X-Message-Number: 19302 From: "George Smith" <> References: <> Subject: Round craters on the moon and closed minds in the sciences. Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:39:39 -0700 Gentlemen, Thank you for proving my underlying point. The underlying point was and remains that most modern scientists are MORE interested in accepting the current paradigm as the "truth" than in considering alternate and perhaps superior models of reality which can advance science. One OTHER scientist in private email to me on Sunday demonstrated to me that IN A VACUUM the explosion of high speed bodies on the moon would consistently create spherical explosions and this would create round craters. I thanked him. He did NOT ignore the evidence everyone else did that explosions are often NOT spherical as demonstrated in Siberia with the Tunguska explosion as well as nuclear and conventional explosion testing which often exhibits a "butterfly" and other "shaped" patterns. No spherical explosion - no round craters. This was critical. Consequently HE was able to address the EVIDENCE which I believed CONTRADICTED the popular model. (The "marbles" example, by the way, was one he agreed with me was also inadequate). What is the point of all this "lunacy" and how does it relate to cryonics? To trace this issue to its source, there was an earlier discussion in regard to the effect of environmentalist extremists' doomsday predictions on the culture and the influence upon the popular acceptance and support of cryonics. My response to the suggestion that criticism of current models should be ALWAYS considered included the simple idea that most scientists today (as has been true of most people in general throughout history) seldom are willing to look for alternate explanations for phenomena once they have gotten one. Since the purpose of science is to develop models of reality for prediction and NOT the pursuit of "truth", the emotional resistance to even considering other models makes no sense at all. But it IS VERY emotional, isn't it, gentlemen? (I thought #19287: Formula for a Crackpot [Joseph W. Morgan] was a beautiful example of this kind of emotional nonsense which blocks thinking. Ad hominem is so tempting when we are upset with those pesky heretics). NOT ONE PERSON HERE considered whether there might be an alternate explanation which accounts for ALL the evidence AT LEAST as well as the "impact crater" model. (By the way, there is). EVERYONE simply looked to the authorities, found the standard answers and said basically, "Well that ends that! No need to look farther afield. Phlogiston explains the facts of fire. No need to consider anything else." And ONLY TWO PEOPLE in private emails were willing to consider the evidence (non spherical explosions) which seemed to contradict the authoritarian "answer". I DON'T find that sad or the least bit unexpected. It was, after all, my ENTIRE POINT! Thank you, one and all for validating the purpose for my off hand example of the moon craters to discuss the general unwillingness to look at alternative models. (I actually have many more apparent huge, physical anomalies which could be offered, but that seems to distract form the actual issue, doesn't it?) When we refuse to consider alternative models, science becomes dogma, and scientists become priests. As long as this psychological tendency continues, breakthroughs in the real world (and not just on the chalk board) will come from OUTSIDE the cloistered disciplines in EVERY area of science in which new models are rejected out of hand. I thank both scientists who privately emailed me on this issue of the example of the moon. You are REAL scientists. For those of you who still don't understand what I have been saying, well that's completely understandable to me. I did state I didn't think you would. I was right. Just my firm opinion, George Smith CI member and Immortalist Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19302