[MD] Earth the Centre of the Universe

Wed Oct 20 09:57:23 PDT 2010

Who are you accusing of what Mark ? (Addressing that comment to me ... ?)

(It's that faith and dogma aspect of science I was pointing out.)

And again .... the active dialogue (beyond falsification) must
therefore not be ignorant of evidence that doesn't fit dogmatic theory
.... you'd agree ?

The leaders are followers too .... shoulders of giants, etc.
Ian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:50 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian and Marsha and whomever,
>
> All this treatment of the scientific method as if it were some foreign
> beast.  When you stick your hand in the shower to check the temperature,
> that is science at work.  Maybe you take cold showers, I don't know.  It is
> the unquestioned faith in what science proposes that is the problem, the
> followers, not the leaders.  Every theory is temporary and either grows or
> is replaced.  It is an active dialogue not a terminal summary.
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:11 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian,
>>
>> I see the hope in the enigma, that science is beyond "making sense."
>> It might be a time for a paradigm shift in thinking.  There's hints and
>> hope.
>> I love the quantum micro and macro, though.  It's all very exciting as
>> scientists
>> become entangled in their own beliefs.
>>
>> There does seem to be a false dichotomy in the air:  objective science OR
>> subjective god.  That's why I love and respect the MoQ and Buddhism..
>> There's a better/middle way.  And why I go on about reification/som.  Break
>> that habit and you have a whole new and improved game to play.  But, as
>> I've read and know first-hand, it is a hard habit to break.  imho.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>
>> > Marsha,
>> >
>> > DMB has his own agenda (and style of ridicule), in particular in this
>> > context defending scientific rationality against anti-intellectual
>> attacks
>> > from the right, and spurious god / religion / theology arguments. There
>> are
>> > millions of people in that debate right now - my lone voice in support of
>> > enlightened rationality will not be missed.
>> >
>> > I'm focussed on making science better (in whatever small ways I can) ...
>> > better understand itself and its relation to the mythos ... so that it
>> > doesn't fall into the idolatrous trap of absolute intellectual
>> superiority
>> > like any two-bit religion. (In doing so, I do risk appearing not to
>> support
>> > the first argument .... but nothing could be further from the truth.)
>> >
>> > If I wrote so dmb could understand me, I think our differences would be
>> > purely tactical - choosing our battlegrounds.
>> >
>> > Standing by for DMB's ridicule.
>> > Ian
>> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Geez, someone criticized Hawking in this forum and was soundly ridiculed
>> >> by dmb?  I have watched all the Hawking dvd programs available; one more
>> >> to go.  Find it important to know where I am pointing my skepticism.  -
>> >> It's
>> >> interesting story-telling.  Once upon a time there was singularity...
>> >>
>> >> Wallace's book was great!   -   I can only change myself, which may be
>> the
>> >> best way to assist social change.  When in public I _try_ to spread good
>> >> cheer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Marsha
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 20, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Agreed. Hawking (media superstar) is part of the problem of current day
>> >>> science, all he can do is deepen the hole it's in.
>> >>>
>> >>> Science will rise to its true position if it winds back 80 years or so.
>> >> The
>> >>> problem with science now is that it is (in its own mind and in public
>> >>> consciousness and media generally) too exalted. Unfortunately, to be
>> >> called
>> >>> scientific is to be praised - hallelujah. Idolatry in action.
>> >>>
>> >>> But - let's try and do something about it - do as we would be done by.
>> >>> Look at the specific scientific error in the big bang stuff (I provided
>> >> 10
>> >>> or more links) ... and use it as an example to spread awareness of the
>> >>> problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ian
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry.  I meant science.  It will take much more than
>> >>>> Hawking hawking its theories to resurrect science to
>> >>>> an exalted position.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Marsha,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Wallace book, I've heard of, but ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Resurrect "it" - what's "it" ?
>> >>>>> Whose comments on what programme ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>>>> Ian
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ian,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The Wallace book 'Choosing Reality' was enlightening.  It will take
>> >>>>>> much more than a Hawking to resurrect it.  It's hard to keep from
>> >>>>>> laughing at his program comments.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Marsha
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Oct 20, 2010, at 5:33 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If science is right it appears Copernicus was right all along, and
>> >> the
>> >>>>>> Earth
>> >>>>>>> really is the centre of the universe.
>> >>>>>>> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3589
>> >>>>>>> (Clue - science is wrong - shock, horror ;-o )
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Ian
>> >>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >>>>>>> Archives:
>> >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >>>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ___
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >>>>>> Archives:
>> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >>>>> Archives:
>> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ___
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >>>> Archives:
>> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>>>
>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >>> Archives:
>> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> >> Archives:
>> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> >>
>> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > Archives:
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>