Brain Man wrote:JOZeldenrust wrote:
I'm sure some creative people get ostracized just because the group can't cope with their radical ideas. You three haven't been ostracized. You've been welcomed to present your creative ideas, but present them in a way that other people might understand them. All three of you have consistently failed to do so.
check the consistency with your process. you wrongly accuse me of something, don't admit publicly that you have when pointed out, then move onto another false hack attempt. What will be next and is there any point in playing further with you on this ? This is either stupidity, lack of insight or a pointless public game of admitting nothing for you.
You have indeed not presented an idea here, and in my first few posts in this exchange I mistakenly assumed you had.
"You" in this case refers to all three of you. You, Brain Man, might not have claimed to be presenting an idea here, but your two friends have.
Those ideas have been criticized, mainly on the point that the ideas are nonsensical. That criticism has been answered only with claims that other posters reject your ideas because they are too close-minded, either because they are part of some conservative scientific establishment, or because they are ideologically biased laymen entrenched in the paradigms of popular science. You have leveled these accusations too. That's evasive: you three are evading the substantial criticism of the ideas presented by Harley and Farsight. You, Brain Man, have no responsibility to defend their ideas, of course, but you are aiding them in evading the responsibility to present a substantial response to the criticism that their ideas are nonsensical.
this is an interesting sentence. You almost start to admit that i had not presented an idea here,
Almost? The bolded part is a direct and complete admission that you indeed haven't presented an idea.
but hold back, then accuse me of another crime now. That of aiding and abetting. So we are on to this accusation now without admitting you messed up on the previous one right ?
I accused you of being evasive. I could've been more clear on what I thought it was you were evading. You're evading the (IMO valid) point that dismissal of ideas such as those presented by Harley in his assorted articles is justified.
I think you should read the entire content of what was done here. I already told farsight he would be better of scripting any original ideas he had in a peer review format, and going through that process. I already admitted publicly i don't agree with every idea harley has and that there are many problems with this style of creativity. But if you think their ideas are nonsensical, you have to do better than that or there will be no stimulus to respond to. We aren't young adults where labels hurt. Most of us here have lived a little and seen a fair bit. incise critique of points is what will move them now. Where is the critique of these points in a peer review style manner ?
I have no desire to provide a critique "in a peer review style manner". Harleys work wouldn't be accepted for peer review by any competent editor. I'll give a few substantial points though:
Harley wrote:In this pattern each circle represents a fields of spinning momentum which all over-lap and inter-connect, edges-to-centers. The lines represent bonding forces of atoms in solid matter. The curves represent the female aspect of reality, and the lines represent the male aspect. The six pointed star is supposed to represent God, the Creator of our Universe. The Flaming Sword is what keeps us out of Garden of Eden because it is the wave which encircles all the Dimensions (of which we see only three), so it is the illusion of the solid particle which keeps us from seeing the higher pre-existing Dimensions from which ours formed (just as the monks have been telling us for centuries).
Atoms are structured by this very same pattern as seen in this image from the "Nemescope" in a Jan. 1964 edition of Science and Mechanics...
Harley doesn't define his terms, nor does he support the implicit claim that his statements are somehow significant. I mean, what is "the female aspect of reality" supposed to be? In what way is the use of gender to refer to different aspects of reality a meaningful use of the concepts of gender?
Then there's the problems with the argumentation: there are only assertions, no arguments at all. "The lines represent bonding forces of atoms in solid matter." Okay, that's nice. Why is this a useful representation? Notice that the terms in this assertion, "lines" and "bonding forces", do not appear in the rest of the paragraph, nor ar there any pronouns refering to those terms. That means that there simply isn't any reasoning here.
The sentence about the "Nemescope" photo is the closest thing to an argument in this part of the article. The argument ight be formalized as
This photo of atoms looks a bit like the pattern above
That means the above pattern is a representation of the structure of atoms
That means the curves represent the female etc.
Even if the argument had been presented with any kind of clarity, there are still substantial problems with it: a 1964 photograph of iron atoms doesn't give a very good idea of the structure of matter. It gives a bit of an impression of the structure of iron, but the arrangement of atoms in iron isn't some universal arrangement that applies to all solids. It doesn't even apply to all metals. Then there's the issue that this photo doesn't accurately represent the internal structure of an atom: the nuclei are much too big.
So his argument relies on the tenuous similarities between a crappy photo that should represent the structure of all solid matter, but only represents the structure of a single metal, and a piece of spyrograph handicraft.
They aren't here in your critique. Just pure laziness and public politics. If anything you are just proving my point about gang mentality, because you are coming on here and spewing derogatory labels without doing any real work. Now that is typical gang like behavior. "Just get rid of em. Im not sure what they are saying or how to argue it, but i just don't like the look and feel, it doesn't fit our traditions" right ?
I didn't include specific criticism because to any even slightly competent observer it is self-evident that Harleys writing doesn't make any sense. I gave some substantial criticism above, but honestly anyone who hadn't come up with that by themselves when reading Harleys work should feel rather stupid.
My idea is not to twist neuropsychology to make wrong ideas appear right, but to use that as fine levering tool so i can judge independently and figure out how to separate wheat from chaff from creatives who output in a manner non consistent with traditional routes and expectation. It requires work. Every creative person outputs a lot of ideas that has problems in several directions.
So far i have found forum consensus on major theories from such creatives (and even well heeled academics) to be flawed in the extreme.
My first motivation is that i needed to know what degree that Ratkskep, physicsforums, badastronomy etc could get it right. Would save me a lot of work if they did, but they dont, its important to realize for myself what they do get right, what they dont and why they are failing in some areas. Whether you want to admit publicly what is good or bad about any of these people, here, thats your problem. If you really had to get the answer to a particular problem as if it were life or death you would soon start looking for solutions in this alternative stuff.
Again, what the fuck does this mean? These sentences make no sense.
and neither does that as a critique of it. Thats twice you have taken an entire paragraph, which isnt that hard to understand a few points from, rubbished it without a proper explanation. But you are also consistent. Both times you did this i was on the topic of critiquing the people who are supposed to be good at critiquing. I am guessing that either i am not explaining this well or you cant even handle this topic of having a go at our prized institutions being raised then.
The former, most certainly. You really have atrocious sentence structure. You also use too many pronouns. It's often unclear what these pronouns refer to. Good or bad about which people? What alternative stuff?
Well there is a simple solution. Do you want to see in depth assessments of critics on modern scientific communities, either from myself or others who are looking into this or not ? Be honest now. Just save everybody a lot of work. I cant be bothered with helping any neurosis on this. If you really just want to be happy with what we have please say so. I wont continue this discussion any further. I pretty much figured what i needed to find out from this process.
I agree that sometimes valuable ideas can be presented in a way that challenges conventions of scientific communication, and by extention challenges the easthetic sensibilities of the reader. However, in quite a lot of cases, ideas presented in a way that offend those sensibilities or conventions are indeed just bad ideas. In the case of Harley, whose ideas I have tried to evaluate independantly from the form in which those ideas are presented, I am confident that his writing contains no valuable ideas, for the simple reason that the ideas presented make no sense. They are scientific sounding words stringed together pretty much at random, with no internal logic that I can discern. Even in the unlikely case that the ideas Harley meant to present are indeed valuable, they are presented so poorly that noone can reasonably be expected to decypher the texts Harley has presented.
The dismissal of his work, though harsh, is entirely justified.
Like the way you say all that to lead to that final statement. well its your loss and again misjudgement in the private sense, but not public, and we could go back and forward conceding nothing for decades. judgment is a mad thing we fight for. Its the prime prize that people fight to maintain at almost any cost in society. My last job in research i noticed my employer had extremely bad judgment on many matters outside the actual research topic. When challenged he broke down privately and admitted that in his position there was no way he could be seen to have bad judgment or everything would stop working (resources, affiliated people etc).
I then got interested in this process and after six months of observing career climbing in public health science, it soon became clear the degree to how people in public science play so many games to maintain a status of having good public judgment in groups (you wouldn't believe what they admit in private) where resources are critical. They lie, evade, manipulate and will do almost anything for this one prize. Its reaches high levels of psychopathy and Machiavellianism. And the amazing thing is these people have this amazing cocktail of self denial and complicity regarding all this. There really ought to be more neuropsychology directed at the behavior of career orientated people.
The point is, I have seen it all now, so say what you want. You haven't critiqued anything. All you do here is show your ability to play public game.
I have spoken to Harley privately by email where i made a concerted effort to cut through the non standard presentation and was extremely surprised at the depth of insight into problems where we have a lack of understanding today. I pointed out some of these previously. But it does not seem like the subject matter at hand is actually of any interest to you.
Harley makes claims about God, about male and female aspects of reality, about meaningful connections between nuclear physics and Kabballa and many more things. If he's even partly right, I've lived my life based on completely wrong ideas. Trouble is, I can't follow his reasoning
because there doesn't appear to be any. If he'd present his ideas in a way that could actually be understood, I'd be very interested in them.
I would say its your loss, but i would guess its not. It is personal to my own projects to work hard at getting some of the physics solutions and insights he has to offer. This isn't just empty talk. I cite him to respectable people. If there is a problem with presentation, then it can be overcome. The power of the concept is the primary currency in science.
This game we play, is just a game. Rules were made to be broken, as long as the final outcome is something which works.
Ok i have had enough of this interaction with you Jo. If you want a proper critique of points made by Harley then go to that, otherwise my time interacting on this other material will be highly limited.
Suit yourself.
