further comment on responses to the post about Anasazi roads
To all:
It seems like this thread, or, at least, this portion of it, has turned into something of a ley line, itself, stretching from the reference to the supposed existence of such lines and their effect on the placement of important sites; to my own reference to the unusual straightness of Anasazi roads and the length and straightness of modern Manhattan's streets; to, frankly, uncivil reaction by others to the board; to my reaction to that lack of civility; to put downs of my reactions, and defense of, frankly, what is allowed to pass for sophistry on the board, to a discussion of what constitutes an actual search for truth.
This post is intended to respond to some of the most recent, literal, assaults on my words, and, frankly, my principles.
Pedagogicizing professorally, for example, FraterLibre asserts: "Truth without fact to back it up is mere opinion." This seems aimed at what seems an unequivocal denunciation of anything that doesn't comport with what can be termed "traditional teachings", which just about includes anything and everything addressed on the Fortean Times website. In fact, this is wrong. In the 1920's, logician Kurt Gödel produced what is termed the "improvability theorm", which, essentially, stated that, in any logical system complex enough to include elementary arithmetic as a subsystem, there will be entire groups of statements which are unprovable within that system. These statements will have to be true, because, being "unprovable" they cannot be disproved by single dissenting examples. But there will be no logical proof of their being true, and while they may have supporting examples of their truthfulness, they will not have the kind of "rigorous demonstration", which, frankly, is what FraterLibre seems to have had in mind when they referred to "fact to back it up"! But they will not be mere "opinion"!
And, if Stu Neville thinks that FraterLibre's saccharinely precious reference to "shaving methods", in response to my mentioning Occam's Razor, constitutes respectable scholarly repartee, then he, likely, has a lot to learn. "Absence of facts", FraterLibre continues, "makes for subjective spluttering, not truth of any sort, and overly complex reasoning, or wordy blather, doesn't add up to revelation, either." In reality, facts are being provided, in recountings of events, all over the Fortean Times board! But, as with the mercurial definition of "simplest" - usually defined by "traditionalists" only to service the theory that they wish to push, in each case - the meaning of the word "facts" seems something the "traditionalists" leave open, subject to their chosen interpretation! Saying that facts aren't facts, simply because they do not fit your desired schema, doesn't make them untrue, nor does it validate your schema.
And the term "wordy blather", in light of my own admission that, since there was so much to cover, my last post was, by necessity, lengthy, also seems a deliberate dig.
And, for all the fact that "traditionalists" like to point to Darwin's theories as a "triumph of science over superstition", his suppositions, in fact, constitute heresy, by the standards the "traditionalists" support! Beginning only with a collection of finches on the Galapagos Islands, each one "fitted to their environment" - a finch with a long, thin beak, to suck nectar from a flower, another with a hard, thick beak, to break open nuts - Darwin came to the conclusion of random sports or mutations arising, some of which fit to the environment better than others, and, eventually, they come to outcompete the other forms of the species. To begin with, Darwin never once stated what kind of mechanism would lead to the development of a mutation and, what is more, infix that mutation's qualities in its progeny! Even today, individuals with genetic problems often have perfectly normal children! That cannot have been unknown in Darwin's day! He was, essentially, weaving out of whole cloth the supposition that something inside the animal creates, stores and collects various variations! Watson and Crick, in the 1950's are credited with actually determining the nature of DNA that allowed that to happen, but, for at least half a century, science was preaching as proven something that did not have the "facts to back it up"!
For his own part, Darwin didn't even have the fossil record. There are no indications of fossil remains attesting to a single ancestor specie of finch arriving at the Galapagos Islands, then fanning out and adapting to the other niches. It could just as well have been that a whole bunch of different finch species arrived there - some with long beaks, some with short beaks - on a group of islands, teeming with fruiting and nut bearing plants. Those islands where the long beaked birds arrived, they favored the flowers, and didn't spread the nuts, so the nut bearing plants died out. On the other island, the short beaked birds could have eaten the nuts and spread them about, but, because they didn't touch the flowering plants, those plants died out.
Add to that that, in the infinitesimally incremental pattern of variation that Darwin presumed, it is all but patently impossible that any variation could be so superior to the forms around it that it would out-survive them all. In the end, it seems, any incremental variation that wasn't unfavorable, would just allow the animal to survive, then breed, and, then, eventually, the trait would be subsumed. Darwinism is far from a closed case!
Invoking Occam's Razor, too, what is simpler, positing that different species pre-existed the migration to the Galapagos Islands, then just happened to land on different islands; or asserting that the one breed of bird flew there, underwent variations that, somehow, managed to persevere, despite not being ostensibly better than those around it - on the island with nut bearing plants, how did the finches manage to survive until their beaks got thick enough to crack the seeds? - then, using some unexplained mechanism, stored and accumulated those new qualities, until they could be acclaimed a new species of bird?
Darwinism, however, is a jewel in the crown of "traditional" science, and is only one reason why it is so plausible, if not genuinely easy, to disbelieve what "the party line" of "traditional science" states.
JerryB "defends" his one line rejoinder to my relating the notably long and straight Manhattan streets with ley lines by saying: "My reply was in preparation for you to state what you mean by this with a theory, arguement [sic], or something similar."
Since ley lines, by nature, presumably, result in the notably linear construction of sites, that is the theory, or the suggestion, namely, that ley lines may be involved in the laying out of Manhattan's streets! My argument is that, if ley lines do, indeed, promote construction along linear routes, and, since Manhattan's streets are counted to be among the longest straight streets in the world, there might be a connection. Is that so difficult for JerryB to tease out of my statements, on his own? Is it? If JerryB is asking my specific candidate for a mechanism whereby ley lines would initiate such construction, it has to be mentioned that, at no point did he seem to make the same demand of others discussing ley lines! Why, purely on the basis of my bringing up Manhattan's street construction, did he decide to put the burden on me to provide the in-depth analysis?
And, no matter how he wants to whitewash it, a one line riposte such as his does not qualify as anything more than disrespectful and dismissive, if not combative.
In addressing my previous post, Stu Neville proceeded to, essentially, pick it apart, paragraph by paragraph. Perhaps in response to my own emphasis on the idea of acting honorably, according to God's way, and treating the search for truth as part of that motivation, Neville also dwelled on the idea of God's place in personal initiative. Or perhaps not. "As for finding and spreading the truth", Stu Neville opines, "yes, that is laudable, and a principle of which I am fully in favour, whether you (or indeed your God) believe that to be the case or not." The suggestion that I "or my God" do not truly respect the dispensing of truth is so thinly veiled as to be all but transparent. Opposing those points of view that do not further the investigation of a phenomenon does not automatically qualify as trying to prevent the search for truth. Criticizing such as JerryB and FraterLibre for disrespectful attitudes, and a tendency, effectively, to interfere with, rather than further, discussion - no matter how much such as Stu Neville may want to promote their presence - is not undue, or illegitimate, when the statements made against their actions are true!
When a post directed readers to the Modern Antiquarian website, for example, FraterLibre commented only: "Regrettable music". This does not qualify as promoting investigation. As much as they may resemble the brute who would interpose themselves on valid discussion, just to say: "I don't agree", they also resemble those who would break in on legitimate discussions of principles just to ask if anyone has had trouble with their car's transmission!
In reference to Neville's tendency, as is so frequent on forums, to dismiss certain individuals as "trolls", without addressing what, specifically, may have led them to their way of acting, still cannot be said not to qualify as an unjustified refusal to address possible real and important facts, just for the apparent purpose of aggressively dismissing someone who may have become intractable to "the party line" of the forum!
Neville also invited me, again, to provide prefaces to my posts, replete with personal information, since, as I pointed out, it was a matter of principle, with me, not to fear such things, since, if someone is doing God's will, they are not without protection. I may do that, again, in the future, but, for now, while the moderators did not "take the wind out of my sails" in doing it, I did, rather, hope my actions to constitute setting an example, without, necessarily, calling a huge amount of attention to it. In making a "to do" about it - not a "big to do", but a "to do", nonetheless - the moderators did, somewhat, make it feel unforthcoming. Do they take me for a fool, that I engage in actions recklessly, without forethought? If I do something, generally, I know what I am doing, and am acting advisedly. I may, again, post information about myself; for the moment, if someone is interested, I previously posted messages, with information, on the
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com site. With no discouraging results. If they wish, they can look there.
The majority of Neville's discourse, however, dealt with defending the "legitimacy" of JarryB and FraterLibre, including patent misrepresentation of philosophical technique to do so.
Neville, for example, attests to "the impartiality and scholarly approach of FraterLibre and JerryB". Responding to the reference to the Modern Antiquarian site by merely commenting on their music does not suggest scholarly interest or approach.
Where I took exception to Stu Neville accusing me of "automatically demeaning the integrity of other posters merely because they hold other views", and of being "uncivil to a great degree", Stu Neville recounts the paragraph, apparently to give the impression that he was addressing the point, but his response was to a completely different point in a paragraph after it! Which is convenient, since, in that paragraph, I pointed out that JerryB and FraterLibre were uncivil towards me, and that Stu Neville seems unwilling to acknowledge, yet knows he cannot validly deny!
The passage Neville takes up, instead, is one where I ask that he show where I had made any sweeping claims, without proof. In response, Neville invokes an earlier post where I addressed statements by Linda Moulton-Howe, in the thread Crop Circle Culprits, to the effect that crop circles had appeared within 60 to 90 minutes, during her and her friends keeping an all night watch. JerryB claimed such things are "hard to prove", that it was a matter of "trusting her on her words". Trusting others, or, at least, extending trust to those who say things he doesn't like, seems not in keeping with JerryB's nature. Stu Neville said that I "quoted theories by Linda Moulton-Howe (and note that JerryB did not dismiss them out of hand, merely stated that he found them hard to accept), which are as valid as any other theory, but once again do not have the kind of proof attached which you seem to demand of others". I did not "quote theories" by Ms. Moulton-Howe, only an observation, nor did I take exception to JerryB "dismissing them out of hand", rather, to his, essentially going out of his way to cast aspersions on the reliability of Ms. Moulton-Howe to even tell time! Before finding fault with what I say, Stu Neville should make sure he knows what it is I said!
With respect to my own taking issue with FraterLibre's claim to have actually been in Chaco Canyon, and to, supposedly, absolutely know that the land, there, is absolutely, perfectly flat, Stu Neville backs up his assertions that he doesn't trust cartographers, who agree with me that the Chaco Canyon floor is far from flat and featureless. All but slavishly, Neville purports to accept FraterLibre's description of the canyon floor above all others!
And Neville has the gall to claim that the moderators show no partiality!
"I would tend to take the word of someone who has been there, rather than any map, however notable the cartographer", Stu Neville grandly asserts.
Well, where does he think I got the information I posted from? That it came to me in alphabet soup? I was quoting reports from The National Geographic, Scientific American and Nature, among others, all of whom have reported on Chaco Canyon, and the Anasazi! And all of whom also visited the area, provably, with photographs to show!
Yet Stu Neville still insists on the, frankly, increasingly questionable claim of FraterLibre to have visited Chaco Canyon. For that matter, he only asserts to have been there, not to have gone over every single inch of it! Yet he claims it to be geometrically flat - flat enough that a straight line road anywhere would encounter no sizeable obstruction, and Neville "impartially" buys it lock, stock and barrel, without proof!
Just on FraterLibre's say-so.
JerryB won't accept Linda Moulton-Howe's claim of crop circles forming within 60 to 90 minutes, while they were on watch, claiming it was "hard to prove", because it was a matter of trusting her on her words". But Stu Neville will take anything FraterLibre says on trust, repeat it without question, and, apparently, stand by it, steadfastly!
Stu Neville also depicts truth as being “both subjective and dependant on context”, yet he characterizes JerryB as “scholarly” when JerryB questions taking Linda Moulton-Howe “on her word”! According to Neville, essentially, because she felt subjectively that the crop circles formed in 60 to 90 minutes, JerryB, in the “scholarly” way that Neville attributes to him, must accept that as truth! When JerryB effectively denounced Ms. Howe’s timing as untrustworthy because it was subjective, Stu Neville seemed in no great hurry to upbraid him for that violation of the principle Neville, himself, seems to take to heart!
Don't say there isn’t any apparent partiality among at least some of the moderators of the Fortean Times site!
When called to it to explain his fixation with not trusting cartographers, incidentally, Neville "explains": "No, frankly, I don't trust map makers in some circumstances - having fallen into a rhine not marked on a large scale Ordnance Survey map, I tend to rely on the evidence of my own eyes first." Was it the Ordnance Survey map that was wrong, or Neville's reading of it? If, too, the "rhine" is to refer to a river, why does he even need a map to discern a body of water; can’t he see it with his own eyes? Even at night, it's not easy to miss being near a river!
However, Neville declares to "rely on the evidence of his own eyes first".
Except, it seems, when it comes to unsupported claims by such as FraterLibre, which Neville seems to accept wholeheartedly, without question!
Think twice before you believe claims of impartiality at the Fortean Times website!
Neville then takes issue with my requesting to be told "chapter and verse" where a supposed "smugness" was supposed to be contained in my posts.
"I never said anything of the sort", Neville says valiantly, "Kindly retract that statement."
But, if you look at the previous post of mine in this thread, you will see that I addressed that statement to FraterLibre, not to Stu Neville!
Before making proclamations, it seems, Stu Neville will have to get more used to being sure of his words! Sadly, Stu Neville's control of his facts does not seem very laudable.
In response, again, to my praising of the idea of using Christ's teachings as a guide, Neville responds: "just because someone does not ascribe to Christ's teachings, does that make them somehow less worthy of consideration than those who do?"
Does Stu Neville see something to be praised in those who espouse such things as cheating others; stealing from others; lying for tawdry, personal profit; or being unfair to others? Those are precepts Christ taught; if Neville sees those who eschew such principles as worthy of so much consideration, he should say what about their ways he finds exonerating!
In the end, Neville disagrees with my representation that Occam's Razor has limited, if any, validity. I stand by my statement that the rule cannot be taken as a reliable method for deriving the truth; it's shaped up as little more than a "dodge" for the untrustworthy to invoke, whenever they want to dissuade deserving investigation into something. New investigations tend to promise new material, and new complications; proclaiming universally that everything must have only a simple solution, they have fought against attempts to launch legitimate examinations of important things. Indeed, it may be that there are entire classes of phenomena that have different levels of inherent complexity. Exact prediction of behavior, for both animals and humans, for example, seems very difficult, at best. Predicting the trajectory of a rocket, essentially, needs only basic, simple equations, and a minimum of information. Predicting other things may be so involved that simple models would be completely inappropriate. In such cases, Occam’s Razor comes across as more a matter of laziness than scholarly interest.
There may even be classes of phenomena for which any traditional model, or collections of modifications on such models, may be only the basis for yet more complicated depictions. In short, there may be classes of phenomena for which what we can consider standard analysis may consist of an endless collecting of new and previously unsuspected manifestations!
Even the weather seems to confound most standard analysis, which is only one reason for suspecting that what we call the atmosphere may, in fact, be a single living creature, or a collection of life-like entities.
The “science” which involves writing up authoritative sounding proposals for grant money, promising politicos that the “riddle of the universe” will be solved with the next endowment toward polysaccharide analysis, tends to favor the idea of imbuing anything of worth with some kind of tactical simplicity. Those who understand what truth is about tend to be more acknowledging of the facts of the matter.
JerryB took issue with my not providing a theory for Manhattan streets following ley lines.
We are, essentially, still in the process of assembling information! Doesn’t that seem evident to JerryB?
And, for all the plaudits showered on Darwin by “traditionalists”, his work was, basically, a completely overriding of any reliance on Occam’s Razor. Without even a mechanism for the cellular inception and inheritance of traits - assuming that it must exist because the results exist, just like those who propose ley lines because of the linear placing of important sites! - Darwin took the dramatic leap of propounding an equally unobserved mechanism for the favoring out of characteristics! Darwin’s work is a complete denial of the technique of Occam’s Razor!
Demanding that something predict the future is a stronger test for at least "traditional" forms of physical phenomena, but even that may fail in cases of sophisticated entities or forces. But Occam’s Razor seems, at best, an oddity, and cannot be expected to be a reliable tool.
Misquoting, misstating and misrepresenting my words has been the demonstrable engine of at least moderator Stu Neville in his apparent attempted whitewashing of the behavior of FraterLibre and JerryB. And nowhere can that be taken as evidence of legitimate motivation. Those who have, previously, felt cowed, in the face of apparently feigned "authority" on the part of FraterLibre and JerryB, and what must have been subtle but determined fostering of their proclamations by at least Stu Neville, should think twice before allowing their thoughts to be so compromised!
I have seen this numerous times, on numerous other boards; the inculcation of a favored group, basically inclined toward the "party line" - which often turns out not to be in the best interest of most who populate the forums - evidently supported by quisling toadying on the part of forum moderators. Time and time again, important discussions were broken into by those intent on preventing the important from being said. Refusal to acknowledge what was really said, false leads, misinterpretations of what was said, even outright fabrications are commonplace, when the evidently questionable statements by the shills is called into question by someone who doesn't like to see such subversion. In one case, for example, an evidently questionable individual, also feigning eminent superiority in a subject, confused knots and miles per hour, in a post. I pointed it out. The individual went back, altered their original post, then accused me of not knowing what I was talking about! There are other cases, incidentally, where the “scholarly” and “respected” members of a forum would, essentially try to run the show into the ground by establishing the unspoken precept that, if those examining a phenomenon do not have a complete and detailed theory ready, at a snap of the fingers, to explain something, then there can’t be anything to what they’re saying, at all! In short, what they propose investigating cannot exist if they don’t have a complete explanation ready before even starting the investigation! This seems reminiscent of JerryB’s demand for a “theory” to explain Manhattan’s streets.
Refutation could have been difficult, if I didn’t have a photograph of the screen with the original, erroneous, post on it! I posted this photograph, with an accusation of evident turpitude on the other’s part. The moderators of the website promptly authorized moving the entire thread to a less well visited section of the site!
The people cannot allow their thinking to be done for them by those who seem to have little regard for their welfare or rights.
Julian Penrod
.
I'll earmark that phrase for future use in debate.