THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED RECENTLY ON FB ******************************** Ancient Indian UFO with Nantha Kumar and 8 others The Journey of Shri Jagannath from India to Egypt : grahamhancock/forum/DMisraB5.php Must Read #AIUFO ******************************************************************************* MY COMMENT WAS POSTED ON THE SAID TIMELINE I HERE REPRODUCE THE SAME FOR OUR FB FRIENDS... ******************************************************************************* SCIENCE IS NOT SOMETHING BASED ON COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS... SEEMINGLY SYSTEMATIC STUDY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SCIENCES. YOUR OUTPOURING OF THE ISSUE DOESNT TELL ANYTHING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND BEHAVIOR OF THE TOPIC INVOLVED. THE LACK OF THOROUGH OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT OF THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION PUSHES YOUR THEORIES OUT OF REALM OF SCIENCE. THERE IS NOT INTELLECTUAL AND PRACTICAL ACTIVITIY ENCOMPASSING YOUR STUDY WHICH AGAIN NEGATES THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC CRITERION. MYTHICAL ISSUES CANNOT HAVE SANCTITY UNLESS THEY WITHSTAND EMPIRICAL APPROVAL. SCIENCE IS NOT A BUNDLE OF QUOTES OR CITATIONS FROM ANICIENT SCRIPTURES. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU TRY TO PROVE BY MAKING CAREFULLY SELECTED MYTHS TO SUITE THE PURPOSE OF THE OPERATOR. WHAT YOU THEORIZE HERE DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY ANYWAY. IF THAT WHICH YOU SAY IS A THEORY OF ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE ON CERTAIN ISSUES, THEN YOUR THEORIES OR INTERPRETATIONS OR ISSUES OF SCIENCE OR ANYTHING THAT WAY, SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF THE REALM OF SCIENCE BECAUSE THY CANNOT WITHSTAND CERTAIN ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE ISSUES OF SCIENCE... OF WHICH I QUOTE A FEW. 1. THEY DONT HELP US MAKE SENSE OUT OF PATTERNS WE SEE IN NATURE, WHICH IS WHAT GIVES FORM TO SCIENCE AND KEEPS IT FROM BEING A MERE COLLECTION OF FACTS... 2. 3. THEY DO NOT MAKE ANY PREDICTIONS ABOUT WHAT NEW PHENOMENA WE MIGHT UNCOVER ONCE WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY OF DOING SO, AND THEORIES ARE THUS AT LEAST IN PART MEASURED BY HOW SUCCESSFUL THEIR PREDICTIONS ARE, AND... 4. THEY DONT GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW WAYS OF OBSERVING AND EXPERIMENTING TO BEGIN WITH... 5. IN THIS WAY, YOUR THEORIES DONT GIVE FEEDS BACK ON EXPERIMENT, WHICH IN TURN TELLS US HOW UNWELL YOUR THEORIES ARE DOING... IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN GO FOR A PROTOTYPE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PRINCIPLES IF ANY, BASED ON THE THINGS YOU HAVE MENTIONED, ELSE YOUR HARD WORK STANDS GOOD FOR FOR NOTHING... IF YOU ARE MAKING THESE STATEMENTS AS A HISTORIAN, THEN DONT TRY TO TIE THEM UP WITH SCIENCE BECAUSE SCIENCE IS NOT HISTORY AND IS NOT A COLLECTION OF SEEMINGLY FACTUAL (MYTHICAL) CITATIONS FROM SCRIPTURES.... SCIENCE IS THE TESTING OF RATIONAL MODELS, AND THEIR POSSIBLE REVISION IN LIGHT OF THOSE TESTS. MATHEMATICS IS NOT SCIENCE... IN MATH, ABSOLUTE PROOF IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE, BUT IT’S COMMONPLACE: STATE THE AXIOMS, FOLLOW THE RULES, AND A PROOF RESOLVES THE ISSUE OF THE CORRECTNESS OF A THEOREM ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME. SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS ALWAYS PROVISIONAL, SUBJECT TO RE-EXAMINATION AT ANY TIME, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN NEW OBSERVATIONS BECOME AVAILABLE. PROVISIONAL AND NEW OBSERVATIONS DO NOT GIVE SANCTITY OF WHAT YOU HAVE CITED IN YOUR ESSAYS.... DONT TRY TO RESENT THE VERY IDEA THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEST AND THEREBY VALIDATE YOUR IDEAS BEFORE THE WORLD WOULD GIVE THEM ANY CONSIDERATION. FOR EVERY EINSTEIN THAT TURNS OUT TO BE RIGHT IN HIS ABSTRACT SPECULATIONS, THERE ARE MANY, MANY EQUALLY ARROGANT CRACKPOTS WHO HAVE INDULGED IN CREATING HISTORICAL HYPOTHESES AND WHO DEMAND THAT SOMEONE ELSE PUT THEIR IDEAS TO THE TEST OR EVEN INTO PRACTICAL USE! THE TEST AGAINST OBSERVATIONS IS WHAT ALLOWS US TO SEPARATE MERE SPECULATION, NO MATTER HOW RATIONAL OR SOPHISTICATED, LIKE THAT ONE YOU ARE PROPOSING HERE, FROM THE REALM OF SCIENCE. DONT TRY TO BRING IN THE HIGGS-BOSON ISSUE HERE BECAUSE IT IS ITSELF NOT TESTABLE, AND NEVER WILL BE, FOR IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN OBSERVABLE AND THAT BECAUSE THERE’S JUST NO WAY AROUND THAT. WHAT WE JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THE HIGGS-BOSON WITH IS OBSERVABLE, YET ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BASED ON MATHEMATICAL MODELS AND THEIR EXISTENCE IS THUS PROVED TO BE A CONSEQUENCE OF AGAIN SCIENTIFIC DEDUCTANCE. THIS RELATES TO THE REALISM DEBATE, WHICH IS AN ONGOING ISSUE. DONT TRY TO POP OUT THE DUHEM–QUINE THESIS... YOUR CITATIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE BROUGHT UNDER THE QUESTION OF THE DUHEM–QUINE THESIS. FINALLY I SUBSCRIBE TO KARL POPPER’S VIEW OF THINGS … AN UN TESTABLE IDEA (ONE NOT SUBJECT TO EMPIRICAL TESTS) IS OUTSIDE OF THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE, WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS INHERENT RATIONALITY.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 11:29:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015