> > > > --- "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > > > > Heh � I'm thinking about starting my own group of "devotees". > > > However, I don't want them thinking I'm just exploiting them > > > for my own satisfaction -- you know, for all the same old > > > stuff. - money, babes and ego adoration. > > > > > > Also � forget that antique line: "the demons are rotting your > > > heart" � after all, that's just so 20th Century. > > > > > > Here's what I think might work ... > > > > > > Slavery is the Highest Enlightenment! > > > The way of Hidden Illumination. > > > > > > This is what was I considering for a main theme - > > > > > > Wanting nothing, claiming nothing ... our self-importance > > > dwindles and every moment becomes an infinite gift. > > > > > > So ... whadaya think? Would anyone buy this? > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > Good move. That is the gold standard if you want to control people. > > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Another tip from George Monbiot: > > "Tell people something they know already and they will > thank you for it. Tell people something new and they > will hate you for it." >
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that it's opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.'" ~ Max Planck SCIENCE is said to be about searching for truth, but the harsh reality is that those whose views clash with established theories often find themselves ridiculed and denied funds and publication. In the 17th century, the Roman Catholic Church condemned another telescope buff, the Italian polymath Galileo, for his scientifically correct but religiously incorrect claim that the Earth moves around the Sun. These days, it is no longer religious dogma that prevents new ideas from replacing old misconceptions. The resistance comes from within the scientific community itself. "The 'purity' of science is being closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called the peer review," writes the independent-minded British scientist James Lovelock in his book Small Science. Protesters are not imprisoned, but this inquisition can wreck their careers by censoring publications and refusing funds for research. By comparison, he says, the inquisition was a more honest way of dealing with dissenters. Dissidents are effectively silenced by fellow scientists in many ways. Although outsiders can resort to alternative channels to get attention, the fact that they do not communicate their ideas in "serious" journals or prestigious meetings undermines their credibility. Paul Marmet was a respected Canadian physicist until he began questioning the orthodox explanation of quantum mechanics. He bitterly complains in his book Absurdities in Physics "Some centuries ago they burned (Giordano) Bruno and imprisoned Galileo. In our century, a dissident of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called a crank". If even Nobel prizewinners are ridiculed for challenging mainstream ideas, how on earth would the young Albert Einstein, who was merely a clerk in a patent office, have been taken seriously today? newscientist.com/article/mg15020246.000-forum--they-burn-her etics-dont-they.html
