Solar energy~ 'We've all been taught that this doesn't happen'

[Claire]

https://michigantoday.umich.edu/2011...y&auid=8154157

This is great! A breakthrough. A "new" understanding of solar energy with exponential potential. :)

The rational scientists of today think they hold the clues to understanding?
I would like to be here in 100 years to hear the chuckles.

In fact I believe this was the very idea (using the crystal lens) that Dixon and I were kicking around one evening on Atlantis over some karmaberrry wine!

[Dixon]

The rational scientists of today think they hold the clues to understanding?

Claire, I'm not sure how the article you linked to is connected to your snide remark about the "rational scientists of today", unless perhaps you're ridiculing them for admitting they were wrong about something? Correctability is one of the best things about science. Far from being a source of shame,when someone says, "Oooops, we were wrong; we're changing our belief now", they're showing open-mindedness and honesty. That's a main reason that science has been so powerful as to revolutionize the world in a couple of centuries. When was the last time you heard religionists or New Agers being open and honest enough to say, "Oooops, we were wrong. That belief wasn't true, so we're dropping it"?

In fact I believe this was the very idea (using the crystal lens) that Dixon and I were kicking around one evening on Atlantis over some karmaberrry wine!

Hmmmm...I'm not sure whether that's just an unfunny joke, or maybe you're confusing me with some other "Dixon"? There's a guy named Dickson Dangers around here who people have confused me with a couple of times.

[Claire]

Dixon, I should have said, "They think they hold the ONLY clues to understanding."

I strongly believe in science but I am so tired of hearing that the status quo is the only truth (as in "it can't be so or done, you must believe us"), only to have it completely reprized every so often.

May I give a tiny example that you will probably jump all over? Every time there is a major earthquake, they come out with some statement that says their clues to understanding have been tossed on the heap and they pretty much have to start anew. Before the North Ridge quake they believed that the faults were not connected to each other. I read this in a science mag. Then after the quake they find that omg, they are connected, quite! Ok, now here am I for years now, an absolute nobody, thinking to myself (purely intuitively) I think that they are connected because it's just common sense to me and it feels right. Whether I keep that thought to myself or try to make a living with it, it does not make me wrong. (And I am not saying that I have proof that I'm right, mind you, only that I believe that I am.) It may not have been based on the science of the day, but if science does not understand that which it cannot measure or prove, and is needing to continuously upgrade itself, then where's the proof that I'm wrong? I can see your probable contention that if I swear it to be true, then I would be a huckster. True that.

I've been thinking a lot about Nikola Tesla in the last month. I own at least 2 of his biographies. I saw some recent postings about him that I will read soon, as Tesla is a truly fascinating individual. I've been reading about him for some 30 years and so I know there's more to science than we can grok, yet.
His work still baffles top scientists over 100 years later. He is still way out of our league. If he had had the technology and materials to support his experiments I think we would have a very different basis of science right now and perhaps the planet would not be so polluted . Because no one can figure out some of his work does not make him wrong.
And let's be clear, I am in no way comparing myself to Tesla, ok?

I don't think it's right to put down all the New Age healing modalities. Some are exorbitant and they will never get my money, but breakthroughs come in many forms and certainly allopathic medicine does not hold all the clues to understanding illness and healing.

As to my joke about Atlantis, that was basically in response to your (may I call it a) rant about the New Age Hucksters knowing nothing but raking in the moolah from willing believers, channeling, etc. It kind of highjacked my little post about the sun finding its dazzling way into the darkest corner of this house on the Spring Equinox. That was just a fun and kind of awesome coincidence. And your fantasy about waaay into the future got me laughing about what if... waaay into the past.
Sorry that it was unfunny for you, Dixon. I kinda liked it.

[Claire]

Also, I just want to mention that I don't see things in black and white. You brought up the comparison to the New Agers.
Just because I don't believe everything I hear from the experts does not mean I believe anyone else either.
I enjoy a modicum of critical thinking.

[Claire]

And Dixon, may I just say that you looked resplendent in your flowing Atlantishian robe.

[pbrinton]

Among the many non-experts who thought about earthquakes, and had an intuitive understanding about some aspect of the subject, a certain number thought as you did, and were eventually proved to have been right. However I am sure that there were many who had some other intuitive insight that did not turn out to be right. Which one should we have followed?

I do not intend or desire to jump all over your example, but it does raise a question in my mind. Back then , when they had it wrong and you had it right, what would you have had them do? Should they have said to themselves (and to us) "Claire is quite sure that it is this way, and we should change our views to conform with hers!"? Clearly not, since there are myriad Claires, and they do not all have the same intuitive understanding, yet they are all equally certain.

What they did was what science does: continue to study the matter with as open a mind as they could manage (they are, after all, human, and prone to human weaknesses) and when they accumulated evidence that they were wrong, they changed their views and told us that they had been wrong, and now understood things to work differently than they had thought. Do you ever stop to consider how rare and courageous an act that is, to admit that you have been wrong? Yet that is what science does regularly, as better tests are devised and new theories tested and knowledge is more widely disseminated by communications technology improvements.

I think that perhaps you are under a false impression of what "science" is saying. If you had had the opportunity to talk to a reputable earthquake specialist at the time when the accepted view disagreed with your intuitive sense of what was the truth, he or she would probably have said something like "Well, that is a possibility, and may indeed be true, however the information we have right now seems to indicate otherwise." Under appropriate circumstances the response might be "Well, what you propose is not impossible, but it has been studied so much with so much agreement that we consider the likelihood very low." Even then they may turn out to have been mistaken; in almost no case will a reputable and honest scientist claim to know for certain that anything is either definitely right or definitely wrong. However, it is not up to science to prove that you are wrong; if they had to do that for every theory that came along, they would not have time for anything else. If you want to have your theory adopted it is up to you to provide the evidence, not just the assertion, that you are right.

As in all pursuits, there are individual scientists who care more about their ego or reputation than about the truth, but this is not true of science or scientists in general, any more than it is true of doctors or engineers in general, or of medicine or engineering as professions. You are of course quite free to believe that your theory is true and the accepted one false, just as I am sure there were earquake scientsts who also disagreed. Nobody was or is trying to stop you believing that. The difference is that the views of "science" (as opposed to the views of individual scientists) represents the distilled knowledge, tested and verified, of many people who have studied the matter. Even then as we have seen, they can be wrong. However, unlike people whose views rest solely on faith (and are therefore not really interested in evidence), when presented with new information that checks out, science will change its views.

So if occasionally science comes around to a point of view you already held, you are allowed a smile of satisfaction, and even a modest boast, but at the same time it is always salutory to remember the ideas you had that did not turn out to be supported by the evidence after all.

Patrick Brinton

May I give a tiny example that you will probably jump all over? Every time there is a major earthquake, they come out with some statement that says their clues to understanding have been tossed on the heap and they pretty much have to start anew. Before the North Ridge quake they believed that the faults were not connected to each other. I read this in a science mag. Then after the quake they find that omg, they are connected, quite! Ok, now here am I for years now, an absolute nobody, thinking to myself (purely intuitively) I think that they are connected because it's just common sense to me and it feels right. Whether I keep that thought to myself or try to make a living with it, it does not make me wrong. (And I am not saying that I have proof that I'm right, mind you, only that I believe that I am.) It may not have been based on the science of the day, but if science does not understand that which it cannot measure or prove, and is needing to continuously upgrade itself, then where's the proof that I'm wrong? I can see your probable contention that if I swear it to be true, then I would be a huckster. True that.

[Braggi]

https://michigantoday.umich.edu/2011...y&auid=8154157

This is great! A breakthrough. A "new" understanding of solar energy with exponential potential. :)
...

Hmmm. Looks like a very poorly written article. No breakthroughs here. Sorry.

-Jeff

[Claire]

... However, it is not up to science to prove that you are wrong; if they had to do that for every theory that came along, they would not have time for anything else. If you want to have your theory adopted it is up to you to provide the evidence, not just the assertion, that you are right.

Patrick Brinton

Thank you, Patrick, for the interesting writing. I agree with you on many points and am elucidated by others. Thank you for taking the fault lines parable and running it under the microscope.
I especially agree with the evidence part. You'd better have the evidence if you are going to try to convince anyone truly.
At this time in Life I am amazed to see how I can be right, wrong and all that is in between simultaneously, if I stop to think about it enough.

[podfish]

Dixon, I should have said, "They think they hold the ONLY clues to understanding."

I strongly believe in science but I am so tired of hearing that the status quo is the only truth (as in "it can't be so or done, you must believe us"), only to have it completely reprized every so often.
... Every time there is a major earthquake, they come out with some statement... .

I have a slightly different slant. First, though you're right about the way science gets presented to the public, I think that's media more than "mainstream" science at fault. I say "more than" because of course established scientists are frequently caught defending the status quo for too long. Fortunately science is self-correcting so that doesn't prevail. But fundamentally there's not really a 'they' - there are just hapless spokesmen that the media finds and trots out. The media isn't prepared to present science to the public in any reasonable way.
As far as 'new age' modalities, I think you're right and some may well have value. However, it's even worse than religion/science has been. The only person I've heard of that brings both worlds together simply and clearly is the Dalai Lama - he seems very interested in helping bring scientific scrutiny and techniques together with practitioners of what's called non-western learning.

I'm also not surprised that Dixon doesn't remember that evening on Atlantis - I'm pretty fuzzy about the details myself after the jug of karmaberry ran out.

[Dixon]

And Dixon, may I just say that you looked resplendent in your flowing Atlantishian robe.

Sounds lovely. Wish I could afford one. You give me one, and I'll wear it.

[Claire]

Sounds lovely. Wish I could afford one. You give me one, and I'll wear it.

Well, you know, they are so rare these days, but considered an absolute classic!