PDA

View Full Version : Most people have difficulty in changing entrenched ideas!



ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 03:13 AM
For some unknown reason, most people seem to have remained with ideas which they learned at an earlier age (probably a very early age). From the moment of acceptance, further change becomes virtually impossible for most people. For others, changing one's viewpoint is exciting if faced with new ideas which have been demonstrated to be correct.

I, myself, love change, but only if the facts leading to that change are rock solid (whatever that means).

We can argue about science (in this case -- astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) until we are blue in the face, but a change in viewpoints is highly unlikely and seldom occurs.

Therefore, I think that it is important to be aware that anything which any of us writes is not going to sway anybody else who holds an opposite viewpoint on the particular topic.

I do not see anybody altering his/her/its ideas. For this reason, I dislike joining the fray since I expect nothing to come from it. The only people who can be swayed by any of us are those who have no idea about astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology, etc., and who are willing to learn. However, sadly, they, too, eventually will become entrenched in some viewpoint or another somewhere in the future.

I, myself, love it when something new comes along to force me to change my ideas. However, the facts causing such change in my ideas must be rock solid. "Rock solid" to me could be "flimsy evidence" to another person.

This is not to say that some ideas are much better than others. The better ideas have as much trouble being accepted by the general public as the foolish ideas. Of course, "the foolish ideas" are always those held by the other person... Of course... Naturally...

I will not hold my breath for any great agreement by most of the members of this (or any other) forum. If everyone agreed, then it might be boring indeed. We could all sit in front of our computers and pat ourselves collectively on our backs... ZZZzzzz...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ZZZzzz...

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 22:16 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Dec-25, 04:21 AM
There seems to be a scale of "dearness" of ideas. Some ideas are far more precious, valuable, even sacred than others.

I could happily give up the theory of atomic weights...because I'm not very good at chemistry. But I'd really dig in my heels if someone tried to get me to give up the theory of electricity...because I've done enough work with electrical circuits to have a personal emotional identification with it.

In the nineteenth century, explorers were comfortable enough giving up the idea that magnetic north was equal to true north. But you'd have a devil of a time persuading anyone to give up the concept of truth north!

On a personal note: I was VERY relucant to accept the reports that there might be frozen water on the moon. It just "felt" wrong. I'm still dubious, and I admit freely that my emotions are a part of it.

I have a friend who was fiercely reluctant (back in the 1970's and 80's) to accept that the surface temperature of Venus was hot enough to melt lead. He admitted, with complete honesty, that he still held hope that Venus harbored life. He also admitted that it was an emotional prejudice, not a scientific conclusion.

When, in 1982 or so, Alan Guth first published the notion of the "expansionary phase" of the Big Bang, I fell in love with it. Instantly. Emotionally. Irrationally. And to this day, I must take extra care to try to divorce my emotions from my education. I *want* it to be true.

The key is for professionals to maintain their distance from their ideas, lest they, like Rene Blondlot, become mired in the quicksand of their desires.

Silas

irony
2002-Dec-25, 04:58 AM
Hmm... so, everybody, what ideas would you have a terrible time accepting? It would take a heck of a proof to convince me of any of the following:

1) The existance of a god or gods. There's no evidence for or against, but as far as I can tell, the universe writes its own rules without needing help from a god. On a deeper level, though, I just don't like the idea of a 'higher force.' If it's all part of some god's plan, then free will is in the toilet. I don't want anybody in control of my life except me.

2) That there is life in the solar system (native or visiting) anywhere but on Earth. I do feel that this is ridiculously unlikely on scientific grounds, but I'm more attatched to the idea than that. Perhaps because I think life somewhere else in the solar system makes life on Earth less special. That might be hypocritical coming from an atheist. I'm not sure.

3) That we will ever find an 'ultimate theory' of the universe. I can't think of any rational basis for this one at all. I guess I just don't like the idea that we can find ourselves with nothing left to discover.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-25, 11:07 AM
On 2002-12-24 23:21, Silas wrote:
In the nineteenth century, explorers were comfortable enough giving up the idea that magnetic north was equal to true north.
I think it happened a lot earlier than the nineteenth century. Didn't Columbus note some declinations in his logs?


On 2002-12-24 23:58, irony wrote:
1) The existance of a god or gods. There's no evidence for or against, but as far as I can tell, the universe writes its own rules without needing help from a god. On a deeper level, though, I just don't like the idea of a 'higher force.' If it's all part of some god's plan, then free will is in the toilet. I don't want anybody in control of my life except me.
Some people go the other way--they start with the idea of free will, that things are not totally deterministic. If that is so, there must be some essence within us that we completely do not understand, outside physics and science. Call it a soul--and once, you have a soul, it is a small step to thinking there is a God.

3) That we will ever find an 'ultimate theory' of the universe. I can't think of any rational basis for this one at all. I guess I just don't like the idea that we can find ourselves with nothing left to discover.

There are no continents left to discover on Earth, but we've slowly managed to find a new frontier (cue Star Trek music). Even if we find an ultimate theory, there will be plenty of opportunity to develop new frontiers.

David Hall
2002-Dec-25, 02:46 PM
I was just thinking about something along these lines today.

I was looking back on my life and thinking about all the things I used to believe. Everything from heavy Christian faith to New-Age metaphysics to agnosticism and secularism, from liberal-libertarian to conservative middle-of-the-road, from positivism to cynicism. I've run a large gamut of beliefs in several areas.

But the thing that struck me today was that, at each and every stage of my belief systems, I was absolutely convinced that I was right, that what I believed was pretty much the truth. It always seemed crystal clear to me, and I wondered why others couldn't see it. Then my experiences would lead me into a new way of looking at things, and I just considered my previous beliefs to be naive.

So what struck me most today was that, if my beliefs have been so changeable, why do I trust them so much? For some reason I was always able to change beliefs without changing my trust in what I believed in, and that seemed strange. So now I wonder, how can I trust the beliefs I have now? Indeed, how can I trust any point-of-view I may have in the future? And how can I find any trust in others' beliefs as well? Are they not just as fallable as me? I seem to have not so much lost faith in what I believe, rather, I've lost faith in belief itself.

There is one strong foundation, the scientific method, which only accepts solid observation, and more and more I see value in putting my trust in it only. All my questing seems to have inevitably drawn me to it.

But there are other things like political beliefs that don't fall into the scientific mold, and to those I have no answer. I guess I will just have to float with the tide on those and hope that my course leads me to a better understanding and balance with the world. At least, with my lack of complete faith in my own beliefs, I will probably not be susceptible to extremism/fanatacism. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 05:59 PM
The key is for professionals to maintain their distance from their ideas, lest they, like Rene Blondlot, become mired in the quicksand of their desires.

Silas

I liked your entire post. I particularly agree with the above. I, myself, have always kept a personal distance from ideas which I have accepted, because, with the appropriate amount of information, they can be instantaneously changed. I never believed in Santa Claus. (When I was three years old, my parents goofed by wrapping one of their own gifts to me in the paper that Santa Claus's presents were wrapped.) It was exciting to me to give up old beliefs. In the same way, I appreciated the findings of Perlmutter, et al., in the LETTERS section of the January 1, 1998, issue of NATURE concerning the accelerating universe. It really blew my mind. It has changed everything in Cosmology and has reintroduced Einstein's *Lambda* (a/k/a Dark Energy) in new clothes. Science seems to produce the greatest *Aha!* experiences. It is too bad that so many people miss out on the *Great Adventure* of Science.

I always enjoy your posts. I usually remain invisible to keep from disrupting the flow of the threads when I have nothing new to contribute other than *Bravissimo* or the like.

Incidentally, I have never been a *True Believer* of any kind. My optical physicist father helped that. Following his advice, I have eschewed science fiction, so as not to get my science wrong. This might bother others. I simply find science much more thrilling. I have read much great literature, so I have not missed everything of value.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 13:05 ]</font>

michael cyrek
2002-Dec-25, 06:29 PM
On 2002-12-24 22:13, ljbrs wrote:
For some unknown reason, most people seem to have remained with ideas which they learned at an earlier age (probably a very early age). From the moment of acceptance, further change becomes virtually impossible for most people. For others, changing one's viewpoint is exciting if faced with new ideas which have been demonstrated to be correct.

I, myself, love change, but only if the facts leading to that change are rock solid (whatever that means).

We can argue about science (in this case -- astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) until we are blue in the face, but a change in viewpoints is highly unlikely and seldom occurs.

Therefore, I think that it is important to be aware that anything which any of us writes is not going to sway anybody else who holds an opposite viewpoint on the particular topic.

I do not see anybody altering his/her/its ideas. For this reason, I dislike joining the fray since I expect nothing to come from it. The only people who can be swayed by any of us are those who have no idea about astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology, etc., and who are willing to learn. However, sadly, they, too, eventually will become entrenched in some viewpoint or another somewhere in the future.

I, myself, love it when something new comes along to force me to change my ideas. However, the facts causing such change in my ideas must be rock solid. "Rock solid" to me could be "flimsy evidence" to another person.

This is not to say that some ideas are much better than others. The better ideas have as much trouble being accepted by the general public as the foolish ideas. Of course, "the foolish ideas" are always those held by the other person... Of course... Naturally...

I will not hold my breath for any great agreement by most of the members of this (or any other) forum. If everyone agreed, then it might be boring indeed. We could all sit in front of our computers and pat ourselves collectively on our backs... ZZZzzzz...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ZZZzzz...

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 22:16 ]</font>


Michael cyrek replies:
I notice you are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read. That is why I do not believe in the 'big bang interpretation' of the redshift. See below, this is an important issue that could not only change your own mind set but create a revolution in cosmology.

A number of years ago, I had a PhD review my paper on the cause of the redshift. He replied that Maxwell's Equations refuted my idea of the 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cause of the redshift. The following is his explanation of why.
He explained and illustrated that the 'electric field patterns' are produced by VIRTUAL POSITIVE CHARGED PARTICLES moving from the positive charge to the negative charge and they traced out the pattern according to Maxwell's Equations and not due to any expansion as I claimed.
He overlooked one very important LAW OF PHYSICS and that is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER. Therefore, these charged particles, during their transition from the positive to the nagative charge, WILL REPEL EACH OTHER. This is the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to cause the electromagnetic field patterns to spread out in the central regions of these fields. This is why I believe that the lightwavws are the cause of the redshift.
If you look in any physics book, there should be an illustration of the nature of the lightwaves. You will notice that these lightwaves have field lines that are perpendicular to the motion of these lightwaves. Therefore, the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to these field lines expands the lightwaves in the same direction as the motion to cause the redshift.
The establishment astronomers will not accept this idea because it woukd cause a MAJOR REVOLUTION in cosmology that would overthrow their current 'big bang' concept,
MC

Kizarvexis
2002-Dec-25, 06:34 PM
On 2002-12-24 23:58, irony wrote:
Hmm... so, everybody, what ideas would you have a terrible time accepting? It would take a heck of a proof to convince me of any of the following:


I can intellectually accept that faster-than-light travel is not possible, but I emotionally hold out for some new insight which would make it possible. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 06:59 PM
Hmm... so, everybody, what ideas would you have a terrible time accepting? It would take a heck of a proof to convince me of any of the following:

1) The existance of a god or gods. There's no evidence for or against, but as far as I can tell, the universe writes its own rules without needing help from a god. On a deeper level, though, I just don't like the idea of a 'higher force.' If it's all part of some god's plan, then free will is in the toilet. I don't want anybody in control of my life except me.

Irony:

I do not discuss my beliefs with anybody. I let sleeping dogs lie.


2) That there is life in the solar system (native or visiting) anywhere but on Earth. I do feel that this is ridiculously unlikely on scientific grounds, but I'm more attatched to the idea than that. Perhaps because I think life somewhere else in the solar system makes life on Earth less special. That might be hypocritical coming from an atheist. I'm not sure.

Irony:

I think there are a lot of elementary life forms in the Solar System. I will leave determining that up to the real scientists in their respective fields. I am not worried about aliens from other star systems visiting us. The distances are too great for living things to make it to the nearest star in many, many generations. The cost of such an endeavor by Earthlings would bankrupt the World. I will not hold my breath...



3) That we will ever find an 'ultimate theory' of the universe. I can't think of any rational basis for this one at all. I guess I just don't like the idea that we can find ourselves with nothing left to discover.


Irony:

Scientists are working on it. Non-scientists would never have the information with which to make a determination of that. I doubt that there will be a time when there is nothing left to discover.

Ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 14:21 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 07:23 PM
On 2002-12-25 13:59, ljbrs wrote:

Hmm... so, everybody, what ideas would you have a terrible time accepting? It would take a heck of a proof to convince me of any of the following:

1) The existance of a god or gods. There's no evidence for or against, but as far as I can tell, the universe writes its own rules without needing help from a god. On a deeper level, though, I just don't like the idea of a 'higher force.' If it's all part of some god's plan, then free will is in the toilet. I don't want anybody in control of my life except me.

Irony:

I do not discuss my beliefs with anybody. I let sleeping dogs lie.


2) That there is life in the solar system (native or visiting) anywhere but on Earth. I do feel that this is ridiculously unlikely on scientific grounds, but I'm more attatched to the idea than that. Perhaps because I think life somewhere else in the solar system makes life on Earth less special. That might be hypocritical coming from an atheist. I'm not sure.

Irony:

I think there are a lot of elementary life forms in the Solar System. I will leave determining that up to the real scientists in their respective fields. I am not worried about aliens from other star systems visiting us. The distances are too great for living things to make it to the nearest star in many, many generations. The cost of such an endeavor by Earthlings would bankrupt the World. I will not hold my breath...



3) That we will ever find an 'ultimate theory' of the universe. I can't think of any rational basis for this one at all. I guess I just don't like the idea that we can find ourselves with nothing left to discover.


Irony:

Scientists are working on it. Non-scientists would never have the information with which to make a determination of that. I doubt that there will be a time when there is nothing left to discover.

Ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 14:21 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 07:33 PM
Grapes:

Good post.

I do not watch much television or go to see many movies (loud soundtracks]. However, I read a lot. My late physicist father warned me about science fiction. It is difficult to separate baloney from one's positive scientific studies. I do not think I have missed anything.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 07:58 PM
I was just thinking about something along these lines today.

I was looking back on my life and thinking about all the things I used to believe. Everything from heavy Christian faith to New-Age metaphysics to agnosticism and secularism, from liberal-libertarian to conservative middle-of-the-road, from positivism to cynicism. I've run a large gamut of beliefs in several areas.

But the thing that struck me today was that, at each and every stage of my belief systems, I was absolutely convinced that I was right, that what I believed was pretty much the truth. It always seemed crystal clear to me, and I wondered why others couldn't see it. Then my experiences would lead me into a new way of looking at things, and I just considered my previous beliefs to be naive.

So what struck me most today was that, if my beliefs have been so changeable, why do I trust them so much? For some reason I was always able to change beliefs without changing my trust in what I believed in, and that seemed strange. So now I wonder, how can I trust the beliefs I have now? Indeed, how can I trust any point-of-view I may have in the future? And how can I find any trust in others' beliefs as well? Are they not just as fallable as me? I seem to have not so much lost faith in what I believe, rather, I've lost faith in belief itself.

There is one strong foundation, the scientific method, which only accepts solid observation, and more and more I see value in putting my trust in it only. All my questing seems to have inevitably drawn me to it.

But there are other things like political beliefs that don't fall into the scientific mold, and to those I have no answer. I guess I will just have to float with the tide on those and hope that my course leads me to a better understanding and balance with the world. At least, with my lack of complete faith in my own beliefs, I will probably not be susceptible to extremism/fanatacism.

David Hall:

Good post! I have been different. I have always quietly mistrusted everything until I could confirm each of the notions in some rather basic way. Because my parents goofed, I never believed in Santa Claus or any of the other silly things parents foist upon their children. I relished the thought on my part to see through their schemes. I find religion can be dangerous when there is fanaticism. I avoid religious discussions of all kinds. If I were asked, I would always state that I believe whatever exists, exists, and if my belief is the same as the beliefs of theirs, then we can agree. Then I always change the subject. Getting into religious arguments is beyond the pale. I have many religious friends. I have no reason to desire to challenge their faiths, nor do they, mine.

I have ALWAYS remained a skeptic and it has held me in good stead. Skepticism is part of the scientific method of accomplishing anything.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 08:24 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-24 22:13, ljbrs wrote:
For some unknown reason, most people seem to have remained with ideas which they learned at an earlier age (probably a very early age). From the moment of acceptance, further change becomes virtually impossible for most people. For others, changing one's viewpoint is exciting if faced with new ideas which have been demonstrated to be correct.

I, myself, love change, but only if the facts leading to that change are rock solid (whatever that means).

We can argue about science (in this case -- astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology) until we are blue in the face, but a change in viewpoints is highly unlikely and seldom occurs.

Therefore, I think that it is important to be aware that anything which any of us writes is not going to sway anybody else who holds an opposite viewpoint on the particular topic.

I do not see anybody altering his/her/its ideas. For this reason, I dislike joining the fray since I expect nothing to come from it. The only people who can be swayed by any of us are those who have no idea about astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology, etc., and who are willing to learn. However, sadly, they, too, eventually will become entrenched in some viewpoint or another somewhere in the future.

I, myself, love it when something new comes along to force me to change my ideas. However, the facts causing such change in my ideas must be rock solid. "Rock solid" to me could be "flimsy evidence" to another person.

This is not to say that some ideas are much better than others. The better ideas have as much trouble being accepted by the general public as the foolish ideas. Of course, "the foolish ideas" are always those held by the other person... Of course... Naturally...

I will not hold my breath for any great agreement by most of the members of this (or any other) forum. If everyone agreed, then it might be boring indeed. We could all sit in front of our computers and pat ourselves collectively on our backs... ZZZzzzz...

ljbrs ZZZzzz...

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-24 22:16 ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Michael cyrek replies:
I notice you are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read. That is why I do not believe in the 'big bang interpretation' of the redshift. See below, this is an important issue that could not only change your own mind set but create a revolution in cosmology.

A number of years ago, I had a PhD review my paper on the cause of the redshift. He replied that Maxwell's Equations refuted my idea of the 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cause of the redshift. The following is his explanation of why.
He explained and illustrated that the 'electric field patterns' are produced by VIRTUAL POSITIVE CHARGED PARTICLES moving from the positive charge to the negative charge and they traced out the pattern according to Maxwell's Equations and not due to any expansion as I claimed.
He overlooked one very important LAW OF PHYSICS and that is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER. Therefore, these charged particles, during their transition from the positive to the nagative charge, WILL REPEL EACH OTHER. This is the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to cause the electromagnetic field patterns to spread out in the central regions of these fields. This is why I believe that the lightwavws are the cause of the redshift.
If you look in any physics book, there should be an illustration of the nature of the lightwaves. You will notice that these lightwaves have field lines that are perpendicular to the motion of these lightwaves. Therefore, the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to these field lines expands the lightwaves in the same direction as the motion to cause the redshift.
The establishment astronomers will not accept this idea because it woukd cause a MAJOR REVOLUTION in cosmology that would overthrow their current 'big bang' concept,
MC


Mike:

You wrote:


You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read.

I received an M.A. at university. Everybody in my nuclear family had university degrees. I read a lot and pay careful attention to the sources of information offered. I see no problem in that.

I was not attempting to sway you in the least. That was the topic of this thread. I simply do not expect that certain people with unconventional ideas can be convinced of certain scientific ideas and that it would be a waste of my time AND THEIRS even to try to do so. So, I don't.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 15:28 ]</font>

ljbrs
2002-Dec-25, 09:03 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-24 23:58, irony wrote:
Hmm... so, everybody, what ideas would you have a terrible time accepting? It would take a heck of a proof to convince me of any of the following:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can intellectually accept that faster-than-light travel is not possible, but I emotionally hold out for some new insight which would make it possible.

Kizarvexis


Kizarvexis:

Observed superluminal motion has actually turned out to be particle motion at an angle giving it the appearance of faster than light movement. Superluminal motion of matter particles (which has yet to be observed) does not at the moment seem to be a possibility, so I refuse to hold my breath waiting. I do not react *emotionally* because *emotionally* is unscientific...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Silas
2002-Dec-26, 01:46 AM
On 2002-12-25 13:29, michael cyrek wrote:
I notice you [ljbrs] are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. . . .


What? Have you read a single word ljbrs has posted? This is completely *opposite* to everything ljbrs has said! I'm astonished and appalled that you can make such an accusation, which is not only unfounded, but contradicted by every statement ljbrs has ever posted!



I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read. That is why I do not believe in the 'big bang interpretation' of the redshift.


That doesn't follow logically. You might just as well say, "I don't believe in Manitoba, because I've never seen it for myself."



He overlooked one very important LAW OF PHYSICS and that is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER.


Hm. So he's a Ph.D. in physics, and you're not, and you somehow imagine that you noticed something fundamental in physics that he overlooked...

Hello? Reality check?



If you look in any physics book, there should be an illustration of the nature of the lightwaves. You will notice that these lightwaves have field lines that are perpendicular to the motion of these lightwaves. Therefore, the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to these field lines expands the lightwaves in the same direction as the motion to cause the redshift.


In which case lasers wouldn't work.



The establishment astronomers will not accept this idea because it woukd cause a MAJOR REVOLUTION in cosmology that would overthrow their current 'big bang' concept,
MC


No, they don't accept it because it's wrong. I'm sorry to be so rude here: I can't think of any way to explain this with the gentility that this board demands and which civility warrants... You're making up your own rules, and then acting angry when others don't accept them.

Try applying your free-thinking to *your own ideas* as well as to those of others. Ask yourself where your ideas come from, and whether or not they might be wrong. Examine *yourself* as well as everyone about you.

There's an old joke: a lady is at home, and hears, on the radio, that there is a driver going the wrong way on the freeway. She knows that her husband usually drives to work on that freeway. She quickly phones her husband on his cell phone and tells him, "Be careful out there! There's a driver going the wrong way!" And her husband shouts back, "Not just one! My God, there must be thousands of them!"

Silas

ljbrs
2002-Dec-26, 02:04 AM
Silas:

Thank you. I always learn something valuable from your posts. I could never have stated any of it so well. I come to Bad Astronomy to read the great stuff that you and others write. Sadly, there are those others who want to knock down science, and I am stupid enough to take the bait.

Great joke! I cannot stop laughing.

Thanks again.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

_________________
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2002-12-25 21:09 ]</font>

Kiwi
2002-Dec-26, 05:09 AM
On 2002-12-24 23:21, Silas wrote:
In the nineteenth century, explorers were comfortable enough giving up the idea that magnetic north was equal to true north.


Abel Janszoon Tasman, 13 December 1642:
"miswijsinge 7 Graden 30 minuten noortoosteringh"
[Compass] variation 7 degrees 30 minutes northeasterly.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2002-12-26 00:11 ]</font>

xriso
2002-Dec-26, 08:08 AM
I think one idea I could not accept is the possibility of useful time travel (a.k.a. superluminal travel).

nebularain
2002-Dec-26, 03:39 PM
On 2002-12-25 09:46, David Hall wrote:
So what struck me most today was that, if my beliefs have been so changeable, why do I trust them so much? For some reason I was always able to change beliefs without changing my trust in what I believed in, and that seemed strange. So now I wonder, how can I trust the beliefs I have now? Indeed, how can I trust any point-of-view I may have in the future? And how can I find any trust in others' beliefs as well? Are they not just as fallable as me? I seem to have not so much lost faith in what I believe, rather, I've lost faith in belief itself.

There is one strong foundation, the scientific method, which only accepts solid observation, and more and more I see value in putting my trust in it only. All my questing seems to have inevitably drawn me to it.

But there are other things like political beliefs that don't fall into the scientific mold, and to those I have no answer. I guess I will just have to float with the tide on those and hope that my course leads me to a better understanding and balance with the world.

I, too, think this was an excellent post. I also believe it is a foundation for explaining why others (i.e. radicals) stick to their beliefs so.

It's like this, to live in a home, you need to build it on a solid foundation; a shifting foundation is a very bad idea, for it will destroy the house. In the same way, our core beliefs need to be founded on something solid. We may try to be "open-minded," but we still need to be grounded in or on something.

So, one person chooses the scientific method. Someone else chooses a religious persuasion. Another - something else. (Of ocurse, each one chooses his/her own foundation for different reasons; right or wrong, it is still chosen.) Any belief that that does or seems to attack that foundation is met with resistance. To accept that new belief, one either has to mold it into the framework of their foundation, or the foundation has to be destroyed. That is a very unpleasant experience that no one wants to go through. Easier to fight tooth and nail to disbelieve that something. (The most obvious example: How do you pursuade a born-again Christian to accept that humans are a result of compolex evolutionary changes that began with microbes "mutating" without discrediting their belief in an omnipotent God who made us in His image? How do you pursuade an athiest to even accept the possibility of a designed universe without pursuading them to accept the notion that there might be some supreme being or higher power? I bring these as examples for understanding and not to start any specific debate.)

We all need some standard for truth in our lives, and for whatever reason, those standards are different for different people, whether it is in a written text, or a scientific understanding. Even an open-minded person is limited in belief believing to accepting only those things that allow for open-minded thinking.

So, ljbrs, I beleive this is why so many people are resistant to change. People will only change their beliefs in what their foundation, their core belief, their standard of truth "allows" (leaves room for) them to believe.

Make sense?

irony
2002-Dec-26, 05:27 PM
On 2002-12-25 06:07, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
There are no continents left to discover on Earth, but we've slowly managed to find a new frontier (cue Star Trek music). Even if we find an ultimate theory, there will be plenty of opportunity to develop new frontiers.


That's exactly what I meant. Every time people think they've figured everything out, they end up discovering something much bigger and/or weirder than anything they've ever seen before.

irony
2002-Dec-26, 05:29 PM
On 2002-12-25 13:59, ljbrs wrote:
Irony:

I do not discuss my beliefs with anybody. I let sleeping dogs lie.


Sorry. I didn't mean to start a religious discussion... that was just the first thing I thought of when I tried to think of ideas I'm irrationally attatched to.

ljbrs
2002-Dec-27, 01:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-25 13:29, michael cyrek wrote:
I notice you [ljbrs] are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. . . .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What? Have you read a single word ljbrs has posted? This is completely *opposite* to everything ljbrs has said! I'm astonished and appalled that you can make such an accusation, which is not only unfounded, but contradicted by every statement ljbrs has ever posted!



Thanks, Silas!

I have a number of favorites (who know more than I do) on BABB, of which you are one. I read more than I write, because I find that there is so much to learn. I know enough about astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology to realize that there are a number of first class writers here on BABB. I think that Bad Astronomer with his restriction on ad hominems has brought a number of first-class writers here. It is so much fun to read your and their posts.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-27, 01:52 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2002-12-25 13:59, ljbrs wrote:
Irony:

I do not discuss my beliefs with anybody. I let sleeping dogs lie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry. I didn't mean to start a religious discussion... that was just the first thing I thought of when I tried to think of ideas I'm irrationally attatched to.


That's all right. In my own case, I avoid attachments to any irrational beliefs. I never believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, et al. At the same time, I do not like to challenge anybody else's beliefs in these matters. This thread was about such beliefs, so there was no problem for me. Sorry if I came off antagonistically. My pedantic writing style does this sometimes. It is hard to change.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-27, 02:02 AM
So, ljbrs, I beleive this is why so many people are resistant to change. People will only change their beliefs in what their foundation, their core belief, their standard of truth "allows" (leaves room for) them to believe.

Make sense?



nebularin:

Absolutely! Good post! However, in my case, my foundation is with accuracy. With new information, I can change my ideas easily (once I have verified that new information). I grew up in a scientific household and changing one's beliefs when offered better information is a necessity. There is no quicksand involved even though the foundation is so changeable by its dependance upon appropriate information.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-27, 02:10 AM
There are no continents left to discover on Earth, but we've slowly managed to find a new frontier (cue Star Trek music). Even if we find an ultimate theory, there will be plenty of opportunity to develop new frontiers.


Right! I have not seen any indication of an end to science during my lifetime. There will always be adjustments in theories that must be made when confronted with new information.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ljbrs
2002-Dec-27, 02:53 AM
Michael cyrek replies:
I notice you are somewhat of a philosopher. I tried to answer you directly on my site 'big bamg reputiation' but many of my answers do not seem to get posted.
You obviously accept everything the education establishment tells you. I myself am a free thinker and therefore evaluate everything I read. That is why I do not believe in the 'big bang interpretation' of the redshift. See below, this is an important issue that could not only change your own mind set but create a revolution in cosmology.

A number of years ago, I had a PhD review my paper on the cause of the redshift. He replied that Maxwell's Equations refuted my idea of the 'expansion of the lightwaves' as the cause of the redshift. The following is his explanation of why.
He explained and illustrated that the 'electric field patterns' are produced by VIRTUAL POSITIVE CHARGED PARTICLES moving from the positive charge to the negative charge and they traced out the pattern according to Maxwell's Equations and not due to any expansion as I claimed.
He overlooked one very important LAW OF PHYSICS and that is that LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER. Therefore, these charged particles, during their transition from the positive to the nagative charge, WILL REPEL EACH OTHER. This is the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to cause the electromagnetic field patterns to spread out in the central regions of these fields. This is why I believe that the lightwavws are the cause of the redshift.
If you look in any physics book, there should be an illustration of the nature of the lightwaves. You will notice that these lightwaves have field lines that are perpendicular to the motion of these lightwaves. Therefore, the intrinsic force that works perpendicularily to these field lines expands the lightwaves in the same direction as the motion to cause the redshift.
The establishment astronomers will not accept this idea because it woukd cause a MAJOR REVOLUTION in cosmology that would overthrow their current 'big bang' concept,
MC


Mike Cyrek:

The Big Bang Theory is not about to be overthrown. Far from it! Get used to it. Big Bang is Very Big Stuff!

Incidentally, there is a great site (shown somewhere in a post in another thread here on BABB) where you can click on different places in the Hubble Deep Field and note their redshifts. Its URL is:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Deep_Fields/mirror/hdfn/index.html

Almost all of the objects shown are galaxies, even the tiny points of light that can barely be seen. Of course, I would never expect this to change your opinions. But, you might like to try it anyway.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Dec-27, 08:55 AM
On 2002-12-26 03:08, xriso wrote:
I think one idea I could not accept is the possibility of useful time travel (a.k.a. superluminal travel).

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you would, if it became useful. Here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021228.html), have a peek at tomorrow's APOD, of Mir, no less.

xriso
2002-Dec-27, 11:03 AM
On 2002-12-27 03:55, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-12-26 03:08, xriso wrote:
I think one idea I could not accept is the possibility of useful time travel (a.k.a. superluminal travel).

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you would, if it became useful. Here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021228.html), have a peek at tomorrow's APOD, of Mir, no less.


Hmm... I wonder when they'll use the sun pillar (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0212/sunpillar_liquorice_big.jpg) pic. It's been sitting there since dec 16. That Mir picture is quite nice indeed.