Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: UFOnet: Re: "Sorry, I disagree with everything you have said."

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    From looking at the tangible evidence approach: If the ancients had telescopes, the question is what else were they capable of. Galileo s telescope is
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      From looking at the tangible evidence approach: If the ancients had
      telescopes, the question is what else were they capable of. Galileo's
      telescope is supposedly a main impetus for our scientific revolution.

      If we just accept the story from them that 'Sirians came to Earth and told
      them about Sirius B' then we merely have to realign conventional thought to
      agree with them, mystery of alien visitation solved.

      This is however diverting from the point I was trying to make that
      scientists fit facts into their belief system, rather than allow facts tell
      them what to believe. Which is a big discrepancy from the adverts of how
      conventional science is supposed to proceed.

      As to my disagreement with your earlier beliefs, one of the things you said
      was that the alternative approach to science was theology. I disagree, the
      alternative to orthodox science is another science. Theology is something
      that gets tacked on afterwards. Unfortunately there are numerous adverts as
      to why orthodox science is the genuine article, when actually we have been
      sold a fake.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Don Bennett <dpbennett@...>
      To: <ufonet@egroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:07 PM
      Subject: UFOnet: Re: "Sorry, I disagree with everything you have said."


      >
      > Why do you write that you disagree with everything I have said and
      then
      > go on to agree with everything I wrote? We are not communicating very
      well.
      > I have Temple's book, and I have read it. ISBN: 0 8600 7502 8 You think
      > you can jam it in to conventional context with the off hand remark that
      > "there were ancient lenses"? If you read the Note on page 290-291 you
      would
      > know that a lot more was required to discover the companion of Sirius than
      > "lenses." Also, besides the hexagonal mask and consideration of emulsion
      > contraction, there's the fact that Dr. Lindenblad knew exactly what to
      look
      > for because he wasn't making a discovery, he was checking the Dogon's
      > discovery! The Dogon never claimed to have lenses! They claimed the
      > Sirians came to Earth and told them about Sirius B! Or is that too
      > "unconventional" for you to swallow? Open your mind.
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
      > To: ufonet@egroups.com <ufonet@egroups.com>
      > Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:55 AM
      > Subject: Re: UFOnet: Re: "Science likes to claim to be right" and "faith
      in
      > the scientific method"
      >
      >
      > >
      >
    • Don Bennett
      We are converging nicely. Point by point: 1) Taken. 2) I m not advocating that we accept the Dogon s story as the solution of the mystery. I m saying that
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        We are converging nicely. Point by point:
        1) Taken.
        2) I'm not advocating that we accept the Dogon's story as the solution
        of the mystery. I'm saying that the attitude that just ignores that part of
        the story and concentrates on the technical aspects takes them out of
        context and distorts the story, besides exercising racial and intellectual
        snobbery. Neither do I dismiss the possibility of aliens who impressed
        ancient stone carvers to depict them as fish-men coming to Earth and
        communicating technical information. I do advocate admitting such data as
        data, because the scientific method has a way of screening the data.
        Remember the Piltdown Man. The scientific method first accepted the
        Piltdown Man, then gradually marginalized him. Finally, after almost a
        century, long after the Piltdown Man had been relegated to footnote status
        because he didn't fit in to any theory, DNA testing proved that it was a
        filed-down, dyed chimpanzee jawbone. Science rarely gives quick answers.
        3) "scientists fit facts into their belief system" Wrong. Blowhard
        make-believe scientists with narrow minds and weak egos do that. A minority
        of media science reporters with contempt for the intelligence of their
        readers do that. Hacks with science degrees and cushy jobs in large
        corporations do that. Real scientists don't do that, because if they did,
        they wouldn't be doing science, they'd be doing politics.
        4) OK. That quibble is a matter of semantics arising out of our
        different backgrounds.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Roger Anderton
        >
        >
        >From looking at the tangible evidence approach: If the ancients had
        >telescopes, the question is what else were they capable of. Galileo's
        >telescope is supposedly a main impetus for our scientific revolution.
        >
        >If we just accept the story from them that 'Sirians came to Earth and told
        >them about Sirius B' then we merely have to realign conventional thought to
        >agree with them, mystery of alien visitation solved.
        >
        >This is however diverting from the point I was trying to make that
        >scientists fit facts into their belief system, rather than allow facts tell
        >them what to believe. Which is a big discrepancy from the adverts of how
        >conventional science is supposed to proceed.
        >
        >As to my disagreement with your earlier beliefs, one of the things you said
        >was that the alternative approach to science was theology. I disagree, the
        >alternative to orthodox science is another science. Theology is something
        >that gets tacked on afterwards. Unfortunately there are numerous adverts as
        >to why orthodox science is the genuine article, when actually we have been
        >sold a fake



        ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
        Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
        Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633
        ___________________________________________________________
      • Roger Anderton
        1. ok 2. ok. Science has been distorted by many factors, and has not been allowed to progress properly i.e. debunking methods have been set up because of the
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          1. ok
          2. ok. Science has been distorted by many factors, and has not been allowed
          to progress properly i.e. debunking methods have been set up because of the
          UFO conspiracy. When a scientist produces results that disagree with
          orthodoxy, he is now debunked. Debunkers claim that he (or she) never did
          the experiment properly. This discourages other scientists from duplicating
          the experiment. Before debunking became the norm. A scientist would claim
          strange results from an experiment, and other scientists would check. There
          would then come back feedback that others were or were not getting the same
          results. A general agreement would then be reached as to what the experiment
          meant. Debunkers have stopped that method.
          3. The idealized scientists doing real science would do what you say. But in
          general scientists are no longer doing science properly, because of
          politics having corrupted their job. Political pressure has been imposed on
          scientists. The politicians, paymasters etc., want a certain answer from
          their scientists. They do not like to be told bad news. We live in a society
          where the pressure is now to please the boss. Scientists that produce
          answers that do not please the boss, are accused of doing their experiments
          incorrectly, and lose funding. The scientists that give 'pleasing answers'
          get the funding. Bosses want 'yes men' scientists, they don't want real
          scientists. For instance in the case of genetic crops , science panels are
          being set up and the scientists that say GM is bad, complain that they are
          not allowed onto such panels.
          4. Not quite a quibble. There are two versions of framework theory in
          physics, one of them has been suppressed. The debunkers would ridicule what
          is left of the alternative physics as being mere theology and not science.
          The alternative science has its own set of rules, and words like 'scientific
          method' have different meaning in that science. We have been subjected to an
          advertising campaign, and hence now have a corruption of the true nature of
          science. Theology I would think to mean such things as morals, treating
          people in a humane way etc. Both these sciences (framework physics theories)
          can have that type of theology applied to them. But the science that we have
          been allowed demands that certain evil acts need to be performed, hence when
          theology is applied to this science there is a conflict of interests.
          Theology when applied to such a science is trying to restrain scientists
          from doing actions which the scientists perceive as necessary evils.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Don Bennett <dpbennett@...>
          To: <ufonet@egroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:57 PM
          Subject: Re: UFOnet: Re: "Sorry, I disagree with everything you have said."


          >
          > We are converging nicely. Point by point:
          > 1) Taken.
          > 2) I'm not advocating that we accept the Dogon's story as the
          solution
          > of the mystery. I'm saying that the attitude that just ignores that part
          of
          > the story and concentrates on the technical aspects takes them out of
          > context and distorts the story, besides exercising racial and intellectual
          > snobbery. Neither do I dismiss the possibility of aliens who impressed
          > ancient stone carvers to depict them as fish-men coming to Earth and
          > communicating technical information. I do advocate admitting such data as
          > data, because the scientific method has a way of screening the data.
          > Remember the Piltdown Man. The scientific method first accepted the
          > Piltdown Man, then gradually marginalized him. Finally, after almost a
          > century, long after the Piltdown Man had been relegated to footnote status
          > because he didn't fit in to any theory, DNA testing proved that it was a
          > filed-down, dyed chimpanzee jawbone. Science rarely gives quick answers.
          > 3) "scientists fit facts into their belief system" Wrong. Blowhard
          > make-believe scientists with narrow minds and weak egos do that. A
          minority
          > of media science reporters with contempt for the intelligence of their
          > readers do that. Hacks with science degrees and cushy jobs in large
          > corporations do that. Real scientists don't do that, because if they did,
          > they wouldn't be doing science, they'd be doing politics.
          > 4) OK. That quibble is a matter of semantics arising out of our
          > different backgrounds.
          > -----Original Message-----
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.