Laurie Savage (guest) 29 Dec 2010 07:35
Difficult to see how "Between 1952 and 1958 Einstein exchanged several letters with Hapgood" since Einstein died in 1955!
Other than that quibble, keep up the good work.
Einstein and the Pole Shift / Discussion
Forum
» General Discussion / Per page discussions
» Einstein and the Pole Shift
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Einstein and the Pole Shift.
Laurie Savage (guest) 29 Dec 2010 07:35
1958 is the publication date of Hapgood's The Earth's Shifting Crust, to which Einstein wrote the foreword.
I was disappointed to read of your condemnation of non-scientists theorising about geology. Having looked closely at the history of original ideas and invention I find that they are invariably the work of non-scientists or scientists of other disciplines.
This, of course leads us to Alfred Wegener who was described as a geophysicist posthumously when his theory became accepted and who was trained as an astronomer later becoming a meteorologist - the work he pursued for most of his life.
Also of interest is your disapproval of Albert Einstein's multidisciplinary approach, as if such diversity was taboo. I don't, realistically, understand how science as a whole can possibly work with separate disciplines each in isolation?
I've recently been looking at the findings of the Russian Kola, Germany's KTB and several other superdeep borehole projects. The predictions of geology and the seismic reflection surveys were not just wrong in parts but totally wide of the mark. I'm not exactly sure about the implications for plate tectonics, but it is certainly not supportive. I'm led to the conclusion that geology needs some new ideas and some new blood from outsiders with a fresh perspective.
Having looked closely at the history of original ideas and invention I find that they are invariably the work of non-scientists or scientists of other disciplines.
… Who go on to follow the scientific method of hunting for evidence, testing out their ideas, gathering enough data for a conclusion and then testing them again. You'll find this in direct contrast to damn near every proponent harking on about 2012. Prince or Pauper science could not give a damn so long as your methods are sound. Proponents methods are not sound, hence not giving a damn. They're welcome to keep trying, but they've got to overturn hundreds of years work from actual geologists, physicists, astrobiologists, whatever field is relevant.
This, of course leads us to Alfred Wegener who was described as a geophysicist posthumously when his theory became accepted
To stress the point: Because he got off his backside and actually bothered to look for evidence supporting his idea. There is a clear difference between a nutter and someone thinking outside the box - the second person thinks.
Also of interest is your disapproval of Albert Einstein's multidisciplinary approach
The context is in the example of appeals to authority, the paragraph makes no statement towards disapproving Einstein for poking his nose into Geology. And that's the closest I've found on the page, you'll have to point it out to me if you're talking about something else. To refresh for anyone reading this thread and not the page, just because Einstein is one of the most recognisable scientific figures on the planet, doesn't make him worth listening to on each and every subject he discusses.
I'm led to the conclusion that geology needs some new ideas and some new blood from outsiders with a fresh perspective.
Fantastic, that leaves two obvious options. You go out and be that person, or geologists the world over will carry on with what they're doing, namely finding out how this planet functions. If it turns out to be radically different, we learn something new. If it turns out we were right, we refine our techniques, we learn yet more new things. Win win.
Every trick in the sceptical bag has been used somewhere in this article:
"Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist, and while he was much smarter than any of us will ever be, he was not an authority in geological processes."
This one is the lack of qualification ruse: It is assumed that anyone who is not qualified in a particular subject is unworthy to comment on the said subject. I begin to wonder how the self educated Michael Faraday would fare in such an atmosphere?
The sceptical bag-of-tricks is specifically designed to prevent progress and change, thereby perpetuating the jobs of those who are in scientific authority.
I note with interest that the main points of my thread are unanswered.
This one is the lack of qualification ruse
It's argumentum ad verecundiam, and arguably even broader than that, so let's explain it one more time. You should not listen to arguments that are simply stated as "X said it, therefore it must be true", especially when X is not in the field in question in the first place.
It is assumed that anyone who is not qualified in a particular subject is unworthy to comment on the said subject.
Uh, Fact vs Opinion anyone? A physicist can say whatever he wants regarding rocks, but it's the evidence gathered by geologists that will determine whether he was correct or not. No evidence, no science, simple as that.
I begin to wander how the self educated Michael Faraday would fare in such an atmosphere?
The point.
^
Your head.
I'll quote myself: "Who go on to follow the scientific method of hunting for evidence, testing out their ideas, gathering enough data for a conclusion and then testing them again." Michael Faraday and indeed any other scientist you care to mention got on with their ideas and actually tested them, and if they decided to comment on wildly different subjects than their fields, we will similarly take what they say with skepticism and weigh it up with available evidence. This is called science. It's not a popularity contest.
The sceptical bag-of-tricks is specifically designed to prevent progress and change
I don't think my palm is big enough for my face here. You do understand the definition of skepticism, correct? There has certainly been arguments made for being 'too' skeptical, of doubting literally everything you come across, and if you'd like to point out an instance where that's taken place, do so, but merely asking for evidence to confirm or contradict a single quote or letter from Einstein is not the prevention of progress and change.
Skeptics want to learn. Hell, a great many might even be fascinated if some of the nonsense surrounding 2012 was real, just because it'd give us yet more things to study and probe and question and understand the Universe. But the evidence doesn't point that way. The evidence doesn't point is Einstein being a geologist. The evidence doesn't point to proponents having a clue what they're talking about.
I note with interest that the main points of my thread are unanswered.
Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean they aren't answered.
/forum/t-211054/einstein-and-the-pole-shift#post-