GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote:
The 'truth' in this sense is a compound that has been proven to work, that produces a specific and physical result.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in science for that very reason, and that's also why I abandoned science twenty-five years ago to become a philosopher and a sage. The beliefs of science are not much different to our so-called religions . . . "Whatever works is valid". It is of course rubbish of the most despicable kind.

Kevin, I think you're telling a lie here. In the past you've expressed repeated interest in the ideal of conquering space and growing fetuses using technology. You've repeatedly encouraged forum members to be interested in evolution, and thus, you have more than a slight interest in science.

If you don't have an interest in how science is used, then someone else is going to use it in a way that doesn't support wisdom and possibly smother it. Hence, one would be a fool if they didn't have an interest in science.

If you read carefully, you will notice that all of my writings are only psychological and spiritual in nature.

I've noted that you've given some interest to evolution, technology and even armaments, and in regards to evolution, you have stressed it's importance on more than one occasion.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Kevin, I think you're telling a lie here. In the past you've expressed repeated interest in the ideal of conquering space and growing fetuses using technology. You've repeatedly encouraged forum members to be interested in evolution, and thus, you have more than a slight interest in science.

Science can be seen as a tool for ignorant people (virtually all scientists) or as a tool for wise people. In this manner there are two different things called "Science", as determined by the context.

I only rejected the former.

One rejects the "world" and its ordinary science in order to attain "the Kingdom of God", where science reappears in a different light.

I do actually spend a few hours each week reading the latest science magazines.

If you don't have an interest in how science is used, then someone else is going to use it in a way that doesn't support wisdom and possibly smother it. Hence, one would be a fool if they didn't have an interest in science.

Yes, it is the responsibility of wise people to get the whole of Science turned over to themselves.

Kevin Solway wrote:

If you don't have an interest in how science is used, then someone else is going to use it in a way that doesn't support wisdom and possibly smother it. Hence, one would be a fool if they didn't have an interest in science.

Yes, it is the responsibility of wise people to get the whole of Science turned over to themselves.

Have you worked with anyone in the lab or done any research? You must have been tempted a few times at least, no?

Cory Duchesne wrote:Have you worked with anyone in the lab or done any research? You must have been tempted a few times at least, no?

.
Yes, I have been tempted. But I don't have enough letters after my name, so I would never be employed. The current system is based around ensuring conformity rather than on getting results.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Have you worked with anyone in the lab or done any research? You must have been tempted a few times at least, no?

.
Yes, I have been tempted.

I guess that means you have at least one experiment/theory in mind that you'd like to support via research. Why not make a web page connected to the absolute which expresses what you feel are the most vital areas for scientific research? That way, you'll appeal to a more broader audience. Plus, the chances of science falling into the hands of the wise will be increased if you explicitly show to scientific types that you respect and see value in their methods. It will make them more interested in the whole of your work. Otherwise, if they were to read that you 'haven't the slightest interest in science', then they'd likely dismiss you, and thus you would lose what might potentially be a keen student of your work who might fulfill your unrealized research ideas/scientific theories.

But I don't have enough letters after my name

hahaha, funny, and true.

The current system is based around ensuring conformity rather than on getting results.

So what hope is there, in your view, that science will fall into the hands of the wise? I suppose there is the chance that someone might realize that the process they went through to get letters after their name was largely a circus and hence they might be receptive to your work, and thus might make good use of their credentials.

Kevin, I think you should try to appeal to scientists a bit more strongly. A step forward in this regard would be to make a web page emphasizing what you believe are key areas to research.


---
_____

Kevin Solway wrote:Yes, I have been tempted. But I don't have enough letters after my name, so I would never be employed. The current system is based around ensuring conformity rather than on getting results.

Don't sound so resentful! You could do your own research or get some credibility behind your name. The question is whether you really want to.

Neil Melnyk wrote:You could do your own research.

I would if I had enough spare cash. But without the letters after my name, the work would likely never be published in any scientific journal, regardless of the value of the work - unless it was something really amazing and easily reproducible.

Interesting fact: Most published scientific papers are actually worthless and invalid because of the way the work was conceived or carried out.

Fuck science. I'd like to see a single so-called great scientist come in here and not end up making out with Laird. Wisdom wins every time... (put your hands DOWN school children and just FIGURE IT OUT)

I've given you the forced break you've obviously asked for, Trev. Drop me an email when you feel like having it reversed.

Kevin Solway wrote:Science can be seen as a tool for ignorant people (virtually all scientists) or as a tool for wise people. In this manner there are two different things called "Science", as determined by the context.

I only rejected the former.

Kevin, you have a tendancy to state things like this in a such a way that it seems you are saying, "It's bad when other (ignorant) people do it, but when I do it, it's cool."

DHodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Science can be seen as a tool for ignorant people (virtually all scientists) or as a tool for wise people. In this manner there are two different things called "Science", as determined by the context.

I only rejected the former.

Kevin, you have a tendancy to state things like this in a such a way that it seems you are saying, "It's bad when other (ignorant) people do it, but when I do it, it's cool."

Hahahaaaa... I’m sorry… I couldn’t help it. No disrespect intended, Kevin. Heheheee…

DHodges wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Science can be seen as a tool for ignorant people (virtually all scientists) or as a tool for wise people. In this manner there are two different things called "Science", as determined by the context.

I only rejected the former.

Kevin, you have a tendancy to state things like this in a such a way that it seems you are saying, "It's bad when other (ignorant) people do it, but when I do it, it's cool."

It's not such a bad comment really, because it takes a lot of wisdom to read all of science's mistakes, and to spot them easily. If you are not careful you get yourself partly involved with the mistakes. Mistakes that are backed up by math's as well are really hard to decode into their real meaning.

Kevin Solway wrote:But without the letters after my name, the work would likely never be published in any scientific journal, regardless of the value of the work - unless it was something really amazing and easily reproducible.

Would you aim at anything less? Time to get to work!! :)

Kevin Solway wrote:Interesting fact: Most published scientific papers are actually worthless and invalid because of the way the work was conceived or carried out.

Bonus to you then if you already know how to avoid pitfalls of experimental design and statistical analysis.