Biology Talk

alanejackson · Guest

FREE SPEECH PREVAILS

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimate...&f=11&t=001896

"Originally posted by Noise: The problem is you are not presenting any
information that is possibly provable or disprovable"

Exactly ! ! ! I could not have said it better myself. I've been
looking for that arrangement of words for over 20 years.

Thank you Lord for making Noise ! And making me, in such a way, that
I don't have that problem.

Now let's explain to Noise, that there should not be a problem. Or
that, the problem stems from a lack of education in others, not
myself.

"The problem is you are not presenting any information that is
possibly provable".

Yes, in your case, this part of the statement is true. It arises from
you not excepting the basic rule:

"In science, the rule is there is no such thing as proof, only
disprove." Yet many people accept things such as lab animal
experiments as proof, to get A's and B's and degrees. In our school
system, this is what is required. It's not real education, just
political training. You would never have discovered my theory if you
accept what today's professional educators brainwashed their students
into excepting as facts.

'You are not presenting any information that is possibly disprovable,'
is what a thinking, educated, and intelligent person would have said
after reading my original post and then studying.

It just may not be possible that you could correct me, in this
matter. Yet rather than really study, and come to that conclusion,
personally, people try to argue or debate it. That's the definition
of insanity, to keep trying to do something that is not possible.

If the theory is correct, you/we must create a new paradigm which
allows for it. Because they don't study, most people I share this
information with don't reach that conclusion. Instead, they heckle
me, or accused me of having the problem that they have. Maybe that's
the way some people begin the process?
"So fine, oppose him, but why accuse him of having a mental illness?
" Thanks Michelle for sticking up for me/free speech.
Thanks again for making/sharing that statement. After cleaning it up
a little, I'll surely use it. Seems to make my paradigm stronger,
more stable.
That said; why are you giving me advice as to how to be accepted as a
scientist, politically? I'm just trying to be the best backyard
philosopher. I don't want to be a scientist, they're not going to
look too good soon, according to my theory. Here's another reason:
Scientists Are Lonely Men -Oliver La Farge

"It is not so long ago that, even in my dilettante study of the
science of ethnology, I corresponded with men in Ireland, Sweden,
Germany, France, and Yucatan, and had some discussion with a Chinese.
One by one these interchanges were cut off; in some countries the
concept of science is dead, and even in the free strongholds of
Britain and the Americas pure science is being - must be - set aside
in favor of what is immediately useful and urgently needed. It must
hibernate now; for a while all it means is likely to be forgotten.

It has never been well understood. Scientists have never been good at
explaining themselves and, frustrated by this, they tend to withdraw
into the esoteric, refer to the public as "laymen," and develop
incomprehensible vocabularies from which they draw a naive, secret-
society feeling of superiority.

What is the special nature of a scientist as distinguished from a
soda-jerker? Not just the externals such as a trick vocabulary, but
the human formation within the man. ...

The inner nature of science within the scientist is both emotional
and intellectual. The emotional element must not be overlooked, for
without it there is no sound research on however odd and dull-seeming
the subject. ...

To an outsider who does not know of this emotion, the scientist
suggests an ant, putting forth great efforts to lug one insignificant
and apparently unimportant grain of sand to be added to a pile, and
much of the time his struggle seems as pointless as an ant's. ....

..... McGarnigle went among the independent Indians of Icaiche because
he had heard of a skull kept in one of their temples which, from a
crude description, seemed to have certain important characteristics.
All his risks and his maneuverings with those tough, explosive Indians
centered around the problem of gaining access to that skull. When he
tries to tell an attractive girl about his experiences he not only
understates, but can't keep from stressing the significance of a skull
with a healed, clover-leaf trepan. The girl gladly leaves him for the
nearest broker....

It is too bad both for the scientist and the public that they are so
cut off from each other. The world needs now not the mere knowledges
of science, but the way of thought and discipline. It is the essence
of what Hitler has set out to destroy; against it he has waged total
war within his own domain. It is more than skepticism, the weighing of
evidence more even than the love of truth. It is the devotion of
oneself to an end which is far more important than the individual, the
certainty that the end is absolutely good, not only for oneself but
for all mankind, and the character to set personal advantage, comfort,
and glory aside in the devoted effort to make even a little progress
toward it." -1942 From: A Treasury of Science (1958, Harper &
Brothers)

Yea but, isn't every girl attractive?

Alan
Search + Share ~ Magnetrition
http://www.freewebs.com/alanejackson/index.htm