tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post4749240137227272208..comments2024-01-30T06:35:10.103+00:00Comments on www.Sarsen.org: Parch Mark Paper To Be Published.Tim Dawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10667360714222841797noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-80473198300264660722014-08-11T11:27:55.465+01:002014-08-11T11:27:55.465+01:00LOL ,indeed .
It doesn't work simply describi...LOL ,indeed . <br />It doesn't work simply describing others what has been so often applied to yourself , you have to actually support the contention .Without the support it's no better than your childish propensity for playground naming . Bear in mind , with the number of names/personas you assume the potential for jolly japing is in inverse proportion to your credibility .<br />In this case you have to point out where there was any made up history .we won't hold our breath .Don't you realise that we (note plural ) can see that you are incapbale of doing so .You have avoided ,as usual , all the points and can only resort to the usual bluff and bluster .<br />You have no argument , but don't think that by continually being childish your comments will be ignored . Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-16161643811491986922014-08-11T10:16:57.253+01:002014-08-11T10:16:57.253+01:00Commandment 11
Thou shalt not make up history to ...Commandment 11<br /><br />Thou shalt not make up history to justify their inferior position in an argument! (Charlatan Principle)<br /><br />1860 the Copley Prize goes to.... Robert Bunsen - inventor of the Bunsen Burner, which will amuse school children for centuries burning their pencils in Chemistry class... Sorry Mr Darwin much more important than... evolution was it??<br /><br />LOL!! Georgy Porgy.. watch out for the men in the white coats!<br /><br />RJL<br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-12834040430247138162014-08-10T20:03:35.813+01:002014-08-10T20:03:35.813+01:00You have never paid any attention to the commandme...You have never paid any attention to the commandments and are unlikely to ever do so .<br /><br />None of what you say refutes the fact that the old guard accepted Darwinism . Being awarded the Copley medal by the old guard five years after the publication of "Origin ....) actually supports that rather than the contrary .<br /><br />"IF THEY accepted it he would have won the medal in 1860!! " <br />Now that is nonsense .Think about it, only one person gets the medal annually , yet a much greater number have their theories accepted by the Society that don't get a medal .<br /><br />The Darwinism example was mentioned as it is an extreme case supposedly in support of the principle and it fails , like your desperate case mentioning the Copley medal .<br />Your mention of Einstein in relation Planck is interesting and ironic and shows the shallowness of your understanding of the subject . <br />" IF Einstein accepted the quantum world " <br /> Einstein (1905 ) wrote three papers on quanta , the older Planck rejected the photon hypothesis , maybe that is the source of his throw away principle ,but the dispute with Boltzmann ,which you have conveniently ignored ,seems more likely . Einstein was involved in the first wave of the quantum revolution . Like Planck , he also changed his mind in relation to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom but as only six years separated them age is hardly a consideration . It was ot to start with and like all these errors the more you say, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-68621977969889797012014-08-10T19:45:50.679+01:002014-08-10T19:45:50.679+01:00Thank you Neil - about as relevant and useful as t...Thank you Neil - about as relevant and useful as the real ten commandments!<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-39142193967259483292014-08-10T17:59:09.781+01:002014-08-10T17:59:09.781+01:00Please read these carefully Bob ─ or whatever your...Please read these carefully Bob ─ or whatever your real name is ─ then apply them.<br />Any first year student of Logic knows these very basic articles.<br />At a glance, you consistently trammel over 8 of them.<br /><br />The 10 Commandments<br /><br />1. Thou shalt not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad Hominem)<br /><br />2. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw Man Fallacy)<br /><br />3. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty Generalization)<br /><br />4. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the Question)<br /><br />5. Thou shalt not claim that because something happened before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc / False Cause)<br /><br />6. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False Dichotomy)<br /><br />7. Thou shalt not claim that the argument is either true or false. (Ad Ignorantum)<br /><br />8. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim(Burden of proof reversal)<br /><br />9. Thou shalt not assume ‘This’ follows ‘that’ when it has no logical connection. (Non Sequitur)<br /><br />10 Thou shalt not claim that because a premise is popular, it must be true. (Bandwagon Fallacy)<br /><br /><br />NeilND Wisemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12980722277970551828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-2634817322195048462014-08-10T11:56:31.350+01:002014-08-10T11:56:31.350+01:00"Neither of these comments refute the fact th..."Neither of these comments refute the fact that Darwinism was readily accepted by the "old guard "<br /><br />Complete nonsense once again!<br /><br />IF THEY accepted it then the book would have been mentioned in the citation!!<br /><br />IF THEY accepted it he would have won the medal in 1860!!<br /><br />AND IF Einstein accepted the quantum world he wouldn't have spent the rest of his life trying to prove it wrong through his 'theory of everything'!!<br /><br />Which proves Max was right and the plank was wrong - yet again!!<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-6412757907022574802014-08-10T10:41:11.446+01:002014-08-10T10:41:11.446+01:00"Georgy Porgy " That's clever , did ..."Georgy Porgy " That's clever , did you just make that up that ? <br /><br />Neither of these comments refute the fact that Darwinism was readily accepted by the "old guard " in less than a decade , proven empirically by Hull and others and highlighted by contemporary reports i.e. the Nature comment . Not everyone who refutes the principle gets a medal .The fact that he was awarded the Copley medal within five years of publication of ' Origin .... 'says enough about acceptance by the old guard .<br />"And did Einstein finally conceded that God " ??? , yet another example of repeating the error .<br />The principle doesn't tell us anything about the acceptance or otherwise of theories , the subject is far too complex to be explained by something so simplistic . It has been , quite rightly , described as an ober dictum and only tends to get trotted out by those with a chip on their shoulder and in this case a large dose of accompanying nescience .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-74471539156787568542014-08-10T00:19:29.082+01:002014-08-10T00:19:29.082+01:00Quite right Georgy Porgy - an interesting subconsc...Quite right Georgy Porgy - an interesting subconscious typo!!<br /><br />Do you think I had any particular person in mind when I was mistyping the reply??<br /><br />Anyway the questions you failed to answer when I rebuked your statement: "it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks" are:<br /><br />If so why was the book not even mentioned on the citation? (that's the Royal Society's Copley Medal (1864) - just in case you don't know your history)<br /><br />Why was his name presented to the committee for this medal every year from 1859 but rejected?<br /><br />And did Einstein finally conceded that God does indeed play dice and accept quantum in his life time?<br /><br />Unless of course “And did Einstein finally conceded “ ??? - is the limit of your knowledge on this subject??<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-87894349611881163082014-08-09T20:58:33.902+01:002014-08-09T20:58:33.902+01:00'This 'punter' has asked several quest...'This 'punter' has asked several questions which have avoided (not for the first time) to answer which rebukes your nonsensical statements. '<br />Maybe can explain what that means .If you think that you have refuted any comments , then it's , as ever , wrong again .<br />Some punters are perfectly capable of understanding thoeries that are outwith their areas of expertise , this of course does not apply to you .Most punters appreciate their limitations when it comes to commenting on arcane subjects and leave it to the pros , this also doesn't apply to you .<br />Look forward to this "book "wot you wrote , any chance of seeing the vid where you attempt digging with a deer antler too ?<br />'prove Plank wrong ' Is this a reference to the excellent 60's Tommy Cooper ,Eric Sykes short ? Not tooo many quotes for you in that one I doubt that the "book" will have quite so many laughs either ,but the thought of it is a good start <br /><br /><br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-57023026402826944432014-08-09T10:43:09.546+01:002014-08-09T10:43:09.546+01:00Your arrogance betrays you Georgy Porgy.
Do you n...Your arrogance betrays you Georgy Porgy.<br /><br />Do you need a Phd to have an opinion or point out obvious historic and archaeological errors? This 'punter' has asked several questions which have avoided (not for the first time) to answer which rebukes your nonsensical statements. The idea of scientists having a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom is also elitist academic nonsense as that 'TV Doc' presenter from the sixies Dr Carl Sagan once pointed out when he said "science is a way of thinking rather than a body of knowledge" - which like the other quotations from this post are from my new book '13 Ancient Things that don't make sense in History' - you should buy a copy and prove Plank wrong by changing your point of view!!<br /><br />RJL<br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-68870771279090171772014-08-09T07:45:27.759+01:002014-08-09T07:45:27.759+01:00There are studies that have refuted the principle ...<i>There are studies that have refuted the principle and others that point out that what matters is not age as a guide to receptivity of new ideas but location, access to resources, and networks. </i><br /><br />Aye George. That may well be a better summary of the state of play. I guess anyone with a theory would be well advised to consider what access they have to the resources of the relevant field of study before considering whether or not it is worth spending resources to advance that theory.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-68842473600082922992014-08-09T06:40:06.920+01:002014-08-09T06:40:06.920+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-51021571026985065332014-08-08T20:06:17.295+01:002014-08-08T20:06:17.295+01:00Jon , I mentioned Darwinism mainly due to it bein...Jon , I mentioned Darwinism mainly due to it being considered a good example of support for the principle but even there it failed and does when applied to Planck's own experience . <br />There are studies that have refuted the principle and others that point out that what matters is not age as a guide to receptivity of new ideas but location, access to<br />resources, and networks. Further the old guard are just as likely to support unconventional theories. " The resources scientists accrue as they advance through their careers can be deployed to offset the higher costs and obstacles confronting those who might contemplate high-risk<br />research endeavours. Older scientists are thus better situated to pursue unconventional lines of research and to advocate controversial ideas. " Messeri: Age & Reception of Plate Tectonics .<br />What is interesting is when it gets trotted out , sometimes from the dissatsified young but more usually ,as in this case , the elderly with a chip on their shoulder , who feel they are being 'antagonised ' when the errors are pointed out in their fantasies and only a fresh generation untainted by study can appreciate their "theories " .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-56061996802686309452014-08-08T17:32:55.926+01:002014-08-08T17:32:55.926+01:00Ok George: If a theory (as Origin of the Species) ...Ok George: If a theory (as Origin of the Species) is populist, about something revolutionary, produced by a well known scientist and concerns that scientist's field of work, then Max Planck's hypothesis seems to not always apply.<br /><br />I suspect that Planck's rule may well apply to the development of most other theories. If a theory did require a generation to gain acceptance within a scientific profession, one would be better to archive secondary observations, for however long it takes, and move on. <br /><br />Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-37097847655384916622014-08-08T08:54:23.199+01:002014-08-08T08:54:23.199+01:00You should attempt to understand what is being di...You should attempt to understand what is being discussed Stuart ( Dr of ??? ) , i.e. “ Planck’s principle “ ,which is not concerned with the punters like you , note the mention of “old guard “ and “young turks “ ,the principle is about the acceptance by scientists . If the principle applied to the general public generations would be more applicable in many cases . Similarly the principle is about science and despite being the resort of the snake oil merchants it is not about fantasy .<br />Darwinism is still not accepted by some scientists today , but it was accepted , quickly among his peers , as the article points out , as do other contemporary accounts and also Hull’s empirical demonstration .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-37802883398064483452014-08-08T08:30:16.389+01:002014-08-08T08:30:16.389+01:00I too love to read "George's" commen...I too love to read "George's" comments - is he 'George Curious' the cartoon character? It allows me the understand the depth of disinformation in our society.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-69746853038033769442014-08-08T08:02:58.319+01:002014-08-08T08:02:58.319+01:00You should read all the article Sherlock you might...You should read all the article Sherlock you might learn something of the 'Big Picture' (not exactly your strong point!).<br /><br />In conclusion the article states "In the essay alluded to above, M Claparede, himself one of the FEW genuine Darwinians among French writers" - not exactly main stream as you implied.<br /><br />In fact the reality is that it remained just a highly debated 'hypothesis' until 1930 when the brilliant mathematician Fisher was able to prove the Theory of Natural Selection mathematically it finally DID become mainstream - almost a hundred years after the Beagle voyage, with lots of dead antagonists in between.<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-28374397214786276792014-08-07T18:35:51.258+01:002014-08-07T18:35:51.258+01:0010 years is less than generation , the theory is n...10 years is less than generation , the theory is not only scientifically revolutionary it is political and particularly philosophical /religious dynamite and yet it has been accepted "within the last few years " i.e. earlier than the period of writing .<br />That is not what Planck claims , if he was on the money he would have to have said 10 years , not a generation . He was out by 10-15 years .<br /><br /><br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-35485426611190638932014-08-07T17:18:22.340+01:002014-08-07T17:18:22.340+01:0010 years. Impressive. Nevertheless, 20-25 years wo...10 years. Impressive. Nevertheless, 20-25 years would represent the passing on of a generation back then and a sizeable proportion of that generation would have passed on in just over 10 years. Sounds to me as if Max was on the money with the observation George.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-53334885876804182192014-08-07T17:08:59.812+01:002014-08-07T17:08:59.812+01:00First sentence from "Nature " 1870 ,i.e....First sentence from "Nature " 1870 ,i.e. 11 years after publication .<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/nyabzvc<br /><br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-87616438293267013502014-08-07T15:30:16.384+01:002014-08-07T15:30:16.384+01:00"it was accepted just as quickly by the old g..."it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks"<br />Is a fact , learn to live with it . David Hull even proves it empirically .<br />You have yet again managed to avoid the other examples .<br />“And did Einstein finally conceded “ ???<br /><br />Pointing out errors is not antagonism , if so you must live with it on an hourly basis . <br /><br />There is no “we” ,nobody accepts your theories on any subject ,except of course Dr Stuart Love , but we all know he was just another pseudonym .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-35545426792493671032014-08-07T14:54:02.584+01:002014-08-07T14:54:02.584+01:00Never mind Sherlock we will out live your antagoni...<i>Never mind Sherlock we will out live your antagonistic voice by many years to tell the new generation the truth. </i><br /><br />Hey, don't include me in that Robert. I quite enjoy reading some of George's observations. Though maybe I don't always understand where he's coming from in all of them.Jon Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11264966739582178631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-87090430257835172172014-08-07T12:39:03.699+01:002014-08-07T12:39:03.699+01:00"it was accepted just as quickly by the old g..."it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks"<br /><br />If so why was the book not even mentioned on the citation?<br /><br />Why was his name presented to the committee for this medal every year from 1859 but rejected?<br /><br />And did Einstein finally conceded that God does indeed play dice and accept quantum in his life time?<br /><br />Never mind Sherlock we will out live your antagonistic voice by many years to tell the new generation the truth.<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-17970786301661873722014-08-07T09:28:04.631+01:002014-08-07T09:28:04.631+01:00The date that matters is the publication of “On t...The date that matters is the publication of “On the Origin of Species “ (1859) within a decade i.e. less than generation , it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks . You have also conveniently ignored Planck’s own experience which turns the principle on it’s head from two perspectives , i.e. the young turk finally accepting the older view which he had rejected then acceptance of the consequent theory in less than a generation . It’s quality that matters ,that is why shysters resort to the principle when their “theories” are shot full of holes from anyone who knows their subject , regardless of age. <br />Back to your sandwiches and video tapes Davis .<br />Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787185370858787658.post-58633935753556617362014-08-07T09:01:31.950+01:002014-08-07T09:01:31.950+01:00"Darwin was accepted by the old guard as read..."Darwin was accepted by the old guard as readily as by the young turks"<br /><br />What a lot of nonsense!<br /><br />The beagle trip was 1831 - 1836<br /><br />The first suggestions in meetings and publication between 1838 -1843<br /><br />The publication that made him famous was in 1859 - because he was frightened to publish as he would lose funding and credibility to continue his research - it was only when Wallace stubbled upon the same hypothesis that force him to go to press.<br /><br />And the Royal Society awarded him a medal in 1864 - but failed to put 'Origin of the Species' on the citation as even then it was not fully accepted.<br /><br />Almost a complete generation between concept and recognition - Max was right and you're wrong. No surprise there Sherlock!!<br /><br />RJLBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.com