On Friday, December 5, 2014 4:31:27 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I. > > > > On 3 December 2014 at 17:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > Liz, I am with you here that evolution and e=mc2 make for highly visible, > honey pots tempting all manner of oddball, legend-in-their-minds geniuses > (or the pious pompous religious sort for the league of Darwin haters). I > also agree that the tactic used is similar – spotting the overlooked flaw > etc. However, I do not see the reason or need to invoke anti-Semitism – in > Einstein’s case, as being the main driver. Sure some of his detractors are > driven by the racist impulse, controlling their illing minds, but most – in > my experience – seem to be ultimately harmless sorts, even if, often they > are obnoxious, socially retarded bores. > > Liz>>Yeah I may have overstated that. It was just a passing thought > really - I thought perhaps there was a subconscious element of that > involved, but if there IS any subconscious motive it may just be that some > people don't like seeing someone who's touted as being a genius when they > know they have the real answer. > > > > No problem – was just observing that in my experience most of the > “theorists” claiming to have disproved GR were more driven by that > legend-in-their-mind bug that worms its way into illing brains. >
For the vast majority what you say must be accurate. Though much the same must be true for the great majority of science/Einstein (or Darwin) supporters. The driver is the same immense intellectual challenges, and an 80/20 rule governing learning. Probably about half of the 'legend in mind' would be challengers on one side, or enthuisiastic supporters of science on the other learn only high level summary blocks. With practice such blocks can be assembled flexibly into roughly sensible statements. A minority have some years of formal and other learning of theory - this would include retired physicists without career specialism for the theory. Scientists & technicians in different fields of work. The 'occasional very well informed layperson. And so on. Their ceiling is roughy 80% insight. The 'outsider' legend-in-own-mind types gravitate the simpler higher level issues for the same reason the enthuisiastic science supporters do. The 'outsider' disproves the mental structure painstakingly constructed by him. Sadly the prospects of that being Relativity or whatever are poor. Doesn't make him/her wrong; or due contempt for having a go. The same basic forces; the fact most of us peak out some where in the middle of the bell curve, while the source of break through physics is typically way over in the right hand tails (4th standard deviation is what is thought) The supporters focus that same high level 'summary' block (like lego) space.....into dogmatic envisionings. The outsider brings his idea to the centre...and I would think emotionally painful disappointing process of dreams unfulfilled. His theory is attended for evaluation by, of course, the amateur insider fraternity. Some of those insiders are first class intellects. But it's just one of those things that evaluating outsider theories, furnishes a sense - shared - of status, and seasoning. Defacto, a sense of new status is experience....which is basically the right seeding for dogmatic positions to root. And that is alright. It's the same well motivated efforts given to a subject matter that is no doubt of real personal importance. And these are all rules of thumb not absolute rules. Very occasionally there is an amateur insider, that brings something a bit special to the evaluation of that outsider theory. Very occasionally there may be an outsider theorist with something a bit special and new to add to the incumbent position. But laws of probabilities make these two rarities certain never to coincide. The dogmatic amateurs with 80% education, are certainly able bodied for dismissing these theories. But sadly not for spotting the distinctiveness of that rare new theory. It probably never shows up anyway. Just as well too, all considered. > >>My thought was along the lines of - they see this guy - he's a pacifist > liberal, possibly with Buddhist leanings - and in some cases (I wasn't > thinking everyone, I think I phrased that badly - have to dash off some of > these posts!) they react against that. Oh, he thinks he's so clever but he > wouldn't last five minutes in the real world - or words to that effect. I > just threw "Jewish" in there because I thought it might also be a component > in some cases but I seem to have hit a nerve, and I apologise to anyone who > found my comment offensive or indeed just wide of the mark, as it perhaps > was in 99% of cases. > > > > I wasn’t offended in the least, by the way. (Just wanting to make that > clear) It was a fairly casual observation of mine… that by far most E != > mc2 geniuses are certainly certifiable J > Fair enough. In Einstein's own words, his contribution to E=MC^2 as he saw it, was being the first to explicitly state the equation implied energy and mass were equivalent in content. He conceded later on the equation itself was multiply derived in various papers from 1900 (it's a consequence of laplace & field dubre). It does actually derive from Maxwell's equations as a consequence. Not sure anyone had though before 1900. His major contribution was boldy conjecturing do away with the ether and require laws physics invariant across two both references. Poincare wanted to do it differently. I don't have the skills to say which was better...but that's irrelevant to the fact of Einstein substantially adding to the result . General relativity. I'm not a historian and I don't know how to weigh that Einstein published the theory, and Hilbert published the theory 5 days earlier. That isn't the significant matter right here though, which is that science supporters (I count myself among them), even physicists like Brent or Bruno...seem to operate on the historical knowledge base of mass culture. Of course I don't doubt Einstein that he was one of the great geniuses who solved the big problems of the late late 19th century...science nearly ground to a halt then, in the same fashion it has in our time. All I said was that these details are grounds to doubt him. In the scientific tentative meaning of the word. And I have been through that process. I still see a genius. But a different picture what took pace. I have done this because I happen to be interested in history (this is a consistent theme with me since the start). Maybe you're not interested. That's fine...in history. But I don't grok that you, brent, john,.....none of you will Go There.....at all. It's not normal is it. Almost it is as if you have nofaith in the guy, and are frightened if you take a measured view of him he'll crumble into dust. It's okay....nothing like that happens, you can stop panicking. I'm mixed jewish background, married jewish, jewish kids, inlaws, community, district, debating in local bars....I honestly never met a real life jew that special critically sees Einstein's contribution like....the jewish people would crumble with him (which he doesn't, but if he did. That's actually freakishly offensive and historically inane position to begin with. If the guy'd been Welsh, then It would add up much better. Taffy, my hairy short legged brother. But Einstein was noy Welsh, or Cornish. He was Jewish. JEWISH. peace -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
