Printable View
I see that Nassim Haramein is coming to town. I have no problems, in principle, with him pushing the idea that a proton is a mini black hole, or that physics can be used to demonstrate that All is One, but I do have a huge problem with saying the Earth is HOLLOW!!????. WTF, am I hearing this right? Exactly where is this void? I am but a simple Pagan geologist, so someone who attends his talk please explain this to me (I'm traveling and cannot be there).
So, did anyone on this thread see Nassim's talk? What were your reactions? Did he in fact assert the hollow earth theory? If so, what was his evidence?
Richard
I went because I was curious to see what all the fuss was about. I knew nothing about the speaker ahead of time. I left after an hour or so; maybe it got much better after that, but what I saw and heard did not seem promising. If you would like to check the accuracy of my report I understand that a sound recording was made of the talk, and is available from Debra Giusti.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:
First of all, the tone was more like a revival meeting than any kind of scientific presentation. He started by recounting his experience in school; I was not clear (or forgot) how old he was. This and several subsequent anecdotes followed a familiar pattern: first the authority (here the teacher, later various gatherings of scientists) was reported as saying something which Nassim describes in such a way as to make it sound ridiculous. Nassim then confounds him completely with a simple question that nobody seems to have thought to ask before.
I have no way of knowing how accurate most of these accounts were. However I had serious doubts on two scores. First, the things he reported the teacher as saying were given no context or explanation, and secondly the story always ended with his confounding question. In no case that I heard did he report what the response was to the question. The authorities in each case were made to look completely foolish.
The part that finally made me decide to leave was when he described in a similar fashion something that I was very familiar with, since it is on my Youtube favorites list. It is a video of Richard Feynman answering a question concerning how magnetism works. Now here I have to declare my partiality. In my opinion Feynman was one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and we are incredibly fortunate that the son of one of his close friends spent many hours interviewing him on video. I have probably seen every one that is on the internet, and this is my favorite of all of them. It is a masterful explanation of the difficulty of explaining scientific phenomena to non-scientists. Rather than my trying to summarize his explanation I would much prefer that you take the time to watch it yourself. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/user/pbrinto.../0/wMFPe-DwULM. The point he is making is not a simple one, and it is true that following his explanation requires attention, and in order to illustrate it clearly he embarks on a fairly discursive analogy, but in my opinion he does this very successfully.
If I had not seen the video, the impression I would have got from Nassim's description was of someone so stumped by a simple question that he starts rambling aimlessly about completely irrelevant things. He reported Feynman (whose name, by the way, he was unable to pronounce correctly) as bringing up extraterrestrials and someone breaking their ankle by slipping on ice as if these were part of his explanation of magnetism, all the while inviting the audience to laugh at this bumbling representative of "male-dominated science" (his words.) He also says that Feinman squirms and fidgets as if he would rather avoid having to give an answer.
I do not claim that Feynman is infallible, but I do think that if you are going to hold someone up to ridicule you must at least show that you understand what he is saying. Nassim either failed to understand Feynman, or deliberately misrepresented him. If this anecdote was an indicator of the veracity of his other stories, then I have no confidence in anything he says.
The same is true in a larger sense; if you are going to claim that you have a theory that overturns science as we know it, then you first have to show that you understand science as we know it. It is not enough to quote out of context remarks and ridicule them. It is not enough to describe your "revelations" as if nobody ever thought of them, despite their being so obviously true that the mere mention of them bring approving nods from throughout the audience. Science is complex and explanations of new theories require a great deal of background information to even understand, let alone evaluate. I might have been more impressed if he had appeared with an expert in the field to give the contrary view; I feel sure a real live person able to speak for himself would not have come across as discreditably as Feynman did at Nissim's hands.
He is a good showman, and had the crowd positively eating out of his hand. He also knows what to say to get them on his side (the frequent references to the aforementioned male domination of science went over well, for instance). But if you were looking for a carefully reasoned, fair minded explanation of an exciting new idea in science, this was not the place to find it.
Patrick Brinton
Thanks Patrick, for sharing your experience of Nassim. I was planning on posting something about him as well. I didn't go to his talk this last week but I saw him last year. At the time, I was really inspired and swept away, along with all the others. Then I got to thinking...why does he need to have these kinds of talks with these "trainings" and sell all these DVDs and have all these people that seem more like disciples than students? This definitely seemed more like a reiigious like thing than any kind of true science.
His stuff is suspicious and seems more like psuedoscience than real science. He may have a few brilliant points, but the topic is way over most people's heads, so how many can really check?
I encourage any one that sees him, or anyone else that is in the new age circuit like he is, to ask deeper questions and never take anything at face value. There are good and brilliant scientists out there that are doing provocative and controversial work, but they will stand the test of time and inquiry. I doubt Nassim is one of them. In science, testamonials and anecdotes should never take the place of peer review. Those pedaling psudeoscience are no better than snake oil salesmen.
_-Julia
I did not attend the talk, but for me, the value in Mr. Haramein's out-there theories is the encouragement and inspiration to all all people, scientists or otherwise, to have the courage to
think and explore waaaaaay outside the box, and to question consensus knowledge rather than accept all "facts" or theories as inherently true simply because there has been a collective agreement that it is so.
The history of science, medicine, and technology has been forged by recognizing that what was previously accepted or even empirically proven to be true can be turned on its head when we suddenly see what was previously unseen by us.
I find his talks (I've watched them online) to be both fascinating and way too far-out. But I do appreciate the underscore on being willing and able to shift one's perspective and explore possibilities that currently seem impossible or nonsensical. IMO we are at a time in history where this kind of creative thinking is imperative--without a major shift in global perspective, we appear to be digging ourselves into a hole so deep we may cause our own destruction.
When I was a kid, a cell phone or iPad was complete science fiction! Maybe that's a crappy example, but if someone had proposed it in 1963, they would have been laughed at!
I did not, however, know that Nassim was in the habit of bagging on Feynman. Big mistake IMO. Mr. Feynman was exactly one of those people who was willing to look at the "impossible" and see what was locked inside it!
Have you ever heard him describing the vibration of atoms and how trees are mostly coming from the air? He was a delightful, brilliant man who contributed much. Too bad Mr. H feels he cannot share brilliance but must eclipse it in others.
(By the way the link to the Feynman talk above doesn't work for me. Could you post it again please? :)
Anyhow, there's my 2¢ for whatever they are worth. I just think it is so important to recognize that what you were taught in school or conditioned to think by your particular culture is worth investigating more deeply; and if Nassim does nothing else, he inspires a general mood of looking deeply and reading between the lines, and I think that can only be helpful at this point. One doesn't have to subscribe to his views, but instead take the cue to wonder, for instance, what do we *really* know about the center of the earth, or the accuracy of carbon dating, or the workings of ancient cultures? Theory is only as sound as the current consensus, and always evolves with us in the endless end.
Here's the fixed URL for the Feynman video: https://www.youtube.com/user/pbrinto.../0/wMFPe-DwULM
In fact, here's the video:
(and I fixed it in Patrick's post as well)
I suppose, but...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by leela8:
not having much inclination to check out Haramein, I won't comment on his stuff in particular. But I find it unfortunate that mainstream science is being tied to conformity and lack of imagination, or of being inside the proverbial box. I would hope we don't need astrology to serve as the gateway drug to an interest in astronomy and physics.... Whether this guy fits into the category or not, I can't say, but I think the fact that the voices of those with nothing credible to say get lumped in with those who have knowledge to share is a crippling problem for democratic societies. We're encouraging illiteracy by presenting nonsense as fact, and misleading ignorant people to think their views should be incorporated into public policy. Plato was probably right.