But all that detail which can't be contained in one volume , although the Cleal book is a good start , is necessary when dealing with the variety of possible suggestions

On 2011-11-14 17:36, jonm wrote:

Quote:

But all that detail which can't be contained in one volume , although the Cleal book is a good start , is necessary when dealing with the variety of possible suggestions

True, but if simple data of what is important to distinguish the wood from the trees, or otherwise, is not available (an example of an exceptionally good 'wood from the trees' book is the one by Anthony Johnson), doesn't that exclude interests other than Archaeologists from looking at the ideas?

Jon

On 2011-11-14 17:04, tiompan wrote:

Then maybe you should have asked that question first but if you had looked up the definition of pseudosciece you wouldn't have had to ask it .



George

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 16:30, cropredy wrote: I should have better described the question in that if You declare human reporting as pseudoscience....are You saying they are liars?? cropredy

On 2011-11-12 14:17, ledgehammer wrote:
I read this a few weeks ago.... made me smile...:

Quote:

"A black box fell out of the sky and landed somewhere in the southwest of the United States. It produced a crater of enormous proportions. The government immediately dispatched investigators to the scene. They fenced off the crater and kept everyone away, save the military and some key scientists and politicians. Headlines screamed, "what could the black box be"? leading researchers were asked to examine it. First came the physicists, and they did what physicists do: they measured the temperature of the box, bombarded it with subatomic particles, and attempted to reach a conclusion by studying its pysical structure. But try as they might, they could make no sense of the data they retrieved. The box remained a complete mystery. Next came the chemists. They did what chemists do. They measured its chemical composition, and poured various liquids on to it , including strong acids and bases. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the box, which had a chemical structure of the likes no-one had encountered before. They left the site not giving any answer. Along came the biologists, and they did what biologists do. They searched for signs of biological life, attaching surface electrodes and measuring oxygen comsumption, and recording electromagnetic fields, a process similar to recording electro-cardiograms and brain waves. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the signals they observed. The box, they said, did not appear to have anything measurable that looked like d.n.a or cells. Finally, as a last resort, the officials in charge of the investigation reluctantly allowed a psychologist- we shall call her DR Smith- to see the box. She pulled up a chair, sat down and took out a pencil and paper and adressed the box in a warm and friendly manner. She said "hi my mane is DR Smith, and I would very much like to talk with you" she paused and gently said, "what is you name" and the box replied "Harry"

On 2011-11-14 19:49, cropredy wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 17:04, tiompan wrote: Then maybe you should have asked that question first but if you had looked up the definition of pseudosciece you wouldn't have had to ask it . George Quote: On 2011-11-14 16:30, cropredy wrote: I should have better described the question in that if You declare human reporting as pseudoscience....are You saying they are liars?? cropredy

I know what the word means, and why I find it offensive.
It is written by those who consider they are following a correct scientific route, and used to describe those who they consider are trying to appear as scientific , but are not following the correct scientific procedures, and gaining testable PROOFS.
That scientific PROOF is cobblers, and is easily limited by those who set the so called laws etc.

If I called those who adhere to such rules ...SHEEP... they find been called such offensive.

I have learn't to stop calling those sheep...sheep.
As all it leads to is a ping pong type game of counter name calling which Rune the vigilant pounces upon.

Most people only know what they have been indoctrinated with, thus to try and explain something admittadely bizzare in the current accepted indoctrinated system means I have to try and adopt some of that so called science to portray a level of understanding.

Pseudoscience is similer to conspiracy theory, that coupling of words is to give the listner the mental image that anyone mentioning a conspiracy is merely theorising, when in actuality the proponents of the so called truth are most likely the terrorists, but because the vast herd trust them and believe them they are accepted as correct, whilst those LABELLED conspiracy theorists are lampooned and ridiculed.
This is exactly the same with pseudoscience, two words clipped together to give the impression that anyone LABELLED such is WRONG.


To Myself using that word is exactly as good as calling Me a liar.

I therefore consider You called such as Myself liars.

cropredy

On 2011-11-14 19:57, ledgehammer wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-11-12 14:17, ledgehammer wrote: I read this a few weeks ago.... made me smile...: Quote: "A black box fell out of the sky and landed somewhere in the southwest of the United States. It produced a crater of enormous proportions. The government immediately dispatched investigators to the scene. They fenced off the crater and kept everyone away, save the military and some key scientists and politicians. Headlines screamed, "what could the black box be"? leading researchers were asked to examine it. First came the physicists, and they did what physicists do: they measured the temperature of the box, bombarded it with subatomic particles, and attempted to reach a conclusion by studying its pysical structure. But try as they might, they could make no sense of the data they retrieved. The box remained a complete mystery. Next came the chemists. They did what chemists do. They measured its chemical composition, and poured various liquids on to it , including strong acids and bases. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the box, which had a chemical structure of the likes no-one had encountered before. They left the site not giving any answer. Along came the biologists, and they did what biologists do. They searched for signs of biological life, attaching surface electrodes and measuring oxygen comsumption, and recording electromagnetic fields, a process similar to recording electro-cardiograms and brain waves. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the signals they observed. The box, they said, did not appear to have anything measurable that looked like d.n.a or cells. Finally, as a last resort, the officials in charge of the investigation reluctantly allowed a psychologist- we shall call her DR Smith- to see the box. She pulled up a chair, sat down and took out a pencil and paper and adressed the box in a warm and friendly manner. She said "hi my mane is DR Smith, and I would very much like to talk with you" she paused and gently said, "what is you name" and the box replied "Harry"

Thought I'd rechurn this post...

Would asking stonehenge itself what it was used for be classed as "pseudo-science"...

Tom

On 2011-11-14 16:38, jonm wrote:

Quote:

This may have been so whilst the megalithic structures were constructed, thus we may be remembering.

Recently I have had a reason to give this idea some considerable thought. Perhaps another more scientific explanation is that certain people are capable of sub-consciously understanding the nature, if not the detail, of certain types of symbols and structures?

Jon

On 2011-11-14 20:18, ledgehammer wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 16:38, jonm wrote: Quote: This may have been so whilst the megalithic structures were constructed, thus we may be remembering. Recently I have had a reason to give this idea some considerable thought. Perhaps another more scientific explanation is that certain people are capable of sub-consciously understanding the nature, if not the detail, of certain types of symbols and structures? Jon

I think I understand the two sides to this having experienced both to a fair degree, the understanding spoken of in this way comes from belief, and being open to wherever it comes from. Analising, prodding, measuring, recording will perhaps never give the answer that was intended by the purpose, as those who built the structure never used these devices, or had any awareness of the methods science adopts today.

The story I posted illustrates a point that we can throw our science at a phenomina but we must be prepared to accept that if the target was created, or is from a source different to that of the origins of our science then it may be like using a square to slot into a circle, and will not fit.

If time is spent at ancient sites applying a mindful minset, in an open way including beliefs, then we may learn more about ourselves and the purpose of these sites, if through intuition, dowsing, the subconcious even dreams. We may even become wiser, more forgiving, and less concerned about the distance between the stones. If this is the case, then surely the point of these sites in relation to ourselves is apparent?

Best wishes

Tom

On 2011-11-14 20:11, tiompan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
You know what Post Office is used for , why not try the experiment on one and see if you get the right answer ? If not it might be a waste of time trying it at Stonehenge .
George

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 19:57, ledgehammer wrote: Quote: On 2011-11-12 14:17, ledgehammer wrote: I read this a few weeks ago.... made me smile...: [quote] "A black box fell out of the sky and landed somewhere in the southwest of the United States. It produced a crater of enormous proportions. The government immediately dispatched investigators to the scene. They fenced off the crater and kept everyone away, save the military and some key scientists and politicians. Headlines screamed, "what could the black box be"? leading researchers were asked to examine it. First came the physicists, and they did what physicists do: they measured the temperature of the box, bombarded it with subatomic particles, and attempted to reach a conclusion by studying its pysical structure. But try as they might, they could make no sense of the data they retrieved. The box remained a complete mystery. Next came the chemists. They did what chemists do. They measured its chemical composition, and poured various liquids on to it , including strong acids and bases. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the box, which had a chemical structure of the likes no-one had encountered before. They left the site not giving any answer. Along came the biologists, and they did what biologists do. They searched for signs of biological life, attaching surface electrodes and measuring oxygen comsumption, and recording electromagnetic fields, a process similar to recording electro-cardiograms and brain waves. But try as they might , they could make no sense of the signals they observed. The box, they said, did not appear to have anything measurable that looked like d.n.a or cells. Finally, as a last resort, the officials in charge of the investigation reluctantly allowed a psychologist- we shall call her DR Smith- to see the box. She pulled up a chair, sat down and took out a pencil and paper and adressed the box in a warm and friendly manner. She said "hi my mane is DR Smith, and I would very much like to talk with you" she paused and gently said, "what is you name" and the box replied "Harry"

Thought I'd rechurn this post...

Would asking stonehenge itself what it was used for be classed as "pseudo-science"...

Tom

On 2011-11-14 20:34, tiompan wrote:
Everyone dreams and uses intuition and it undoubtedly has led to some major insights particularly when associated with an understanding and some time spent studying a subject .
Can you think of anyone that has improved our understanding of Stonehenge merely by being "open minded " or "mindful" or dowsing . Apart from a few stray finds nearly everything we now understand about Stonehenge has come from work .

George

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 20:18, ledgehammer wrote: Quote: On 2011-11-14 16:38, jonm wrote: [quote]This may have been so whilst the megalithic structures were constructed, thus we may be remembering. Recently I have had a reason to give this idea some considerable thought. Perhaps another more scientific explanation is that certain people are capable of sub-consciously understanding the nature, if not the detail, of certain types of symbols and structures? Jon

I think I understand the two sides to this having experienced both to a fair degree, the understanding spoken of in this way comes from belief, and being open to wherever it comes from. Analising, prodding, measuring, recording will perhaps never give the answer that was intended by the purpose, as those who built the structure never used these devices, or had any awareness of the methods science adopts today.

The story I posted illustrates a point that we can throw our science at a phenomina but we must be prepared to accept that if the target was created, or is from a source different to that of the origins of our science then it may be like using a square to slot into a circle, and will not fit.

If time is spent at ancient sites applying a mindful minset, in an open way including beliefs, then we may learn more about ourselves and the purpose of these sites, if through intuition, dowsing, the subconcious even dreams. We may even become wiser, more forgiving, and less concerned about the distance between the stones. If this is the case, then surely the point of these sites in relation to ourselves is apparent?

Best wishes

Tom

On 2011-11-14 20:22, cropredy wrote:
Ledgehammer,
After visiting SH one very early frozen morning some years ago I wrote a poem about it, I posted this on the so called modern antiquarian site on a poetry thread( it was deleted by some little .....)
I had asked SH why it was built, and recieved some strange messages about the moles and the crows knowing, and was lead along the avenue.
The moles do know, as do the crows that go cor cor cor.

We should meet up there one day and follow that avenue between two points where two serpents slither along in both directions, they love it when someone recognises them, nobody has really been talking to them except perhaps Hamish who I has conversations about the dragons with, I was mean't to meet up with Him, I will one day.
cropredy

On 2011-11-14 20:22, Runemage wrote:
Just in case you all missed this... Almost 24 hours ago, I said,

Posted 13-11-2011 at 21:24 Re 'pseudoscience' - I thought we'd put all that to rest in this thread.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4714&forum=4

I'd strongly suggest you all take note, realise how that particular word can be perceived as offensive and in future please endeavour to use terminology that doesn't provoke the light the blue touchpaper and retire reaction.

We're here to discuss some new ideas, poor Jonm has probably gone to sleep whilst waiting for an on-topic reply.

Rune (yes, vigilant !)

On 2011-11-14 20:45, tiompan wrote:

Rune , are we not supposed to use the term pseudoscience ? And if not why not ? To me it is a perfectly respectable Popperian term that
describes the non scientific approach .

George

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 20:22, Runemage wrote: Just in case you all missed this... Almost 24 hours ago, I said, Posted 13-11-2011 at 21:24 Re 'pseudoscience' - I thought we'd put all that to rest in this thread. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4714&forum=4 I'd strongly suggest you all take note, realise how that particular word can be perceived as offensive and in future please endeavour to use terminology that doesn't provoke the light the blue touchpaper and retire reaction. We're here to discuss some new ideas, poor Jonm has probably gone to sleep whilst waiting for an on-topic reply. Rune (yes, vigilant !)

On 2011-11-14 21:26, cropredy wrote:

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 20:45, tiompan wrote: Rune , are we not supposed to use the term pseudoscience ? And if not why not ? To me it is a perfectly respectable Popperian term that describes the non scientific approach . George Quote: On 2011-11-14 20:22, Runemage wrote: Just in case you all missed this... Almost 24 hours ago, I said, Posted 13-11-2011 at 21:24 Re 'pseudoscience' - I thought we'd put all that to rest in this thread. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4714&forum=4 I'd strongly suggest you all take note, realise how that particular word can be perceived as offensive and in future please endeavour to use terminology that doesn't provoke the light the blue touchpaper and retire reaction. We're here to discuss some new ideas, poor Jonm has probably gone to sleep whilst waiting for an on-topic reply. Rune (yes, vigilant !)

Stop taking popps at anyone YOU deem not using the cult religion of science methods.


cropredy

On 2011-11-14 20:45, tiompan wrote:

Rune , are we not supposed to use the term pseudoscience ? And if not why not ? To me it is a perfectly respectable Popperian term that
describes the non scientific approach .

George

Quote:

On 2011-11-14 20:22, Runemage wrote: Just in case you all missed this... Almost 24 hours ago, I said, Posted 13-11-2011 at 21:24 Re 'pseudoscience' - I thought we'd put all that to rest in this thread. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4714&forum=4 I'd strongly suggest you all take note, realise how that particular word can be perceived as offensive and in future please endeavour to use terminology that doesn't provoke the light the blue touchpaper and retire reaction. We're here to discuss some new ideas, poor Jonm has probably gone to sleep whilst waiting for an on-topic reply. Rune (yes, vigilant !)