Posts by Rod P

20

Is Field Service Going To Be The Key To The End Of The WatchTower Society?

by Honesty in

jw
friends

for the past 6 months i have been speaking to church and youth groups in the surrounding area.

the topic has been how to show love to the jw's when they come to your door.

in the past, many of the people i talk with have been rude to the jw's.

Rod P

It has always been my impression that when a JW goes to the door of a householder, they are there to deliver or share their message with that householder. They did not go there to listen to the householder's message. (I recall being drilled on that principle in Kingdom Ministry School back in the 1960's).

Therefore, they are not supposed to be sitting there/standing there exchanging viewpoints of their respective faiths. If the householder tries to take over the conversation, or even tries to turn it into "I'll listen to what you have to say, if you will listen to what I have to say. After all, it is a good thing to discuss things from the Bible, right?", then it is your task to turn this around and get back in control. In fact, you are even supposed to state this principle to the householder, i.e. you came to give them your message, and not to listen to theirs.

The whole point of the lesson we were taught was to remain in control. This is Jehovah's message to them, and not their message to you. This is not about fair and equitable discussion, or mutually sharing God's Word. The householder is in a false religion, while you belong to the one right religion. That's all there is to it!

Notwithstanding the lesson we were taught, I was not very obedient to that counsel. My sense of fairness and tolerance told me that I should not be so one-sided and intolerant. Besides, if I had the Truth on my side, then I should have nothing to fear, right? The Truth will always become self-evident, while error will become exposed. And I am in the "Truth", and he/she is not!

I guess that became my downfall. That's what led me to the realization that the WTBTS/GB was not right about so many things, and that's when doubt crept in, and my faith in them was utterly destroyed. It became the house that was built on sand.

Now we know the real reason they do not want you to listen to what the householder has to say. And if the ministers of different churches are now teaching their flocks to be tolerant, and witness to JW's on their doorsteps, then this may well become a whole new dimension that the WTBTS has to deal with. They are going to have to get real busy teaching the R & F JW's to become even more intolerant and close-minded, putting their blinders on, and insisting on "You will listen to my message, but I am not going to listen to yours!!!"

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

Euphemism,

Very good comments. Thanks for sharing.

No I have not read Kuhn's "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". I will definitely have to get into that one.

The idea that "the use of a paradigm is necessary for science to advance" does appear reasonable to me. It seems to me that "scientific method" is the macro-paradigm for all scientists, is it not? This is the framework around which useful questions and experiments are formulated and ultimately interpreted. Within each branch of science I am sure are a number of characteristic micro-paradigms that may be unique for that particular field. My impression is that this is also included in what you are alluding to.

I have a very interesting account from the 1980's within the fields of paleontology and archaeology having to do with the genesis of Early-American or Paleo-Indians (as archaeologists call them). Conventionally, it has always been taught that (1) several million years ago, Homo habilis, the first clear ancestor on man's lineage, appeared in Africa; (2) approximately one million years ago, Homo erectus, a more advanced form, appeared in Asia, Africa, and Europe; (3) about 180,000 years ago, "near men" called Neanderthals dominated Europe; and finally, (4) fully modern man, our direct ancestors, apeared in Europe 35,000 years ago, spreading into Africa and Asia and eventually reaching North America 12,000 years ago. Since, according to this scenario, there were no fully modern men anywhere in the world 70,000 years ago, these new American discoveries, mostly from North America, point to the astonishing thesis that men like ourselves, subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, made their world debut in the Americas, instead of in Europe. From southern California the first fully modern men may have ventured forth, bearing cultural and technological gifts to the rest of the world. In other words, this amounts to a reverse migration from America to Europe, etc.

The author, Dr. Jeffrey Goodman, Ph.D., goes on to build a very good case for this, utilizing all kinds of physical evidences and artifacts that have been properly dated with generally accepted dating techniques and methodologies. The evidence shows that modern man was in the Americas at dates much, much older than the traditional 12,000-year-old date associated with the Bering Bridge entry model. Now it is pushing back to 100,000 and 150,000 year time frames. This has serious implications for the whole established body of opinion heretofore.

Since that time, much progress has been made. Now there are models showing migrations in both directions. The whole paradigm has been shifted, even turned on its head. It takes individuals like Dr. Goodman to accomplish such feats.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to with respect to being outside the paradigm of conventional wisdom.

I am not persuaded that scientists on the outside are far more likely to be wrong. It may be possible that they are wrong. It may also be possible that they are not wrong. That remains to be seen.

That is one of the reasons I am interested in exploring a couple of interesting topics on a couple of upcoming threads (Big Bang and Relativity), where we can examine some alternatives on this JWD thinktank.

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

Talesin,
Thank you for the analogy. That does illustrate well what I am trying to say or infer.

Sad Emo,

Thank you for the very interesting article. I do have a lot of concerns about the extent that antibiotics may becoming ineffective against the treatment of disease. All we need is some superbug to hit the human race and we have nothing to counter with. I think it's a race against time.

I need to learn more about your topic to even comment on it one way or the other.

Danny,

First of all I am scratching my head. Where did "&npsb" come from? It seems to be popping up all over the place. Weird! Is it some kind of acronym? I am pretty sure I did not type this, and I can't see where I may have put my fingers on the keyboard in a wrong position to produce such meaningless "character litter".

With regards to "thinking outside the box", I do not imply leapfrogging into looneytune science for the sake of being different. It's more like, a good dancer has to first know all the rules of dancing and be able to perform the steps and techniques with a high degree of perfection or precision before he/she starts to even think about breaking those rules in order to come up with something new or innovative. And further, science does not work in a vacuum (hmmm! yes, I see the pun here. So maybe I'm wrong on that one! LOL)

And as for your contributing a point or two in the discussion, feel free to jump right in. The more the merrier. I may have to even step aside and let you guys take over the thread if any of you come up with anything more compelling than all the rest. I certainly don't have all the answers, and do have lots of questions.

Let the games begin. Just let's all try to have a gentlemen's duel, and not try to rip the hides off one another in the process. Let's just park our "attitudes" at the front entrance of the threads and get on with the discussions at hand, OK?

I want to see more of and and and , and even a little of or or . That would be What I dislike is when a thread turns into and and and which leads to . That would be and then we might just as well go off and.

In the meantime, while I'm getting Big Bang ready, here's a little teaser for you all on the speed of light:

Stand at Point A with two flashlights. Shine the flashlights at a Point B target 100 feet away. I think we would all agree that the light from each of those two flashlights is travelling to the target at the speed of light i.e. 186,000 miles per second.

Point A ----------Flashlights 1 & 2---------->Point B

Now, keep Flashlight #1 at Point A shining on Point B Target.

Then carry Flashlight #2 to Target Point B. Then shine Flashlight #2 in a parallel direction as Flashlight #1, but to a third Point C, 100 feet away from Point B.

Point A ---------Flashlight 1----------->Point B--------Flashlight 2-------->Point C

Again, I think we can all agree that the light from Flashlight 1 travelling from Point A to Point B will reach the Point B target in precisely the same amount of time as the light from Flashlight 2 travelling from Point B to Point C (100 feet distance at 186,000 m.p.s.). Each beam of light is travelling in the same direction in and of itself at that identical speed.

Now, continue to keep Flashlight #1 at Point A shining on Point B Target.

Then, standing at Point B with Flashlight 2 in your hand, I want you to turn the beam backwards 180 degrees, so that the beam from Flashlight 2 is aimed directly at Point A. We now have two beams of light aimed directly at each other.

The question I have for you is: What is the speed of the two beams of light travelling directly towards each other, relative to each other?

Cheers!

Rod P.
edited to get last diagram to fit on one line instead of two edited again to get last diagram to fit on one line.
edited again to eliminate needless spaces appearing out of nowhere

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.