Up to Closeminded Sci.

Closeminded Science

Comments, Mini-forum

Thank you for visiting SCIENCE HOBBYIST. We would love it if you would Add your comments to our comment book.
Questionable site. The warnings against scientific dogmatism are important, but it is not science that is dogmatic it is people. Science is a method for understanding the world - I am of the opinion that it is THE method: conjecture and refutation. No other method exists that allows us humans to get anything resembling "The Truth." While you have within science, individuals who will refuse to accept new ideas and theories, the one thing that sets science apart from any other way of examing and understanding the world is that the more valid idea, the one coming closer to the Truth, will always win out over time.

The problem with so-called fringe science and pseudo-science is the extreme paucity and absence of any factual, objective evidence. There are indeed strange things in our world, but why do should we think of some fantastical or supernatural cause for events?

Jason Day
Toledo, OH USA - Friday, October 14, 2005 at 13:29:50 (PDT)
I liked your list of scientists who were ridiculed and called crackpots, but were later vindicated. It’s great and makes an excellent point. However, let us not forget how many were ridiculed and called crackpots, and later shown to be crackpots - that list is far, far larger. [True enough. But I put the list together because many people believe "you can't be too skeptical;" they believe that hostile prejudiced disbelief has no consequences, and they think that genuine discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by skepticism. They aren't aware of the problem. They need to be aware, and a list of "skeptical errors" can do this. Science is above all self-critical, and it becomes a problem if people begin to too much "worship" science and refuse to repair its flaws. In reality the job of the skeptic is not easy, since a tiny percentage of crackpot stuff always turns out to be completely genuine and valuable. Crazy ideas must first be investigated without bias, lest we reject the few good ideas when we reject the garbage. Anyone who thoughtlessly heaps ridicule upon crazy-seeming ideas will eventually become guilty of throwing away Diamonds just because they happen to be buried in Sewage. Should we congratulate them for protecting us from sewage? Or should we be angry that they're ignoring and discarding things of extreme value? PS, the list of geniune crackpots is enormous, but the list of crackpots in academic science would be quite small. If we're talking about strange and questionable ideas FROM SCIENTISTS, then there is no enormous mass of foolish distortion as there would be if we considered the general public. Maybe we need a list of "bad scientists." Lysenko's wheat, Shockley's skulls, etc. The list of crackpot scientists in academia still might be larger than my "vindicated" list, or it might not. Also, on a slightly separate topic: there IS a good reason that Arthur C Clarke proposed his First Law. Elderly and distinguished scientists do tend to discredit new ideas which later prove correct. -billb] While science should not be rigid and dogmatic, it SHOULD be conservative. New ideas seeking to supplant old ones should have to earn their place, and the burden of proof should rest with them.
Ken <yojimboken@comcast.net>
Seattle, WA USA - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 11:17:19 (PDT)
Closed minded is one thing, dishonest is another and I am collecting and publishing on my site evidence of dishonest psi testing. www.dream-detective.com I am just begining but have plenty of evidence about CSICOP and Dr Wiseman that shows either down right dishonesty or stupidity? You decide which it is.
Chris Robinson <psychiccr@aol.com>
London, LON UK - Saturday, November 13, 2004 at 03:55:59 (PST)
Enjoyed that, being a maverick myself. Some mavericks become that despite themselves. It's simple, they access their intuition, which is holistic, and as "the unconscious" maintains and updates their understanding and "world-model" by which they find 'anomalies' from elementary consistency among the parts and the way the senses work too. What is curious is that one lot suppresses it and another chases it. For which I suppose one may blame that herd instinct and mob psychology, though I fancy it's a shade more complex. The noises made by empathy and the senses is louder than that of the "con-science" So, do the mavericks have better "hearing"?
adrian van der Meijden <adrf@paradise.net.nz>
meremere nZ, New Zealand - Sunday, October 17, 2004 at 07:48:23 (PDT)
I am SO glad you created this guestbook! Thanks!

As a skeptic, inquisitive person in awe of Nature, a holistic therapist, a natural psychic healer, and a member of the family with ten medical doctors in three generations (my uncle, a surgeon, introduced me some 30 years ago to the field of parapsychology as it was called then), I am writing a PhD thesis on my telepathic and/or psychic 'reading' and healing of my patients' energy patterns as software of all human aspects - mental, emotional, physical, soul etc. Therefore I thought a lot about science and psychic phenomena.

I find the psychic healing crucial in effective, lasting healing of all 'stubborn' cases, which resisted medical and alternative treatments, healthy life style changes, spiritual practices etc.

I think that the reductionist ‘science’ CAN NOT comprehend fully the holistic healing, nor psy phenomena, irrespective of any innovative methods or rigor, simply because that 'science' is born out of the tendency to monopoly of the intellect over the whole, authentic human being. Acknowledging even the possibility of that whole Self would annihilate the very foundation of the reductionist 'science'. No imposter can survive as such if it accepts that it might be an imposter!

So I wandered -

1. What would it take to get to the holistic science, which would do justice to the whole Human, and to the whole Reality of the natural world, including psychic phenomena, and thus to holistic healing too?

2. What would change the reductionist scientists into whole human beings, and open up their minds to exploring and comprehending human wholeness rather than exploring its broken pieces by their broken selves?

On the basis of my action research since 1986, my answers are:

1. Since science is supposed to enhance the quality of human life, and since holistic healing is enhancing it more than anything else, by healing all individuals' aspects concomitantly, plus spontaneously healing their social environment, HOLISTIC HEALING IS THE HOLISTIC SCIENCE itself.

Since by definition holistic science HAS to be applied to be holistic, the proof/validity of such holistic science is in the direct, natural human experience of its healing effect/application at all levels. It does NOT need any other reductionist ‘proof’, and thus makes the reductionist science redundant.

2. The reductionist tunnel vision is, from holistic healing point of view, a symptom of the deep human woundedness, of being broken by conditioning into intellect separate from the rest of one’s own whole Self, an intellect suffering an lonely, terminal self-inflicted pedestalitis. Such alienated intellect, created by denial of its own true place in its natural context, HAS to fight to maintain denial of human wholeness as the very condition for its own existance and self-validation. It HAS to try to scale the whole Life down to its own crippled level, so it tries to 'prove' the 'truth' by non-living, mechanistic, dry measurements as something ‘objectively’ more valuable than experiencing Life itself. Such mind HAS to battle desperately for all related alienated ‘power’, in order to convince itself that it can win its futile battle to control the ‘chaotic’ Nature in general, and human nature in particular. Such mind HAS to negate the validity of emotional intelligence by labeling it 'irrational', HAS to manipulate the body by prescribed drugs in its delusional attempt to control its life and death, HAS to deny the Soul, too free to keep such intellect company in its voluntary mental prison, and HAS to deny the psychic human aspect, which is the vehicle of direct natural/intuitive/guided/soul knowing, that would rule out the alienated, reductionist imposter intellect as the would be slave driver of human beings. Such mind HAS to see things black and white and to attack viciously whoever and whatever is not obedient enough to its self-imposed rules (a pathetic modern version of Inquisition).

Such self-madening woundedness can get healed though, and IS getting healed willy nilly, due to the ripples of holistic healing that incorporates the psychic healing. I witness it daily, as a paradigm shift in my holistically healed patients, and also in people close to them, who were against holistic healing as not scientifically proven. Such is the bonus of true holistic healing. Due to its psychic aspect, it spreads even better than any illness at all levels of existance, to the true benefit of all ‘infected’. Hence - watch out for the 100th scientist phenomenon!

Cheers, Tiyana tiyanamb@iprimus.com.au
Tiyana Maksimovich-Binno <tiyanamb@iprimus.com.au>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Friday, September 17, 2004 at 09:42:02 (PDT)


Great collection!!! But how it is possibly to download?
Leo <Leo@gurnam.com>
London, UK, NY USA - Sunday, August 01, 2004 at 01:37:57 (PDT)
Dear Sirs! Please see the papers.

SciTecLibrary - Articles and Publication [2] The literature generally describes a metallic bond as the one formed by means of mutual bonds betwee...

http://sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/4564.html , 77354 bytes

SciTecLibrary - Articles and Publication [2] Every subsequent element of the table of elements differs from the previous one in the amount of pro...

http://sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/6815.html , 36049 bytes

Sincerely,Henadzi Filipenka,teacher of materials
hfilipenk <hfil@aport2000.ru>
Grodno, Russia - Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 09:33:25 (PDT)


Your Disgusto-Scope makes me for once rather glad I only see out of one eye! Keep up the good work!
Alex
Sunnyvale, CA USA - Sunday, May 02, 2004 at 01:25:28 (PDT)
Where are my posts???
[Read the warnings to spammers. No direct postings, unfortunately. I only move the new posts into public view about once a week or once a month. I can't allow direct postings, since many hundreds of spammers try to fill guestbooks with their URLs about ringtones and casinos and fake diet pills. I have to delete about thirty of these each month, and it would be a much larger number if I didn't keep changing things so their automatic software can't find my guestbooks. -billb]

cove <ceive@mail.com>
- Friday, March 05, 2004 at 13:16:17 (PST)
What the religion of the fine folk at NASA won’t allow them to say is that while Mars probably does have water locked-up in its poles as ice, and perhaps traces amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure may never have been high enough to permit water to exist as a liquid for more than the most transitory periods of time. This would be a disaster to the NASA acolytes, and its future missions.
The NASA religion is that life is ubiquitous in the universe-evidence of which is that even our next door neighbor (i.e., Mars) had it. Therefore, let’s go out and find it. They don’t tout the Drake Equation, but it runs as a basso continuo in their thinking. That’s why you’ve never heard them even utter the opposite possibility-that Mars never made it, life-wise, and has always been a barren desert. See http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-water-science-00k1.html to get the full scoop.

Tom Holzel <thosholzel@aol.com>
Boston, MA USA - Friday, February 06, 2004 at 13:06:43 (PST)
Hello! Your site looks interesting. I am not a totally new to web development. I have some skills, but anyway I need to learn something new, could you please give me some advice.
[see http://amasci.com/faq.html#hits and http://amasci.com/mistake.html -billb]
al <asd@msn.com>
Kiev, NY Ukraine - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 at 12:30:43 (PDT)
I am from Russia and have been studying English . Textbook are bored and I try to read the sites. Your sites is very pleasant. I glad that I can understand it :)
Tersaakova <tersaakova@mail.ru>
Philapelphia, PA USA - Sunday, September 28, 2003 at 07:26:00 (PDT)
Hi. Have you known what happens with two tea bags? Hackers etc... It's horroble, isn't it? Are you afraid the same? May it happens on this site?
cnn news <gerda@coxicc.com>
Vishaite, KZ USA - Saturday, September 13, 2003 at 00:23:41 (PDT)
I think you mean "closedminded science," not "closeminded science." The latter sounds like the mind is not far away. Compare to brokenhearted. You wouldn't say breakhearted.
[ Close the door, have a close-door meeting versus a closed-door meeting? You're right, the second one is better. But what about closed minds? Check a dictionary. Both versions are listed, so both versions are right. Which one is more common? Search google on closeminded versus closedminded, or close-minded versus closed-minded. Results are approximately equal (although closeminded definitely beats closedminded, closed-minded edges out close-minded.) So I guess it doesn't much matter. On the other hand, Roget's Thesaurus II at bartleby.com doesn't list closed-minded at all. It lists close-minded. Does this mean I "win?" Nah. -billb]

Jim
NJ USA - Thursday, July 17, 2003 at 11:24:40 (PDT)
Good website. You sound a lot like my father who always talks about the never ending increase in pseudo science. He likes to say "Never before have we had more knowledge, and yet we have more wackos than ever before". Or some thing like that :_)
Brian <kellyjacks2001@yahoo.com>
Chicago, Il USA - Wednesday, April 09, 2003 at 17:23:15 (PDT)
The question of which human brain evolves is the fundamental question of mankind evolves,and is the most thorny problem, too. If we can't avoid it because this question is thorny,otherwise,we can't touch the core of mankind evolves. So long as we solve this key problem, all of problems about the fact of mankind evolves will be easily solved.

The theory of "human brain software" can completely solve the question of human evolution. It is no longer a theory with misty nihility, but one kind of theory which can be touched with our esthesia. We can check the theory with a kind of simple and easy experiment method.We can control soccer talents and world soccer markets with the theory, and can earily earn over 100 million $.The details please see:

 
Sundays too my father got up early, and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold, then with cracked hands that ached from labor in the weekday weather made banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him. But thanks for this site! Steve S. from www.saroff.com --
Steve Saroff <ssaroff@hotmail.com>
Missoula, MT - Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 19:10:04 (PST)
Nice site. Cheers from Canada.
eddie
Ear Falls, Ontario Canada - Friday, February 21, 2003 at 12:06:00 (PST)
A thought-provoking site. In the context of this site, to see a current and concrete example of scientific controversy, please visit my website: http://www.geocities.com/bibhasde
Bibhas De
USA - Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 14:13:11 (PST)
Just surfing. A wise man will always change his mind . . a fool never will
Ronny from FCK, Hobbykicker Verein
Germany - Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 08:49:29 (PDT)
new revolutions. Psi-powers and ghosts, for instance, would certainly turn science on its ear, but they have been under investig ation for centuries, and I tend to the view that if something consistent and repeatable were going to turn up, it would have by now. But with fusion, say, or quantum phenomena, or even things associated with technology that we have
Ibiza
USA - Sunday, September 22, 2002 at 12:44:20 (PDT)
Mr. Bill Beaty. Thank you for maintaining this website. I had personal experiences of the arrogance of "the organised sceptics" against "dissident viewpoints" and got frustrated reading about their blind and almost religious misuse of "the accepted scientific method" to determine what is truth or not. I am convinced that organised science itself is the gratest obstacle towards the exploration of reality, in much the same way as organised religion obstrues pure spiritual development. I am very much interested in the psyhology of this phenomenon that could be coined as "collective conservatism". Thomas Kuhn gave us some insight in the phenomen, but it seems as if the scientific sceptics, the religious leaders and maybe also the classic company managers act as the members of some "clan" and follow an unwritten collective credo (a mental attractor?): "to safeguard the existence of the clan and our position in the clan, we must at all cost keep the power (control) within the clan". So we see that the classic scientist (the blind sceptic) wants to maintain the bounderies of the actual scientific paradigm and protect those bounderies is an almost fundamentalistic religious manner and only tolerates the discoveries and methods that can be explained within the paradigm. I hoped to find studies of this phenomenon in the philosophy of science but could not find any. Years back had a dutch book about the struggle Semmelweiss and others had to go through. I lent it out and it got lost. Later I realised how difficult it was to find literature that is critical towards the the scientific approach in the classic circuits. Since long I was seeking books and the web for critical and open-minded views on the myths of scientific truth. I am overjoyed to find your website. I have printed all your info and will go through it and will certainly feed back to you. Great job. If our knowledge of reality is deepening despite of organised science, we have to be thankful and pay hommage to the real geniuses that combined their insights with a great deal of courage and a great stubbornness to keep fighting the institution in the persuit of the knowlegde of reality. Your website is an true hommage to those geniusses.
johan de cocker <johan.decocker@yucom.be>
gent, Belgium - Monday, April 01, 2002 at 01:20:39 (PST)
VERY interesting site. It seems that there is more moderation in science than I previously thought. Thank you for sharing all of those wonderful sites and articles.
Jeremy
USA - Tuesday, November 20, 2001 at 17:57:47 (PST)
I have been researching how to intergrate the electromagnetic effects of the varriations of the solar wind into the standard weather forecast model, since 1982... Have put together a web site, with no commerical content, as an alternative to attempting to publish into a Science Journal, the results of my findings, among other things A natural analog period of ~6554 days, due to the interactions of the planetary passive magnetic conductivity, shaping the disstortion of the solar wind field from spherica ly perfect... To present examples of this repeating pattern I have compiled from NOAA daily records, of daily highs and lows, and range of precipitation to expect based on the summation of the past three cycles... I find that the resultant pattern repeat s again, in the present with better accuracy than the 10 day forecast but not as good as the 48 hour forecasts NOAA generates, But the pattern will hold that accuracy for several years out into the furture... I have not met with much acceptance from the N WS powers that be, but have found several mentors....I found most of your advice helpfull and also most of your discription of the resistance to dissention, to be true in my own case as well... Just starting to look into earthquake production cycles by th e same method of investigation and am finding patterns that will be usefull in forecasting them, data is partly processed so as yet not posted to web pages...
Richard Holle <aerology@dustdevil.com>
Concordia, Ks USA - Thursday, January 18, 2001 at 23:23:16 (PST)
Excellent site. I am a skeptic and have noticed that many of these so-called "skeptical" groups are not really skeptical. They attack new ideas and discoveries and reject them on an a priori basis. That is not science and these groups are stifling creativity and discovery. True skeptics such as myself will suffer because of the actions of these statist, close-minded "experts."
Paul LaMont <pclamont1@aol.com>
TX USA - Sunday, January 07, 2001 at 22:06:45 (PST)
Your site contains some interesting information. I'm shocked that K-6 science textbooks contain so much erroneous information. I am not surprised, since I recently learned that often, texts are written by professional writers and not reviewed by professional scientists.

However, I am puzzled about your "evolution" comments. I am not aware that evolution, or "survival of the fittest" is taught as a principle of human interaction. Whenever social scientists attempt to make scientific theories translate into conclusions on human behavior, trouble results. Witness eugenics and social Darwinism. Evolutionary theory isn't to blame; fallible humans are. Evolution is merely an observed process in nature. Concluding from observations of the natural world anything about human behavior is wrong-headed and misleading.
Liz <lizard6849@yahoo.com>
Roeland Park, KS USA - Monday, November 20, 2000 at 13:54:01 (PST)


I like your raw approach to internet but I desagree with the "word only" theory, to go faster, to get more infos ? maybe-- but if the eye can grasp over 80 000 informations at the time it is more than speed reading -- why couldn't we tell complete story only with images and sound ? a concise language is very unatractive and words tend to need more and more words and are often a fastidious waste of time to read -- that is why images are needed on the web --to cut the bs -- is that weird science?
Pierre-Alain TOUGE <webmaster@bearmount.com>
Sain-Germain de la Coudre, Le Perche FRANCE - Monday, August 28, 2000 at 18:15:25 (PDT)
I just LOVE your website. You did a tremendous job here. Kudos.

Also, I did follow the link to http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/ mentioned above below it's definitely worth a look!
Heretic <heretic@forbiddenscience.com>
USA - Saturday, May 20, 2000 at 00:42:12 (PDT)


From billb: On Mary Messall (below) re. scientists being "overly skeptical"... Mary seems to be displaying the right amount of skepticism, and using the word "skepticism" as it should be used. We should never be willing to believe something without evidence, and this swings both ways: we should neither accept nor reject a proposition without examining all the evidence. Dr. M. Truzzi lables this practice "zeteticism", and complains that the word "skepticism" has become corrupted by constant misuse by sneering smug "disbelievers". Today the word Skepticism is typically used to label scoffers rather than critical thinkers. I can say it more clearly: scientists should avoid being overly scoffing or disbelieving, but they should be very Zetetical, they should base their knowledge on evidence and not on emotional reactions or beloved preconceptions.

Yet I would caution her to be wary of rejecting PSI (etc.) on the grounds that decades or centuries of investigation haven't found supporting evicence. The history of science contains numerous discoveries which were resisted for decades, (go here) yet they were perfectly valid, and in hindsight the resistance was caused by human nature; by scientists who confront the fact that a piece of their worldview was faulty, and they reject the discovery in order to preserve their worldview (e.g black hole theory suppressed by ridicule from 1930 to 1960, transposon theory suppressed by ridicule from 1940 to 1970 regeneration of brain neurons suppressed by ridicule from 1950 to 1990, etc.) In other words, yes, sometimes the passage of decades can indicate that a discovery is wrong and cannot be replicated... but it also can indicate that the scientific community is dead set against accepting a discovery that makes them all look bad. In that case Max Planck's rule holds, and at least ten or twenty years must pass before the resistant generation of scientists dies off and is replaced by youngsters who grew up familiar with the idea. "Science only progresses funeral by funeral (Planck.)"

Unfortunately, DIS-belief is just as prejudiced a stance as belief. Neither one is true skepticism. There is an infinite difference between "not proved" and "disproved," since things not proved may be valid or invalid. There is an infinite difference between remaining undecided about a proposition and refusing to accept or reject it, versus becoming a disbeliever. When we decide to disbelieve without basing our decision on good evidence, we release our hold on rational thinking.

My complaints are mostly directed against those who adopt a prior stance of disbelief; those who discard evidence on the grounds that the evidence contradicts contemporary theories and worldviews. This stance is the very opposite of science where evidence supposedly determines theory and not vice versa. Negative beliefs are just as prejudiced as positive beliefs, and prior disbelief can lead to a form of Pathological Science where real evidence is ignored, and where self-fulfilling prophesies dominate a scientific field. If we believe that a genuine phenomenon does not exist, this can cause us to reject evidence (or even become unconsciously blind to evidence) in support of the disbelieved phenomenon.

Human beings tend to see what we want to see, and this is a real problem for scientists. But don't forget that we also tend to become blind to things we disbelieve, and this is an equally large problem in science (although it's discussed only rarely.) If we unconsciously close our eyes, and then because we see nothing, we therefore conclude that no visible evidence exists, that's circular thinking with no basis in reality. Smug disbelief is just as distorting as wide-eyed gullible belief.

"EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE"

The above statement is wrong. It's a prime example of the problem. Members of Skeptic groups take the above statement as a given. Yet if they examine it critically, they'll discover an interesting concept: extraordinary claims should require good, solid evidence, JUST THE SAME AS NON-EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS. Anything else would creat prejudice, it would create a prior emotional bias against anything considered "extraordinary." And in science, it is of paramount importance to eliminate any prejudice before examining evidence. If extraordinary claims require EXTRAORDINARY evidence, then we can reject enormous amounts of good, solid evidence on the grounds that it is not "extraordinary" enough. This is called "adopting a prejudice, then becoming selective of the evidence." Selecting evidence to support a disbelief has little to do with skepticism or science, and everything to do with defending a belief system against any evidence that contradicts it. Science is not based on defensiveness and rationalization.

The best stance for a scientist is one of humble openmindedness, as well as a refusal to accept or reject any proposition entirely. All scientific knowledge is tenative. If we avoid falling into beliefs or disbeliefs, but instead think exclusively in terms of "likelihood", we can avoid all the battles which, at their root, are conflicts between opposing "religious" positions, i.e. between opposing belief systems. So, does PSI exist? First we must distrust the warring factions that say "No it doesn't!!!" or "Yes it does!!!!" First we must eliminate our existing prejudice, and only then take a clear look at the best evidence for and against.

But remember: true critical thinking puts us in danger of deciding that PSI is real, and then a large portion of the scientific community will turn against us. But shouldn't this have no bearing on our analysis of PSI? Yet for most professionals it's a very big issue.
Bill Beaty <>
Seattle, WA USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 10:53:13 (PST)


Further thought- I lend different amounts of credulity (and require different standards of evidence) to old revolutions and new revolutions. Psi-powers and ghosts, for instance, would certainly turn science on its ear, but they have been under investigation for centuries, and I tend to the view that if something consistent and repeatable were going to turn up, it would have by now. But with fusion, say, or quantum phenomena, or even things associated with technology that we didn't have under recently ( like large voltages over long terms) I'll lend a more sympathetic ear. In these cases, it's more likely that there simply hasn't been enough time to accumulate evidence. It's a valuable distinction to make, if one wishes to narrow the list of "unusual phenomena" to the best candidates.
Mary Messall <mmessall@ups.edu>
Tacoma, WA USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 13:21:26 (PST)
I've said this elsewhere, but this seems a fairly appropriate place to repeat it. I think there's a problem with saying that scientists are "overly skeptical." It suggests that we should be willing to believe without requiring so much strict evidence. This is, I think, exactly the opposite of what you're trying to suggest- that we should require *more* strict evidence for those aspects of scientific orthodoxy we do believe. What we need is more skepticism, the strength to doubt the principles that certain phenomenon contradict. Skepticism, the relentless doubting of everything, *is* science. You experiment, you test, you come up with alternate explanations, you argue even with god. It's the only means we have to progress. Accepting things without evide nce leads to gullible stagnation. (Mind you, some things have to be provisionally accepted in order to function, but these can always be called into question later.)
Mary Messall <mmessall@ups.edu>
Tacoma, WA USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 13:11:41 (PST)
Great site. What a wonderful collection of quotes. [http://amasci.com/weird/skepquote.html] I could not believe how many diverse quality quotes you found. I guess I have grown ever more critical of scientists without ever loosing the tiniest bit of love for science. Perhaps losing my naivity has fueled me onward. I didn't get through all the quotes yet but I thought this one would fit in, if its not there already: In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei So, Sci-American put a link to my site last April. I model aggregate state space. Interesting stuff. I wrote three books opposing the big crunch and endless heat death scenarios with my theory that the universe is expanding to flatness and absolute zero, all written years before NASA discovered accelerating expansion. A Ph.D is offering to help me write a book but I need all the help I can get. Come visit: everythingforever.com -send me a line. Thanks, Devin Harris
Devin Harris <dharris@everythingforever.com>
USA - Sunday, February 20, 2000 at 17:03:17 (PST)
Okease have a look at my new site: skeptic, but I hope open-minded. There are articles on belief systems, homeopathy and parapsychology, and various aspects of alternative medicine from a critical (inside) angle. Also book reviews of books on science, philosophy, parapsychology etc. This is (I hope!) a rapidly developing site. Feedback very welcome.
Anthony Campbell <a.campbell@freethinker.uklinux.net>
London, UK - Saturday, February 19, 2000 at 05:57:50 (PST)
For a discussion of how the Shapiro effect is the cause of the redshift of distant galaxies, and not the Doppler effect, see my web page at: http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy
Jerrold Thacker <JThacker@msn.com>
USA - Sunday, February 06, 2000 at 12:45:34 (PST)
Need a section on Velikovsky; his concepts, predictions, and validations, also on Harlow Shapley the Liar, et al. Some of Velikovsky's thoughts [and possible results of what he thought happened], may shed light on things we are now finding out about our Solar system. Examples: Venus now quite hot [due to in part to friction of close approach to Earth 2700 years ago] ; Mars now nearly devoid of water but once may have had flowing streams [loss of much of Mars' atmosphere when in close approach (Phobos & Deimos visible to eye-- Homer) to much more massive Earth (pickup of Martian water could be cause of our Flood)].
fatjack
lancaster, PA USA - Saturday, January 22, 2000 at 12:54:57 (PST)

 

Back to CLOSEMINDED SCIENCE




Guestbook script from Matt's Script Archive