posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by Epinephrine
From what I recall of Chaos, it was not an attempt to disprove science or the scientific process of analysis or dissection but rather to study and
predict complicated, deeply connected patterns and physical phenomena that conventional physics could not answer(the movement of clouds and their
various individual particles was one example that I remember).
You see, I am not trying to disprove science or it's process either, I'm just pointing out that the dataset could show you a philosophy and belief
system which is wider in it's scope than you currently hold as your worldview. I have no issue with how
you are doing or perhaps just defining
science, I am just pointing out that what you interpret from it might not do justice to the actual data and is a result of your own mental filtration
process. There is nothing hippy about this. Scientists have their own bias, and established scientists who work within the constraints of the grant
system even have an imposed biased. Another name which illustrates this is the works of Micheal Cremo, who because he dosen't work within the limits
of established archeology is a scientific pariah. But imagine if it turns out he is right, following names like Galileo and Darwin, who were also
shunned by their peers....
See, there's a vibrational frequency pattern to everything in the universe, even the rejection of scientific truth in the favour of scientific dogma
But what do I know, I'm just a braided old hippy in mud stained hemp pants tripping on poison ivy and watching the sun zig zag through the sky...
Also, it would be nice if you realised that in this complex world, just because you can "do the math" as they say, that dosen't mean you
and it certainly does not mean you have experienced