Most Remarkable Claim

Originally posted by yfxxx
As for his factual knowledge, I think that anyone who, for example, proposes such radical (to put it mildly) new "theories" about the moon, and expects to be taken seriously, should be really well versed in current "standard" knowledge/theories about at least mathematics, astronomy, celestial mechanics, geology, radiology, optics, spectroscopy and spaceflight. Mr. Lear's knowledge in these scientific fields is questionable at best and non-existent at worst.

The fundamental reason I visit ATS (and am sure others do to) is because of my DOUBT regarding "STANDARD" knowledge/theories. How can you argue vehemently against those who are denying ignorance with your "STANDARD" university-educated knowledge?

I do appreciate your standard knowledge yfxxx, but on ATS, that counts for Jack, and Jack just left town…

[edit on 5-25-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by thebox
The fundamental reason I visit ATS (and am sure others do to) is because of my DOUBT regarding "STANDARD" knowledge/theories. How can you argue vehemently against those who are denying ignorance with your "STANDARD" university-educated knowledge?

What I wanted to say was that anyone who denies or criticizes "standard" knowledge should know what "standard" knowledge actually says, and how this "standard" knowledge was arrived at. I think this is necessary, if one wants to convincingly point out weaknesses or even fundamental flaws in this "standard" knowledge. In other words, I think if you want to tear apart a certain scientific model (e.g. about the moon), then you must know very well what this model actually says, how it was derived, and what its predictions are.

Otherwise, the critic of the "standard" knowlegde tends to sound like someone saying "I don't understand this, so it must be wrong"

I do appreciate your standard knowledge yfxxx, but on ATS, that counts for Jack and #, and Jack just left town…

Yeah, I noticed that, too . I just wonder why this should be a point in favor of ATS ? I mean, not accepting "standard" knowledge at face value is fine ... but saying "it only counts for ****" (which is what you effectively said) on a discussion forum doesn't make that forum look very mature .

Regards
yf

P.S.:
@Admins: Is it a bug or a feature that TheBox's 4-letter-word is replaced by "#" in the actual posting as displayed to the readers, but perfectly visible to me while I compose my "quote" reply? That's no complaint, just an honest question.

Originally posted by yfxxx
What I wanted to say was that anyone who denies or criticizes "standard" knowledge should know what "standard" knowledge actually says, and how this "standard" knowledge was arrived at. I think this is necessary, if one wants to convincingly point out weaknesses or even fundamental flaws in this "standard" knowledge. In other words, I think if you want to tear apart a certain scientific model (e.g. about the moon), then you must know very well what this model actually says, how it was derived, and what its predictions are.

Otherwise, the critic of the "standard" knowlegde tends to sound like someone saying "I don't understand this, so it must be wrong"

Those are fair points.

Unfortunately, the standard isn't "fact". Nothing is "fact". Just because one learns everything there is to know about the "standard" doesn't automatically give them credibility over those who think for themselves.

I'm not personally siding with one or the other here; I'm just standing back, observing with an open mind. There are an equal number of flaws in any ideology.

Originally posted by yfxxx
Yeah, I noticed that, too

. I just wonder why this should be a point in favor of ATS

? I mean, not accepting "standard" knowledge at face value is fine ... but saying "it only counts for ****" (which is what you effectively said) on a discussion forum doesn't make that forum look very mature

.

Regards
yf

Sorry I should've put that one in quotes. It's a line from Army of Darkness... And yes it was VERY immature.

[edit on 25/5/07 by thebox]