 
present. It's what humans do. But somehow the same behavior with the 
'science' label on it is considered acceptable. 

>>Science does not have the 'open mind' you claim it does. It's populated 
>>by similiarly closed minded humans and people who have a vested interest 
>>in the status quo.

> If you wish to describe the Human Condition, have at it.  But if you
> wish to describe Science, you are missing the point.

Science is run by humans. Humans use the same behaviors to protect their 
pride, their power, their livelyhood, etc and so forth. That's the point. 
The whole concept of peer review works well at keeping people in line 
with the status quo with few willing to risk their livelyhoods seeking 
alternative explainations and evidence. 
 
>> Challenges are dealt with in a similiar manner much of 
>>the time. You can have a mountain of facts and evidence that supports 
>>your theory and still be laughed out of career. 

> Not for long.  Plate tectonics, for example, went from Laughable
> Theory to Revealed Truth in a relatively short time.  Hegel described
> the process you describe as a dialectic -- and even those take time.
> It's not a problem, save for those who want to whine about it.

If waiting 10s to hundreds of years isn't a problem. Of course on those 
time scales even religion has been known to change. 

>>Just look at the burden of proof difference required for something that 
>>fits conventional thought and something that doesn't.
 
> The burden of proof fits Any theory that comes down the pike.  That
> would be all of them.  Propose something new and you'd best have some
> evidence to prove it out.

It's not a question of 'some evidence'. It's the fact that overwhelming 
evidence is often not enough to overturn the status quo. One basically 
has to wait for enough people to die and hope to out live them while 
making converts of the young. 
 
>> If it fits 
>>conventional thought but the evidence is thin it's not even given much of 
>>a second glance. Have a 100 times that in volume and quality for a theory 
>>that throws convention on it's ass and expect to still be called a kook. 

> And this is a problem precisely How?
> 
> When Einstein challenged the Newtonians, we had Michaelson and Morley
> coming up with Experimental Evidence that didn't fit the conventional
> wisdom.  Lowered Nowe folks tried to make it do so, but within a short
> time it was thrown out.  The phlogiston theory of fire worked wondrous
> well until the scientific experimenters tossed it out.
 
> Do that with a superstition having No experimental evidence, if you
> can.

See, you are employing the very ridicule that I am talking about. What 
superstition am I claiming? None what so ever. But here you are trying to 
make it appear that I am some superstitious creationist when I am nothing 
of the sort. But it's easy to discredit and ridicule rather than accept 
the fact that science is not always, hell, often never the ideal of which 
you and I wish it were. It's nice when it works, but often it doesn't, 
because humans are running it, and wether those humans believe in science 
or religion they can be very much the same. 
 
>>> If it's to become Knowledge, then Science is rather better at dealing
>>> with such things than is mere superstition.

>>The only variable is the amount of power wielded by those trying to 
>>surpress it.
 
> Nope.  the main variable is the amount of Actual Evidence.

Did you know that the ruler who built the great pyramid of giza is given 
credit because of a small bit of grafitti bearing his name in a small 
chamber of the structure? This is what conventional science bases the 
idea that it was his tomb, etc and so forth. This one fact. 

So, you might want to scribe your name in the elevator shaft of the sears 
tower and who knows, in 4000 years, after this civilization has long 
collasped and vanished, you might find that you are given credit for it's 
construction. Other people will have theories that it was a giant office 
building, some might even uncover it was called the 'Sears Tower'. They 
will be laughed at, ridiculed. Because all real scientists know Homuth 
built it and the observation floor was his tomb where his spirit could go 
to the realm of the gods. After all, Homuth must have been a great ruler 
and no such glorious structure would be the offices of a store that sold 
general goods. 
 
>> The religious types have simply been more effective because 
>>they have often controlled governments and militaries throughout the 
>>centuries and used them to enforce religious belief. 

> The times they are and will be a-changing -- and it's going to happen
> more rapidly in the future.

Don't be so sure. The status quo likes to hang around.