Science: It's Roots, Role, & Value

[Grey Cloud]

Solar.
I've just read the Hannes Alfven pdf you linked (refer to this post: http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162). He is a good example of the current problem of over-specialisation: he doesn't understand myth, the world's religions or where Pythagoras and Plato were coming from. I doubt that Bohr, Heisenberg et al would have made some of the comments Alfven came up with.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
Niels Bohr.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
Werner Heisenberg.

Both these gentlemen would have understood where Pythagoras and Plato were coming from.

MOD NOTE: This discussion has been split off to it's own thread here from this thread: Wal Thornhill as "heretic pioneer" (fmx)

[Plasmatic]

Both Plato and Pythagoras theories like Hiesenberg and many other "scientist" and philosophers have no regard for what is provable and verifiable . Which is why their nonsense is nothing more than arbitrary assertions that require faith to adhere to. The majority of "theories" today do in fact conceptually replicate Platos imaginary world of forms and appearances. This is why Don Scott noted the primacy of Aristotle over Platos approach in THE ELECTRIC SKY. This is why for the life of me I cannot understand the recent foray into nonsensical theories based exactly on Platonic fundamentals. What the published works say to me is "we need a new Renaissance"

[junglelord]

Pythagorus theorum is not provable?
His work on platonic solids, music and relationship of length to octave is not varifiable?
I think he was right on the money and why its still standard theory today because it is proveable.

[Plasmatic]

Im referring to the idea they had of where all those appearances come from and are made of. Also i think i dont have to stress that lots of stuff accepted as "standard theory" is nonsense anyway. I mean we wouldnt be having this discussion in this forum if that where not the case

[Grey Cloud]

Plasmatic wrote:

Both Plato and Pythagoras theories like Hiesenberg and many other "scientist" and philosophers have no regard for what is provable and verifiable

How do you know it is not provable or verifiable? I don't know enough of Heisenberg other than to respect his (broad) intellect but as far as Pythagoras and Plato are concerned, I have personal proof in the form of direct experience. We are not talking about materialism here, it's nothing to do with nuts n bolts.

[Plasmatic]

Im sorry G C and with respect internal "experiences" are not evidence in the realm of science , and for me, as far as others internal claims , not evidence in any respect.As I said I could only accept your or Platos claims on faith. i However I intend no disrespect by disagreeing.

[Grey Cloud]

Im sorry G C and with respect internal "experiences" are not evidence in the realm of science , and for me, as far as others internal claims , not evidence in any respect.As I said I could only accept your or Platos claims on faith. i However I intend no disrespect by disagreeing.

Since when was science declared the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable?
You are the one who brings up the word 'faith'. I am saying it is personally verifiable by anyone. I don't give a tinker's whether you 'believe' or not. My point was that you are not in the position to say what is or is not provable or verifiable, i.e. 'true'.

“No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.”

Niels Bohr

[Plasmatic]

Since when was science declared the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable?
You are the one who brings up the word 'faith'. I am saying it is personally verifiable by anyone. I don't give a tinker's whether you 'believe' or not. My point was that you are not in the position to say what is or is not provable or verifiable, i.e. 'true'.

Well all I can say is I am indeed in the position of deciding what is "provable " and "verifiable" and "true" as far as IM concerned. And like wise the "sole arbiter" of what I consider to be "science" and what is unverifiable nonsense. This is indeed my postion in regards to my posts. Yours is to do the same . As long as we dont use "force" to violate one anothers "postion" in this respect all is well . My point is it is not personally demostrable from one person to others outside their own heads. That is the context "faith" is relevent from.

[junglelord]

In fact it was Konstantine Meyls history lesson on the spiral vortex led back to Plato and the language of Nature.
I would think that nature is fractal holographic and scalable at all levels. The vortex theory of Plato is based on that very premis. Over two thousand years later Meyl makes a solid state impulse magnifying transmitter that still needs a physical spiral coil to transmitt longitduinal current. That would take some serious thought to dismiss.

I have even made Dave Thomson go back to spiral vortex work he had still thumping around inside after my revelation of structure and electonic components and double opposite layers and the fourth vortex/charge dimension of continuous tension with discontinuous fifth dimension angular momentum compression. That is tensegrity, the structural engineering of all levels of reality.
Meyl, Plato, Buckminster Fuller good men. Ida Rolf good woman.

[Plasmatic]

The word "physical" is what makes this a false analogy. You see my point. physical i.e. observable .

[Solar]

Solar.
I've just read the Hannes Alfven pdf you linked. He is a good example of the current problem of over-specialisation: he doesn't understand myth, the world's religions or where Pythagoras and Plato were coming from. I doubt that Bohr, Heisenberg et al would have made some of the comments Alfven came up with.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
Niels Bohr.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
Werner Heisenberg.

Both these gentlemen would have understood where Pythagoras and Plato were coming from.

The work Hannes Alfven did with electro-plasma dynamics constituted a radical break from "overspecialization". MGmirkin has already pointed precisely to this problem in the tthread "Successful predictions mean little in science?" wherein it is noted that even successful predictions by Alfven resulting from the scientific process are still ignored.

Then doubt no longer. Place any sentence, such as the two you've cited, in a search engine and enclose it in quotation marks. Do them individually though. I tried to link the results from google but something isn't working.

We are not talking about materialism here, it's nothing to do with nuts n bolts.

Respectfully dissagree. The EU is has never impressed me as being metaphysical nor overly philosphical in it's hypothesis. Yet, it has helped to expand that aspect for many. A philosophia naturalis will probably do that. I can appreciate the esoteric "experiences" but that takes the point of Alfven's observations and the title of the thread out of their intended context and puts them into another. It seems as if we're streatching the girth of the thread far and wide trying to be all inclusive.

When it comes to the scientific process, and the denial or rejection of results that can be reproduced, such as with Chapman, lab based "nuts and bolts" is precisely the point within the farmework of what supposedly constitutes "science". I don't consider that as "materialism". Supposed "heritics", such as Alfven, who dare 'break' from the pack do so because observational evidence supported by lab work actualizing the full weight of the scientific process propells them in that direction. This, in contrast to mathematical theoreticians; the "lab" for which, has now become the computer model with mathematically extended "scenarios" and hypothetical entities that are subsequently 'forced to fit' on reality.

Rangerover put it well. 'Instead of exploring nature; they're inventing it.'

[Grey Cloud]

Solar
Sorry pal, you seem to have missed my point. You wrote that Alfven made a break from specialisation; how so? He's now a specialist on plasma. The point I was trying to make was that in the pdf speech he was talking through his hat about myth, Plato, etc. I wasn't referring to his science as such.

I'm not sure what I was supposed to glean from the googling thing with the quotes.

I would argue that Alfven and other 'heretics' do not break from the pack. The pack kicks them out. It is the bishops of the church who the heretics fall foul of, their faith in the relligion of science is still there.

I have nothing against Alfven per se, but his comments vis-a-vis myth etc were obviously based on his own prejudices and preconceptions, e.g. he seems to believe in Darwinism - hence his condescending attitude to our 'primitive' forebears struggling to come to terms with the big, bad, world. Whereas today we are lucky in having plucky boffins like Alfven and his colleagues to come up with the answers.

When science stops polluting the land, the sea and the air, and my food and water then I might begin to have more respect for it.

[StefanR]

I define "classical physics" as 'physics resulting from and/or leading to the full fruition of "the scientific process" i.e the systematic use of controlled experiments to "prove" and/or "disprove" a hypothesis'.

Your question is most salient and an issue that has been repeatedly put forth by Thornhill and Talbott in terms of getting back to basic science stemming from lab work. That point, in relation to results from the labs of Plasma Science - and I'll gladly generalize here - is; and should be, one of the most prominant factors cited with regard to 'How' the Electric Universe hypothesis developed. The supporting history of work from individuals like Anthony Peratt, Ralph Jergens, Hannes Alfven, Charles Bruce, Bostick, Birkeland etc speak to a 'divide' that has occured between the 'theoretical' aspect of science and the vetting of the scientific process.

It is the integrity of the 'scientific process' itself that has betrayed. In this regard it is analgolous to doctors who all but ignore the Hypocratic Oath resulting in a cadre of highly intelligent people blind-sided into 'pseudo-intellectualism'. The psychosis being clearly evident, in my opinion, when watching ANY History/ Discovery Channel program dealing with astrophysics and cosmology. The number of scientist in lock-step with the "dominant gravitation only paradygm" turns any 'new' such televised expose' into a mere reitteration of former versions. They become merely a showcase for advancements in graphical presentation.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162

Thank you Solar, for clearing that up for me. The dealing with experiments is what I like very much about Thunderbolts et al.
The idea and fact maybe of an experiment falsifying part or whole of a model seems to me of some great importance.

[quote="Solar/Alfven""]Many of these scientist had never visited a laboratory or looked through a telescope, and even if tehy had, it was below their dignity to get their hand dirty. They accepted Plato's advice to "concentrate on the theoretical side of their subject and not spend endless trouble over physical measurements". They looked down on observers and experimental physicists whose only job was to confirm their high-brow conclusions. Those who were not able to confirm them were thought to be imcompetent. Observing astronomers came under heavy preassure from prestigious theoreticians.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162
[/quote]

I find this an intriguing qoute you give here. Does anyone know where exactly Plato made such advise?
What I find difficult is in what way the conclusion from Quantum Mechanics about the observer/observation influencing the experiment is related to this. Does anyone know more about that?

Also I found the book of Pico della Mirandola, "On Being and the One", quite interesting. He states, and I quote shortly from the proem dedicated to Angelo Polizanio :"And since those who think that Aristotle disagrees with Plato disagree with me, who make a concordant philosophy of both, you asked both how Aristotle might be defended in this matter and also how he might agree with his master, Plato.
....
Although I am to write at greater lenght on these topics in the Concord of Plato and Aristotle, which I am now bringing forth, you entreated me to collect in a brief compendium what I said about this question in your presence."

Could it be that the whole disagreement is a matter of prickles and goo, as stated by Alan Watts in the Matter/Waves-thread?

[Solar]

Solar
Sorry pal, you seem to have missed my point. You wrote that Alfven made a break from specialisation; how so? He's now a specialist on plasma. The point I was trying to make was that in the pdf speech he was talking through his hat about myth, Plato, etc. I wasn't referring to his science as such.

Then please accept my apologies for missunderstanding.

I was referring to his science as such and unless you, or someone else, would care to elaborate on the interjection of Bohr and Heisenberg I'm afraid I won't understand it as others appear to.

Are you saying that Alfven's comments with regard to Pythagorus and Plato reveal an ignorance to some greater 'esoteric experience of understanding' that Bohr and Heisenberg achieved through science?

[Grey Cloud]

Solar
Absolutely no need to apologise. Let's put it down to me not expressing myself clearly.

Are you saying that Alfven's comments with regard to Pythagorus and Plato reveal an ignorance to some greater 'esoteric experience of understanding' that Bohr and Heisenberg achieved through science?

Not so much an ignorance rather a blindness due to the modern tendency to separate science, philosophy, religion, art, etc, etc, which, historically was not the case. This tendency has been made worse, in the UK at least, by the educational reforms of the last several decades. The point I was trying to make about Bohr etc was that they were broadly educated people who chose science as a profession. To be honest, I was suprised at the narrow-mindedness of Alfven's views as expressed in the article.

One of the things I remember reading about Bohr, at least, was that when he first 'saw' whatever it was he 'saw' (the lack of something made of matter?) he immediately thought of the Vedas.