cladking

Yes. This is my intention to start another thread; something along the lines "how the pyramids were really built". I'm not sure of the tactics or strategy yet. Frankly, I've tried almost everything many times and even my supporters tend to be doubtful about many aspects. They are doubtful because I can provide intimate detail about construction and what the builders actually believed. I can tell you what most of the "scepters" really were and how they originated. I can show what most features of the pyramids and their "aprons" were for and even details about little known struictures and features. People don't seenm to believe I can understand the writing and get into the heads of the authors by reading English translations. There's no reason anyone should necessarily believe I can explain many of the glyphys and understand a means of communication that no longer exists. There is the fact though that this theory all hangs together and makes accurate predictions even though it is counter to basic beliefs of nearly all people. I too try philosophical discussions but so many people bring so many axes to these discussions. It seems progress in these is very difficult to achieve but it is easier in this venue to have complicated ideas understood. True knowledge is visceral. This isn't to say other knowledge isn't real or isn't true so much as to say most of our actions are predicated on belief and defined only by visceral knowledge. Certainly this latter appliies to scientists to a lesser degree than other people. There's no reason that a person with complex visceral knowledge might come upon an idea that hasn't been studied before and is accurate. Ideas are events and they are the result of events. They are correlated with knowledge and especially the kind of knowledge we know forward and backward or visceral knowledge. It's what you know in your bones. Ideas and human progress have little or nothing to do with what people call "intelligence" because it virtually doesn't exist at all.

Yes. This is a theory and there are great number of simple facts to support it. I believe the theory is sound due to its ability to predict. That it upsets so many commonly held beliefs simply highlights the fact that language really is confused.

No. I cited evidence, you pretended it didn't exist. This is exactly the subject of this thread. If people can't see the conjecture then they don't address it and cite irrelevancies. You can't just say there's no evidence after it's stated.

More accurately you are simply simply stating irrelevancy. You probably feel that this is a refutation of my logic and facts but you haven't addressed the logic or facts at all and merely cited your opinion about the implications of my words. Your opinion is it's just assertion but you haven't said how it's possible that they wouldn't know any sceptres or why you believe they don't need to. If you attacked the actual argument it could proceed and possibly end up at the truth. That you don't agree was going to be given in the first place was it not? That you don't agree hardly means you can't see the truth merely that you interprets facts differenmtly or see from a different perspective. In this case you apparently just have a different perspective since you have not cited logic or facts. A different perspective doesn't make you wrong but it sure as hell doesn't make me wrong either. The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age. They write many many books about the meaning of even the simplest terms. Can you imagine archaeologists in the future writing endless tomes about the meaning of our word "pipe"? It's impossible that a clear understanding can exist and these facts be true.

I'm sorry, I thought I had said it but merely implied it. This is much like Egyptologists never really say the Egyptians never changed and actually often point out differences between the culture over time. But these differences are rather inconsequential and involve things like which "god" arose at what time and when words changed to include new meanings. That they don't understansd the older culture is simple fact. It's a simple fact they don't recognize because after 150 years of intensive study they naturally see what they think they know and never notice things like that they can't tell you the origin or function of any of the icons. Even the most basic icons like the ankh is not understood!!! They know only that it's a glyph and means "life". This even applies to many of the glyphs; they can "read" them but don't understand how they came to represent a word or sound. Perhaps the most telling proof that they don't understand is that they believe the ancients believed in magic and religion. But even after centuries of study they don't know either the origin or function of a single one of the 27 different known "magic" scepters. Many people will say that it doesn't matter if Egyptologists understand the magic or religion since it's unlikely either were effective in the real world anyway. Obviously to most of us this is very true. But this misses the point. There is almost nothing at all on which to understand the so called beliefs of the ancient people other than a single book of magic called the Pyramid Texts and this isn't understood. ALL OF THE OTHER PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL EVIDENCE fails to support ramps and suggests that the pyramids were built with water filled counterweights. The fact that most of this evidence is weak is irrelevant because it all fits a different pattern than Egyptologists believe. Add in the fact that the Pyramid Texts when solved by context says that Egyptologists are wrong and it makes a very strong case. Egyptologists never say that the people never changed. What they do is solve the Pyramid Texts in terms of the book of the dead and use definitions from later times to understand words. They pound the incomprehensible Pyramid Texts into the book of the dead. The book of the dead is just superstition and religion so after they solve the PT in terms of it the PT become superstition and religion as well. Words that appear a single time in the ncient record and whose meaning can't possibly be deduced are simply assumed to have the same referent to the older authors as to the writers of the book of the dead. They have created a frankenstein's monster of the PT which is not in any way reflective of the people or the intent of the authors. It can't be shown to reflect the people because there are almost no points outside the PT to demonstrate it. Or it might be said most points outside the PT in support are from many centuries later. As they interpret the work it is internally inconsistent and illogical. They ascribe these properties to many origins and the nature of magic but there are simple facts that argue against this. For instance, nothing gives them more headache than the simplest term in the book; "the eye of horus". This is simply any opening for "serpents" which were gasses, liquids, or any fluids. Egyptologists write book about the meaning of this term because every time it's used it appears to have a different meaning to modern language speakers. If you think that the "gods" are consciousnesses that rule men's destiny you can't understand that a body part is actually an aspect of a natural phenomenon. Egyptologist misunderstand the ancient language in exactly the same way as the authors of the book of the dead. As time goes by this will become increasingly obvious and the reasons will become increasingly obvious. The same errors are forced by the formatting of the ancient language and our language is confused in the same way as that of the authors of the book of the dead. The same incorrect assumptions are made. No, Egyptologists revel in the changes and hope identifying these changes will someday lead to understanding the Pyramid Texts, but so long as their basic assumptions are wrong it was probably very very unlikely they could have ever gotten to the correct answer if my theory is the correct answer. It would have required a breakthrough in a different area just as it did for me. And the root cause of the inability to see this, much more than our confused lanuage, is the assumption that nothing ever changed. This is just so basic to the problem. Remember that Egyptologists often say they have a mountain of proof for their theories. They mistakingly believe this because they are using extrapolations from later eras to understand and what proof for this can be stronger than the simple fact that the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age? There is no mountain of proof; there is a mountain of extrapolations founded on several common sense assumptions from the 19th century. These assumptions just happened to be wrong, the extrapolations illegitimate, and the entire construct created on sand. This hardly means I hate Egyptologists or all scientists. But I do have a unique perspective of what might be the true nature of language and how it affects ALL people including Egyptologists. I simply haven't gotten around yet to thinking a lot about how it afects science but, obviously, anything that affects all scientist does affect the pursuit and understanding of science.

There's nothing vainglorious about the way I think. I have no delusions about my mental abilities. I'm dense as a brick and a little thick. My ability to follow directions or to think logically AND rigorously are severely restricted. I'm self taught and had a terrible teacher which was only OK because I was worse student. I invented my own courses and tried to develop my intuition. This is how I think. It's not like other people any more than my training is like other peoples'. I am a self taught specialist in generalism which is a field that doesn't even exist. I know almost nothing but can intuit enough to get by in a lot of situations. If this weren't strange enough the last eight years have certainly made me even more different. I think exceedingly quickly. Not accurately. I've never actually recorded the entire debunkment of the paradigm in a single place and it's not really necessaary to do so to destroy it through undermining. Essentially the Egyptological paradigm holds that the great pyramid builders were superstitious and changeless people who dragged tombs up ramps. I can address and attack each of these incorrect tenets but only ramps are well debunked. It really shouldn't be necessary to debunk the idea that the people were "changeless" because there is nothing about the people that is understood. It's impossible to say something never changed if the original state can't be determined. They invented this idea of changelessness because they did understand the later people so they projected attributes of these later people backward in time. This is why Egyptology tends to have anachronisms everywhere. The chronology is warped to help "understand" the great pyramid builders. Unfortunately I'm not on my own computer right now so can't easily locate the debunkment. Just suffice to say for now that the word "ramp" isn't even attested in the Egyptian language in the great pyramid building age. What is attested is the means that were actually used to build it but this is recorded in a language which looks like superstitious gobbledty gook until it is solved by context. Each word that is used acquires connotative and definitional characteristics each time it is used. When you start solving the meaning of the words then a different kind of language emerges that is metaphysical in nature and expresses meaning differently than modern language. This language implies that the means to build it that I had intuited initially was exactly the means actually used. What it says is in close agreement with the physical evidence though it should be noted that my solution to the problem (the details) were deduced from a comparison of the physical evidence and what the builders actually said in their metaphysical language. I can add the debunkment at a later time easily enough but it is exactly what I promised; widespread physical and cultural evidenbce that supports using the weight of water to build the great pyramids rather than ramps. The fact people don't believe this and present endless irrelevancies as support for their position changes nothing. They most likely used water to lift the stones and ramps are debunked. In the last few years Egyptologists have been trying and failing to rebunk ramps (since 2011). They are still not doing the simple testing that would positively identify the means used and probably would indicate the use of water filled counterweights to lift the stone.

I'm reasonably confident I'm right. It's a complex and involved theory that likely has aspects that are wrong but I'm more than 70% confident that the overall solution is essentially correct. This is based on very very extensive and very very widespread evidence of various types. Most of this evidence is low-grade however. Only two pieces of physical evidence are what I consider high grade evidence and neither even in aggregate is conclusive. The fact is all this evidence fits a definitive pattern and this pattern is diametrically opposed to the current paradigm. Additionally and more importantly the theory makes accurate predictions and the paradigm does not. The paradigm is very very poorly supported by the evidence and most of it doesn't fit at all so is simply considered irrelevant. While I still lack widespread support there is a bevy of new theories each year and they increasingly are similar to mine. Indeed, very recently other parties may have discovered some fairly good physical evidence to support their new theory which is very similar to mine and which I have been trying to incorporate into my theory since it is very sound and reasonably well evidenced. While there's no reason to believe I've won or wilkl win this is the direction everything is headed. There isn't a lot of evidence of anything but it fits my theory because my theory was built around the evidence. The paradigm was built around 19th century assumptions. Curiously I've long suspected my theory might be proven statistically but I don't know how. Modern language is irrelevant to the evidence because all the evidence existed before the onset of modern language. The physical evidence suggests the engineering solution and the other evidence suggests that language changed. There was a single world wide language and then it changed to the many modern languages. It is the unseen change in language which hid this from the scholars and experts who would otherwise have seen it clearly. I'm not sure why they can't see it now but they have refused to talk to me directly for years now.

Really?!? I sure missed that contrary evidence! If I had actually seen it I'd have had to google up the widespread studies that have been done on the subject. I have no unique insight and never said I did. I have a unique perspective derived from stumbling on the solution to an engineering problem and being forced by naysayers to prove it. I've made no momentus discoveries but have likely made the biggest rediscovery that will ever exist in human history. Truth to tell the biggest thing I did will probably never be seen at all as it will be considered incidental; I debunked the paradigm. If I'm right the paradigm will be seen as so easy to debunk it's almost irrelevant. So far this is the only thing that has professional interest at all. I'm sure they don't care one whit about my solution. I actually arrived at the solution in a matter of seconds but the debunkment required years of study and lots of help from my friends.

It's no big deal. I know you believe you're addressing my points but from my perspective you aren't. This is what I mean by "irrelevancies". I specifically defined "applied science" as a virtual null set because of the difficulty of building on philosophical constructs due to the confusion in language. I defined it as the integration of human needs with scientific knowledge. You are under no obligation to accept my defintion but if you don't like it curtesy would seem to indicate that you either redefine it or provide another term or phrase for my usage. I also defined technology as a by-product of experimental science. There are reasons I define it this way. Primarily it's because observational science generates just as much learning and far more visceral knowledge. There is a tendency for people to believe that if the technology is lacking then the sophistication and extent of knowledge must be missing as well and this is obscured by modern language. We all share a perspective (in basic things) but use numerous definitions (even when both parties are using words properly). After all this effort you equated technology with applied science without comment, refutation, or definition of terms. Your statement was perhaps true or perhaps the least confused way of seeing reality but it was wholly irrelevant to anything I said. It wouldn't matter how many times you say it since it doesn't apply to what I'm saying. You consider it a refutation but it has no meaning to me except to show me your definition and that you didn't comment on my point directly. This is typical and it's the way almost everything that lies outside our experience tends to be addressed. We don't see what we don't expect and understand. We see what we do expect so rather than argue my point you state your's. You are intimately fanmiliar with your points and your perspectives but what I say must be wrong because it's outside your experience. It's perfectly normal. And it's completely frustrating. I am patient and persistent and I'm most probably right. Even though many people believe they've shown me to be wrong many times and cited the same irelevancies, there's a very good chance I'm right. Until some simple science is done to prove me wrong the evidence all agrees with me even though it is fantastic. Reality is rather fantastic so no one should be surprised when any given fact is surprising or has strange ramifications. This is a problem for a lot of people. I mean exactly what I say, everything I say, and exactly as I say it. It is intended literally and comprehensively so if I don't say it there's a good chance it is the same as saying it doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I try to make literary device use obvious to avoid confusion. In very real ways I am using an updated free flowing form of ancient thought expressed in modern language. I try to be very careful to use the same definition for each word each time unless the secondary definition in the usage is highly apparent. Some people actually get used to it believe it or not.

Need point out how poor the communication has become in this thread this evening? I've actually overheard two people having two different conversations and not know it. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these things than most people but you should see how startled they are when you give them a short synopsis of the two conversation; He's talking about Pontiacs and you're talking about Christmas. This is very common, nearly typical.

Not every fringe theory will dispute the fact it takes 2.3 s for the object to hit the ground but this won't stop someone who doesn't understand the theory to say that it can't be right because it will take 2.3 s for the ball and ground to collide or that the ground is spinning at 1000 MPH so the fringe can't be right. Very often irrelevancies are brought up and repeated over and over as though they are evidence against the new idea. You can repeat until you grow blue in the face that the fact is irrelevant to the theory or is even predicted by the theory but it comes up over and over again as though it is somehow proof of the paradigm. Just because some objection is factual it is not automatically relevant. Some of these objections are simply ludicrous and a few I've adopted to rub in the faces of orthodox thinkers. I use their own irrelevancies against them. I'm not certain they appreciate the irony but they quit using it as an argument after a couple years. I'm not sure of the degree that language interferes with the performance of good science. I'm sure it's a factor and I'm sure to date there is simply no alternative because to date there is no alternative to modern language. As I've said though, just recognizing the limitations of language would go a long way to mitigating the problems caused by language. Most of the damage is done through poor communication so if people sit down and define terms communication problems will be largely redressed. This is especially true in science where terms can be more closely defined. This problem with language is likely to become more apparent with usage of the internet. People will see how two individuals using the same language are not communicating. The fact that most speculative ideas, most new ideas, are wrong is simply irrelevant to the fact that none of them are very well refuted. Don't take me wrong here, a lot are obviously nonsense and don't require much refutation or attention but they are shunted aside on the basis of irrelevancies sometimes as well. This isn't to say that I understand all these hairbrained ideas or the sometimes well thought out refutations. I'm merely saying many posts don't appear to address the actual "theory" or anything predicted by it. A proper refutation must use math, facts, or logic, and it must address the theory and the differences in predictions between it and "established" theory or knowledge. I've seen well thought out and poorly thought out ideas alike tarred with the same brush in some places. Even poorly thought out ideas might have a kernal of truth. I guess you overlooked the statement I specifically made that Strange has yet to address a single point of anything I said. If you had seen it I'm sure you would have refuted it and shown me where he did address my point. Has it occurred to you that if he has failed to even respond to what I say that it doesn't matter how many times he says it because it still won't apply to what I'm saying? All I can do is repeat my contention and ask people to respond to it as several here are doing. It does require patience and persistence by both sides but I am trying to respond to some of irrelevancies despite the fact they don't apply to what I'm saying. I'm trying to establish some common ground so we can communicate.

This isn't my theory. My theory is related to an engineering question and the observation about language is a derivation or extrapolation (depending on perspective) from it. It is one of the few extrapolations relevant to the topic at hand beyond my experience in trying to get the engineering question solved. Indeed, it is this experience which has led to all this much more than the proposal itself. I've always known language is confused but now I have a better understanding of how it's confused, how it became confused, and the results of the confusion; such as modern science. I can even see the confusion in the historic record and make inferences about how people behaved behaved before the confusion. I believe it's possible that history from before the confusion and ancient science itself can be reconstructed. This is drifting off topic but the fact is there's plenty of reason to believe language is the root of human progress and it is confused. This is point and probably the root of much of the disagreements with "crackpots". No! Technology is a sort of magic trick cast off by science. It is primarily the result of the ability to take experiments out of the lab and build them in the concrete. It is the application of theory and knowledge to the real world needs of people individually and collectively. As an engineer I'm sure you understand the skills needed to invent something new. "Applied science" as I am using the term would be a branch of philosophy if it were even possible to build on the work of previous philosophers. It would answer questions like whether it's right to use stem cell research or use weaponry in some given application. It would integrate human needs with scientific knowledge. To some extent applied science exists but it's a very long time behind the times.

I was referring to the silly science that gets reported in the media. This would have been more apparent if you had read the next sentence as well.

Almost every word in every modern language has numerous meanings and the intended meaning only becomes clear through context. There are scientific words with more restricted meanings or whose intended meaning is more readily apparent but so long as each person sees a different meaning the problem can't be entirely eliminated. The problem is neither necessarily in the proposer nor the reader but is a result of language. One of the beauties of ancient language was each word had a single meaning and author intent was in formatting rather than stated directly. I have read many of these threads in Speculations and many seem to be very poorly worded and some are obviously poorly thought out. I've really enjoyed quite a few of these including some to which I haven't posted.

Perhaps we're talking about different things again. I'm just trying to draw parallels I see with universal applications. I am not trying to defend any "crackpot" theory, even my own. I've strongly avoided even stating it since it's not the topic. But I certainly see the same tactics and misunderstandings used against other "alternative" understandings of reality. Part of the problem is language because a sentence can be interpreted many different ways. Some of these are very natural because the person who composed the sentence used literary devices or hyperbole or nonstandadrd word meanings or poor phraseology. Even if you get it exactly right each reader takes his own understanding and responds based on that understanding. If the proposal is far outside expectations then this problem is greatly compounded. I'm really not complaining aboutr science. If I'm complaining at all it is against language and then, not so much against language as against the fact people don't realize the degree to which language is confused. Strange has yet to address any of my points or arguments but I'm sure this isn't intentional but rather that he misinterprets my intention. People are inclined to simply state their opinion when they see something outside their experience. It's very natural. The problem is language. I can't say anything in words that can't be deconstructed no matter how carefully I phrase it or how precisely each word is meant. I try to use tautologies to force readers to follow me but what's a tautology to me is off the wall nonsense to others. Rather than address the nonsense they ignore it altogether and state their opinion. Certainly there is no rigor in the softer sciences but there's no reason that the scientific process can't be adapted to any field of study. I'm confident many experts are more keenly aware of this than I am. But there's no excuse for failing to do even the most basic science in any human endeavor at all. It might not be highly productive in fields like wild mushroom picking but there is no aspect of human activity that is completely outside of scientific knowledge. This certainly applies to all the soft sciences.

I'll be watching though it sounds familiar. I'll try to respond if I can. This is why people so often respond with irrelevancies; they don't really understand the proposal because it's outside of their experience so they respond with their understanding of the reality which has no bearing on the proposal. Getting the confidence to go against the common wisdom is a big part of getting the point across. I knew a lot of what I know before 2009 but I lacked both the confidence and the ability to phrase things adequately. This is part of the reason the theory is so easily dismissed today is that earlier incarnations were too tentative and some aspects were wrong. People often remember these earlier missteps. If you don't believe you can prevail you won't start one of these quests. Interesting question. This is going to require extensive thought I believe. Off the top of my head and off the cuff, I believe it's worth understanding metaphysics for its own sake. The degree to which it affects the ability to learn is not readily apparent. It seems that integrating knowledge should always be beneficial. I'll get back to you.

I'm really not trying to demean anyone. I confess I sometimes have to work to avoid demeaning some of the soft sciences but it's not because soft scientists are soft in the head but because I believe they are wrong and don't mind being wrong so long as they have good company. They do have good company. Everyone is just trying to do what they think is right. I have no problem with this. I hope it never stops. I'm complaining that roosters are sitting on an apple and have waited 150 years for it to hatch. It's unnatural.

Incredibly the tests that need to be done are exceedingly inexpensive. One researcher has already offered to do the most important one with his own funding. and personal effort but they have refused to grant access. There are several I'd like done and would be willing to pay for a couple of them myself since they are so inexpensive. These would provide conclusive physical evidence to support the basis of the theory. One test that needs to be done would require significant effort but probably would cost less than $100,000. It's just a matter of rounding up the resources and expertise. Another would be exceedingly inexpensive but would require extensive effort. For the main part these are all gimmees that should have been done long ago but haven't because the results are predictable according to the paradigm or the results are expected. Rather than doing the actual science they are extrapolating from assumptions and deeming them unimportant. There are many such tests and the results from the inexpensive first ones will lead to knowing what to study next. Instead they are dragging their feet even after key assumptions have been debunked and others shown to be merely assumptions. People dismiss the evidence because it is weak. It is far stronger than current beliefs but it is weak. All scientists think in modern language. It's true that this statement is somewhat simplistic since I didn' think strictly in modern language even before I found these surprising new perspectives. But, all my thinking was founded in language and I merely used some short cuts to improve my intuition. No doubt everyone does this to a greater or lesser extent but it doesn't change the fact that people think in language and that this language is the primary determinant of much of their perspective. This applies to scientists as much as anyone. Scientists suffer confirmation bias as much as anyone. They simply engage in it at a much higher level and on more complicated subjects. It doesn't mean they're wrong or stupid, it's just the way the brain works. Modern language exascerbates this phenomena. Scientists aren't unwilling to consider new ideas; everyone has difficulty considering new ideas. Exactly. I've been a proponent of emphasizing the teaching of metaphysics from kindergarten onward for many years. Without an understanding of metaphysics one can't understand the results or meaning of scientific discoveries and theory. Modern metaphysics is so simple most individuals, even scientists, lose sight of it altogether and don't integrate new learning into its metaphysics. This is important, in my opinion. It is the root cause of the silly science that runs rampant today. Science is not flavor of the day or politically correct and it's not a religion but explaining this to the average man or politician is impossible.

Indeed. I've been doing this for years as well as pointing out that all the new discoveries are predicted by my theory and don't fit in the existing paradigm. The scientists do seem to be reacting a little to try to support the paradigm but they aren't running the simple tests and measurements that would prove they are wrong or that I am right. I'm stuck in a no man's land between a rock and a hard place. I find new support for my theory all the time (just as those with confirmation bias do), but none of it is conclusive. The chances of finding conclusive evidence within the existing data is not very high because this data is severely limited both by nature and by the establishment's refusal to do any testing. The last data gathered in 1987 are highly supportive of my theory and very little has been done since. I'm patient and persistent. I probably should devote more time to study and less time to tryng to convince people but there are several practical problems associated with this. Chief among them is that pretty much all the evidence, especially the contradictory evidence, has been analyzed to death at this point. There's little farther I can take it at all without more evidence. Also the implications are staggering and hold far more interest to me. One man can't do all this work alone and it will require thouands of people for many years to work on it. Since there is some urgency it seems the best bet is to get people interested enough to explore it or to put pressure on those in charge to do the testing. Meanwhile talking about the implications and extrapolations seems a means to get people thinking enough that they might accept an idea that upsets so much basic "understanding". I do believe patience and persistence will prevail because the evidence wins out and all the evidence is on my side. Of course practitioners have their own explanation for a lot of this evidence but their explanations don't hang together. I call them the "teflon paradigm" because no facts adhere to it. I have never intended to disparage any scientists. I do take a lot of pot shots at this particular field but never individuals. I might say that such and such sounds "mystical" or the like but only as necessary to identify the specific mysticism. These people are experts and they did all the hard work that made it possible for me to stumble on the reality. My role in this is really not so great in field of giants. Even if I were important the fact is without their work and without language I could have done nothing. When I talk about scientists I am talking about human nature and no offense of any sort is intended on their specialty or them individually. Most of what I'm ascribing to them does apply to each individually just as it applies to all people. We are a product of language just as science and scientists are a product of language. That we can't see this from our perspective diminishes our ability to see reality. It's seeing reality and nature that are the very reason science exists. By understanding reality, especially on a visceral level, we are able to discover processes and laws that make predictions and let us better control our enviroment. Without this understanding of reality and making accurate predictions we wouldn't engage in science at all. The fact that all animals are scientists just seems an interesting little tidbit that people don't see because they think science is an artefact of intelligence and human omniscience. From this perspective a rabbit scientist is an absurdity. Individuals certainly vary widely. It's not quite so much that people don't listen as that they can't listen. Anything outside our own experiences tend to be invisible. While taking a break I was thinking along these exact same lines. I've always had crackpot notions an am just as pleased when they don't pan out as when they do. Many very important people in commerce and industry have said things like "if don't go broke once in a while you aren't really trying or taking enough risks.". I realize taking risks is something most people don't want to do and in professional fields there are risks associated even with successful chance taking. I guess most of we "crackpots" just don't mind being wrong as much as many people. I figure life is risk and you may as well try to make a mark even if it's just a splotch. Life is to enjoy yourself and leave the world better than you found it. I guess I enjoy risk as well. I believe my perspective of science most closely matches the reality of what it is. Of course everyone believes this about every concept. The difference is I can support my concept logically, definitionally, and metaphysically. The most important difference between your obviously appropriate definition of science and my definition has nothing to do with science itself and everything to do with language. We are, no doubt, in general agreement about the defining characteristics of science but not the semantics and the perspective from which to describe it. As I've said before, my perspective is unique and is derived from knowledge of a pre-existing science, ancient science, that was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. Ancient scientists didn't use experiment and instead relied on a naturally logical language which was metaphysical. This is a part of my discovery and my perspective is extrapolated from this. Nobody will agree with my overall definition though I can distill out only the part of the definition relevant to modern language speakers which is what I'm trying to do. I'm talking about language because it is still relevant since all scientists still think in language. Language also applies to new ideas because they are expressed in language. They are seen from the perspectives imparted by language. Seeing the unexpected is difficult for people because of language. Patience and persstance can be critical because of this.

This is exactly what I mean. I defined the true nature of science from a perspective outside modern language and you respond that it has nothing to do with science offerring no logic and no facts that support your contention. It's not possible for me to address your "concerns" except with irrelvancies or name calling. Then to rub salt in the wound you believe you've made you say it concerns philosophy which I specifically already stated on at least two occasions couldn't make progress because its language is confused. Ask me what religion is sometime when it's actually relevant and you might be surprised. All ideas are "made up". They are an event and better thinking results in a higher correlation with them being correct. Why not make up some ideas that address the subject directly rather than simply reflect your own beliefs about what science is and isn't. I've studied metaphysics since I was quite small so would welcome such an exchange.

I'm not competent to judge all of these ideas. All I can do is attempt to follow the logic and ask for explanation where I can identify an apparent inconsistency. Many crackpot ideas are simply and obviously wrong. Hard evidence can be presented only in the hard sciences and only if there are observational, theoretical, or mathmatical support. The lack of such support does not necessarily deny the new idea but merely weakens it. If the new idea contradicts known science and no forthcoming explanation is available then it can be dismissed and is most probably wrong and isn't worthy of consideration even if it's right. In other areas you'd be appalled to see what passes as evidence. Existing theory is founded on sand. The less support that exists for "theory" the more strongly it is defended. This situation can only exist because of specialization and the lack of oversight and the inability to integrate more than a single set of specialized knowledge. We live in a world where most resources are wasted because specialists don't understand each others' positions and needs nor even the basic knowledge of their fields. Much of this is related to the inability to train generalists or define the term and the nature of modern language to hide realities. Language as a tool for communication is confused. This means each philosopher has to start from scratch and there is no progress in fields outside of science and very little progress in applied science. The axioms on which human knowledge is based are incorrect or only correct from a single perspective. We can't see this and when someone presents something new it tends tobe dismissed despite its merits or lack thereof.

I can provide not only extensive evidence but proof that the existing paradigm is incorrect. But this all exists, except for the implications, within a very soft science where it simply isn't accepted. It isn't accepted because there is little physical evidence and it along with all the other evidence already has an interpretation so they don't need any stinkin' new interpretation. Never mind that the new interpretation much better explains the evidence and is able to make accurate predictions because it will upset almost all basic paradigms. There are a few tenets of the theory that I've never actually sat down and listed the evidence but only because it's difficult and would be very unconvinciung to people. Such as the contention that "intelligence" as it is percieved does not exist. I suppose someday I'll have to write this post as well but it is very far afield from my primary interest and discovery. All I have is evidence. All human history and all human knowledge is evidence but the shift in perspective required to see it is even greater than the collapse of the paradigms that must occur. We are not what we think we are and this has reverberations throughout all human endeavor. Perspective is everything and always has been. Modern language ignores perspective and always assumes a shared perspective. This is why science has it's own language and why ideas are very hard to judge on their merits.

That scientists are better at seeing anomalous results doesn't change the fact that they still will usually see what they expect. At any given moment the brain is bombarded with all sorts of sensory input and there aren't enough hours in the day to sit down and analyze even one second of all this input. Seeing anomalies is often like finding a needle in a haystack. Scientists find more needles but they still see what they expect in between finding needles (or getting poked in my case).

I've been around message boards a long time and have won some arguments. Very few people can say they've won some arguments. This is not the way it usually goes. I'd agree I've seen this pattern here a little bit but it doesn't exist elsewhere. What happens is people make statements that refute a paradigm and may have good or very poor logic and evidence. People respond often with irrelevancies that seem to work against belief in the original assertion. The "crackpot" comes back and addresses these concerns sometimes and often gets off onto long discussions about the irrelevancies. Rancor tends to increase the more the original idea is supported OR the more the "crackpot" fails to address direct questions and direct counterargument. Eventually it breaks down into name calling usually. Obviously with hard science the truth is more determinable so this pattern is less pronounced here but it still exists to some extent. It's the nature of the beast. It is determined by human nature, the nature of human knowledge and the venue or the nature of message boards. I like message boards because patience and persistence can win (and, of course, I can dress up my posts a little so I don't come off an idiot). People simply don't understand that everything is perspective. Even things we often don't think of as having more than one vantage from which to see them change with perspective. Much of reality is not what we believe it to be but simply construct. I believe that some of the "crackpot" theories on the net have a significant possibility of being correct but it is invisible to people because of their perspectives and language; because the theories are outside of their experience and knowledge. There are a lot of very interesting ideas now days coming from many sources.

Not quite. The only paradigms that need to change are those which are incorrect. To some extent it can be argued that paradigms are constructs and shouldn't exist at all but the fact is humans need a model for complicated phenomena to think about it at all. I believe a lot of the problem with the inability to see what isn't expected can be mitigated by better recognizing it exists. Further there are common sense steps that can help. Of course scientists are already better at this than most people but one needn't look very hard to see that there is more room for improvement. A lot can be changed by changing perspectives. Even scientists can be very poor at seeing reality from more than a single perspective. We see what we know so a scientist will see what he learned in school and in the lab but will tend to overlook the myriad and extensive phenomena of which he is ignorant. Even scientists tend to believe in human omniscience. I disagree. Humans are trying to determine reality even though we've lost sight of this due to the nature of modern science and modern language. Reality isn't determined by a panel of experts, peers, or rave reviews in scientific journals. Reality isn't even determined by an individual or the language in which he produces the idea that leads to seeing it. Reality exists outside of humanity or a dead cats. Of course human progress is about sharing information about reality so if one person "knows" something and can't communicate it or lacks the proof to be convincing then that reality can't help progress except to the degree it can be utilized by the individual. Almost all new information (about reality) that fits with current beliefs will tend to be readily accepted. It will usually arise from those who are trained and funded in traditional ways. This makes it easier to accept and the logic required to understand it is an outgrowth of what's already known. Other ideas are difficult to grasp and some (like mine) require an entirely new perspective.