So we’re back again… On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing [...]
Here’s an interesting idea … The ‘process’ of critical thinking, of course, insists that the information presented is questioned. What research, by whom, when, for what reason? One of the problems facing those of us wanting to explore, for want of a better world, the paranormal is the fact that there is a wealth of [...]
Words mean what we agree they mean… I think most people reading this blog would agree with that statement and perhaps those same people would accept that there are some interesting limitations in our conversations. The need to group ideas together, to create labels, is a part and parcel of the way we use language [...]
Well folks we’re here… We’ve made it through Elenin which kinda fizzled out like a damp sparkler and we’re into 2012 and yes change is in the air with the NEW LOOK Rational Mystic Blog…. Ok, so I know January is all but over, however I have been neglecting this blog – mostly because of [...]
So we’re back again…
On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing thanks’ to the planet.
Now, as you might expect, I immediately see the social, emotional and cultural value of such an activity. Bringing individuals together in order share an experience in which the focus is ‘gratitude’ and ‘personal connection with place’ is a vote winner in my book.
But because I accept this positive and affirmative action I need not accept some of the metaphysical constructs that my guest on the show presented.
Ley Lines. Earth Energies and the plausibility of Dowsing being areas which need not go hand in hand with a general support for the Earth Singing activity.
It was interesting to sit back and watch the debate that this interview provoked and so I thought I’d try to encapsulate some idea that allow me, as a Rational Mystic, to hold what may appear to be contradictory views.
So, lets start with Philosophy.
As a discipline this area of academic study can be considered as providing a framework which supports and encourages debate. The framework is built around logic, reasoning and the synthesis of information to extend and explore understanding.
My apologies to any Philosophers ‘out there’ who might feel I’ve oversimplified their specialism. So to make sure I’m at least getting some of this right, lets listen to a philosopher….
Now, Science.
Science is about asking questions, proposing hypotheses, collecting observations, conducting experiments, analysing data and sharing findings - the scientific method. The business of science is to construct meaningful questions which set out to identify the ways in which the cosmos (in it’s broadest sense) works. The derivation of Laws and Theories, upon which further hypotheses can be tested is part and parcel of the process of science.
Again, my apologies to any Scientists ‘out there’ who feel misrepresented.
Science provides a method by which we can explore the world and the cosmos. There is often a by-product to this processes of science which results in technological innovation.
Philosophy provides a vehicle through which findings from scientific explorations, historical reflection and personal introspection can be brought together in broader terms – such as the consideration of morals, ethics and mores.
Both approaches can be mutually supportive. One deals solely with the world of objective reality no matter how abstract that reality can become. The other deals with what the findings and innovations of science mean – their relevance to the past, present and future and what we can call ‘the human condition’.
It is also true to say that both approaches to knowing and understanding are based upon human constructs – i.e. methods, ways of questioning, ways of being.
They are also built around the ability to ‘deconstruct’ ideas and phenomena in order to question the specifics (the variables) whether they be in terms of abstract concepts, physical objects, observations and even the structure of words themselves. Defining ‘terms’ and ‘variables’ is an essential part of the philosophical and scientific debate.
So what of ‘mysticism’?
Well the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics deals with aspects of what we know as mysticism. For me it as about personal, subjective experience that we either seek (or not) to place into our own constructs of how the cosmos works.
The same experience can happen to dozens of people all of whom will interpret it initially according to the way they feel they connect with the world – and this is a good thing.
The challenge comes when we try to share what we have experienced and what we mean by the words we use to describe experience. Now I personally enjoy metaphysical debate and provocation BUT only when the people I debate with can engage is such a personal thing without feeling their beliefs are under attack…
Our personal constructs about the world are just that – personal AND we are connected emotionally to the things we accept as being ‘real. Hence there will of course be some hesitation, or even reluctance, to consider questions which run counter to what we ‘feel to be true’.
The more dogmatic we are in our beliefs the less open we are to real debate. I would go a stage further, however, and suggest that fundamentalism is dogmatism plus fear.
If we are unable to tolerate anothers position is it because we feel threatened by their difference?
If we cannot debate our position is it because we are so insecure in our own beliefs that we cannot bear any question?
If we believe that to question spiritual ‘truths’ is wrong are we in danger of persecuting others for their understandings?
Whether there is or is not a God or are or are not Angels is not really a question for science. Behaviours which result from a belief is of interest to psychologists and sociologists and were there to be ‘physical manifestations’ of spiritual beings then sure, science would be able to ask questions.
Most of the statements and beliefs held by those on a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’path and the experiences often quoted as evidence are by their very nature ‘intangible’ and not easily reducible to things science can measure. This does not mean the experiencing of them is not important or relevant to the individual or shared collective consciousness.
For me it is easy to recognise and value the different ways of interacting with the world; the different kinds of experiences we can have and the questions we can choose to ask (or not).
For me it is easy to recognise and value the limitations of each of the ‘ways of experiencing’. It is great that ‘science does not know everything’ because this allows for questions and development of new ideas as well as the redefinition of old ones.
So back to the title of this essay ..
Scientific Ignorance for me is best demonstrated by those who say things like …
“Science doesn’t know everything you know” – said with a ‘told you so’ patronising edge
“It’s only a Theory” – said as if to reduce the status of scientific theory to a ‘cute idea’.
From so-called scientists,
“Well my ideas is so revolutionary that the scientific community won’t even consider it” – usually from those who have an idea (which they call a Theory) that does not fit with ‘conventional wisdom’…
And, from creationists,
“Well if evolution was a true then why don’t we see monkeys having human babies” – yes this was actually said by a Creationist!
Spiritual Superiority can be summed-up when anyone with a metaphysical or spiritual point to make suggests that ‘the reason you don’t understand is because you’ve not reached the same level as we have….” or any other such hierarchical claim.
For me ….
The Rationalist wants to ask empirical questions about objective reality
The Mystic is happy to ‘talk’ about ideas which are inclusive BUT is more interested in what a personal, subjective experience means to me.
I want to be open to different ways of experiencing, relating to and being with myself in relation to the wonderful cosmos and the potential that we have as people to be more than we are…
I want to think about ‘how I know what I know’ and absorb what I can from the range of teachers, philosophers, scientists, mystics and situations I have been fortunate enough to encounter.
….I’m obviously not sure of what I don’t know and so tentative about the things I do think I know…. of course what I feel is another thing entirely.
So for those of you who like ‘videos’ here are some I found to keep you thinking. Not saying I like the style, or endorse the views – but there’s some food for thought here…
Here’s an interesting idea …
The ‘process’ of critical thinking, of course, insists that the information presented is questioned.
What research, by whom, when, for what reason?
One of the problems facing those of us wanting to explore, for want of a better world, the paranormal is the fact that there is a wealth of information ‘out there’ about ideas which can help frame our debates. Sorting through the information presents a real problem.
Scientists following the scientific method publish their ideas and often ‘provisional’ research. A good scientific paper is self-critical and tentative in its findings. Of course some ‘scientists’, especially those outside of their field, get it wrong and in many way by-pass the scientific method presenting their ‘breakthroughs’ and ‘challenges to established theories’ in a grandiose manner.
The media like the grandiose claims because they make for ‘good copy’ and even when the claims in the original research paper are tentative they can be reported by those who don’t understand the limits of the research or simply ‘mine’ the paper for a sensational headline.
“Scientists are confounded by a new study which ….” is a much more attention grabbing headline than “Some provisional research seems to suggest…”
Of course that leaves the general public in a state of confusion. How many times have you heard someone in the popular media or indeed someone you know say something like …
“What are these scientists doing? They can’t seem to agree…. I mean last month they said red wine was good for you… this month they say its bad … it’s all a load of xxxxxxxx”
Actually the fact that tentative findings may be challenged and new hypotheses arise to be tested is part and parcel of good science. Of course science does eventually reach an informed, researched and firm consensus about what is ‘true’ up to a certain point in time. These are what ‘Theories’ are – ideas about the way something works which have withstood efforts to ‘prove them wrong’ and by their very nature make ‘predictions’ about what could be discovered next.
The Higgs Bosun, for example, isn’t a made-up particle that scientists are looking for, it is something that the current ‘standard model’ predicts will be there IF accepted theories are correct.
The popular press epithet, The God Particle, makes for a much better headline which itself breeds disinformation about science… leading to pseudo-scientific claims and beliefs.
I find it really interesting that the phrase ‘scientists have PROVED’ is more often used by folks promoting an idea which lies at the fringes of science than by the scientists themselves. Proof or Truth are concepts which drive the scientific process but are not generally considered as being statements of absolute certainty.
So when you hear something like ….
“Scientists have proven that energy flows in the body”
You need to be very careful especially when such a statement preceeds the announcement of a ‘new’ approach to health, wealth or well being.
The ‘scientists have proved’ brigade are not averse to cherry picking their science; their scientific findings or misappropriating ideas from one discipline to another. Quantum Theory being a case in point.
AND when they can’t find the science they’ll fall into the trap of saying ”Well, its only a THEORY” …
So whilst the starting point of this diatribe was a report of some ‘interesting’ ideas about the brain chemistry of believers and skeptics (which may be part of an answer) it sparked in me the desire to question how we engage with reports of scientific discoveries especially in a time when anyone can publish, promote and define themselves as an expert.
Alan
Words mean what we agree they mean…
I think most people reading this blog would agree with that statement and perhaps those same people would accept that there are some interesting limitations in our conversations. The need to group ideas together, to create labels, is a part and parcel of the way we use language to share personal experience.
Sometimes it is worth stopping to think about the presuppositions behind some of the comments individuals make in order to explore the beliefs which underpin the statements.
For example if someone says they are a ‘spiritualist medium’ then the presuppositions which underpin that statement are:-
Now all this may be true BUT skeptics would point out that each one of these presuppositions is worthy of critical assessment and hence the over-arching claim of ‘spiritual mediumship’ is not as easy to explore and discuss as would initially be imagined.
Of course, in the case of many spiritualist mediums, the presuppositions listed above are only a small part of the complex metaphysical constructs that are derived from them… the scope and nature of ‘ ‘the world beyond’; the journey of the spirit/soul and the nature of the universe itself.
Again everything they say could be true – but in rational terms many of these ‘constructs’ are non-falsifiable and beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
It interests me that some of those who turn around and call skeptics ‘closed minded’ and ready to label when they fails to see the layers of labels and boxes their own ‘open minded’ approaches create…. and of course we are all trapped within the boxes and labels of the language we use.
Alan
Well folks we’re here…
We’ve made it through Elenin which kinda fizzled out like a damp sparkler and we’re into 2012 and yes change is in the air with the NEW LOOK Rational Mystic Blog….
Ok, so I know January is all but over, however I have been neglecting this blog – mostly because of the work that has been going into Penwith Radio in general and The Real Twilight Zone in particular. I really hope you’re aware of both!
So. to kick things off in this new blog I thought I’d share a couple of skeptical videos – something that I hope will draw comment and provoke discussion.
The first is from Skeptic Michael Shermer
And the second from the magician turned skeptic – James Randi
Enjoy…
Comments welcomed and encouraged…
Words mean what we agree they mean….
I think if there is a consensus agreement about what a word means then those who use the word should know what they mean and/or be open to question or challenge.
Skeptic, Debunker and Cynic are often used inter-changeably with each other by those who often have an agenda which includes responding defensively to challenges of their claims.
Starting with de-bunker, an ugly word I think, but one that applies to any and all who set out to prove another persons claim to be wrong. The default position is one of incredulity; they are frequently closed minded and often lack the critical thinking faculties to effectively mount anything other than an emotional argument based upon rhetoric.
You will find debunkers of every colour and persuasion. From the paranormal naysayers to the New Age Space Cadet Science Denialists.
There have in common fixed thinking; closed minds and an inability to consider evidence contrary to their own narrow perspective. Some self-professed and even ‘trained’ scientists fall into this category as do the spiritual gurus proclaiming that their truth is the ONLY truth.
So Cynics – well their just cynical. Doubtful and distrusting of any opinion, evidence or experience that is not their own. The closed world of some of the conspiracy theorists is where you will often find these folk…,
We must differentiate between pseudo-cynics (those who think it is cool to be in cold towards any creative, spiritual, artistic, touchy-feely, modern science consideration of experience) and those who real-cynics with a sad, pessimistic and closed outlook on life.
The skeptic (or sceptic) who simply asked questions and seeks out a wide range of possible explanations for what they asked to consider as fact or truth. They may have scientific world view in which evidence requires validation or they may have a humanistic/spiritual outlook which recognises the limits to scientific method but still wants to question what they are being told using critical and creative thinking,
Most sceptics will question evidence for and of the paranormal ….
Most sceptics will ask the same questions of scientific evidence ….
Nor all sceptics are atheists; some are deists; some ‘rational mystics’ since they will choose recognise the importance of non-material subjective experiences.
So before you use the word sceptic rather than cynic or de-dunker check yourself and make sure you know what you ARE saying.
Alan
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Yes I admit it – I come clean… I am part of the conspiracy!!!
Well I guess I must be as I seem to be constantly commenting on the numerous conspiracy theories ‘out there’ with what I hope is some kind of rational perspective. You see I refuse to let even my mystical self wallow in unchallenged rhetoric – surely self development and empowerment on all levels is about questioning and discovery?
So what am I rambling about now?
Well the 2012 stuff (which I have written and podcasted about before) is still ensnaring people in a web of misinformation leading to panic. I read on one website that NASA were even fending questions like ‘should I kill my children now to save them the pain of the devastation to be wrought by 2012′?
I guess if the emotional damage was caused by the plot of the movie 2012 the maybe BUT if the concern is one of death from the skies, global earthquakes and world wide tsunami then….. perhaps not.
The latest bit of hysteria seems to be generated by Comet Elenin which is due to ‘come close’ on October 16th – so close to Samhain (Halloween) yet a couple of month before 2012!
There are SO many questions and that bastion of academic learning and scientific enquiry YOUTUBE is full of the information you need to know but that scientists are keeping secret!!!
Well actually all of the answers are out there – nope not ‘out there’ but on the world-wide-web – if you want to look outside of your conspiratorial bunkers.
Information Point 1:
Russian astronomer Leonid Elenin discovered the innocuous little comet on Dec. 10, 2010, at International Scientific Optical Network’s robotic observatory near Mayhill, New Mexico.
Presently the comet is a faint smudge of light in deep sky exposures. By late August comet Elenin should be visible to the naked eye as a dim “fuzzy star” with a tail. Over a few weeks the visitor will speed across the spring constellation Virgo and toward Leo on its outbound leg.
I can’t find the specific reference for the origin of this ‘plot’ of the path of Elenin – but it does seem to fit the general consensus. It shows the closest ‘pass’ at .23 AU – an AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun (that’s around 93 million miles).
But I have seen this video and on some sites it is attributed to NASA - together with this claim…
“NASA’s put a video up in their Buzzroom about Elenin, but it is not there anymore [it is on YouTube]. It was probably pulled down more due to its amateur nature rather than as part of any grand conspiracy theory, but the relative silence by NASA and the mainstream media regarding Elenin has the Armageddon chatrooms abuzz with theories of doom and gloom.”
A NASA Video - ummm …. I somehow think not!
Information Point 2:
As I write now the Comet is at least as far away from Earth than the Sun is – that’s 93 million miles or so Also, it is important to know that Comet Elenin is a loose agglomeration of volatile ices and dust a few miles across. It is therefore one hundred billionth the mass of our moon. (The relative difference is roughly the same as the mass of a mosquito vs. the mass of an oil supertanker.).
So any of the claims that this comet has ‘already’ caused global shifts, earthquakes, tsuman’s and triggered polar shifts is nonsense.
Information Point 3:
Current published NASA and other Astronmical Association sources confirm that the comet will pass no closer to us than 84 times the Earth-moon distance. Comet Elenin will sweep nearest to Earth on Oct. 16 at a distance of 21 million miles and be moving fast enough to travel the distance from Earth to the moon in under five hours!
Not close enough for an object if it’s size to have any major gravitational effect upon the Earth – certainly nothing of the scale suggested by the 2012 doomsayers. Besides applying Isaac Newton’s laws of gravity, this means the comet’s tidal pull on Earth — at closest approach — will be approximately one-hundred trillionth the force of the moon’s tidal pull on Earth.
Information Point 4:
Comets and Planets don’t get on!.
This is an interesting comment from a real astronmers website – you know the folks that look at the sky, study it and have some kind of expertise in the workings of the solar system.
“What’s more, comets get the worst end of the deal when they venture near larger bodies — just like that mosquito slamming into the supertanker
Some comets dive-bomb the sun routinely. What happens? They disintegrate into pieces.
The same held true for comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 that was ripped apart by tidal forces when it ventured too close to Jupiter. When the comet pieces plunged into Jupiter in 1994, the planet simply belched a few mushroom clouds from titanic impact explosions.
On May 11, 1983 comet IRAS-Araki-Alcock swept within 3 million miles of Earth –- one of the closest comet approaches in modern times. The visitor looked as big as the full moon and sped across a wide swath of sky in just a few days.
That same day saw an explosion of protests in Santiago, Chile against the decade-long rule of General Augusto Pinochet. Unless you’re an astrologer, the comet’s influence was not to blame.
The closest ever-recoded flyby of Earth was comet Lexell in 1770, which passed at 1.4 million miles. On Jan. 26th that year a magnitude 9 earthquake took place off the west coast of the North America.
Similarly, many coincidences will happen this year that people will want to blame on comet Elenin.
The most bizarre link is that the comet’s closest approach to the sun happens on the 10th anniversary of the combined terrorist attacks on the U.S. “Is it a coincidence that Elenin could be seen as “Elevennine” (9/11 backwards)?” asks one conspiracy website.
In the cosmic scheme of things, comet Elenin is simply a nice target for backyard sky watchers to follow. But Earth as a planet isn’t phased at all.”
But does this satisfy the conspiracy buffs???
Clearly not… this was taken from a comment on a YouTube video…
“E.L.E.N.I.N. = Extinction Level Event Niburu Inbound Now. ELE pronounced like ellie, means extinction? level event. “Leonids” are meteors associated with a comet. So there’s your Leonid Elenin. Someone pointed that out to me and I see the connection, pretty clever code name.”
Ummm …. how about this one then …. P.R.A.T. – Poorly Reasoned Asinine Thinking
I mean all this fuss over a Comet – I wonder why there’s not as much conspiratorial humbug and posturing about Vesta!
Vesta is much bigger than Elenin and so much bigger…. V.E.S.T.A is of course a VERY EXCITABLE TERRESTRIAL ANNIHILATOR …..
Vesta is 530 kilometers (330 miles) in diameter and the second most massive object in the asteroid belt and on n July 16 the asteroid will about 188 million kilometers (117 million miles) from Earth.(source NASA/JPL)
But still the Rapture is upon us and Elenin the messenger of doom…
“Scripture tells us God will use asteroids &/or comets chunks of the rebellious angels’ planet in future judgment.An impact originating in outer space will likely B the climax of the Gog / Magog War Rebel angels were judged with a blast of giant stones from Rahab destroying the civilization at Cydonia that once gave glory 2 God. According to Mosaic law stoning was the prescribed means of execution for those guilty of? idolatry, apostasy, blasphemy, divination, adultery, juvenile rebellion”-
Information Point 5:
There are claims that NASA has taken down references and projections re the comet adding to conspiracy speculations. Well as of right now I can say that the information is there….
Information Point 6:
It’s not the comet it’s the tail !!!
Apparently the real risk comes from the gaseous tail of the comet. OK, so the comets tail is said to be around 900,000km in length and if you believe at least one internet source … has a fleet of UFO’s hidiing within it but is this a cause for concern?
The science of comets is well document and since the tail of a comet is largely ionised gas (not rocks and moons and dare I say flying saucers) it has been suggested that the “entire tail of a typical comet, at Earthly pressures and temperatures, would fit into a good-sized briefcase.”
If I am being correct then a comet of course has two tails – one of gas and one of ‘dust’. The latter if coming close the atmosphere of a planet will simply burn up and may well result in a nice meteor shower.
Now here’s the thing – all of the diagrams you will see on YouTube about the approach of Elenin are oversimplified – they have to be. More importantly they are TWO-DIMENSIONAL so the relative positions (and implied closeness) of the comet and the Earth is not shown clearly. My point …. well again I defer to an experience astronomer…
“The comet actually passes above our orbit, missing Earth in the vertical direction by some 2.4 million miles. The chance for an impact is zero. Even stray meteors are extremely unlikely. We’re close but not that close. Keep this in mind too – comet tails point away from the sun. When Elenin and Earth are closest, its tail will be directed back and away from us…”
I think the point is that there are plenty of things to distract us from the real issues and challenges for our survival, If some of the creative energy put into the more outlandish of the conspiracy theories was put into solving global problems of war, hunger, poverty then perhaps the human race would be free to evolve. Again, the conspiracy advocates would have us believe that these issues are actually the consequence of other agencies – P2, NWO, Reptilians and the such – and folks like me are just the defenders of some secretive regime.
A question …
Do these harbingers of doom and prophets of ‘the real truth’ offer solutions for the ills of which they speak outside of promoting their next book, their next conference, their next lecture tour. Conspiracy Theory is its own industry – perhaps funded by the same folk who the advocates claim are in charge of information…. they’re all in it together distracting us from achieving real empowerment of the human race!
Heck so what if the Elenin (Extinction Level Event) folk are right? Perhaps the world governments wouldn’t tell us; perhaps they would make secret plans…. perhaps ….
Perhaps then I should stop wasting my time on my personal learning journey and just enjoy the sun; the sea; the world and the nice things in my life before the cosmic death that is …..
So at the risk of being accused of being a government ‘patsy’ can I suggest you have a look at the NASA site where I for one think that there is more than a little expertise in things astronomical….NASA
Here’s another useful website DEEP ASTRONOMY
From the ‘horses mouth’ perhaps – SPACE OBS
Alan
Over the last few months I have come to the conclusion that my rational, skeptical self is far more open to change and challenge than many of those who have self-declared ‘open minded’ spiritual and mystical views.
I guess that this should not be that much of a suprise really as the whole basis of skepticism and scientifc inquiry is about “questioning”, “challenging” and mot merely “accepting” because we are told that ‘that is the case’!
My recent Educational Blog, about the problem of ‘teaching facts’ was driven by the need to promote healthy debate and rounded discussions of ideas. The Real Twilight Zone aims to open a weekly debate of the ‘unusual’ and of course Haunted Cornwall FM presents yet another space for discussion. However it does seem to me that ‘believers’ are perhaps more ‘closed’ than ‘skeptics’ with attitudes, values and beliefs that are often preseted as being ‘beyond question’.
In a recent Psyhology Journal (Current Psychology) there is an article by Jesse M. Crosby, Scott C. Bates and Michael P. Twohig entitled “Examination of the Relationship between Perfectionism and Religiosity as Mediated by Psychological Inflexibility” (Current Psychology)
In essence there seems to be a link between psychological inflexibility and resistance to change and, what could be called, adherence to strict religious systems, the need for perfection (and hence procrastination) and the ability to challenge beliefs.
Now I know that Psychology has been defined as “the science of telling you things you already know using words you don’t understand” (unknown source) – and so the common sense nature of the points being made are obvious.
However… and here is the question for you to consider – how open are you to the idea of change, the possibility that what you believe is the result of dogma or cultural indoctrination, the need to really consider your own opinions from different perspectives?
Alan
Let’s talk Rationally for a moment. Why is it that some of the promoters of 2012 Doomsday Events are still getting away with promoting spurious conclusions from poorly researched souces?
For background please look at my earlier posts…
Armageddin It & 2012 And All That Jazz
Now, let’s dismiss from this discussinon, any talk of ‘spiritual transformations’ which may or may not occur in 2012, but keep focussed on those claims which can be verified…. this means the scientific claims.
As far as I can determine the key claims about the 2012 doomsday event are:-
The Mayans
Comment:
The calendar ‘runs’ out so what?
The truth is that there are Mayan inscriptions with ‘predicted dates’ well beyond 2012 – proponents of the 2012 end really need to check their archaeology.
Yes they were ‘advanced’ and of course we shouldn’t underestimate their achievements BUT are you willing to accept these kind of comments….
Comments:
Taking the last one first. Any one who has studied Geography to even an elementary level will be familiar with the idea of Plate Tectonics. What such people may also know was that this idea was also linked, or grew out of, the concept of Continental Drift – initially an observation about how certain coastlines seemed to ‘fit together’ like pieces of a large jigsaw. (Look at South America and Africa for example).
Current thinking is that the earths crust is divided into a number of relatively internally stable “plates” are blocks of earth crust. Most of the volcanism and earthquakes of any major significance occur at the boundaries of these plates. Some ‘plates’ are moving away from each other and new crust is being created on the ocean floor. Some ‘plates’ are moving together so that crust is being destroyed at these boundaries. Hence the continents, which are on some of the plates, are part of some slow, “dynamic dance” around the surface of the Earth (apologies for the flowery, poetic metaphor).
Studies of the sea-floor show a history of the Earths magnetic poles – and yes there have been regular, in geological terms, magnetic reverals – the poles shift. This is largelt due to the internal geology of the Earth; the way it acts like a ‘self-exciting dynamo; and the physics of rotating masses.
However, no matter how much I write on this topic you could say that as I am not a planetary scientist what do I know? (Well my BSc is actually in Geology and Earh Science – but of course I’m not published in that field)
However people seem to be willing to accept information from far less informed sources….
For example:-
Please note the ‘tone’ of the above passage – does it present a considered, reflective argument.
Perhaps the following is less….. emotional…
Scientists have a theory that is quite similar to the Mayan prophecies of the planets alignment. This theory is called pole shifting, in which the position of the north and south pole change, which could cause world wide disaster, massive tsunamis could wipe out coastal cities, hurricanes on every continent, it would be major catastrophe, unlikely as it seems a Princeton University study suggest the poles have shifted before and that the north pole was in the middle of the pacific, which would put Alaska at the equator
Well the mention of Princeton University makes the whole thing seem credible, execpt it’s clear that the ‘scientific evidence’ points at polar shifs (which has mentioned above are well documented) and should not in anyway be seen to give credence to the rest of the diatribe..
Let’s look at what planetary scientists do say on these issues (the following comes from NASA)..
And, to quote from two other sources…
I am happy to include the references for all of the quotes in this blog – it would be reflect upon how often that happens in the doomsayer blogs….
In the words of my colleague Oberon Zell Ravenheart “this is really nasty”
It doesn’t matter what your particular brand of spirituality is (and yes The Rational Mystic does have a spiritual side !) any form fanaticism is distasteful and why Harvard University are giving their name to such vitriolic rhetoric is beyond me…
This is Christian Supremacy and really belongs back in the Dark Ages…. I mean all religious/spiritual meovements can become ‘retard
ed’ in their thinking …
If you feel like telling Harvard, a supposed institute of ‘learning’ how you feel then here’s the addresss…
deansoff@hsph.harvard.edu
Here’s the email I have sent for your information..
“Esteemed Dean
Around the world Harvard University is respected as one of the leading educational institutions in the world.
It is with some concern, therefore, that I have noted your intention to host, and by association condone, the extreme views of the speakers at an event on April 1st and 2nd (would this were some kind of April Fool jape!).
Whilst no thinking person in the world would want to limit “free speech” and the rights defined by your countries First Ammendment, it surely must be recognied there is a difference between encouraging and support free speech and debate and promoting religious intolerance. Would any other supremacist group be offered the same opportunity to promote an apparently unchallenged agenda which in and of itself was so alien to the UN Declaration of Human Rights?
Honest debate, critical thinking and intellectual challenge form a cornerstone of learning and education. Emotional biassed ‘fear mongering’ and ‘hate campaigns’ belong to the “Dark Ages”.
It has been somewhat of a trend that during times of social uncertainty people have turned more vociferously to alternative or more extreme spiritualist views. In some cases this has led to a search for a ‘scapegoat’ in both a metaphorical and ‘old world’ literal senses of the word. It must be noted that the anti-witchcraft rheotoric (a religion by the way, even if ‘new’ in it’s so called Wiccan guise, and hence covered by world wide agreements related to spiritual and personal freedom)sounds like a call to ‘blame’ others for the ills of society; to reclaim an attitude that is seen in the castigation of ‘out groups’ upon which all responsibility can be placed.
A key issue and feature of all extremist and fundamentalist groups is the degree to which anti-intellectualism and ingtellectual dishonesty is alloewed to flourish unchallenged. Surely on these grounds alone Harvard has an opinion?
Metaphysical and Philosophical debates about beliefs and attitudes, in an honest academic sense is one thing – indeed something to be encouraged and respected. However the promotion of anti-humanitarian behaviours because of those same beliefs and attitudes cannot go unchallenged.
I thank you for your time in reading this email, and would be interested to hear “how” and “if” a respected institition like yours will seek to present some kind of balance in this debate.
Sincerely
So, there we go….
Where do you stand?
Alan
Ron Pearson is my guest on The Real Twilight Zone (22nd March) when he will be talking about how Physics proves God.
The key question is that is this more Sloppy Science and Mushy Mysticism or is there something more here?
The bulk of the material for this show, the downloads and references will be on The Real Twilight Zone, but Ron’s files were uploaded here. Please respect the copyright on this material (Ron Pearson 2011) and visit TRTZ for more information; to listen live; download the post-show podcast and follow-up notes.
The Real Twilight Zone