|
|
In any discussion about human science there is
MORE than discussion about facts, assumptions,
and theories. There is also posturing and
the
need for comfort. Postulating a theory
becomes,
too often, a matter of ownership and pride.
The
theory thereafter cannot be wrong, or the owner
is somehow discredited and falls in stature.
Then there is the structure built AROUND a
theory - published books, lectures and curriculums,
clubs meeting regularly and discussing the matter.
All this is like a web, holding the theory UP,
and
any attempt to change the theory brings howls
of
distress from the web which must likewise change.
Thus, in human society, one has the Catholic
Church apologizing only recently for dismembering
and burning alive those who pronounced the Earth
round, not flat, and the Flat Earth Society still
in
existence today.
How are the sciences, in human society, treated
any differently today? Einstein’s works,
when first
presented, were not only pronounced wrong, but
were shouted down. They were treated by
those
whose posture required the existing theories
to
continue as a THREAT, which Einstein’s work
was. The worst garbage could be calmly
discussed,
but Einstein’s lectures were disrupted by shouting
sessions and physical assaults. This was,
one was
to assume, because Einstein was wrong, but in
fact
the heat of the debate was the opposite, because
he
was, compared to the existing theories of the
day,
CORRECT. But Newton is still taught in
the
schools, to the young, along with Einstein’s
theories, and when they contradict the students
are
expected not to notice. This is because
the
professors require a posture of being all-knowing
and infallible, and any student implying otherwise
suffers at their hand.
Then there is the comfort factor, the need to
feel
that sudden calamity will not descent, as the
facts
are KNOWN and thus the future somewhat predictable.
Lighting strikes, and strokes fell strong and
stout
humans like a lightning bolt, but the factors
surrounding lightning and strokes can be analyzed
and thus the likelihood of occurrence somewhat
predictable. How, beyond the comfort of
sameness
that a posturing professor or scientist requires,
are
current scientific theories tied to the human
comfort
factor? If the theories on how lightning
is produced
were to CHANGE, then this implies that those
smug
in their assumptions about the likelihood of
a strike
might be WRONG, and thus vulnerable. If
the
theories on the cause of stroke were to CHANGE,
then this likewise implies that those smug in
their
assumption that they are immune might be WRONG.
Thus, discomfort with change causes resistance
to
change, and theories often develop solidity for
no
other reason than this.
ZetaTalk