Leif Posted August 20, 2013 Posted August 20, 2013 Rupert Sheldrake claims that the so called universal constants change all the time in this youtube video.
Strange Posted August 20, 2013 Posted August 20, 2013 Rupert Sheldrake claims that the so called universal constants change all the time in this youtube video. In which case, I would assume it is not true. (If he said the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.) 1
Leif Posted August 21, 2013 Author Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Strange, Sheldrake has interesting ideas, and I hardly think it ingenuous to dismiss them without suspending skepticism for a bit and entertaining them for while even if it is only briefly? Christ, everyone thought thought that even Einstein(at least the people who knew him best) was an idiot for a long time? "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree..."-Einstein Edited August 21, 2013 by Leif
imatfaal Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Leif Einstein had his phd thesis accepted in his very early twenties, was revolutionising physics and being published in the prestigious journals by his mid-twenties, and had a nobel prize by his early forties - when exactly was this time spent being ridiculed and ostracised by the scientific community? And you might want to look up "ingenuous" - it doesn't mean what you think it does; it's a very rare word and unusual in that its negation "disingenuous" is much more common. You were probably looking for "ingenious"
swansont Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Rupert Sheldrake claims that the so called universal constants change all the time in this youtube video. I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video to find out what he has to say on the hopes that someone who thinks telepathy is real is relevant. Can you summarize his arguments? 1
Strange Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Strange, Sheldrake has interesting ideas, and I hardly think it ingenuous to dismiss them without suspending skepticism for a bit and entertaining them for while even if it is only briefly? I have read enough of his work to recognise it as pseudoscientific nonsense. There is never a reason to suspend scepticism or critical thinking.
Leif Posted August 22, 2013 Author Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Strange, I think that the current paradigms in science are not leading to solutions and are becoming unsustainable(much like the epicycles were in the middle-ages). Thoughtful and free thinking people who are not DRONES who are exercising ingenuous thought is the only way to find relief from this. Perhaps you do not agree? It does strike me that Einstein was not a DRONE? In fact he was such a poor student that his focus was not entertained by the curriculum presented and it was actually only a distraction to him. I think he was a free thinker who's only truly great quality was to ask deep enough questions. I believe that if you can formulate the question then the answer exists. Imatfaal, I hardly think a phd means much, many that I know well, are truthfully... very unimpressive minds and personages. It's as if obtaining a piece of paper was giving value to the person, and aside from the paper the remainder is sadly, vacuous. Edited August 22, 2013 by Leif
Strange Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Thoughtful and free thinking people who are not DRONES who are exercising ingenuous thought is the only way to find relief from this. Perhaps you do not agree?. Yes. They are called "scientists". 1
imatfaal Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 ... ...snipped It does strike me that Einstein was not a DRONE? In fact he was such a poor student that his focus was not entertained by the curriculum presented and it was actually only a distraction to him. I think he was a free thinker who's only truly great quality was to ask deep enough questions. I believe that if you can formulate the question then the answer exists. Imatfaal, I hardly think a phd means much, many that I know well, are truthfully... very unimpressive minds and personages. It's as if obtaining a piece of paper was giving value to the person, and aside from the paper the remainder is sadly, vacuous. Please provide evidence to your assertions about Einstein. I have shown that he excelled and was recognized as doing so from a very early age. It is myth that he was an outsider shunned by the the physics community. You say, without backup, that he was a poor student; I counter with the fact that he got his phd at an age at which many of us are just getting a first undergraduate degree. Your dismissal of phds sounds a little ridiculous - they are physically just a piece of paper, sure; and they are not a guarantee of a first rate innovator. But, until you have one and know the work and sacrifice required, to demean the efforts of those that have had their research recognized is a little blinkered. You will struggle to find any who have made an impact on science for many many years who have not run the full gamut of academic training. You are perpetuating a legend of scientific mavericks who, from outside the establishment, do all the real thinking and make the serious progress. This is nonsense - it obviously appeals to all of us who have not spent the years of hard slog working through a degree, a masters, gradschool, a phd, post-doc - but in reality it is the pipedream of those who have not done or cannot do real science and thus castigate those who are willing to put in the hours of education. 1
Leif Posted August 22, 2013 Author Posted August 22, 2013 Strange, I think that the over riding incentives(social and economic factors) have silenced pure science and that as a consequence not much is currently being accomplished. This is indicated by the true lack of scientific revolutions today when powerful concentrations of capital flow into investigations unyieldingly, and yet previous to this and lacking institutional monies the revolutions abounded. Money is not the ally of the scientific mind exploring nature, it is an impediment to discovery for the circular reasoning that it engenders.
Strange Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 I think that the over riding incentives(social and economic factors) have silenced pure science and that as a consequence not much is currently being accomplished. Evidence? (You know, in the spirit of science.) 1
Leif Posted August 23, 2013 Author Posted August 23, 2013 As an example, the basic definition and solution to the issue of cancer was defined by Otto Warburg 50 years ago. The solution is in his definition if a truly ingenuous mind was examining it. The current culture of science and medicine is indifferent and unaware of the solution because the solution is not their true motivation. If the intention of scientific and medical investigation is not correct , then it is nothing but a fraud. Social and economic factors are really the overriding ones determining the so called results. It is sad but this is TRUE!
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 If you are talking about the aerobic glycolisis within malignant cells then this is hardly forgotten nor neglected. Frankly your assertion that researchers and clinicians in the treatment of cancer are indifferent to new ideas or old ideas revisited is as incorrect as it is insulting; I get over 300 peer reviewed recent papers on pubmed when I search on the topic.
Leif Posted August 23, 2013 Author Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) And they still haven't figured it out when the solution is 50 years formulated! Spend billions more in research and the solution will still evade them! That is the tragedy of miss-alignment, insulting from a certain perspective to another...or not! Edited August 23, 2013 by Leif
arc Posted August 24, 2013 Posted August 24, 2013 (edited) Strange, I think that the current paradigms in science are not leading to solutions and are becoming unsustainable(much like the epicycles were in the middle-ages). Thoughtful and free thinking people who are not DRONES who are exercising ingenuous thought is the only way to find relief from this. Perhaps you do not agree? It does strike me that Einstein was not a DRONE? In fact he was such a poor student that his focus was not entertained by the curriculum presented and it was actually only a distraction to him. I think he was a free thinker who's only truly great quality was to ask deep enough questions. I believe that if you can formulate the question then the answer exists. Imatfaal, I hardly think a phd means much, many that I know well, are truthfully... very unimpressive minds and personages. It's as if obtaining a piece of paper was giving value to the person, and aside from the paper the remainder is sadly, vacuous. Leif, don't start your journey here critiquing the education and qualifications of those who have earned our admiration. Where else in this world are you, I or any merely curious person going to find such a broad body of intellect willing to discuss science for free! I cannot be grateful enough to those who give their time here. Edited August 24, 2013 by arc
Strange Posted August 24, 2013 Posted August 24, 2013 And they still haven't figured it out when the solution is 50 years formulated! What reason do you have to think it is "the solution"? On second thoughts, don't answer that. This is totally off topic.
Leif Posted August 24, 2013 Author Posted August 24, 2013 Strange, Cancer is a self-perpetuating metabolic dysfunction. The products of anaerobic metabolism are acidic and effectively and stubbornly block the resoration of aerobic metabolism. There is a simple cure, resulting from Warburgh's work that involves a simple curative diet. Apparently a cure is not what the scientific and medical community is all about; curing cancer is not in their interest! -1
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 ! Moderator Note A number of posts in here are being / have been split into the trash as they are either wildly off topic and / or not in the spirit of the mainstream science section of the forum. Leif, you have to stop hijacking threads. If you have something you wish to discuss, do so in your own thread. And please be aware that speculative material (including anything by Sheldrake) is not appropriate for the mainstream area of SFN. If this keeps up, you will be suspended from using the site.
Recommended Posts