Featured Title: Pictures from the Past: Art and Symbols of the Neolithic and Bronze Age
The Henge Monuments of the British Isles: Myth and Archaeology
Login
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page.
Posted 01-03-2012 at 19:19
Tom , could you give examples of the inconsistency and any that are merely personal attacks ?
If progress is eliminating errors then it can take place as even the pseudoscientists drop their guard and make claims that are falsifiable .
Googling a counter argument is not as bad as merely using links to dodgy geezer web sites which is quite frequent here and the actual precursor and reason for the googled counter argument , it would take a lifetime for one person to refute all the snake oil ,fortunately there are those who don’t mind concentrating on a handful of examples thus saving us the trouble .
If you use that definition for research then how do we describe what Peter Higgs or even a Phd candidate , it needn’t be a work of genius or even right but they have at least spent a few years on the subject possibly even from secondary school .
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 17:21, ledgehammer wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 15:07, tiompan wrote:
Tom , where did I link to anything that just attacks the snake oil peddlers ? If something is wrong in an equation or date or detail , it's simply a mistake but there are professional snake oil salesmen who deserve to be outed , like Dolores , purely for their charlatanism as well as their mistakes . We don't all have the time to check every daft claim so must rely on others lie Bob to do some the work .
I hear a lot of people using the term "research " how many years of hard work does it involve I wonder , often research seems to be reading a few books and web sites and some wishful thinking .That is the point of qualifications , it doesn't mean much more than that the person awarded has clearly spent some time working on the subject .Have you submitted anything to be peer reviewed ? If not I would have to see it before commenting .
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 14:49, ledgehammer wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-03-01 09:42, tiompan wrote:
Refuting an argument is not trolling . If someone can point out the fault in an argument of mine I couldn't care less what they called themselves , anon would be sufficient ,it's the argument /refutation that matters for me . I never give my full name and nobody has complained about it , come to think of it there was one bumptious nut who did .
Dolores
[quote]
On 2012-03-01 09:29, Runemage wrote:
Surely the credibility is in the argument not whether they use a full name or not .
Absolutely not for me. If someone wanted to take some of my work apart and hid behind an ID I wouldn't give it credence. Not that I have anything for public dissection but you see the point.
Anyone can be anonymous internet troll. It takes the courage of your convictions to state your views and stand up and be counted.
Rune
George,
That seems inconsistant with your links in the past, often the skeptical arguement attacks the person behind the claims, many of which you have linked to in the past. Incidently doesn't the profile of the researcher have an impact on the validity of the research. My research has not been peer reviewed so you would accept it, I suspect not?
Best wishes
Tom
[/quote]
George,
"I hear ya fella", for me it invalidates the piece if it is a personal attack, reminds me a little of video responses on you-tube. But If the source is unknown or I knew little about the source I would also find it a little hard to trust. I would admit Im perhaps not up to date with the latest sources of data, but I do try and find a little about the source before getting in the water so to speak. This is not to say that the internet is filled with a vast array of wild claims to wet your toes. There are indeed some dubious folk who should be debunked or rather ignored as attacking is perhaps a waste of time and very dubious in itself, I am aware of this which is why I try to establish a little information - but there is two major sides to viewing these conflicts independantly and most of the time they are both so involved in attacking the other then no real progress takes place.
Research in the strictest definition can be anything including reading a few books e.t.c, I tend to enjoy reading material which has been the result of many years of work, which would involve research itself, fieldwork, and conclusions while validating the work with another, quite often collaborations are good reads.
For me if the work has not been peer reviewed this doesn't neccesarilly invalidate it, although I understand why the process exists. Equally it is good to know where the information comes from, and how established this person is. Merely googling a counter argument is not in my eyes research or even a valid response unless it contains data that corresponds with personal observations/research.
On 2012-03-01 17:15, tiompan wrote:
Bump . What are Fibonacci orientations ? can you point to a primary use of this term ? Why use numbers e.g. 34/55 and comment “It is all to do with the fibonacci numbers and sequencing “ when earlier you said you find numbers and counting "misleading " ?
Mmmm “The actual fibonacci spirals only occur in very specific locations “ and “Those other spirals also exist within the churchs “
A couple of days ago it was " Everything spirals. And those spirals are determined by fibonacci sequencing ." Please reconcile .
Geiorge
Are You winding Me up( in spiral fashion)???
Fibonacci spirals are exactly as they say on the tins.
Other spirals are consequences of fibonacci sequencing, but it all relates to the goldenmean ratio, listen to radio 1.618, my uncle fibonacci is dj.
hobbit
Posted 01-03-2012 at 21:23
Still no answer to the questions and still more use of numbers that you find misleading .
"Other spirals are consequences of fibonacci sequencing " = more nonsense .
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 20:16, cropredy wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 17:15, tiompan wrote:
Bump . What are Fibonacci orientations ? can you point to a primary use of this term ? Why use numbers e.g. 34/55 and comment “It is all to do with the fibonacci numbers and sequencing “ when earlier you said you find numbers and counting "misleading " ?
Mmmm “The actual fibonacci spirals only occur in very specific locations “ and “Those other spirals also exist within the churchs “
A couple of days ago it was " Everything spirals. And those spirals are determined by fibonacci sequencing ." Please reconcile .
Geiorge
Are You winding Me up( in spiral fashion)???
Fibonacci spirals are exactly as they say on the tins.
Other spirals are consequences of fibonacci sequencing, but it all relates to the goldenmean ratio, listen to radio 1.618, my uncle fibonacci is dj.
hobbit
Tom , could you give examples of the inconsistency and any that are merely personal attacks ?
If progress is eliminating errors then it can take place as even the pseudoscientists drop their guard and make claims that are falsifiable .
Googling a counter argument is not as bad as merely using links to dodgy geezer web sites which is quite frequent here and the actual precursor and reason for the googled counter argument , it would take a lifetime for one person to refute all the snake oil ,fortunately there are those who don’t mind concentrating on a handful of examples thus saving us the trouble .
If you use that definition for research then how do we describe what Peter Higgs or even a Phd candidate , it needn’t be a work of genius or even right but they have at least spent a few years on the subject possibly even from secondary school .
George
George,
Its not a debate I wished to get sucked into, observing the debate seems to show a circular repetative method, debunking, then debunking the debunking, perhaps this is a perfect metaphor for a spiral going round and round while the only objective is to repair credibility. This thread is a perfect example of this debate, incidently If someone is quoted there will inevitably be something else that that person has said that can be found to be false, most of the time its a question of manipulation, and unfortunatly those involved away from the mainstream will received torrents and will look rather bad in the public eye.
Its not a competition of who is worse, otherwise anything could be justified in reaction. Surely it should be about finding the information and then working with it. Surely it should be about realising exactly what is possible, then using the data to establish was is probable, and this should not always be about the individuals and their position.
Im not sure I get your point about research, the problem is as much as I believe in a good scientific process, unfortunatly during my fieldwork and observations have come accross something which is ridiculed by the mainstream, this is where my interpretation of research differs to yours, and I am inclinded to go with my Primary observations. IMHO, achademics doesnt equate for a great deal for the line of research I am interested in, as long as the reasoning and method is good, and "feet on the gound" method approached while involving other reasonable researchers with the same method then this is good enough for me.
Posted 01-03-2012 at 22:21
I didn't write that , check the spelling for a start .
What I said was
"Other spirals are consequences of fibonacci sequencing " = more nonsense .
Still no reply to the questions . And even more numbers that you were earlier telling us were "misleading .
Posted 01-03-2012 at 22:39
Tom , you did say there were inconsistencies ,I merely asked for examples . Hardly a debate .
Where was the idea that there are a lot more than Fibonacci spirals debunked ?
Where was the debunking of Nassim Haramein debunked ?
I thought my point about research ws quite clear i.e. if your definition of research "Research in the strictest definition can be anything including reading a few books e.t.c " is acceptable what term would we use for what someone who has clearly done so much
more of what used to be the definition of research e.g. Peter Higgs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs. It's not dissimilar to describing Jessie J or John lennon as a genius ,if so what do call Shakespeare , Beethoven etc .
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-01 21:46, ledgehammer wrote:
Quote:
Tom , could you give examples of the inconsistency and any that are merely personal attacks ?
If progress is eliminating errors then it can take place as even the pseudoscientists drop their guard and make claims that are falsifiable .
Googling a counter argument is not as bad as merely using links to dodgy geezer web sites which is quite frequent here and the actual precursor and reason for the googled counter argument , it would take a lifetime for one person to refute all the snake oil ,fortunately there are those who don’t mind concentrating on a handful of examples thus saving us the trouble .
If you use that definition for research then how do we describe what Peter Higgs or even a Phd candidate , it needn’t be a work of genius or even right but they have at least spent a few years on the subject possibly even from secondary school .
George
George,
Its not a debate I wished to get sucked into, observing the debate seems to show a circular repetative method, debunking, then debunking the debunking, perhaps this is a perfect metaphor for a spiral going round and round while the only objective is to repair credibility. This thread is a perfect example of this debate, incidently If someone is quoted there will inevitably be something else that that person has said that can be found to be false, most of the time its a question of manipulation, and unfortunatly those involved away from the mainstream will received torrents and will look rather bad in the public eye.
Its not a competition of who is worse, otherwise anything could be justified in reaction. Surely it should be about finding the information and then working with it. Surely it should be about realising exactly what is possible, then using the data to establish was is probable, and this should not always be about the individuals and their position.
Im not sure I get your point about research, the problem is as much as I believe in a good scientific process, unfortunatly during my fieldwork and observations have come accross something which is ridiculed by the mainstream, this is where my interpretation of research differs to yours, and I am inclinded to go with my Primary observations. IMHO, achademics doesnt equate for a great deal for the line of research I am interested in, as long as the reasoning and method is good, and "feet on the gound" method approached while involving other reasonable researchers with the same method then this is good enough for me.
Tom's just said "It seems these recent debates drawing a link up and then another link counteracting this is mere circle making, and gets no-one anywhere. This is why I tend to stick to my personal findings, which despite popular belief are repeatable to a more than reasonable degree. If we spent less time citing sites like "the skeptics dictionary" and "questionable blogs", and actually went out there and did some observations we would probably be further along than we are currently."
Posted 02-03-2012 at 11:00
True that is a rebuttal to the debunking but the cycle continues .http://www.supernaturalresearch.com/2010/07/nassim-haramein-answers-his-critics-with-respect-and-logic/ .
This is what debate is about .
I sympathise about links ,sometimes they are informative but it is generally laziness . I avoid them and arely use them . A quick count of Cropredy posts on this thread show that from 29 posts 19 had links .
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 10:22, Runemage wrote:
Where was the debunking of Nassim Haramein debunked ?
Tom's just said "It seems these recent debates drawing a link up and then another link counteracting this is mere circle making, and gets no-one anywhere. This is why I tend to stick to my personal findings, which despite popular belief are repeatable to a more than reasonable degree. If we spent less time citing sites like "the skeptics dictionary" and "questionable blogs", and actually went out there and did some observations we would probably be further along than we are currently."
Posted 02-03-2012 at 12:40 True that is a rebuttal to the debunking but the cycle continues .http://www.supernaturalresearch.com/2010/07/nassim-haramein-answers-his-critics-with-respect-and-logic/ .
This is what debate is about .
Yep, there's room here for that type of debate but, you knew there was a but, didn't you...what we also need are personal findings to add into the mix and for a plethora of reasons, they can't be treated in the same way.
If someone's discovered something once and wants to discuss it, there's precious little anyone can say apart from encouraging them to do some more investigations. When someone's discovered something that's repeatable in the same location over time, that should be interesting and if people want to discover more, they should be prepared to go and try and find the same thing for themselves. What's missing in all this endless cerebral debating is the actual experiential findings. That's why it circles ad infinitum.
So here's something experiential for everyone to try, just follow the simple instructions and see what happens.
In tandem with the cerebral reasoning items, we also need to be able to discuss this sort of thing as best we can although oftentimes it's hard to verbalise.
Posted 02-03-2012 at 14:33 Good read, cropredy, and yes, the Golden ratio is alive and well in everything we touch, and see. Even in the things we dont see, as well. You recall my foray into the world of Cymatics, and how we are seeing the formation of life in the fibonacci patterns?
I knew all along, even before you opened my eyes to the true meaning of the spirals, that the sounds, and their patterns were connected with life itself.
What a pleasure, and good feeling i have today, as i look at those paul muir videos, and see the golden ration in slow motion, forming balls of life at will!
I think the GR will be the answer to humanities search for our lifes formative ways, and youll find it in any dimension, too!
Join us George, and youll never go back Mwahahahaha!
1.618 steps at a time!
Fibonacci IS King, and I wish I could have met him!
Posted 02-03-2012 at 15:10
Good to see that you have some appreciation for Fibonacci , the mathematician who was instrumental in the adoption of the numeric system we use today , the one Cropredy finds misleading . The numeric sequence named after him is found in nature like other simple sequences but it is a very long way from being alive and well in everything we see and touch . I don’t like posting links but If you happen to believe that then maybe you missed this http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 14:33, LittleEnki wrote:
Good read, cropredy, and yes, the Golden ratio is alive and well in everything we touch, and see. Even in the things we dont see, as well. You recall my foray into the world of Cymatics, and how we are seeing the formation of life in the fibonacci patterns?
I knew all along, even before you opened my eyes to the true meaning of the spirals, that the sounds, and their patterns were connected with life itself.
Posted 02-03-2012 at 19:07
Tiompan,
I post links to help and assist others.
You are obviously so well read and superior that You don't need them, thus don't look at them.
It's pretty simple really.
K.I.S.S.
cropredy
Posted 02-03-2012 at 19:15
Anyone can post links ,why don't you simply distill what is germane from them and say it in as few words as possible or is it possible you couldn't do that ?
It is no different from listing books saying read "X " by "Y" and you'll be get my drift . As Bert said “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 19:07, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
I post links to help and assist others.
You are obviously so well read and superior that You don't need them, thus don't look at them.
It's pretty simple really.
K.I.S.S.
cropredy
On 2012-03-02 19:15, tiompan wrote:
Anyone can post links ,why don't you simply distill what is germane from them and say it in as few words as possible or is it possible you couldn't do that ?
It is no different from listing books saying read "X " by "Y" and you'll be get my drift . As Bert said “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 19:07, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
I post links to help and assist others.
You are obviously so well read and superior that You don't need them, thus don't look at them.
It's pretty simple really.
K.I.S.S.
cropredy
Because t'old flower... writing absolutely wears Me out, as does reading.
I prefer pictures.
I see in pictures, and think in such, maybe I am a throw back to when humans communicated without the written word???
Posted 02-03-2012 at 20:06 The vast majority of your links are not just pictures , does that mean that you have not read them ?
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 19:55, cropredy wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 19:15, tiompan wrote:
Anyone can post links ,why don't you simply distill what is germane from them and say it in as few words as possible or is it possible you couldn't do that ?
It is no different from listing books saying read "X " by "Y" and you'll be get my drift . As Bert said “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
George
Quote:
On 2012-03-02 19:07, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
I post links to help and assist others.
You are obviously so well read and superior that You don't need them, thus don't look at them.
It's pretty simple really.
K.I.S.S.
cropredy
Because t'old flower... writing absolutely wears Me out, as does reading.
I prefer pictures.
I see in pictures, and think in such, maybe I am a throw back to when humans communicated without the written word???
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use. If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
OFF-Line
Posted 01-03-2012 at 19:19 
Main News