It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the trap that "scholars" fall into

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
no doubt scholars are very intelligent people they are very smart but human still

one must be careful on the ladder of life to search for wisdom over knowledge.....see knowledge gives you the answer to things we would like answers for.. but it also can put you into a box thought mentality

for instance


The last great battle of the 5th Sun(time period over next 5 years) is with self gnosis. In other words, when we reach the level of self understanding, our rationality has a head lock on our physical existence. We perceive that our knowledge is knowledge of something other than ourselves, but we carry it as if it were uniquely ours in a form of self gnosis. The inability of mainstream scientists to understand ancient cultures is a direct result of their mentors having lost at the battle involving the Great Red Dragon and Seven Macaw. In the typical proof of the error of spiritual sciences, rationalizing material scientists attempt to use material laws. But, the material laws do not apply to the spiritual sciences, and any attempt to apply the wrong set of laws is ill conceived. Enlightenment requires the sacrifice of the deities of self desire and self gnosis,



The Maya myth tells of the battle between Hunahpu and Seven Macaw. The image of the event is shown here, as Seven Macaw grabs the body of Hunahpu, and he, in turn, tries to defeat the bird with a blow gun. This is more than a metaphor for excess rationality and unperceiving bodily function. This is a statement that rational knowledge is not a substitute for physical experience. It is a "cross of thieves." It is a statement that the ivory towers of all educational institutions must be aware of this Lord of Xibalba, which is subliminal rationalization. Many times we set traps for ourselves when we search for knowledge rather than wisdom. Knowledge is a form of self gnosis which does not give to that which is to be known, the capacity for self expression. In other words we act as if we are "know it all's" with perfect paradigms, of which we speak. The subliminal rationalization is that repeated rational methodology is truth because we "know" the path of the rationalization. We may have learned such truths as verbal expressions, without physical or spiritual awareness. Seven Macaw is a brightly colored noisy bird with a big mouth. The name Seven implies that the bird represents rationalizations of all the spirits of creation. Seven Macaw is the Maya metaphor for a "know it all." Over rationalization is a common trap we fall into as a means to prove questionable conjectures. More than a few naive initiates to many cultures of the world have "lost their heads" to this Lord of Xibalba.


www.siloam.net...




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Does it apply also to U.K. British Empire England self-proclaimed top 1% I.Q. the so called smart guy an archeolog wanna be?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
not sure about your reply so scuse if i misunderstood it

but this article covers alot of the authors critiques of jenkins and how he was caught in 7 macaw a couple times and how it obscured his interpretation and understanding of the maya



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
thats because John Major Jenkins is a pseudohistorian who believes that something will happen in 2012 because the Mayan calendar says so
nobody who is qualified in this field takes him seriously so its hardly surprising he gets things wrong
all the time



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
that is correct but i wonder if you got the drift that all scientists can fall into the trap and not even know it, because those that think predominantly with the left brain (more black and white rationale mind) often tend to be those who also excel in these areas of studies because they often lack the creativity and spirituality balance the right brain half has) the bigger the ego the less creative i.e the less wiggle room for there beleif systems spread outside the box

[edit on 25-2-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinLung
Does it apply also to U.K. British Empire England self-proclaimed top 1% I.Q. the so called smart guy an archeolog wanna be?


Please check your u2u inbox and respond.

It is underneath the main ad at the top of the page and looks like this:




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

doesn't say anything about left or right brains
people who think that esoterism is important generally don't need the evidence to draw conclusions
for this reason they use their left brain
and they are wrong more often than those who use their right brain and empirical data

you could do with reading this cpdaman
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
that is correct but i wonder if you got the drift that all scientists can fall into the trap and not even know it, because those that think predominantly with the left brain (more black and white rationale mind) often tend to be those who also excel in these areas of studies because they often lack the creativity and spirituality balance the right brain half has) the bigger the ego the less creative i.e the less wiggle room for there beleif systems spread outside the box

[edit on 25-2-2007 by cpdaman]


I think you'd get a very different picture if you sat and talked with researchers and historians in person. I would tend to agree with the ego and belief systems connection, but I think you'll find that this is true even when the person has almost no education and can't be troubled to do any research.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
yes i agree that an ego effects the less educated as well, however i think the fact that if a theory can't be disproven (yet based on the current knowledge at hand) that it becomes a law or "fact", which can't later be disproven so things have to sort of build upon each other, when say this fact was off a little bit , but no body came up with the right experiments to disprove it, based on the knowledge at hand.

Now i do respect the scientific method and i don't think we have a better option available but it is not perfect and the term "fact" should be taken more loosely IMO

we(humans) know less than we think

that's what happens when u are a bit afraid of the unknown

u make up answers that u beleive to feel safe

and then your perceptions "confirm" these beleifs to you

it's a shame we dont understand that perception creates reality not necessarily equaling truth

the problem arises when u see these answers as absolute



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   


however i think the fact that if a theory can't be disproven (yet based on the current knowledge at hand) that it becomes a law or "fact", which can't later be disproven so things have to sort of build upon each other

Theories are based on proven facts arrived at from collection of reliable data not facts that cant be disproven
i'd love to see an example of this theory based on a fact that cant be disproven ?
have you got any ?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
yes i agree that an ego effects the less educated as well, however i think the fact that if a theory can't be disproven (yet based on the current knowledge at hand) that it becomes a law or "fact", which can't later be disproven so things have to sort of build upon each other, when say this fact was off a little bit , but no body came up with the right experiments to disprove it, based on the knowledge at hand.


Remember that science is NOT religion. In religion, you have a fact and you adhere to that. It never changes.

In science, as our ability to measure things gets better, we change or correct or overturn theories...because science isn't a religion.

In 1610, Gallileo observed Jupiter with the telescope for the first time and said it had four moons (which nobody knew.) If science was a religion, we would say "Jupiter has only four moons plus other stuff around it." However, since science is based on observation, data changes. We now have counted 63 moons around the planet.

Those are "facts" that changed.

Our "knowledge" that chimps are peaceful apes has changed after scientists observed them hunting other monkeys and conducting "warfare." That's an example of another "fact" that changed.

Ancient scientists believed the brain existed only to cool and heat the blood and that the heart was the seat of intelligence and reason. Modern discoveries change this "fact" to another "fact."

If science was a religion and stuck with in-the-box-thinking-facts, we'd still say the heart controlled intelligence and reason... and the gods know what kind of weird way we'd have to contort reason to account for the brain.


Now i do respect the scientific method and i don't think we have a better option available but it is not perfect and the term "fact" should be taken more loosely IMO

Explain?


we(humans) know less than we think

that's what happens when u are a bit afraid of the unknown

u make up answers that u beleive to feel safe

and then your perceptions "confirm" these beleifs to you

I'm afraid you're "preaching to the choir" here. We see lots of folks who hang onto a belief that really isn't supported by evidence (the Ica stones, as an example, where there's a vast amount of evidence debunking them.)



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
i would like to state that i don't consider myself a "religous" individual

now i also think it is ironic/funny that many people say they are men/women of science and not religion , which sort of assumes they are polar opposites

but i see alot of simalarites in regard to the power structures and the powerful elite owning or bankrolling the institutions of higher knowledge in both

also that the truth is the result of published scientific journals or the bible, when it is just a beleif that both are being interpreted and carried out in a unbiased direction

now obviously there are less scientific fanatics than religious one's, , because the control and fear mechanisms are not what they are in some aspects of religiion ( i.e u do this and you go to hell/die) and also science does not use vast metaphors to describe teaching's and lessons like religion seems to do, because the teaching from the bible i think try to give you the bigger picture and sort of teach you life lessons and that there are many ways to reach point b from starting point a, so giving a rule of fact or law to get there or understand does not apply, and therefore it is hard for the scientific a+b=c reasoning to interret the merit of accuracy's/ truths based on metaphors .

but just because you provide me with a few example's of how science has allowed change throughout the years they were rather obvious example's of things that would have to be allowed based upon they would become obvious evidence to scientists anyway (more moons). i just wonder that when organizations of authority take a stance behind a particular theory, that any evidence that contradicts this will be buried or ridiculed by influential scientific organizations.

i beleive that a small cirlce of priviaged elite carry with them secret knowledge past down from century's and civilization's of old. civilizations with more knowledge of the occult and spiritualism, things that the public should be "uninterested with" since it is found more beneficial to maintaining power structures to keep the populations caught up in materialism's and not on the realm of "spiritualism, or discovering the true power individuals have to shape there world thru themselves, instead of people giving themselves no credit and leaving it out of there hands in those of a god or worse gov't authority's. and in reality those people that pray to god and get results, which falsely confirms there beleifs about a outside god, are just empowering themselves to change there world through the manifestation of positive energy(thoughts that ring true to you for your happiness) corresponding with there prayers, they are creating there own world, only thing is they give an outside god the credit , not themselves, because they need a god to give themselves this power according to there beleif systems to produce this postive (creation magick) energy, that is why god seems so real to them, i think the bible may have some legitimacy to there prophecy's but it is the way that most religions takes the power away from an indiviual and onto a god that i dislike, and also the power that these organizations seek that tend to corrupt human intentions, but i digress

i beleive this elite circle guards cetain secrets of ancient knowldge pertaining to "earth changes in regard to cycles that ancients have kept track of, and also that they beleive that most people couldn't responsibly handle this knowledge and if they did we would plunge into anarchy (maybe) and that they change the accounts of history in order to keep these secrets, and tell past story's of conflicts/war's from perspectives that mislead as to the real reasons for these conflicts, and that they are secretly trying to reduce the populations in there minds for the "survival of mankind" because they think overpopulation is a threat to humanity"

wether they beleive over population is a threat or not, it gives them an excuse to carry forth which is still usually seen as unbeleivable "answers" to the problems civilization would face

now they have the global warming issue in there palms and i am very weary of what they may do given some particular un reports that say this is such a dire situation, and wether there solution is a "lesser of two evils" alternatives i dont know if such an ultimatum is a reflection of an accurate report on the issues, or an excuse to rationalize there own greed and agenda, my heart would hope yes, but then again to do what these elitist fraction have done in the past, they must be brainwashed and pressured into bring out the worst of human nature's to be so heartless.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
but i see alot of simalarites in regard to the power structures and the powerful elite owning or bankrolling the institutions of higher knowledge in both

You might feel differently if you joined or started one of those small home churches... or if you got into research.


also science does not use vast metaphors to describe teaching's and lessons like religion seems to do,

Why would science want to describe things like gravity or the speed of light in metaphors? Science is a tool. You need good structure in a tool.


i just wonder that when organizations of authority take a stance behind a particular theory, that any evidence that contradicts this will be buried or ridiculed by influential scientific organizations.

Not if it's good and convincing evidence. Examples of this are the theories of continental drift, the "dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid", and Native American settlement of the Americas comes before the Clovis culture.

But, isn't this a bit contradictory?

You were just griping a few messages ago how science can't decide anything because it changes theories. Now you're trying to tell me it doesn't change?


i beleive that a small cirlce of priviaged elite carry with them secret knowledge past down from century's and civilization's of old.

They're called scholars and researchers. Seriously.

Most folks here know little about their own culture and own national history. Most can't read Latin to see what the old writers said. Most can't read Greek (I can, a little, for both languages.) Most can't read hieroglyphics. A priveleged few can, but most are not inclined to do the work for this.

And because of that, they fall prey to things in their own language that promise the "secret of the ages" -- secrets that are NOT what the ancients believed and they miss secrets and teachings that the ancients really DID believe.



...they are creating there own world, only thing is they give an outside god the credit , not themselves, because they need a god to give themselves this power according to there beleif systems to produce this postive (creation magick) energy, that is why god seems so real to them, i think the bible may have some legitimacy to there prophecy's but it is the way that most religions takes the power away from an indiviual and onto a god that i dislike, and also the power that these organizations seek that tend to corrupt human intentions, but i digress

You might enjoy reading up on the psychology of belief. There's also a good podcast course (university course) at UCLA Berkeley on European History and thought that's VERY interesting. All about how images and beliefs come about in the culture.


now they have the global warming issue in there palms ...

You might enjoy reading what our other members have to say on that over in the "fragile earth" forum and in the "science forum."



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
yes i agree that an ego effects the less educated as well


Not to go off-topic, but this is certainly true. I wonder if for them (the "less-educated"!) it's wrapped up in chip-on-shoulder syndrome. Or is it basic human stubbornness that we just don't like to admit we're wrong?

Crossing cultures makes it even more interesting. In Asia the concept of "face" is one of the prime reasons Asia hasn't acheived its potential (in my opinion), too many leaders, be it business or politics, refuse to admit they don't know something or that there might be a better way, thus stifling their own company or, worse, their nation.

Then we have standard dementia, which is the only way I can explain Robert Mugabe's sudden slide into spectacular incompetence...

My favourite is the current (for the last quarter of a century and counting) Cambodian PM. He never finished high school, he has no tertiary qualification, he was originally put in power by the Vietnamese and one of his more quotable passages of verbal and mental brilliance was this:

"You can't say logging causes floods and droughts, that's inconsistent."

Which, on the face of it, is true. It is inconsistent. It's also a complicated and highly important issue that needs more than a moment's examination.


the problem arises when u see these answers as absolute


Or having seen them as absolute, refuse to admit to the possibility of new evidence being uncovered.

Unless you suddenly need to appear to be bipartisan in an effort to keep ahead of the curve, which will consist of Congress introducing legislation that is direct oppposition to the last six years of national policy...

I'm trying to think of examples where scholars have reversed course as new evidence has appeared and publicly admitted that "I might have been wrong". I'm having a hard time of it...

In politics McNamara's book "In Retrospect" is an okay example of someone admitting they were wrong and screwed up...he still qualifies and caveats (not a verb, I know) a hell of a lot...



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

You were just griping a few messages ago how science can't decide anything because it changes theories. Now you're trying to tell me it doesn't change?


i beleive u misunderstood my previous statement and then abstracted the meaning of that misunderstanding to try to prove a point which is meaningless


i was saying that while the scientific method and science can give us many insights into how things work, we should be careful to label these things as "facts" or "truth's" or "laws" or anything absolulte.

and i was describing the *limitations* of the scientific method which i'm sure you would agree there are limitations , not they we have a better formula available but the problem arises when people take these things that have yet to be disproven as absolute truth's

if this is not what u were referring to, please direct my attention

NOW as far as stating example's of change when there was good evidence that is wonderful, i understand in your example's that we are refering to how new evidence has led to changes in beleifs and accounts of history in reference to continental drift, the time line of the native american's, and the end of dinosaur asteroid theory , surely u are not arguing/abstracting that i was against this?

i was simply saying that certain fractions may surpress certain discoveries
the elite and powerful beleive that many in the population can't handle knowing or it is not in the best intrest of those in power that the public know, elite's feel the public need to be told what to beleive and why , they withhold certain knowledge that they deem is not in our own best intrest.

i was saying that the elite fund the science institutes (always have) and the elite have an agenda, and that agenda is not about always communicating truths to the public. it is about telling them what they think we can handle and keeping the rest to themselves. and in doing this they tell us the story of history in a way that they we think we can handle, and often times these influential organizations will discredit ignore and ridicule any scientist who try's to bring light to anything they feel the public can't handle knowing (which they may be right)



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   


i was saying that the elite fund the science institutes (always have) and the elite have an agenda, and that agenda is not about always communicating truths to the public. it is about telling them what they think we can handle and keeping the rest to themselves. and in doing this they tell us the story of history in a way that they we think we can handle, and often times these influential organizations will discredit ignore and ridicule any scientist who try's to bring light to anything they feel the public can't handle knowing (which they may be right)

this is about the most factually incorrect statement I have ever read on ATS
if you want me to tell you why just ask
but seeing as you probably know what i'm going to say i bet you don't



[edit on 1-3-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman

You were just griping a few messages ago how science can't decide anything because it changes theories. Now you're trying to tell me it doesn't change?


i was saying that while the scientific method and science can give us many insights into how things work, we should be careful to label these things as "facts" or "truth's" or "laws" or anything absolulte.


I think there's a word tangle here! Are you refering to Theories as "facts/truth/laws"? I know a lot of the "alternative science" websites and books have their own "version" of what a theory means -- but it's not the same meaning that is used in science.


and i was describing the *limitations* of the scientific method which i'm sure you would agree there are limitations , not they we have a better formula available but the problem arises when people take these things that have yet to be disproven as absolute truth's

Erm... I think I'm suffering from confusion here. What do you mean as "people take these things that have yet to be disproven as absolute truths"? Could you give an example?


i was simply saying that certain fractions may surpress certain discoveries the elite and powerful beleive that many in the population can't handle knowing or it is not in the best intrest of those in power that the public know, elite's feel the public need to be told what to beleive and why , they withhold certain knowledge that they deem is not in our own best intrest.

Politicians and religious leaders do, yes. It's impossible in science, however. You might have the head of a university stop all research in stem cell (for example) or even the head of a nation (George Bush) axe all stem cell research and attempt to force the entire nation to stop the research.

When this happens (as it did), collaborators and scientists in other countries with no such restriction keep on working. This is the way it's always been.


and often times these influential organizations will discredit ignore and ridicule any scientist who try's to bring light to anything they feel the public can't handle knowing (which they may be right)

I can't think of a single thing that scientists have discovered that they "felt the public can't handle." Besides, if one group of scientists decided to keep it quiet, another would leap up and announce it. That's what happened with things like the nasty Tuskeegee experiment and other examples of unethical behavior in researchers.

Alternative sites sometimes enthusiastically welcome hoaxers who come in and say "I'm a scientist and my work has been suppressed!" Here on ATS it's hard for those hoaxers to get beyond a message or two before someone who really has studied the science hops in and clobbers them.

Could you give me an example of science information that got suppressed because the public couldn't handle it?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Eh, you don't read enough dry-as-dust science journals!


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'm trying to think of examples where scholars have reversed course as new evidence has appeared and publicly admitted that "I might have been wrong". I'm having a hard time of it...

It happens all the time... in letter columns in these journals. Someone who's held one position will later come out (when the new position is attacked) in support of the new position. They don't stand up and announce it because nobody holds press conferences for scientists saying "hey, that was wrong!" That's kind of non-news.

But plenty of them have changed their position and afterwards use the new idea in their research and papers and as examples in the lectures they give at the universities.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Eh, you don't read enough dry-as-dust science journals!



That is very, very true...

...and also, you'll find no argument here!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
good stuff thanks for all the replies

lastly can u tell me if the pubic would be able to handle some of the options the gov't has carried out as a result of the jason society reviewing scientists claim that back in 1957 that population growth would cause life threating harm to the ecosystems of the world in the next century if population was not decreased. do u think people can handle not the ways recomended for reducing birth rates but increasing death rates in the name of betterment for manking.

leading scientists in 1972 reiterated the same WARNING about population growth in that year and scientists and doctors created engineered disease to save us from the population explosion. and sure some scientist's , doctors talk about it, they are just discredited or commit suicide




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join