Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Contempt prior to investigation Message-ID: <469@ccivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 15:05:06 EST Article-I.D.: ccivax.469 Posted: Wed Mar 12 15:05:06 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Mar-86 00:36:28 EST References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP> <954@lanl.ARPA> <208@ulowell.UUCP> <435@ccivax.UUCP> <166@epimass.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY Lines: 230 Xref: watmath net.sci:596 net.philosophy:4463 In article <166@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <435@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) writes: >>Has science become a bastion of ignorance? >>Ignorance is best defined as "contempt prior to investigation". > >I've never seen such a definition of "ignorance" before. It seems backwards AA big book page 570: There is a principle which is a bar against all information which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. -Herbert Spencer >to me. It seems to me that your posting is much closer to a demonstration >of ignorance, since you claim that several areas of active scientific >investigation are "taboos", and seem to believe several common myths without >any evidence at all. > >>Some of sciences "taboos": >>UFO's and Alien life. - Blue Book didn't even say they didn't exist! > >You mean you aren't aware of the well-funded programs to search for >extraterrestrial intelligence? What is "Blue Book"? Project Blue Book, a team of six or so investigators determined Among other things, that UFO's did not represent a threat to national security and could not provide new technology. Loosely interpreted, this could almost be read - "they exist but they are just watching". For some reason, the findings have been interpreted - "there are no 'flying saucers'". > >>Parapsychology. > >The AAAS recognizes parapsychology as a science (some want to reverse this). The "some who want to reverse this" is the group I've been reading about on this list. I'd like to see what people have discovered. > >>Metaphysics. > >What aspect of metaphysics would you like to have investigated? Aristotle >called it "metaphysics" because his previous book was called "physics"; >there's little other connection. Just about anything that appears to contradict current physical laws. Obviously, there may be a few laws we haven't discovered yet. > >>Anthropological Anachronisms(Egyptian Science, 2.8 million year old Modern Man) > >Evidence? I'm referring to "Leaky's Man" found in Africa. Three skeletons of what appeared to be "Modern Man" were found and were dated to be 2.8 million years old. Appearantly either there were a few "modern men" or something through the dating off. Which? If the dating was off, why? > >>Bermuda Triangle and similar dissappearances. > >This is no mystery. This area has been one of the most heavily used shipping >areas since the 1500's, and has always had lots of pirates. In the old days, >they stole gold; now they steal ships for use in the drug trade. It also >has some of the worst weather in the world. There was a book that >successfully debunked most of the Bermuda Triangle stuff; I forget the title. >Naturally it didn't sell well. > >>A possible "sunken city" in the Triangle. > >Flat out impossible. Because of the heavy use for shipping the area gets, >the undersea terrain has been thoroughly mapped. No city. There are a few "hills" with perpendicular edges down there. Some appear to be almost like pyramids, but they are very deep. I would welcome any explanations for such shapes? >>The Egyptian "merchants code". > >You'll have to explain this. In the "Valley of the Kings" clay tablets containing cuniform tablets seem to describe orders for building materials, and procedures for building the pyramids which seem to contradict the "stones on rollers" theory. Floatation is described, and water floatation was possible in the valley, but it is also described in an area where there is little water. >>Creationism (any theory that "Higher Intellegence" may have interfered with >> the evolutionary process at any time). > >Now hang on. You can't have 2.8 million year old modern man and creationism >too. No one has shown any necessity for such interference at this point; >any "higher intelligence" hid his/her/its tracks very well. Egyptian mythology and technology seem to start around the same time shortly after the "fall of Isis and Osirus". They are described as "Gods" but may have been people. Other parallels in near the beginning of other city building societies are quite common. >>But then look at some of the old "taboos": >>Natural Child-Birth. > >This was never a "taboo". It was standard practice before hospitals were >available, and at least in the past, one of the leading causes of death in >women was childbirth. It was safer for the woman to be in the hospital with >extensive medical care available. Now that medicine has advanced, more >options are open. Dr. Bradley (Brady?) almost lost his liscence when he first stopped putting his patients to sleep. Seems doctors considired this uneccessary pain, and a violation of the hippocratic oath. This from one of his lectures. >>Clinical and Applied Psychology. >I wish this were more of a "taboo" than it is. Studies show that as many >people are hurt as are helped by therapy. Why? Is it possible that there is something we haven't yet discovered? Perhaps parapsychology studies could provide some answers. >>Acupuncture. > >This was unknown in the West, but when it became known, scientists attempted >to learn how it worked, not to suppress it as you suggest. The result taught >Eastern doctors a few things. When acupuncture was first introduced, western scientist had to be convinced that it wasn't a hoax. Many modern doctors still consider it quackery. When I burned my hands on flaming grease, the pain was so intense that I went to the emergency room at the hospital. The doctor tried to give me codine but as an ex addict I wasn't too wild about it. I suggested acupuncture or a local, and he told me that wasn't "real medicine". Eventually, the pain was so bad that I had no choice but to take the pill, and go through withdrawals for the next two days. >>Shaman medicine or Witch Doctors. > > you can't patent a natural substance that >fights disease, only a synthetic one. So the main problem here is capitalism. That is the problem with most of these "taboos". It's ok to study it, but you're not likely to get funding. If you discover something that is "public domain" and competes with a patented product, well funded but ignorant scientists will discredit the work and the research. >>"Anti-matter" (Quantum Physics). > >>4th and 5th Dimension. (The count is 12, last I read) > >Yes, but these dimensions have nothing at all to do with the dimensions >of the pseudo-scientists. They aren't different places where you can go, True, but who said they had to be? >>I suppose the names will change when science "adopts" these orphans, and >>then it will be an "acceptable" science. > >Exactly. Science is self-correcting. Creationists and cranks claim to >have all the answers at the start. > >Some other points: >>Bio-feedback is a form of "mind over matter" parapsychology ... >Bio-feedback has nothing to do with parapsychology. The brain obviously >controls the body, the new discovery is that functions formerly believed >to be completely unconscious turn out not to be. True, but the ability to lower the electrical output to the EEG/Biofeedback monitor involves a change in consciousness. This "different conciousness is a technique used by fire walkers and yogi's in india. I still don't know why fire walkers don't burn their feet. Any explanations? >>Acupunture led to the discovery of endorphamines. >That's endorphins, and this statement is false. You're right, acupunture is a way to cause endorphins to be released more quickly. Endorphins were known before, but how to get enough to the right spot before the patient went into shock was still a big question. >>Even creationism has taken the form of genetic engineering and >>bio-engineering technology. > >This is the biggest absurdity in your message. People ignorant of evolution >cannot do genetic engineering. Creationists say that each species was >created independently. How could someone who believes this try to change >one species into another? We now know how to produce amino acids, DNA, and most of the protiens required to create living organisms, how long will it be before we "build something from scratch"? At least now we know it does not HAVE to take several billion years. >>Maybe if we called it "plasma field" research instead of "metaphysics", >>some serious research would be acceptable. > >Sorry, there already is such a field and it has nothing to do with what >you're talking about. Or do you believe in "auras" too? Ok, find a different name. Ancient Egyptians were fond of large quantities of "static" electricity, developing multifarad capacitors and such. According to the "Book of the Dead" they used this technology in some very peculiar ways. Moses used the "Arch of the Covenent" as an intercomm for his "God". What do you call a box containing a multi mega-columb charge? (besides dangerous :-)) What is it good for (besides a pretty static electricity display)? Static electricity isn't really static, it's a field of charged particles. How can this field be manipulated? I remember a science teacher demonstrating an "atom smasher" in class, looked like a static electricity generator to me :-) (I don't know anything about atom smashers, just that he said it was one) Could these charges (and natural charges) be efficiently converted into a more useful form of energy? >>Any theory can be proven false by ignoring the supporting evidence. > >Yes, I see you do a lot of that. > Actually, I am looking for new evidence, that's why the flammable subject line. Get those who know something mad enough, and they will prove you wrong, giving you more information than they really wanted to give in the first place :-) Actually, anybody who knows about good scientific research in any of these fields is welcome to send mail, but they seem to get flamed when they post findings to net.sci. There was an interesting scientific explanation of meditiation/religion posted in net.religion, nothing revolutionary, but interesting. Worth a look anyway. Mostly using concious effort to give the neo-cortex control over the limbic system.