Dr SF - reading Durant on Rome recently we see that the thoughtful were mostly concerned with philosophical, artistic and legalistic debate; also with military subjects, history and so on. There were many Gods and as many points of view. There is none of the dogmatism of "settled science" we have to suffer with these days. Nobody was arrogant enough to assert they knew the size and age of the universe for a fact. The reactionary orthodoxy of modern science feels more like that of the catholic church at the time of Luther than anything else. And we have been using that language here to describe it. Science is no longer the science of exploration and discovery that it once was, it is - as you say - a religion and it is an intolerant and monolithic. In the interests of the freedom of thought therefore I would like to quickly mention a few of my own speculations about the nature of some large subjects that modern science believes are settled. I think the extinction of the mammoths is strong evidence that the earth's axis changes location every fifty thousand years or so. If the previous ice caps had both been over the water this would have lead to the increase in rain and snow fall necessary for high snow fall and rapid freezing that must have happened to kill them all so quickly amd preserve their bodies. I think planets are what remain of stars when the fires go out. I do not believe all stars blow up or in the black hole dogma. Don't worry I have loads more and I am sure many of us do as well. Your recent post shows detailed medical knowledge. Could you do another on genetics and in particular what on earth the infallible science lot seem to believe the "genome'' is? And on genetics in general? I have not been able to get any working concept of what they seem to think they are on about with this one. Thanks again and looking forward to your next post.
Thanks David - agree with you on the catastrophic idea of earth's history. I will post an article from Cuvier on the same and interestingly, there is probably a split between 'earth time' and 'human time'. I personally don't believe we evolved from apes - evolution as a 'science' was long ago disproven - and Cuvier proved that human history has a very short age or ages, unrelated to a longer age for the Earth which is full of upheavel. This is anathema to the 'science' of today of course. You mentioned DNA which by itself disproves evolution and the big bang as well, and I have written on it extensively, will put some information together and share it here. Next up is the special theory of relativity and the classic scientism around that - including how AI is going to enforce these religious observations on an unsuspecting public.
I too doubt the ape connection. Looking forward to any information you have on the DNA dogma. Special relativity is another one that needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt, so will be a very welcome read. I recall years ago at the age of 14 asking my physics teacher, Mr Bailey, what the difference between weight and mass was only to be told to shut up and memorize. I was naive enough to think that school was a place you learned things not memorized things. The 'settled' science lot have driven me nuts since then. Nothing is settled. I too fear the awful power and reach of AI.
Thanks David. It is quite amazing how each 'science' domain is dominated and managed by a single narrative. With nary a dissenting view or investigation. Follow the money and power.
Dr SF - reading Durant on Rome recently we see that the thoughtful were mostly concerned with philosophical, artistic and legalistic debate; also with military subjects, history and so on. There were many Gods and as many points of view. There is none of the dogmatism of "settled science" we have to suffer with these days. Nobody was arrogant enough to assert they knew the size and age of the universe for a fact. The reactionary orthodoxy of modern science feels more like that of the catholic church at the time of Luther than anything else. And we have been using that language here to describe it. Science is no longer the science of exploration and discovery that it once was, it is - as you say - a religion and it is an intolerant and monolithic. In the interests of the freedom of thought therefore I would like to quickly mention a few of my own speculations about the nature of some large subjects that modern science believes are settled. I think the extinction of the mammoths is strong evidence that the earth's axis changes location every fifty thousand years or so. If the previous ice caps had both been over the water this would have lead to the increase in rain and snow fall necessary for high snow fall and rapid freezing that must have happened to kill them all so quickly amd preserve their bodies. I think planets are what remain of stars when the fires go out. I do not believe all stars blow up or in the black hole dogma. Don't worry I have loads more and I am sure many of us do as well. Your recent post shows detailed medical knowledge. Could you do another on genetics and in particular what on earth the infallible science lot seem to believe the "genome'' is? And on genetics in general? I have not been able to get any working concept of what they seem to think they are on about with this one. Thanks again and looking forward to your next post.
Thanks David - agree with you on the catastrophic idea of earth's history. I will post an article from Cuvier on the same and interestingly, there is probably a split between 'earth time' and 'human time'. I personally don't believe we evolved from apes - evolution as a 'science' was long ago disproven - and Cuvier proved that human history has a very short age or ages, unrelated to a longer age for the Earth which is full of upheavel. This is anathema to the 'science' of today of course. You mentioned DNA which by itself disproves evolution and the big bang as well, and I have written on it extensively, will put some information together and share it here. Next up is the special theory of relativity and the classic scientism around that - including how AI is going to enforce these religious observations on an unsuspecting public.
I too doubt the ape connection. Looking forward to any information you have on the DNA dogma. Special relativity is another one that needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt, so will be a very welcome read. I recall years ago at the age of 14 asking my physics teacher, Mr Bailey, what the difference between weight and mass was only to be told to shut up and memorize. I was naive enough to think that school was a place you learned things not memorized things. The 'settled' science lot have driven me nuts since then. Nothing is settled. I too fear the awful power and reach of AI.
Excellent - one of your best
Thanks David. It is quite amazing how each 'science' domain is dominated and managed by a single narrative. With nary a dissenting view or investigation. Follow the money and power.