Anyone who presents a theory as a solid fact should be viewed with suspicion. Yesterday's discussion on theory and faith.
|Not going there today. Maybe tomorrow.|
Yesterday I got involved in a discussion with a longtime friend (Egad Masa, how long HAVE I known you) about the Twin Towers and their collapse. No I’m not going off the deep end on this, I’m just using it as a starting for point for the discussion today.
I was pointed to a website (aetruth911.org) which purports to be looking for the truth of why the towers collapsed. Lemme state right here - I do not know why they fell down. Nor does anyone else. Anyone who says they have absolute facts of how and why they fell should be referred to the opening sentence of today’s piece.
Here’s a solid fact you can hang your hat on.
This is the only time in the history of mankind that two large modern planes have crashed into two modern buildings the size of the WTCs in a major city.
Another fact: No detailed and advanced monitoring equipment studied the actual impact from inside the building and sent out reports to be analyzed.
These will be important to the discussion in a few minutes.
A lot of people are refusing to accept the government reports on the collapse. Why? They accuse the government of lying, providing misinformation and misdirection. They point to past examples of this as proof the government can’t be trusted.
I agree with ‘em. I don’t trust the government either.
Mainstream media can’t be trusted for the same reason, they say.
Well, on that I do agree somewhat, but not totally.
Now some of these people also say the architects and engineers and independent scientists can be trusted because they have never lied.
The problem here is the media is all lumped together as one. To be fair, then, all architects, engineers and others in the physical sciences must also be lumped together. If you decide to start comparing individuals, then to be fair you must also compare individual media outlets and reporters.
So looking at ‘em lump sum, can you trust the folks in physical sciences? Remember Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons? This the the duo who claimed to have come up with Cold Fusion and was later proven to be false.
|THE SKY IS FALLING!|
Ripped straight from news stories (ooh, except you can’t trust the media either, right?)
Dr. Anil Potti, a medical doctor and genetics researcher at Duke University who padded his résumé and published scientific findings that must now be retracted, resigned as an associate professor Friday. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/20/814164/scandalized-duke-researcher-quits.html
Discredited stem cell scientist Professor Hwang Woo-suk (see previous news story) may have inadvertently made a remarkable breakthrough in stem cell research. The rise and fall of the Korean scientist has been well documented, and this latest twist is the result of research by experts at Harvard and Cambridge Universities. http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/3604/
When the steam engine came about, noted medical doctors of the time said the human body could not travel more than 20 miles an hour, else it would explode.
The human heart cannot be operated on.
No human can run a mile in under 4 minutes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s medical. I give you more examples from the physical sciences of absolute truths which were later shot down in flames.
|Let's Get Physical!|
In Ancient Times people believed all matter was composed of water, air, fire and earth. This was accepted science at the time.
The universe revolves around the earth.
More modern times? Leonardo da Vinci, a leading scientist of his time wrote “The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it.”
Another time, scientists stated as fact that the atom could not be split. The atom is the smallest unit of matter. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_smallest_unit_of_matter_that_can_enter_into_a_chemical_reaction
Radiation is healthy.
I had a college professor who carried around an article from the Time Magazine in early 1980s. It stated cocaine was not addictive.
Black holes do not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Man cannot fly under his own power. (http://www.getitbyte.com/2010/09/first-human-to-fly-under-own-power-by.html
The pyramids could not be built by man.
Rock cannot be melted in a wood fire. I watched a show (back when I watched TV) of a guy who built a cairn in Great Britain, piled wood on it and burned a bonfire for 24 hours. He achieved melted rock.
This is just a few of the many, many, many examples I can supply of how the physical sciences have presented a fact only to have it later overturned in the face of new discoveries and more advanced knowledge.
I am not accusing the people who promulgated the above information as liars. Rather they were
|Not a liar.|
Does this mean such scientists should not be trusted? Refer to the opening sentence.
Taken as a group, those involved in the physical sciences are just as trustworthy as the media, to me anyway. Taken individually, well that comes down to case by case.
Running back to the WTC, there are many theories. There is also the foundation of facts. We simply don’t have the ability or the gumption to get to all those facts right now and never will.
Believe what you will. Myself, I shall content myself with saying “All I know is that is I know nothing.”
|That's me! I know nothing. NOTHING!|
One final question. If you reject ALL the mainstream media because of a handful of errors and lies then if you are to be fair, can really you accept ALL physical science reports in the face of a handful of errors and lies?