Consciousness, New Thinking About

DJ DJ at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 19 22:26:42 EST 2002


John H. <John at overhere> wrote in message
news:w60Q8.339$5l4.13149 at ozemail.com.au...
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Their ideas have been
> around for over a decade, trotted out in acceptable forums for much
> discussion. Both are scientists, both know the golden rule: if you've got
a
> theory, don't talk about it, find a way to prove it.

I'm not sure that you could say that any such "golden rule" exists with any
confidence.  Consider:

- General Relativity
- Schrodingers Cat
- The "Many Worlds" or "Many Universes" theory

None of these have been proven before being "talked about".  But I'm glad,
as probably most people are, that they are in the public arena.  There is
also considerable evidence that scientists will invent new theories or
"quick fixes" (which are sometimes beyond proof) when  their results don't
match their theories.  e.g.:

- Einstein's cosmological constant
- Renormalization

I hope you don't get the wrong impression and think that I'm against
science.  I just think it's a bit unfair that people use the tenets of
science to criticise everything that is not science.  If a theory needs to
be proven before being talked about then we might as well turn this forum
into a database of established facts, so as to avoid any silly, unwarranted
speculation.  But that would upset people for two reasons:
- Those with the facts in their heads would no longer be able to demonstrate
(advertise) their knowledge
- Those without the facts in their heads wouldn't have the chance to start
interesting discussions

DJ





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list