pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/19/86)
In article <12193@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >I think the basic source of a lot of beliefs in "supernatural" events stems >from a misapplication of Occam's razor. >Given two equally valid explanations, I'll choose to believe the simpler. >As a matter of fact, I'll choose simplicity over some degree of validity. Why choose? In such cases, it's good to carry a "handful" of ideas to cover "the facet of reality". Since systems (patterns) of information repeat, there is a good chance that by and by we can sort through the handful and find the better matches or even discover a "replacement concept" to solve missing piece of the puzzle. It's probably not necessary that we carry the same handful, either. >I have no objection to people having beliefs that are utter nonsense. >If they try to tell the public about them, I can pay no attention. >If they try to tell *anybody* that these beliefs have a basis in reality, and >present them as fact, I get very angry - whether these beliefs are about >psychic powers, cretinism, or green men from Mars building the pyramids of >Giza. ... . I hope future posters will be more careful about the claims they >make on the subject. Why don't you either pay attention or, "use your 'K'" key instead of steam in silence? Physics is such a dud when it comes to totally new parent technologies and innovative theories. "They MUST be convinced" before they will "lower" themselves to publish such "things". Look at the problems Einstein faced and even Maiman's attempt to get the results of the first laser published. Six (6) Journals rejected his paper, before the British Journal "Nature" did publish! PHYSICS should have known DECADES EARLIER that, since "material can absorb" radiation, it could "amplify". Then WHY did it take an electrical engineer, a mere "technologist" to do it?? Ahh! but of course, there is no PSI, yet how many times do the fiction writers spill the beans about future theories and technologies that at the time are "pure nonsense" i.e. the ray gun? Is there a kind of "super computer intelligence" that is secretly attached to our brains "wish centers" OR just dumb luck? My feeling about such "creative nonsense" is not to dismiss, but to query "if true, how so?". What possible mechanism/s could make something like this work, or in the case of a new hypothesis, what natural phenomena could such a notion explain and simplify if it does hold true? NOT - is there evidence for PSI, but ... . since it is a concept how, could it possibly work. Then let's try it and search for another way and a better understanding of reality if that approach fails and why it failed. We can all be a little smart, but imagination, that's something the government can't recognize. Q: How many physicists does it take to screw in a light bulb R: That depends on how you define "in". If we could only trade our "Nobel Physicists" for a favorable balance of trade. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
rickheit@ulowell.UUCP (Erich Rickheit) (11/20/86)
<Nonesense! There's no such things as line-eaters! I'll show you...> Okay, boyas and girls! mod.psi is back on its feet again. Now you can discuss this stuff where it belongs. Send articles to mod-psi@ulowell, admistrivia to mod-psi-request@ulowell. Sorry to interupt your reading pleasure, but that's what the army's all about! -- a lesser Power of Darkness UUCP: ...!wanginst!ulowell!rickheit : USnail: Erich Rickheit "Don't take life too serious--It ain't : 85 Gershom Ave, #2 nohow _permanent_"--Walt Kelly : Lowell, MA 01854