Mr Newton's Classroom

[Brain Man]

Where is Farsight?
I would like to discuss the nature and origin of matter with him.

PM him...although i dont think thats his area.

Did you know farsights work was comprised of accepted science, trying to make it easy for beginners to understand in one bite.

When he presented it he never made that clear. People bashed him because they thought his content was original.

[Brain Man]

The origin of consciousness is also a topic of current interest for me.

Ill get in to that privately, but got a lot of work on over next few days and weekend.

Really you can say it started about 700,000,000 years when bilateral (symmetric) nervous systems and ionotropic GABA/Glutamate receptors formed in salt water environments. So it was when electromagnetic forces were able to start self organizing a complexity that could utulize EMF structures in a hiearchical manner in biology.

[harleyborgais]

I am glad to hear that about Farsight, and will PM him now, but I did not think is was simple enough. He still uses too much technical language.
We could really benefit from sharing references.

You are probably right BrainMan about this forum, I have not gotten any really productive responses on this forum. rationalskeptic has been a bit better. I especially like how two threads were started regarding my work.

It does seem like most of the users here are Trolls.

Is it too much to ask for some rational skepticism?

[JOZeldenrust]

One of the biggest clues that you guys are crackpots, and not in any way capable of scientific thought? You're way too polite to eachother.

[Brain Man]

One of the biggest clues that you guys are crackpots, and not in any way capable of scientific thought? You're way too polite to eachother.

rubbish, you obviously never worked in academia or have personally been to high level science conferences. Its extremely polite society. Salmon at dinner, people being pleasant to each other even when they have fundamental disagreements. The most that tends to happen is somebody will ignore what you are saying if they don't like it, and if they really don't like it, you get a subtle cold shoulder for a day till they sleep on it and recover from whatever shock they had. Then back to business and other things.

The worst insults i ever noticed at a conference was Stuart Hameroff at Beyond belief. And what was Terry senowskis big problem with stuart ? That stuart was attracting a lot of high level academics (Woolf, Freeman, Tuszynski. , Penrose, Lamm etc, etc) and grants to his orchOR while ignoring what going on with the rest of the community. Even at that extreme level it was still reasonably polite and it was Laurence Krauss who was passing the insults. Atheist conferences are more rowdy anyway because the topic has attracted political rabble rousers.


If you would like to get an insight for whats going on inside science drop atheism. I am atheist myself but i see its as a counterproductive to make a big deal about it. The majority of Britain is atheist and they don't make themselves into a special group. You stand more chance of converting believers just by living a good life being a non believer and the whole issue of God being a non issue. But this is going off topic.

[Brain Man]

but keep trying with the labels. Its not going to work though. You need to prove to me there is no way harley can be correct.

[Brain Man]

you do realise right its you guys who are the crackpots. Just read some of the threads elswhere here is enough to realise that. Hiding behind conservative stances on evolution as an excuse for mental aggression then going mental in every other facet of living.

Then look at your history of getting ejected from dawkins forum. You are basically not compatible with the high society of science. The only people i notice here who are polite in a scientific discussion have actually functioned in science or education at some level.

[JOZeldenrust]

but keep trying with the labels. Its not going to work though. You need to prove to me there is no way harley can be correct.

Hahahahaha... no. That's not how it works. First, Harley needs to present a hypothesis, and he needs to present it in such a way that it can be understood. Then, and only then do scientists in the field to which his hypothesis pertains have anything to critique. As far as I can tell, Harley hasn't presented any hypothesis that can be understood. That might just be me, because none of your theories are within my field of expertise, Dutch literature, but the style of the prose, the reach of the phenomena associated with the theory and the way you guys begin to adress a certain issue only to switch to another before it's even clear what the consequences of your theory for the first subject are, leads me to believe that there isn't really a theory at all. You guys are just having fun playing science, which is fine, just don't expect being taken seriously.

[JimC]

but keep trying with the labels. Its not going to work though. You need to prove to me there is no way harley can be correct.

Hahahahaha... no. That's not how it works. First, Harley needs to present a hypothesis, and he needs to present it in such a way that it can be understood. Then, and only then do scientists in the field to which his hypothesis pertains have anything to critique. As far as I can tell, Harley hasn't presented any hypothesis that can be understood. That might just be me, because none of your theories are within my field of expertise, Dutch literature, but the style of the prose, the reach of the phenomena associated with the theory and the way you guys begin to adress a certain issue only to switch to another before it's even clear what the consequences of your theory for the first subject are, leads me to believe that there isn't really a theory at all. You guys are just having fun playing science, which is fine, just don't expect being taken seriously.

[JOZeldenrust]

One of the biggest clues that you guys are crackpots, and not in any way capable of scientific thought? You're way too polite to eachother.

rubbish, you obviously never worked in academia or have personally been to high level science conferences. Its extremely polite society. Salmon at dinner, people being pleasant to each other even when they have fundamental disagreements. The most that tends to happen is somebody will ignore what you are saying if they don't like it, and if they really don't like it, you get a subtle cold shoulder for a day till they sleep on it and recover from whatever shock they had. Then back to business and other things.

Well that might be the problem, high level science conferences aren't really the places where real science gets done. They just discuss the science they've done prior to the conference. Even then, at those conferences people might not be insulting each other every minute of the day, but they certainly don't go about congratulating each other about how interesting everything is either. They bicker constantly, because science thrives on disagreement. In fact it's generally the people scientists genuinely dislike that they're most polite to, because with those people a disagreement might lead to actual conflict.

The worst insults i ever noticed at a conference was Stuart Hameroff at Beyond belief. And what was Terry senowskis big problem with stuart ? That stuart was attracting a lot of high level academics (Woolf, Freeman, Tuszynski. , Penrose, Lamm etc, etc) and grants to his orchOR while ignoring what going on with the rest of the community. Even at that extreme level it was still reasonably polite and it was Laurence Krauss who was passing the insults. Atheist conferences are more rowdy anyway because the topic has attracted political rabble rousers.


If you would like to get an insight for whats going on inside science drop atheism. I am atheist myself but i see its as a counterproductive to make a big deal about it. The majority of Britain is atheist and they don't make themselves into a special group. You stand more chance of converting believers just by living a good life being a non believer and the whole issue of God being a non issue. But this is going off topic.

Way to jump to conclusions. Being an atheist plays next to no role in my life, nor does it in the society of which I'm a part (I'm Dutch, and Dutch society is probably more secularised then British society). I am active in a scientific field. One where the distinction between theists and non-theists is completely irrelevant. A distinction that is relevant in any scientific field, though, is the distinction between those who take the trouble to present their ideas in an understandable manner, and those who write nonsense. Within the group of nonsense writers, there are those who simply can't write but have good ideas nonetheless. They can be valuable to the scientific community, as long as they can find someone to translate their ideas into readable articles. There are also those who write unintelligable stuff because their ideas just don't make a whole lot of sense. Neither group gets taken seriously, but there's hope for the former. I get the distinct impression you - Brain Man, harleyborgais and Farsight - are of the latter category.

[Brain Man]

Even then, at those conferences people might not be insulting each other every minute of the day, but they certainly don't go about congratulating each other about how interesting everything is either. They bicker constantly, because science thrives on disagreement. In fact it's generally the people scientists genuinely dislike that they're most polite to, because with those people a disagreement might lead to actual conflict.

So where do you work where this bickering takes place ? Most labs and universities I have been in people get on very well with each other. They discuss problems and try and overcome them using practical methods. The problems usually between labs and unis rather than in them, and in hot political areas. The problems you are talking about happen more in privatized and massive intergroup science like LHC. In my own field I have been privy to major bickering and resignations going on with craig venters staff.

A distinction that is relevant in any scientific field, though, is the distinction between those who take the trouble to present their ideas in an understandable manner, and those who write nonsense. Within the group of nonsense writers, there are those who simply can't write but have good ideas nonetheless. They can be valuable to the scientific community, as long as they can find someone to translate their ideas into readable articles. There are also those who write unintelligable stuff because their ideas just don't make a whole lot of sense. Neither group gets taken seriously, but there's hope for the former. I get the distinct impression you - Brain Man, harleyborgais and Farsight - are of the latter category.

Im glad you know how to make some distinctions. Pity you arent able to go the full hog in terms of insight. But then again not a lot of people i have met on these forums are able to.

Forum structures bring out certain backwards facets of human psychology that we are in a constant struggle against because our primate brain is lurking in the background to pull us backwards. I advocated for reform of dawkins forum to reflect the structure of higher institutions of democracy and law which took us thousands of years to evolve. Nothing fancy, just a simplified version to lift us out of the moderator/anonymity structure that kicks in milgram effects and a senseless rabble. What a wasted opportunity. Massive turnout of people getting together to talk science. Now gone due to his idiocy and distraction on his daft crusade that resolves no problems.

I can present the more unknown works of prominent scientists on a forum, summarize it, call it the work of an unknown scientist and watch it get shoved into the pseudoscience sections. Do you want to see this happen in action ? We already had some tests done on journals. The same highly original work was submitted by an unknown and also a well known physicist. It was rejected as garbage and returned to the unknown physicist, accepted for publication by the well known physicist of course. the idea itself wasnt garbage. It was a test of the journal system.

[Brain Man]

but keep trying with the labels. Its not going to work though. You need to prove to me there is no way harley can be correct.

Hahahahaha... no. That's not how it works. First, Harley needs to present a hypothesis, and he needs to present it in such a way that it can be understood. Then, and only then do scientists in the field to which his hypothesis pertains have anything to critique. As far as I can tell, Harley hasn't presented any hypothesis that can be understood. That might just be me, because none of your theories are within my field of expertise, Dutch literature, but the style of the prose, the reach of the phenomena associated with the theory and the way you guys begin to adress a certain issue only to switch to another before it's even clear what the consequences of your theory for the first subject are, leads me to believe that there isn't really a theory at all. You guys are just having fun playing science, which is fine, just don't expect being taken seriously.

I haven't even presented anything here. Im already published and employed in science. I never had a problem in my own career and did far better than i thought i ever would. Where did you get the idea i was doing science or presenting an idea here ? Just in auto pilot repeat a mantra mode right

And to continue your pattern (well at least you are consistent in stupidity) repeating the age old burden of proof mantra. We have all been schooled to death and back in it a million times. That worked when an individual or group could change things. We need a new paradigm because its got to a stage where its becoming impossible for a creative solution to overcome the burden of proof on complex problems due to the massive resources now required to do so. You are faced with massive datasets built from a small industry if you have a new idea now, and so need several labs to deal with that. If your solution does not have a sexy application its going nowhere. Its purely business now. Modern examples. Garret Lisi living in his campervan and doing odd jobs for a decade, precisely due to this situation.

My beef is with the bullshit attitude and conservatism thats taking over and holding back progress. If you really had your head in the game you might understand what i am talking about as the majority of high level scientists i know talk about this very subject. However most of the working stiffs dont have a clue what on this topic and dont want to. Its just jobs, jobs n dont rock the boat. Might as well be working for microsoft.

Personally i am sick of

The lack of farming of talent that has highly original solutions to long standing problems.

The massive resources that go into proving increments of nothing

i cannot trust peer review or the scientific press to know whats good and what isnt anymore. I need to actively go out there and dig through what is so called pseudoscience to find answers or original and highly integrative solutions these days.

If you follow my posts rather than just guessed that i posted an idea here and go on auto mode, you might be aware that is why i am here and on other forums. I aint presenting any concepts at all. Just wondering WTF happened to pioneer science. When did the conservatives take over the house and are they going to leave. And on that note..

[JOZeldenrust]

but keep trying with the labels. Its not going to work though. You need to prove to me there is no way harley can be correct.

Hahahahaha... no. That's not how it works. First, Harley needs to present a hypothesis, and he needs to present it in such a way that it can be understood. Then, and only then do scientists in the field to which his hypothesis pertains have anything to critique. As far as I can tell, Harley hasn't presented any hypothesis that can be understood. That might just be me, because none of your theories are within my field of expertise, Dutch literature, but the style of the prose, the reach of the phenomena associated with the theory and the way you guys begin to adress a certain issue only to switch to another before it's even clear what the consequences of your theory for the first subject are, leads me to believe that there isn't really a theory at all. You guys are just having fun playing science, which is fine, just don't expect being taken seriously.

I haven't even presented anything here. Im already published and employed in science. I never had a problem in my own career and did far better than i thought i ever would. Where did you get the idea i was doing science or presenting an idea here ? Just in auto pilot repeat a mantra mode right

And to continue your pattern (well at least you are consistent in stupidity) repeating the age old burden of proof mantra. We have all been schooled to death and back in it a million times. That worked when an individual or group could change things. We need a new paradigm because its got to a stage where its becoming impossible for a creative solution to overcome the burden of proof on complex problems due to the massive resources now required to do so. You are faced with massive datasets built from a small industry if you have a new idea now, and so need several labs to deal with that. If your solution does not have a sexy application its going nowhere. Its purely business now. Modern examples. Garret Lisi living in his campervan and doing odd jobs for a decade, precisely due to this situation.

My beef is with the bullshit attitude and conservatism thats taking over and holding back progress. If you really had your head in the game you might understand what i am talking about as the majority of high level scientists i know talk about this very subject. However most of the working stiffs dont have a clue what on this topic and dont want to. Its just jobs, jobs n dont rock the boat. Might as well be working for microsoft.

Personally i am sick of

The lack of farming of talent that has highly original solutions to long standing problems.

The massive resources that go into proving increments of nothing

i cannot trust peer review or the scientific press to know whats good and what isnt anymore. I need to actively go out there and dig through what is so called pseudoscience to find answers or original and highly integrative solutions these days.

If you follow my posts rather than just guessed that i posted an idea here and go on auto mode, you might be aware that is why i am here and on other forums. I aint presenting any concepts at all. Just wondering WTF happened to pioneer science. When did the conservatives take over the house and are they going to leave. And on that note..

If you're going to present ideas, for the love of god, pay some attention to grammar. If you don't, you'll be dismissed outright, and for good reason. Tons of people are making contributions to science. each and every one of them is making an effort to write grammatical sentences. Those who don't are dismissed, because figuring out what they want to say is just too much trouble. Other people, with potentially just as interesting ideas, are writing articles that make sense, so people are focussing their attention on those. If you can't be bothered to at least write in a way that can be understood by others, people are going to ignore your work.

If you want your work to be evaluated critically, you owe it to your audience to write clearly and succinctly. You obviously can't. Get someone else to write your stuff for you, or just be ignored. And please, either present some sort of operationalised hypothesis, or quit whining. For now, you're a hack. Nothing wrong woth being a hack, but don't bank on mainstream recognition.

[JOZeldenrust]

Even then, at those conferences people might not be insulting each other every minute of the day, but they certainly don't go about congratulating each other about how interesting everything is either. They bicker constantly, because science thrives on disagreement. In fact it's generally the people scientists genuinely dislike that they're most polite to, because with those people a disagreement might lead to actual conflict.

So where do you work where this bickering takes place ? Most labs and universities I have been in people get on very well with each other. They discuss problems and try and overcome them using practical methods. The problems usually between labs and unis rather than in them, and in hot political areas. The problems you are talking about happen more in privatized and massive intergroup science like LHC. In my own field I have been privy to major bickering and resignations going on with craig venters staff.

A distinction that is relevant in any scientific field, though, is the distinction between those who take the trouble to present their ideas in an understandable manner, and those who write nonsense. Within the group of nonsense writers, there are those who simply can't write but have good ideas nonetheless. They can be valuable to the scientific community, as long as they can find someone to translate their ideas into readable articles. There are also those who write unintelligable stuff because their ideas just don't make a whole lot of sense. Neither group gets taken seriously, but there's hope for the former. I get the distinct impression you - Brain Man, harleyborgais and Farsight - are of the latter category.

Im glad you know how to make some distinctions. Pity you arent able to go the full hog in terms of insight. But then again not a lot of people i have met on these forums are able to.

This is an interesting use of rhetoric devices. Praysing your opponent, and then specifing the praise to disarm the criticism of your own rhetoric devices, and while you're at it expanding the argument to everyone on these forums. Quite impressive. Too bad you didn't address my criticism. If you have ideas that are worthwhile, present them. If not, fuck off.

Forum structures bring out certain backwards facets of human psychology that we are in a constant struggle against because our primate brain is lurking in the background to pull us backwards. I advocated for reform of dawkins forum to reflect the structure of higher institutions of democracy and law which took us thousands of years to evolve. Nothing fancy, just a simplified version to lift us out of the moderator/anonymity structure that kicks in milgram effects and a senseless rabble. What a wasted opportunity. Massive turnout of people getting together to talk science. Now gone due to his idiocy and distraction on his daft crusade that resolves no problems.

I can present the more unknown works of prominent scientists on a forum, summarize it, call it the work of an unknown scientist and watch it get shoved into the pseudoscience sections. Do you want to see this happen in action ? We already had some tests done on journals. The same highly original work was submitted by an unknown and also a well known physicist. It was rejected as garbage and returned to the unknown physicist, accepted for publication by the well known physicist of course. the idea itself wasnt garbage. It was a test of the journal system.

Journals aren't perfect, and the stuff good scientists write often isn't either. Scientists aren't paid to write, they're paid to think and do research. Sometimes, good ideas will be rejected because of bad writing, or bad writing will be accepted because of a well known name. Sometimes even bad ideas will be accepted because of a well known name. It's just that bad ideas and bad writing will be rejected every time, and for good reason. As of now, I see no reason to think what you've presented here is anything but bad thinking.

[Brain Man]

If you're going to present ideas, for the love of god, pay some attention to grammar. If you don't, you'll be dismissed outright, and for good reason. Tons of people are making contributions to science. each and every one of them is making an effort to write grammatical sentences. Those who don't are dismissed, because figuring out what they want to say is just too much trouble. Other people, with potentially just as interesting ideas, are writing articles that make sense, so people are focussing their attention on those. If you can't be bothered to at least write in a way that can be understood by others, people are going to ignore your work.

If you want your work to be evaluated critically, you owe it to your audience to write clearly and succinctly. You obviously can't. Get someone else to write your stuff for you, or just be ignored. And please, either present some sort of operationalised hypothesis, or quit whining. For now, you're a hack. Nothing wrong woth being a hack, but don't bank on mainstream recognition.

nice try...the grammar bullshit put down. I dont generally have a big communication problem with other scientists. Or at least they appear quite happy to put up with my eccentric quirks...

Not Got anything better in there ? Remember its you who were making all the presumptions about myself and getting it wrong big time. The burden of proof is on you by your own logic.

There is no hypothesis here. Where are my hypothesis, where is my work you speak off ? What work..im just ranting taking a break and letting of steam and talking shop to see if you actually know whats going on. If you think this is whining come to dinner with a bunch of neuroscientists trying to deal with todays journals.