Posts by Rod P

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

Rod P

Danny,

On the other hand, scientist need to use older theories to build something new.

This is true, for the most part. However, it may also be true that there have been instances where an over-dependence of "older theories" may actually have had the effect of encapsulating the thinking of the scientist(s). In other words, perhaps this can become a kind of straight-jacket where the scientist is so busy developing his/her theory within the framework of conventional wisdom that he/she loses sight of another useful technique known as "thinking outside the box".

In the long run, break-throughs will still occur. But at the same time, being "stuck" with the "old ways of thinking" may have necessitated research down a number of false trails leading only to dead ends. New and innovative thinking might have been precisely the remedy to circumvent this, and saved a lot of time and expense.

This is one of the arguments I would have for taking the position that we need to give these so-called "fringe scientists" a chance to be heard, and to give their theories at least a fair consideration. They may serve as very good examples of "thinking outside the box" that may lead on to scientific breakthroughs. But they really do need support in order to move forward.

At the same time, I fully recognize that there are some real "kooks" out there. It is important to weed those ones out, in order to safeguard valuable time and resources. This is where I would hope that approvals for many competing projects would not be done unilaterally by single individuals in positions of influence, who may have built-in predispositions for or against. Many minds giving due consideration to a particular question or project should level the playing field, and work against the idiosyncrasies of one indidual. I am confident that this does occur in most instances.

By way example, that there are those in Cancer research who have made some "unconventional" discoveries, worthy at the very least, of some research grants or other funding to enable them to move forward with some serious research and testing. Some areas of research do have legitimate merit. Yet it may have had the door slammed in its face in terms of support. Scientists who insist on travelling down this road may also find themselves on the outside looking in, especially if they behave with anything resembling a missionary zeal. Enthusiasm can often be misinterpreted. This game is not for the faint of heart.

Again, onward and upward. (Or as my marketing friend used to say "Inward and downward!")

Rod P.

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

Rod P

SNG,

Of course, you do make valid points which I acknowledge.

Thinking about some of the "buttons" I seemed to have pushed on this thread, I am trying to take the edge off a bit in terms of where I am coming from versus what people seem to be perceiving from my remarks.

My goal was and is to open the door to alternative thinking from scientists who are not in the mainstream. I was trying to break down barriers so that people here would be more willing to listen to what they had to say.

Apparently it appears that I have simply presented an indictment against all scientists, which was not my intention here.

At the same time, I stand by my remarks, because I know for a certainty that what I say is true, and there are a lot of examples that would serve to illustrate that.

Politics is temporary; knowledge is forever.

I absolutely agree with that. There are times when science takes a back seat to politics, because financial backing and support is vital. But in the long run, science will win out, precisely because knowledge and discovery has it's own way of becoming compelling and convincing, or as you say "manifestly real". True knowledge is simply superior to ignorance, superstition, prejudice, wishful thinking and untested notions (eg. Urban Legends).

Perhaps I need to update my thinking in terms of how science operates today, as opposed to say 20 years ago when I was in the thick of things. Could it be that a lot of what used to occur within the scientific domain back then has now been successfully weeded out? Is it possible that more and more safeguards have been built into "the system" that some of these more negative occurrences stand a far lesser chance of being gotten away with than could have been done years ago? Maybe!!!!! But then, has human nature changed to any significant degree since then?.....I am willing to be shown otherwise.

On the other hand, I always think about the fact that over 90% of all the scientists that have ever lived in the history of the world are alive on planet earth right now. I call this the "great equalizer" because this simply means that there are far more scientists scrutinizing the work of their peers than ever before. The chances of manipulating the experimental results, or producing significant or undetected errors are, therefore, greatly diminished.

In terms of Kid-A, who is a professor in a scientific field, I mean no disrespect. I have no doubts that he has paid a big price, and has worked hard over the years, and deserves to be in whatever position he has advanced to. My hat goes off to him, I give full credit to his accomplishments, and I am quite ready to acknowledge that his knowledge of science is superior to mine. If I met him in person, I would probably feel very priviledged to study under his tutelage.

It has occurred to me that where the greatest differences of opinion, the biggest arguments, even animosities occur is when we get to the frontiers of science. This is the area where the least amount of research has been done, and there is more room for a diversity of opinion and interpretation of scientific data, with more questions needing to be asked and answered. This is the arena where many questions and theories may be hotly disputed from more than one viewpoint, with competing hypotheses, even theories. This is not necessarily unhealthy in the interests of scientific progress.

One example of this is in the field of Cosmology, discussing the Universe and its origins. This is not something that lends itself to scrutiny under a microscope in a laboratory. We end up with a lot of complex mathematical formulae and theoretical models in computerized simulations, but no-one would be so bold as to think they had all the answers. There may be a lot of romantic notions surrounding all the mysteries and question surrounding this field of research, but science is still plodding along, searching for the answers.

And so, because of the area I wish to lead into on other stand-alone threads having to do with the Big Bang theory, and Einstein's theory of Relativity, I would say that these are the kinds of topics that are basically on the relative frontiers of science, where there are still a lot of possibilities beyond what is currently being taught vis-a-vis the textbooks. All the more reason why new and different ideas should not only be tolerated, but even invited into the participation. I would only ask that due consideration be given to viewpoints that may be offered by those who are not considered part of the "establishment" or the academic elite. We might even learn something during the exercise.

Rod P.

40

JWs Back to No. 1 in Growth!

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

it is interesting to note that of the total actual growth of all churches put together in the usa, 98.8% went to the roman catholic church (852,663 rcc vs 863,448 all ).

church.

21. united church of christ.

Rod P

I would point out that percentage can create a wrong impression.

If you have a smaller membership base, it is a lot easier to bring in a higher percentage increase in the number of members. It takes fewer bodies to produce a higher percent increase if you have a lesser population.

If you have one million members, it is a lot easier to bring in 20,000 new members to produce a 2% increase, than it would be if you had five million members having to bring in 100,000 new members to produce the same 2%.

I am reminded of the stock exchange, where a stock starting off at ten cents a share is a lot easier to increase by 100% to twenty cents a share, than it is to take a $1.00 stock to $2.00 to get the same 100% increase. I know some stock promoters who work on exactly that principle.

JW's are supposed to be pro-active about bringing in new recruits. Catholics, on the other hand, at least in North America, seem to be a lot less involved in recruitment (proselyting); yet look at how many they increased in one year. I just think that putting JW's at number one on the chart based on simple percentages seems to me to be presenting a questionable impression.

Rod P.

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

Rod P

Kid-a,

I am not trying to deny the valuable contributions and results of legitimate scientific research and invention.

I am aware that funding in Canada is subject to some rather stringent controls, reviews, audits, etc. I have been thru a number of these personally from an accounting perspective for clients involved in "scientific research and experimental research" projects. I have had to do many cost report submissions to governmental departments such as Industry Canada, and was directly involved in government audits in the aftermath.

However, it would be naive to think every scientific project that has ever been funded, including in Canada, has never been manipulated or abused and still gotten successfully thru the system.

I need only think back to the 1980's when the government of Canada offered an incentive program utilizing refundable Scientific Research Tax Credits (SRTC's) which turned out to be one of the biggest scams in Canadian taxpayer history. The government calculations of lost tax revenues over that program numbers in the billions of dollars. I personally was given a grand tour of a state of the art gold and mineral assay lab that could rival anything similar in North America, and cost in excess of $110 Million. It was one of the most expensive and over-designed facilities ever made, and i'ts you and I the taxpayers who ended up having to pay for this nonsense. I could go on and on at length, but I did not want this thread to turn into a big indictment of the scientific community. I also know that things have tightened up a whole lot more since then, and the rules are much more stringent and enforced than they were at that time. Thank god! (Dare I say!)

Let me tell you my underlieing motivation for this thread. I am going to be introducing some rather interesting but non-conventional topics on other threads having to do with the Big Bang theory and also Einstein's General and Special Theory of relativity. They are going to be challenges by other scientists whose information I will be using and relying upon (since I am not a scientist per se, but rather one who is very much interested in science.)

Because they are not officially recognized by the "scientific establishment" for a number of different reasons, I see these "unconventional mavericks" as needing to be given a fair chance to be heard. I do see that a number of these people have been treated unfairly, and for that reason, I wanted to make the case that not everything in the world of science is unbiased.

There ARE human beings in positions of Power who have used and abused that power to protect their own published viewpoints. I can cite you a number of cases where this has happened, and it has cost them their careers.

And there absolutely ARE institutions that have used their financial leverage and connections to their own advantage, influencing various parameters of the research. These are not subject to the same criteria of accountability that the government is which is responsible for the use of taxpayer monies.

Further to all this, I am going to try to make the case that when you look at what these "other scientists" have to say, if they are anywhere's near to being "on target" in terms of scientific truth (even if it overturns long-held views), there may be some serious implications for us all. In other words, if we find that "a and b and c" are the prevailing scientific views of today, and then along come a few other scientists who make a good case for "x and y and z", then this may mean that "a and b and c" may, by implication, have to be questioned, or even redefined. But, if this happens, it may also mean that some whole new insights may be drawn, such as "m and n and o", which opens up many more possibilities.

I am anxious to get on with the real business at hand, so please forgive me if I have come across in my opening remarks as being too prejudiced against scientists. That was not my intent. I was not suggesting the problem was rampant.

Rod P.

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

Rod P

Kid-a

Methinks you have taken things a little out of context here.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Rod P.

67

Everyone wish Whyamihere (Brooke) a big happy birthday

by Dustin in

jw
friends

tommorow is my good friend brooke (whyamihere's) birthday.

everyone wish her the best as i am taking her out along with my wife to make her drink and party.

Rod P

A Big Happy Birthday to you Brooke.

Don't do anything I wouldn't do. Of course, that gives you a lot of leeway.

Have a goodun'

Rod P.

63

PLEASE REPLY ASAP!!! Disfellowshiped without a meeting with elders?!?!?!

by chok in

.

i was trying to fade, and thought i had done so successfully for the past 18months.. i have just received a call from my dad saying it will be announced tomorrow that i have been disfellowshipped... can they do this???.

chok.

Rod P

Well, when I was a JW back in the 1960's it wasn't that way.

Looks to me like Jeehoba's Loving Organization now operates on the basis of "You are guilty unless and until you can prove your innocence under their Theocracy Rules".

I guess it's just a waste of time to have to go thru meetings to hear your side of the story.

Can you imagine what our judicial systems within our democracies would be like if they operated under the JW rules? Reminds me of a certain guy who started the 2nd World War (along with those characters he was surrounded with). Can you say "Dictatorship"?

However, I am reminded that the JW's are not a Democracy (government by the people, of the people and for the people. They are a Theocracy (God ruled.) Don't you just love Jeehober's sense of Divine Justice?!!!!

This whole thing would simply be a joke, if it wasn't such a sad travesty.

Rod P.

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

Rod P

Sad Emo,

Interesting, but where did you get your information?

Rod P.

16

Penetrating the GB's deceptive facade of christian love.

by greendawn in

the gb of the jws either directly or more often by implication consistently try to come across as people that deeply care about and love the so called truth, jehovah, and all the brotherhood.

this is however a pretence something totally artificial and out of their character as they are in fact deeply into practicing deceit and exploiting the "brotherhood".

what instances can you recall where you managed to see through that deceptive loving persona the face of the rapacious ruthless wolf underneath?

Rod P

One of the big ideas they have is the thing they call "Agape - Love" (from the Greek). In plain English, it means "Principled Love".

This is in serious contrast with "Eros - Love" (from the Greek), which is called "Romantic Love".

The love between a husband and wife is, for the most part "Eros". But JW's are supposed to show love primarily on the basis of "Agape". What does that mean?

Well, if you do something wrong or bad, then the Elders are supposed to correct you and counsel you out of Agape Love. And if you do not repent, then they must punish you, even disfellowship you, which they also see as Agape Love. They think that if they give you the ultimate punishment- DF, that this will cause you to see the error of your ways, and motivate you to repent and come back into the fold.

When I was married, I loved my wife deeply, and at the start, the feelings were quite mutual. This was Eros at its best. But then, I converted to Mormonism, and suddenly we were living in a spiritually divided home. Since I was DF'ed, my wife could no longer discuss anything that had to do with matters spiritual, even if it had to do with how we wanted to raise our three lovely daughters.

For the first six months in this state, my wife used to tell me "I cannot love someone who does not love Jehovah." I tried to convince her that I did not love God less than her. It's just that what I believed about God was different than the JW version. Of course, that fell on deaf ears. I wrote away to the WTBTS headquarters in Toronto, Ontario stating my wife's position, and then asking them if it was OK for her wife to love her husband, even if I was disfellowshipped. It took them six months to answer my letter, but they did say that they understood how my wife felt, but that scripturally speaking, she was still required to show love towards her husband. When I showed my wife the letter, she did not dispute it. On the other hand, she then began to tell me how she would "give her husband his due", but everything she did would be done on the basis of Agape, not Eros.

After years of living like this, one thing became quite evident. Agape is very, very COLD and INDIFFERENT and IMPERSONAL. In my opinion, it is all a facade and an excuse, and even amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This is what I see as the "GB's deceptive fraud of christian love", as stated in the title of this thread.

Rod P.

32

Should dubs be hanging out in casinos?

by unbeliever in

jw
friends

mom and i went to have a bite to eat at one of her favorite restaurants which is in a casino.

lo and behold as we were leaving in walks 5 of her dub friends who were going to eat at the same place.

she was talking and talking and i got tired of standing there being ignored so i walked away and started playing the slots which was well in their eye site.

Rod P

1 Thessalonians 5:22:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (KJV)

The idea here is that as a "Christian" one should be careful about appearances, as you may stumble someone against accepting the "truth" simply be creating the wrong impression. It is not merely the avoidance of evil, but avoiding even the appearance of evil.

Suppose, as a JW, you knocked on the door of a householder last weekend. He/she invites you in, and you have a nice discussion, as a minister of Jehovah. You share this JW message about having the "truth", and how you let the Bible be your guide, and you talk about the end of this "wicked system of things" which is soon to come. This householder listens with intense interest, and you see that he/she would be an excellent candidate to start having bible studies with.

Now, this same person, who felt this high degree of respect for you as a representative of Jehovah, now sees you in this gambling establishment. This householder thinks to himself/herself,"What's this minister of God doing here doing in a place like this, if he/she is supposed to be Christian? Well, that looks like a hypocrit to me, so I don't think I am interested in further conversations with that person, if that's the way these JW's are!"

Do you see how easily this can be a cause for "stumbling"? It is all about the "appearance of evil", which must be avoided.

I remember when I was a JW back in the 1960's that we had a lot of discussion about this whole topic. One of the fellows back then told me another incident that might happen. Suppose I was at the Kingdom Hall, and I saw a brother wearing this loud tie that really bothered me. Then it would be the duty of that brother, in a spirit of humility, to not wear that tie, lest it be a cause for stumbling of another Christian brother. The Apostle Paul had a number of comments about this, but I don't recall which scriptures they were in the New Testament without doing some research. But they are there and they are pretty plain.

Gambling and casinos are filled with people who are into drugs and prostitution and all kinds of evil and worldly things. Legs are broken, even murders committed (putting contracts out on people) who do not pay their gambling debts, etc. Many lives and families have been destroyed or ripped apart over gambling. This is the real world of the gambling environment. Would a true minister of Jehovah want to create a wrong impression about spending their time in such environments, rubbing shoulders with bad associations who are steeped in this worldly wicked system of things of whom Satan the Devil is its god.

Now, having left the JW's many years ago, I no longer subscribe to all these premises. I am simply trying to get across the point that if you choose to be a true JW, then you must not, at the same time, spend your time in such establishments to save a few bucks on a meal, when doing so runs the risk of stumbling someone who might otherwise see the "truth" by your Christian example.

Rod P.