reply to post by alphabetaone
Hi, my humble opinion, trying to relate that with what is going here in this thread, is:
It is possible to disagree and even to be in a very different line of thinking without discrediting, without ridiculing, without mocking or referring
to the counterpart with sarcasm, or cynicism.
I am obviously worried that some people saw in me some sort of incarnation of ideas, points of view or archetypes, that they would want to eliminate
forever of the world, only because they don't like them, because that is their pre-judgment, because they don't understand them, that is a very
I feel honestly that I inherited all that hatred or rejection just for free, when I opened the thread, people that attacked me practically since the
beginning, even without allowing me to explain nothing. I tried to disclose a complex prediction of sequence of events and some members of the public
were already hermetically closed to it.
We cannot discharge the possibility that something can contain a portion of truth just only because that position has never been part of our own
that is not enough strong reason to react with enmity or sarcasm.
Now, it is proven in education that nothing is more difficult than to try to learn something when you have already “learnt” it with some
approximate method that seems to work, in some aspects, but is useless in others. That conditions the whole understanding in a negative way with
respect to it.
The common people of the XV century in Europe, not the erudites, ridiculed and misunderstood completely Christopher Columbus theses for about 15 years
just because the collective mentality of their epoch was trapped in a paradigms that they couldn't overcome, their minds were constrained to think in
only one possible way to think, supported just in observation, and although this man had powerful logic arguments to show his point there was no way
they could open their minds just a little to surpass that limitation.
We think on that at present as a case of stubbornness, but that that was not the way the people of that time felt it, they were absolutely convinced
that a man claimed that a solid paradigm, well establish for centuries, was wrong, necessarily must be mad.
The same happened with Galileo trying to show that the Epicycles of Claudius Ptolomeus were perhaps efficient in practice to fix the location of the
planets in their apparent orbits in the sky, but that didn't mean they were correct, the earth is not the center of the solar after all, since
as Socrates used to say: The senses can deceive the mind, and that mistake was systematically accepted as science for more than 1000 years
Albert Einstein was object too of a lot of mockery when he started his critics toward the Classic mechanics, a body of knowledge that remained
intact, untouchable,as a dogma in Science for 3 centuries. Although this man was able to foresee mathematically that the matter was in some way also a
wave, and that the time and space might be in the deep end the two sides of the same entity, as well as the Euclidean space just a particular case of
a curve universe,
it was impossible for many of his contemporaries to grasp those ideas just due to limitations imposed by the Newtonian paradigms
of the Physics at that time.
This is the reason for which Einstein said Imagination is more powerful than Knowledge, because there are things that are true but the science or
technology of the moment cannot even reach. The experimental method is powerful tool in many aspects, but the reason is sharper to penetrate in
conundrums than our instruments,
it was through it that the world of atom was really discovered decades before there were tools to observe
anything at that level, many chemical elements were guessed by Mendeleev before we discovered them, the chromosomes or ADN were intuitively known by
Mendel before we were able to see them.
We cannot say that it is not seriously, in scientific terms, to arrive to conclusions through the pure reason, without supporting our judgments
just in what the senses or our instruments allow us to know of the world, without using the experimental method at all, that can be a fatal
. Only in XX century we were able to see from the space the earth orbiting around the sun, but Copernicus knew that, and Kepler suspect
it, in XVI century without that technology.
To do so, is like to say that Aristotle would be the only man of science in his time, and Plato or Pythagoras would be fakes, to claim that Physics
was a science since its birth, but mathematics was not, it was just a mere speculation of the mind since it arrived to conclusions without the
constraints of a lab but playing with abstractions.
The Angel of lightness
edit on 5/22/2012 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)