Re: [anthroposophy] spaceships and Atlantis and Steiner and the Devil in disguise
>>I don't know what science you are reading but whether one calls it morphogenetic fields or formative forces or ethers, 99% of all scientists have dismissed this concept outright because the Morley experiments with ethers etc...<<*******I could care less what 99% of scientists think, as could anyone who thinks for himself. Truth is not decided by majority vote. They dismiss morphogenetic fields without ever looking into them, or sensitive crystallization, or radionics, all for the same reason---because they follow the herd. Once the herd starts accepting them, say in the twenty-first century (as the germ theory of disease, continental drift or acupuncture were not accepted in the nineteenth but are now), they'll accept it all too.
>>>my argument with those using scientific methods and thinking.. My point is: you can't use conventional science in one case and then move against it in another case...*******You are making the all-too-common mistake of confusing SCIENCE (that is, reasoning from observation, the process of thinking) with what C.S. Lewis called 'Scientism' (the recitation of the present-day theories of science, of 'what experts have concluded'). Anyone can use the former without agreeing in the slightest with the latter. In fact the only thing true science knows is that the latter WILL change. No one is forbidden from reasoning because his thoughts come to a different conclusion using the methods of science. Do you think one must either think only along their lines, or else throw out thinking altogether? Bull.
>>If an object cannot travel at high speeds and not burn up according to our understanding of the present laws of physics (your argument first), so be it. But then one can not jump over the fence and support borderline science as in Sheldrake's work or in the Lehrs. Or maybe you can.<<******You obviously don't even know what that work consists of, only that the laws of physics cited in the former instance are accepted while those in the latter are not. I can indeed use both because I know both. There is no comparison with people who, if you point a microphone in their face and ask them about Reich or Sheldrake or Levity, will say it's all poppycock even though they're hearing about it for the first time from you (and incidentally, thereby showing they are NOT really scientists: for as Michael Faraday put it, "Nothing is impossible in science: there are only probabilities".)
Final correction of fact: the Michaelson-Morley experiment did not disprove Steiner's ethers. It disproved the idea of a SINGLE and STATIONARY ether---which the mobile and changeable ethers definitely are NOT.