Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[wags]

Thing is,
How to "prove" something New ... using Old "methods" ? a method which - to some degree - we all find insufficient ? I mean, if it doesn't "fit" the railway widht, the carriage does not exist ? .... FFS !!

Ahh...

The method is sound, look around all around you. Technological progress has firm roots in that old method.

I arrive at a different conclusion to if it does not fit it does not exist, it just means that whatever 'it' is has not been isolated and explained YET! When we discussed the experiment we were devising a method to isolate and test the hypothesis put forward that the Lazaryan tones had an impact on background radiation. We spent time trying to isolate as many 'other' factors that could contribute to the observations reported. The problem is not the method but our imagination and fear of finding out it was a mistaken affect but it might uncover an unexpected and unlooked for result. Science has examples of this 'accidental' discovery. (Discovery of Penicillin and Dye (Blue I think).

It took many people to devise a train ... from the machine itself first to the engineers to fathom a usage for it to the factory to build to the men to set the rails.


Engineers usually do not fathom usage, of a technology, that is left to inventors and the free market, Though Brunel thought that the rails should be wider but the market said otherwise. His thought which is correct, was that it provide a safer, smoother and more efficient train ride. The carriage exists, but the rails are not, due to the market.

[LuisP]

"snip"
The problem is not the method but our imagination and fear of finding out it was a mistaken affect but it might uncover an unexpected and unlooked for result. Science has examples of this 'accidental' discovery. (Discovery of Penicillin and Dye (Blue I think).

The problema is the method .... due to its dismissal of "essential" tools to uncover unexpected and unlooked results.

When "science" takes some of those tools in, it discovers - accidentally - very important things.

Newton "saw" an apple falling from a tree, Fleming "remembered" a forgotten dish, Einstein "didn't believe" in God playing dice.

Take from them the capacity for "understanding" what no "science method " had taught and all you would have gotten from these men would be rotten apples, a fuller garbage bin and another patent being patiently registred in Austria.


Can't you see, Wags ??

[wags]

"snip"
The problem is not the method but our imagination and fear of finding out it was a mistaken affect but it might uncover an unexpected and unlooked for result. Science has examples of this 'accidental' discovery. (Discovery of Penicillin and Dye (Blue I think).

The problema is the method .... due to its dismissal of "essential" tools to uncover unexpected and unlooked results.

When "science" takes some of those tools in, it discovers - accidentally - very important things.

Newton "saw" an apple falling from a tree, Fleming "remembered" a forgotten dish, Einstein "didn't believe" in God playing dice.

Take from them the capacity for "understanding" what no "science method " had taught and all you would have gotten from these men would be rotten apples, a fuller garbage bin and another patent being patiently registred in Austria.


Can't you see, Wags ??

The science rational method was applied in all cases cited. Both Einstein and Newton used maths the real language of science. Fleming applied the science method to the 'accident'.

The inspiration or idea, is only the first step. Can you not see that the method is sound and can be applied to anything if you think. Rubbishing the method is sorry to say an 'irrational' conclusion. If it is something outside science then it is not science it is something else.

Rubbishing science because one is incapable of following it is just lazy non science opinion. (advocacy has usurped scrutiny).

[LuisP]

Wags
I'm not a very able "two-liner" when it comes to punch my thoughts. Hope you have then the patience to read.

You either misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear or you simply refuse to understand what I say.
I am not an apologist of “rubbishing” science. Matter of fact, I used to believe in it completely. Until, that is, I came to be familiar – just lightly, unfortunately - with the fact that science is an “incomplete tool” that can, for that single fact alone, be Wrong, and that outside the perimeter of what we Know exists an even greater one of things that “we only suspect”.

And I am setting my feet there, on that larger suspicion zone.

One which “science” – as it is “practiced” using its “methods” – is incapable of providing answers, therefore laying ground for questions to be asked as to why not “enlarge” the method with what – till a very recent past – were tools best described as Fraud or Pathology.

If a scientist named Galileo said that “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” and another scientist named Einstein further clarified “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth” why then, I ask, can’t you see that “the method” may be sound …. but it cannot be applied to anything ?

Philosophers of Science have tried to reason precisely this – why can’t you ?

One, name of Paul Feyerabend, said that “a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable”, another, name of Larry Laudan, said that “ If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary” and yet another, name of Thomas Kuhn, went as far as saying that “The notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria” !

Not only “philosophers” but real “hands-on scientists” have realized as much.

It is not just the recurrent Tesla and his statement (prophecy? warning ?) that “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence" but what about John O’M.Bockris, who is considered to be one of the top two or three electrochemists of the 20th century, and his book published in 2005 titled “The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena” where he addresses dozens of “phenomena” – scientifically detected and also scientifically unexplained – that fall, all of them, outside the domain of mainstream science ?

You, Wags, may say that if one questions “Science” and its “Method” when up against paradigm-inconsistent findings is just “ because one is incapable of following it (and) is just lazy non science opinion” where “advocacy has usurped scrutiny”.

But Brockis had this to say :

- “Historically, big discoveries have been made by following up experiments anomalous to the theory of the time … At present, the attitude towards paradigm-inconsistent findings is automatically to reject them, with anger, insisting that they are due to sloppy experiments or fraud”.

I hope I’m not sounding presumptuous, but just true, if I say that I stand with Brockis. And with Galileo, Tesla, Einstein, Feyerabend, Laudan and Kuhn.

Math, Wags, may be the “Translator” of science.
But it is far less than its Language.

As all those guys knew it.
And so strived to understand what their “method” couldn’t explain, and by that “advocacy” changed “science” as it was known.

For only after having understood, were they able to translate it.
Not before.

Problem is, will it take Genius to do that ?
or a simple change of present “methods” be enough ?



Who is lazy, Wags ?

[wags]

Wags
I'm not a very able "two-liner" when it comes to punch my thoughts. Hope you have then the patience to read.

You either misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear or you simply refuse to understand what I say.
I am not an apologist of “rubbishing” science. Matter of fact, I used to believe in it completely. Until, that is, I came to be familiar – just lightly, unfortunately - with the fact that science is an “incomplete tool” that can, for that single fact alone, be Wrong, and that outside the perimeter of what we Know exists an even greater one of things that “we only suspect”.

Of course it is incomplete but in matters of scientific claims those are subject to scientific scrutiny. The ideas are but the first stage. If it fails the scientific scrutiny it is dismissed until it does.

And I am setting my feet there, on that larger suspicion zone.

One which “science” – as it is “practiced” using its “methods” – is incapable of providing answers, therefore laying ground for questions to be asked as to why not “enlarge” the method with what – till a very recent past – were tools best described as Fraud or Pathology.

If a scientist named Galileo said that “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” and another scientist named Einstein further clarified “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth” why then, I ask, can’t you see that “the method” may be sound …. but it cannot be applied to anything ?

Philosophers of Science have tried to reason precisely this – why can’t you ?

I have and I see no conflict here. Here Galileo is referring to the church's is dogmatic approach to the observations and reasoning of a natural philosopher, (science was not fully developed). If humble or authoritative reasoning does not comply with observation or experiment it is just plain not understood properly. The method cannot be always applied but it in the matters discussed here it can. Just got to find it! That is not easy as it sounds.

One, name of Paul Feyerabend, said that “a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable”, another, name of Larry Laudan, said that “ If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary” and yet another, name of Thomas Kuhn, went as far as saying that “The notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria” !

Not only “philosophers” but real “hands-on scientists” have realized as much.

I disagree with this entirely, science is objective, to be scientific means it has reached that objectivity standard. Why else would JH claim to be a scientist when he is not.

It is not just the recurrent Tesla and his statement (prophecy? warning ?) that “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence" but what about John O’M.Bockris, who is considered to be one of the top two or three electrochemists of the 20th century, and his book published in 2005 titled “The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena” where he addresses dozens of “phenomena” – scientifically detected and also scientifically unexplained – that fall, all of them, outside the domain of mainstream science ?

You, Wags, may say that if one questions “Science” and its “Method” when up against paradigm-inconsistent findings is just “ because one is incapable of following it (and) is just lazy non science opinion” where “advocacy has usurped scrutiny”.

But Brockis had this to say :

- “Historically, big discoveries have been made by following up experiments anomalous to the theory of the time … At present, the attitude towards paradigm-inconsistent findings is automatically to reject them, with anger, insisting that they are due to sloppy experiments or fraud”.

I hope I’m not sounding presumptuous, but just true, if I say that I stand with Brockis. And with Galileo, Tesla, Einstein, Feyerabend, Laudan and Kuhn.

Math, Wags, may be the “Translator” of science.
But it is far less than its Language.

As all those guys knew it.
And so strived to understand what their “method” couldn’t explain, and by that “advocacy” changed “science” as it was known.

For only after having understood, were they able to translate it.
Not before.

Problem is, will it take Genius to do that ?
or a simple change of present “methods” be enough ?

Who is lazy, Wags ?

There is a method to such translation and it is called a science paper.

[LuisP]

If it fails the scientific scrutiny it is dismissed until it does.

*sigh*

The method cannot be always applied but it in the matters discussed here it can

*sigh*

Why else would JH claim to be a scientist when he is not

*sigh*

There is a method to such translation and it is called a science paper.

*sigh*

[LuisP]

Sighing so much made me crave for a cigarette....

[wags]

Luis,

I think we may be at cross purposes to some extent. I see science as only one descriptor and when I said discarded it is in relation to the 4 p's model. The speculative and blue sky thinking is not precluded, a theorist will spend a lot of time thinking and discussing ways of discovering the relationship say between gravity and energy and devising an experiment (thought experiments useful as well) that isolates and proves this. Darwin is a classical example of this and taking twenty years to test and consider his profound leap of imagination of evolution.

[wags]

I have drawn these two posts together as they appear to have reached 'similar' conclusions:-

Rose,

In my view, I am merely pointing out something. Look at how many individuals have had run-ins with either of them and look at how those run-ins were handled. I never once saw any name calling from one of the two whereas the other partook quite freely.

Were they both wounded?....absolutely

Will time heal the friendship?....time will tell (pithy answer I realize)...but only if it had any richness to it to begin with.

If I am wrong to point any of this out, I apologize but to me it is apparent. What I saw was a friend attempting to use the friendship to coerce another friend into doing "something". When it didn't work out in the manner that the first wanted then it became a matter of loyalty. True friends should never expect them to anything out of character. Ergo, in my world, they may only have had a one-sided friendship but then, that is just an empirical view. But then look at a certain individual and I. That was one-sided as long as I played along and kept blinders on. True friendships should value not only the commonality that existed at the beginning of the friendship but also the diversity that creates good conversation...sometimes referred to as respect.

Just my thoughts,

Mikado

And FB wrote on the token:

Yeah, I noticed that.
Both the abrupt flip of loyalties and also the symptoms of fear shown by some players.
I also notice the arrogant hubris shown by some of the other players once they drop their masks.

I don't think I have EVER heard wags tell someone to STFU.
That came as a surprise, normally it is I who resorts to vulgarity.
But I did learn at the start of the year that much of my "friendship" with that person was illusory.I've seen a lot and learned quite a bit this year.

FB.

Is this what you had in mind Mikado?

[Mikado14]

I have drawn these two posts together as they appear to have reached 'similar' conclusions:-

Rose,

In my view, I am merely pointing out something. Look at how many individuals have had run-ins with either of them and look at how those run-ins were handled. I never once saw any name calling from one of the two whereas the other partook quite freely.

Were they both wounded?....absolutely

Will time heal the friendship?....time will tell (pithy answer I realize)...but only if it had any richness to it to begin with.

If I am wrong to point any of this out, I apologize but to me it is apparent. What I saw was a friend attempting to use the friendship to coerce another friend into doing "something". When it didn't work out in the manner that the first wanted then it became a matter of loyalty. True friends should never expect them to anything out of character. Ergo, in my world, they may only have had a one-sided friendship but then, that is just an empirical view. But then look at a certain individual and I. That was one-sided as long as I played along and kept blinders on. True friendships should value not only the commonality that existed at the beginning of the friendship but also the diversity that creates good conversation...sometimes referred to as respect.

Just my thoughts,

Mikado

And FB wrote on the token:

Yeah, I noticed that.
Both the abrupt flip of loyalties and also the symptoms of fear shown by some players.
I also notice the arrogant hubris shown by some of the other players once they drop their masks.

I don't think I have EVER heard wags tell someone to STFU.
That came as a surprise, normally it is I who resorts to vulgarity.
But I did learn at the start of the year that much of my "friendship" with that person was illusory.I've seen a lot and learned quite a bit this year.

FB.

Is this what you had in mind Mikado?

Unfortunately, Yes.

I find it quite interesting in that he would identify or classify when individuals comment on their experience as hubris. I wonder if he really knows the meaning of the word. His posts about himself being an engineer for example is nothing but hubris. His chest pounding about "what he has in the other room that operates under transconductance (paraphrasing)" is nothing but hubris.

I would not classify what Linda Leach does as hubris but would definitely define it as some type of mental disorder of which I am reminded of the statement her parents would say that she so often claimed to over hear (probably was hiding around a corner or listening through the wall) - "she need not know". We can see why they would say that due to her overactive imagination and in retrospect of past events, they were more than likely quite aware of ....let's just say tendencies.

On another note, I remember a post by your friend that was aimed at myself in that he commented that if I had something in regard to ElectroGravitics than I should be sitting surrounded by lots of money. What does that say about him? What does that say in regard to his association with Linda Leach?.....looking for a pot of gold that he can manipulate or convert into his own? He definitely lacks the tenacity of experimentation and is hypercritical of others who have such and always looking for instantaneous results. I too can be hypercritical at times when I see a lack of thoroughness in setting up experiments when attempting to establish heretofore unknown principles....document....document.....document. I believe your friend only wishes to plug it in and claim it as his own, at least from what I have seen...I could be wrong but I don't believe it would be totally wrong. I would bet, as I have said before, that he is quite creative when presented with something in front of him but when creative/originality from scratch of something unknown, he is lacking and thus he is hypercritical from a feeling of inadequacy. Empirical observation only.

We all have friends that have faults just as we have faults in friendships. If the friendship endures then those faults are accepted as part of the deal for the good points outweigh the bad. However, as I have intimated in previous posts, perhaps your friendship was tilted...perhaps not....no one can say but time will tell. However, as this goes on, one can see harm being done by a third party which is exactly what a socio/psychopathic does...she wins...that is what it is all about with them. She has won a friendship by destroying what you had and just as a child grows weary of a toy, she will too at some point. They are separated by a continent and an ocean. They have a long distance relationship(friendship) and it will last only as long as admiration and agreement comes from your friend.

And how long will it be until she deletes his account?.....when the cat gets tired of the mouse

Mikado