Hindering progress: The Church of the west now the Scientific establishment

[Antonio Alejandro]

The Skeptic Community, particularly the material skeptic, seem to point out that the Churches of europe hindered scientific progress and the truth about reality. Today when one reflects on what happened in the last century, the same can be said about the scientific estblishment.
The material skeptic community believes that all that the scientific establishment demands is evidence, but reflecting on the previous events of the last century, nothing could be further from the truth.
Had the idea of a heavier than air machine not been as evident as it is. it would have probably vanish into oblivion. Two major figures in the scientific establishment, Real Admiral George Melville and Simon Newcomb wrote seperate papers denouncing the possiblity of heavier than air machine flight. Even the Scientific American joined in and called them a fraud simply because no one of stature in the scientific community came forward and anounce the validity of what they were doing. It took a presidential query to sort out the truth. This occurred time and time again. The telephone, the turbine, and even the personal computer. I just saw a movie about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. When Worzniak went to see HP about his personal computer, they supposedly remark: "What would anyone want a computer at home"?
I honestly believe that the material skeptic community are kind of a paradigm police which would only make matters worse. Case in point was Randy's remark about cold fusion.

[epepke]

If you're looking for a fight or looking to persuade, you're going to have to come up with something a bit more coherent and detailed than that. Try writing a paragraph about each point. As it is, I don't know what remark of Randi's you're referring to, and I don't know why anyone should care about the obscure names you mentioned.

[Upchurch]

what epepke said, but also

What does materialism got to do with it? Perhaps the critics of heavier than air flight were materialists (I don't know), but do you know if the proponents of it were immaterialists? Most scientists tend to be materialists. If they are hampering their own work, how has anything been accomplished?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...Two major figures in the scientific establishment, Real Admiral George Melville and Simon Newcomb wrote seperate papers denouncing the possiblity of heavier than air machine flight...

It is true; major figures in the scientific establishment sometimes -- often in fact -- make scientifically untenable statements.

You have identified exactly why scientific theories tend not to mention "major figures in the establishment", but instead rely on things like evidence and mathematics for their support.

I can think of a few reasons why the metaphor of the "scientific establishment" as a church is not valid, but the main one is that in science, the naysayers generally shut up when the fact is demonstrated. Most churches of religion, specifically those that have hindered the human endeavor, continue to argue after the argument should be over.

(Edited to remove something that I'd C&P'd accidentally)

In defense of the much maligned church of the scientific establishment, I should point out that in the last century these guys repeatedly faced major threats to their accumulated wisdom, and these were greeted with enthusiasm rather than suppression.

...It took a presidential query to sort out the truth.
...

Huh? No, it took 12 seconds of flight to sort out the truth.

...I honestly believe that the material skeptic community are kind of a paradigm police which would only make matters worse. Case in point was Randy's remark about cold fusion...

I'll send you $50 right now if Randi said that cold fusion is impossible.

[Agammamon]

And, to be blunt, so what if he did? Many of the luminaries of science have and continue to take positions on areas outside of their specialties. Dr. Spock saying Einstein was right lends no more weight to relativity. Randi saying cold fusion is not possible doesn't detract one iota from the evidence (or lack of it in this case). Now if randi comes out and say I see dead people, then you can bet I'll sit up and take notice.

Of course that's not to say that scientists (especially established ones) don't occasionally try to block undesirable research, usually for reasons of pride or higher priorities. That happens in almost all human endeavors but less often in research than elsewhere (most definately less often that in the church) and science has a built in mechanism to get around those blocks. Unlike the church which is set up specifically to bolster dogma.

[Keneke]

Also, let me add that science needs and promotes resistance to new experiments be repeatable, this trial by fire hardens and shapes scientific discoveries into the most solid thing we will ever have. Anything less solid would never have gotten us into space, or prolonged our lifespans, or created the computer in front of you.

It's like exercise. No pain, no gain.

[T'ai Chi]

I always hear that the Churches, back in the day mostly, hindered scientific progress. However, I am not entirely convinced that it was as simple as science vs. church, but rather Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.
The only things that are evil that directly involve science, in my book, are scientism, peoples' stupid decisions about potentially dangerous technology, such as atom bombs, guns, drugs with side-effects that are unknown but currently approved, etc.

[Dancing David]

Cart: horse, horse :cart

Um much money was spent trying to verify cold fusion. It was not buried by sceptics, it was buried by the fact that it could not be rep[licated.

this is up there with atheism is a religion, AA have you ever read about the istory of particle physics? It would refute your example from one end to the other. You are trying to compare turn of the century bombast to new century science. You will have to make a convincing case, did you know that they do publish researchers who disagree with the current paradigm? Try looking up variable speed of light on Google!

[Ladewig]

I always hear that the Churches, back in the day mostly, hindered scientific progress. However, I am not entirely convinced that it was as simple as science vs. church, but rather Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.

No, T'ai Chi, it was not Copernican science vs. Aristotelian science because if it were, then the Roman Catholic Church ("the Aristotelians") would not have had the power to sentence Galileo to permanent house arrest (or sentence him to death).

text of charges against Galileo (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html)
[snip] The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures. [snip]

They weren't saying Aristotle was right, they were saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God; or more precisely, the Pope's interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. The RCC was not following the Aristotelian model of the universe until 1983(!) when it reversed its decision against Galileo.

_____________
Other instances of the church hindering scientific progress include successful lobbying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in the U.S. (early 1920s), unsuccessful lobbying to include Intelligent Design in science classes, and outlawing the dissecting human cadavers (which the Inquisition ruled to be punishable by death as late as the 1560s).

[T'ai Chi]

Ok, thanks for the corrections Ladewig.

[Ladewig]

Ok, thanks for the corrections Ladewig.


Although others suspect that it is your goal to rile other posters, I do not think that is your motivation. On the other hand, you sure did rile me. I was expecting a long fight, but you took the wind out of my sails.

[homunculus]

The situation is really very simple. The truth is hard to come by, and we can never KNOW (with anything like Absolute Certainty) that we have it. Man will always make mistakes - both individually and collectively - in every field of endeavor. What the religionists, irrationalists, Luddites, and other anti-scientific ideologues consistantly fail to appreciate, is that we make progress in science because we admit this, and because we are prepared to learn from our mistakes.

There is no shame in being WRONG. Science proceeds by recognising and accounting for error; its theories are testable (were they not, they would have no empirical content) and are constantly being tested, so they can be improved or replaced, in light of new evidence, new problems, and new solutions.

If you can suggest a better method of investigating our world, please do outline it here, so that we can all learn from it.

Paul.

[Dragon]

Antonio,

I see your homepage (http://emptyforce.com/) is about a martial art called Lin Kong Jing or "Empty Force" and on the front page it says... The Lin Kong Jing practitioner has the ability to move an individual, without physical contact but by mere projection of their internal energy. ...
Well, if you can really do that, under controlled conditions, you would cause quite a stir in the materialist scieptic community; rubbing their noses in it would be putting it mildly!
You could also win $1,000,000 from the JREF! You can read how to apply here (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).
How about it? Shatter the materialist paradigm and win $1,000,000?
You can do what you claim, can't you?

[Antonio Alejandro]

The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. Evidence is not the issue, so why are there post here about evidence? The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place. There is clearly something else happening that is beyond healthy skepticsm.
In the last century, nearly every major invention, was redicule, shun, trivilized by skeptics in the scientific establishment. Even after evidence was presented. Had the evidence not been so overwhelming, they would have vanished into oblivion.
What, then, happens to evidence that are more subtle? That relies on statistics but are not of the present paradigm?
Just recently I read an account of a doctor by the name of Scwartz who was demonstrating, what he call "directed neural plasticity". The doctor remarks how he was told by some director that, those experiments were not "real" science.
A few years back I was making a graphic presentation about the work of John Lorber. When I mentioned that there are people today that function normally in public, but are missing 6/7 of their brain, some people in the audience got hot under their collar, one shouted-out "Pseudoscience". yet others said that I was not qualified to interpret the autopsies, or the scans.
Perhaps, what needs to happen is that the material skeptic scientist needs to just create their own branch of science, much like the christian creationist created their own.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. Evidence is not the issue, so why are there post here about evidence? The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place. There is clearly something else happening that is beyond healthy skepticsm.
You have not demonstrated this.
In the last century, nearly every major invention, was redicule, shun, trivilized by skeptics in the scientific establishment. Even after evidence was presented. Had the evidence not been so overwhelming, they would have vanished into oblivion.You have this totally the wrong way round. It is precisely because of the accumulated evidence that theories are accepted. If they evidence is not forthcoming the theory is not accepted. In any case, as before, you are making an unsupported assertion that "nearly every major invention was redicule (sic)".
What, then, happens to evidence that are more subtle? That relies on statistics but are not of the present paradigm?
Just recently I read an account of a doctor by the name of Scwartz who was demonstrating, what he call "directed neural plasticity". The doctor remarks how he was told by some director that, those experiments were not "real" science.If you mean Gary Schwartz then the director was correct.
A few years back I was making a graphic presentation about the work of John Lorber. When I mentioned that there are people today that function normally in public, but are missing 6/7 of their brain, some people in the audience got hot under their collar, one shouted-out "Pseudoscience". yet others said that I was not qualified to interpret the autopsies, or the scans.Are you qualified?
Perhaps, what needs to happen is that the material skeptic scientist needs to just create their own branch of science, much like the christian creationist created their own. They have, except its 99.9% of the whole bloody tree!

So, Antonio - will you show all those "material skeptic" scientists where they're going wrong and win the £1,000,000?

[Antonio Alejandro]

Sure I demonstrated this. Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand? The part about the flying metal, wood and cloth. What are you talking about?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Sure I demonstrated this. Five years of flying a big hunk of metal, wood and cloth and still being called a fraud by the skeptics...what part of this dont you understand? You said it; you did not demonstrate it. Yours will be a arduous education. Show evidence that "science" called the Wright Bros frauds, that they were told it couldn't be done. Don't tell me you heard it some where. Don't tell me it's common knowledge. Show the evidence. BTW, I don't doubt that some people thought it couldn't be done, but so what? Does that prove that science is flawed? Nope, scientists are wrong every day. The beauty of it is that they can be proved wrong. This doesn't apply in religion or in superstitious belief systems.

Kudos, though, to the Wright Bros as innovators -- let's not sell them short as scientists. They invented the wind tunnel, and used it in being among the first to take a scientific approach to the problems of aerodynamics.

But once again, Antonio, the only thing that mattered in the end, was their results. They flew, and it was irrefutable -- and reproducible, by themselves and by independent experimenters.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The part about the flying metal, wood and cloth. What are you talking about?

He must be talking about the US government's first flying saucer.

[Antonio Alejandro]

1)Five years of testimonies, affidavits, photos. Flying in an open field between a highway and the local train tracks.
2) Two major scientist from prominent establishments published articles about the imposibility and absurdity of heavier than air flight: one in the The Independent and the other in the North American Review. The infamous Scientific American article which called the Wright Brothers a fraud.
No matter how you attempt to color this, it is rather obvious that in five years, the scientific establishment did not even bother to look at the evidence.

Paradigms are really hard to overcome. Just look at this letter by Randi.
Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM

Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

Signed, James Randi.
(A hard-copy of this letter will be sent by post to you, today.)

James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.)
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815

[Dancing David]

AA:
Ahem,
you are discussing science at the turn of the century.
have you studied the history of particle physics and quantum mechanics, if you do you will find that there was a shift in the method from babmbast to speculation.

have you reasearched the fact that there are reputable people who do disagree with the current paradigm?(Google: on variable speed of light)

You are arguing about the way science was, science is a current process as well.

Hmph!

More ostrichs here (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2003-03/msg0049706.html)

Oh look a wombat (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1475-7516/2003/07/004)

Although it is easier to find a variable speed strobe light or a variable speed saw with a light.

Do you want me to bore you with the details of particle physics and quantum mechanics.
(Rutherford and Bohr: good friends, Fermi and Pauli, much less the very unpopular Murray Gell-Mann)

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Two major scientist from prominent establishments published articles about the imposibility and absurdity of heavier than air flight
Yeah, and they had the wrong head on a Brontosaur fossil in the Carnegie Museum until some bright palenotologist corrected the error. The opinions of two unamed "major" scientists do not constitute the entire body of scientific research and knowledge. No one is incapable of error except Ed.

By the way, how would you construct or present the claim that someone could survive on water alone for six years so that the claim would be falsifiable? I have no idea how you could test this claim without direct unwavering observation of the claimant for the entire life of the experiment or until the nut expires from malnutrition.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
.Had the idea of a heavier than air machine not been as evident as it is. it would have probably vanish into oblivion.
Had the idea not been as evident as it was, it should have vanished into oblivion.

What part of that did you not understand?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...

Paradigms are really hard to overcome.
...
Indeed, and so they should be.

But you can do it Antonio!

Just demonstrate the amazing power you describe on your website (http://emptyforce.com/)!

[Antonio Alejandro]

The training for emptyforce is not that easy and the people that do this type of training are few and far between. It entails more than three hours a day, 365 days a year, minimize sex, etc.
Additionally:
Due to the fact that humans are not machines are therefore not one hundred percent efficient one hundred percent of the time, then it would be a statistical issue. Yes it would be interesting if Robert Jahn, took an interest and validated emptyforce statistically.
No I would not be interested in randy's method of discovery. I dont suggest it to anyone who practices emptyforce. Anyone can design a bad test:
Reference sTARBABY

http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html

Also dont mistake Emptyforce for a martian death ray laser beam.

Also let me add that i know emptyforce to be factual. I am not waiting for anyone to validate emptyforce for me, I have the ability to discern this for myself. I dont have a guru, that thinks for me and tells me what is and what is not. I fully trust my own reasoning and discerning abilities.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The training for emptyforce is not that easy and the people that do this type of training are few and far between. It entails more than three hours a day, 365 days a year, minimize sex, etc.
Additionally:
Due to the fact that humans are not machines are therefore not one hundred percent efficient one hundred percent of the time, then it would be a statistical issue. Yes it would be interesting if Robert Jahn, took an interest and validated emptyforce statistically.
No I would not be interested in randy's method of discovery. I dont suggest it to anyone who practices emptyforce. Anyone can design a bad test:
Reference sTARBABY

http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.html

Also dont mistake Emptyforce for a martian death ray laser beam.

Also let me add that i know emptyforce to be factual. I am not waiting for anyone to validate emptyforce for me, I have the ability to discern this for myself. I dont have a guru, that thinks for me and tells me what is and what is not. I fully trust my own reasoning and discerning abilities.
Antonio, read this link to the $1,000,000 challenge (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.
It doesn't matter what you, I, Randi, gurus or "material scientists" think about it. All that matters is that the applicant can do what they claim they can do. Do you think a practitioner of Emptyforce could manage to "move an individual without physical contact", say, 50% of the time? I expect that would be enough. In any case the level of performance which constituted a success would be agreed beforehand.

Why not give it a go? What better way to make your point about how the sceptical scientific establishment hinders progress?

(Edited for typos)

[Antonio Alejandro]

There was a time that I naively discuss this challenge, now I see it as the good article for the Weekly News and World Report. I know about it and the politics involve.
However, you can keep dreaming that it will reveal some truth to you. If you need others to think for you so be it, just dont involve me. Also would you believe Randy over Robert Jahn? Robert Jahn is a stronger possibility.

BTW this discussion regarding the 1 mil test is not the worth the phosphors is printed on.

[Dancing David]

Bump



I believe that while there are structural constraints that may limit the flow of new ideas. Science itself does open and accept new ideas when they are offered. It is not as though Alan Guth was laughed at for presenting inflationary theory, if you look at the search for dark matter, it shows that some pretty whacked out ideas are considered at the time.

I fail to see how modern science is impeded by the bombast you mention concerning the Wright brothers, science has under gone a shift.

But shifts are based upon observable actions and behaviors, that is why cold fusion failed. Because it could not be replicated.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I fail to see how modern science is impeded by the bombast you mention concerning the Wright brothers, science has under gone a shift.

I'm surprised you've accepted these claims. The record of articles from the period is actually quite clear. Science accepted the idea of heavier-than-air flight. Claims to the contrary are bogus. The skepticism expressed was two-fold: do we have the technology to pull it off and have the Wrights actually done it.

early aviation publications (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/library/timeline.html)

A quick perusal of that website will provide a refutation of Alejandro's claims.

Cheers,

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
There was a time that I naively discuss this challenge, now I see it as the good article for the Weekly News and World Report. I know about it and the politics involve.
I'm sorry, Antonio, I don't know what you're on about here. Perhaps you could explain further.

However, you can keep dreaming that it will reveal some truth to you. If you need others to think for you so be it, just dont involve me.
I am not dreaming, just asking questions about a paranormal claim you make on your website. Please don't lecture me on thinking for myself, I make no such jibe against you.

Also would you believe Randy over Robert Jahn? Robert Jahn is a stronger possibility.
Why do you think so? - if you were talking about aeronautics, I'd agree. On paranormal matters my money's on Randi. Anyway, what has Jahn got to do with Emptyforce?(I could go on about a false appeal to authority, but one thing at a time...)

BTW this discussion regarding the 1 mil test is not the worth the phosphors is printed on.
Why? The beauty of the challenge is its simplicity. Theories, hypotheses and beliefs are not important, all that matters is that applicants can perform as advertised, in a test they agree on and help design. The claim that Emptyforce practitioners can physically move people without touching them would, I think, be quite straighforward to test. If you have issues with Randi then consider this - forget the $1m - if you could conclusively demonstrate the claim you make for Emptyforce you will have shown that there is a force presently unknown to science. You would deservedly win the Nobel Prize for Physics, and you'd probably shift the so-called materialist paradigm for good.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The example I provided about the wright brothers, shows specifically that evidence was not the issue. (snip) The issue is personal preferences to a particular paradigm, and ultimately the direction which research takes place. Two things here:

1. Evidence was the issue with powered, heavier-than-air flight. Many scientists over the years (even Leonardo da Vinci) had some ideas as to how to get flight to work. The problem was that the ideas lagged behind the technology, and it happened to take until 100 years ago for everything to come together. Before we had airfoils capable of producing the lift, and engines that were light enough and provided enough thrust, flight was a scientific impossibility. Remember that science requires observable proof. Early flight idealists lacked the evidence (an engine, an airfoil, control mechanisms) to prove flight plausible.

2. True, personal preferences sometimes taint the direction that research takes. Scientists are human, too. However, the beauty of the scientific process is that there are a lot of people exploring lots of different research directions, so a handful of bad scientists don't ruin it for the rest of us. The same cannot be said for a non-negotiable religious dogma, which was also written by flawed people, but is not subject to the same rigorous testing and peer review.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I'm surprised you've accepted these claims. The record of articles from the period is actually quite clear. Science accepted the idea of heavier-than-air flight. Claims to the contrary are bogus. The skepticism expressed was two-fold: do we have the technology to pull it off and have the Wrights actually done it.

early aviation publications (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/library/timeline.html)

A quick perusal of that website will provide a refutation of Alejandro's claims.

Cheers,

Thank You Bill, I was trying to characterise AA's comments, for there are voices of bombast who decry every change, I feel that the history of modern science is a little different than when anatomy was outlawed. For there there was a system which prevented inquiry.

Which is the point I tried to make, some may be unhappy with the method of inquiry.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Commander Cool

........snip............

The same cannot be said for a non-negotiable religious dogma, which was also written by flawed people, but is not subject to the same rigorous testing and peer review.

Someone reminded us recently that with religion, it is pretty much against the rules to ask questions..

It took almost 2,000 years for the Catholic laity to get a look at the Bible, I think it's only fair to give us a while longer to realize the full implications of this...

[Antonio Alejandro]

If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this:

If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this:

If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face -- even if he has to scale a fifteen-storey skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago?"
Antonio,

This editorial appeared two months (not "years") after the reported flights. It expresses incredulity that three flights occurred with nobody noticing. It does not express incredulity that flight is possible.

Full editorial (http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html)

Cheers,

[Samus]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
If evidence was not the issue why two years after the Wright Brothers had flown, did The January 1905 Scientific American wrote this: BillHoyt has this pretty well covered, I just wanted to add that the Wright brothers did a lot of their work in secret. Their historic first flight on 17 Dec 1903 was not a public show. So again, we have a case where lack of evidence was the issue for the skeptical scientific community.

After actually completing the first flight, the Wrights did more to hinder aviation than they did to further it, but that is another story for another day.

[sackett]

Poor old Langley came -that- close to beating the Wright bros into the air. Hiram Maxim flew a multi-ton aircraft as early as 1894 and scared himself out of further experiments after a lulu of a crash. Various claims for pre-Wright flight have been around since Stringfellow. No sooner than the brothers made it into the air than others were doing it.

The Wrights were still experimenting with gliders in 1905; no wonder if a few people were then and still remain a tad skeptical about their earliest claims.

But I think Antonio should give us something a little more cogent to bolster his argument.

And also knock somebody down without touching them. I realize that cutting back on sex is a lot to ask -- but for a million gazoolahs!

[Antonio Alejandro]

You have not presented a case as to why the Scientific Establishment did not acknowledge the Wright Brothers for five years despite affidavits from respectable people, photos, testimonials.
Certainly there were publications, as much as there are publications about cold fusion today...however that does not mean that the majority of the establishment saw heavier than air flight feasible with present technology.
Remember Simon Newcomb, was professor at John Hopkins University and the second scientist to have ever been awarded at the French Academie of Sciences ( The first being Ben Flanklin). Also another notable was Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy who wrote that anyone who talked about flying to the public was misleading them and that attempting to fly was absurd.
Okay, think again...
Did the Wright produce evidence for five years? Why was it neglected?

[Dragon]

Trying to reverse the burden of proof won't wash here, Antonio.
You have raised the issue, you provide the evidence for your assertion. What little you have said has been more than rebutted by other posters, Bill Hoyt in particular.
I'll just add that the Wright Brothers built on the work of others - Lilienthal and Chanute for instance. Some might have doubted the particulars of their flights but what they were doing was a logical development of the work of previous pioneers.

Would you care to reply to my other posts about Emptyforce?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Did the Wright produce evidence for five years? No! That's exactly what I've been trying to say! All of their work was done in secret. Glenn Curtiss did the first public flight in the U.S., in 1908.

[sackett]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
[B]. . . there are publications about cold fusion today...

Not many anymore; cold fusion has been discredited.

Come on now, let's hear more about empty force; sounds like qi, come round again to trouble the wits of the martial artists.

My long-ago t'ai chi teacher, who believed just about everything, once got exasperated at me and shouted, "Look, just believe! Okay?" But it wasn't okay, and still isn't. Going on about paradigms is just uttering hot air: it's long, long past time to produce the goods.

[hgc]

from here (http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/WrBr/first_airplanes/wrights_dark_end.html)

Um, it looks more like a business problem than a science problem. As you've been repeatedly told, there was no established resistance to the fact of flight. There were, however, powerful economic factors in the Wrights' fight with the budding aviation establishment.
Although the Wrights initially received wide acclaim for their invention of the airplane, the aviation community was quickly overcome by jealousy and greed: airplane developers did not want to pay the modest license fee the Wright brothers asked when others employed their method of lateral control in heavier-than-air flight. To escape this fee, the aviation industry engaged in a prolonged smear campaign against the Wright brothers, minimizing their contributions in the invention of the airplane.

France and Germany simply refused to issue the Wrights patents for controlling the lateral motion of airplanes by ailerons or wing-warping. Europeans were free to copy the Wrights ideas without restrictions, or the embarrassing admission that the Wrights had done something the Europeans had not.

...So Antonio, will you persist to the bitter end in your erroneous claim? Or will you find some other examples of scientific establishment malfeasanse to bolster your initial claim?

[Samus]

From the article hgc posted:
Although the Wrights initially received wide acclaim for their invention of the airplane, the aviation community was quickly overcome by jealousy and greed: airplane developers did not want to pay the modest license fee the Wright brothers asked when others employed their method of lateral control in heavier-than-air flight. To escape this fee, the aviation industry engaged in a prolonged smear campaign against the Wright brothers, minimizing their contributions in the invention of the airplane. The problem was with the Wright's very liberally worded patent, and their attempt to use it to enforce their license fees on inventions that had nothing to do with the patent itself. For instance, Glenn Curtiss' methods of achieving lift, under reasonable legal inspection, had nothing to do with the Wright patent, but the Wrights battled him in court to get him to stop flying. And it wasn't a "modest" license fee to begin with.

For some interesting perspective, read Unlocking the Sky by Seth Shulman. Very well done, I don't think it paints the Wrights in a bad light, but it does do a good job of showing another point of view.

[Antonio Alejandro]

The Wright Brothers did a lot of their experimentation in hoffman prairie, which on one side was the railroad and the other, a highway. At one time the chief engineer of the train asked to stop the train so that they could watch the plane in flight.
The editor of the Dayton newspaper received so many inquiries regarding the flights (who are those young man with the flying in Hoffman Prairie) that the editor wamted to report it as a nuisance.
In later years when the editor was questioned by a newspaper man regarding why he never reported the flight, the editor responded by saying...well the Wright brothers were very secretive. The newspaper man said...secretive while flying between a highway and train track? The editor just responded...well, I guess the truth was that we were just ignorant back then.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
The Wright Brothers did a lot of their experimentation in hoffman prairie, which on one side was the railroad and the other, a highway. At one time the chief engineer of the train asked to stop the train so that they could watch the plane in flight.
The editor of the Dayton newspaper received so many inquiries regarding the flights (who are those young man with the flying in Hoffman Prairie) that the editor wamted to report it as a nuisance.
In later years when the editor was questioned by a newspaper man regarding why he never reported the flight, the editor responded by saying...well the Wright brothers were very secretive. The newspaper man said...secretive while flying between a highway and train track? The editor just responded...well, I guess the truth was that we were just ignorant back then. Use your imagination a little. They were NOT secretive about that fact that they flew and were intent on selling airplanes, but were secretive about how they were built. It was a competitive business issue.

And, no duh that people were generally ignorant about flight in the few years after 1903. It was kinda new then.

[Antonio Alejandro]

Read the wording of the Scientific American Publication. There is no indication of a Legal issue at hand. Non whatsoever. Do you feel that Scientific American was part of the smear campaign? I dont believe this was the case. I do believe that the establishment was in doubt of heavier than air flight as was sampled by Melville and Newcomb.
Additionally, the issue here is between the tinkerer's, independant scientist, basement-garage laboratories vs the well funded and educated establishment. The subgroups vs the grand institutions.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Read the wording of the Scientific American Publication. There is no indication of a Legal issue at hand. Non whatsoever. Do you feel that Scientific American was part of the smear campaign? I dont believe this was the case. I do believe that the establishment was in doubt of heavier than air flight as was sampled by Melville and Newcomb.
Additionally, the issue here is between the tinkerer's, independant scientist, basement-garage laboratories vs the well funded and educated establishment. The subgroups vs the grand institutions. OK, so what's the point? This writer is not doubting flight, per se, but is doubting a particular set of half hour flights the Wrights reported performing in Dayton (some time after Kitty Hawk). There could be any number of things at work here... one is that he wants better experimental documentation before he'll buy the results and the other is that he may be skewering the Wrights because he thinks they're offering the technology to the French rather than to his own country. There could also be other things at work in the mind of this writer that I can't imagine. What remains unproven is that the "scientific establishment" (which one writer in SI does not make) held back the Wrights.

As an aside, the Wrights tried very had to get the U.S. Army as a customer.

[Antonio Alejandro]

I practice hard and soft meditation everyday, I adhere to this practice everyday, as well as yoga and gymnastics.
I would consider being subjected to a double blind study, etc etc. You can parade five ten people in front of me. You can even use animals as subject. I needed just one thing, as a pre-test prerequisite. Just one thing.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I practice hard and soft meditation everyday, I adhere to this practice everyday, as well as yoga and gymnastics.
I would consider being subjected to a double blind study, etc etc. You can parade five ten people in front of me. You can even use animals as subject. I needed just one thing, as a pre-test prerequisite. Just one thing. WTF? What is the one thing you need? Are you like a creature from The Wizard of Oz, missing one essential component?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I practice hard and soft meditation everyday, I adhere to this practice everyday, as well as yoga and gymnastics.
I would consider being subjected to a double blind study, etc etc. You can parade five ten people in front of me. You can even use animals as subject. I needed just one thing, as a pre-test prerequisite. Just one thing. What is it? A bowl of beans? A hooker? A sign from above? I have to know!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I practice hard and soft meditation everyday, I adhere to this practice everyday, as well as yoga and gymnastics.
I would consider being subjected to a double blind study, etc etc. You can parade five ten people in front of me. You can even use animals as subject. I needed just one thing, as a pre-test prerequisite. Just one thing.

"Empty force," Antonio? No, "empty farce" is more like it. The minute we pick apart your empty claim you divert to a yoga claim. Pah. Up your kundalini.

[Antonio Alejandro]

You should reflect a bit on what you are saying. What difference does it make to the "evidence vs bias" question at hand? What if the Wright Brothers conducted their design in secrecy. I know that is in an irrelevant statement because if the Scientific establishment knew the secret design vs witnessing flight....the latter would most definately be the most important. Once you see the plane flying, and you understood its significance, you world would be changed forever. The science behind the flight is irrelevant to the debate at hand. It is the experience of witnessing plane flying and understanding the significance.
It appears you are writting without fully thinking about its relevance to the debate at hand.

[Antonio Alejandro]

Without this component, emptyforce will not work. It may sound irrelevant....but it is most relevant....

[espritch]

Without this component, emptyforce will not work. It may sound irrelevant....but it is most relevant....

Well don't keep us in suspense. What is this missing component without which empty force will not work?

[Antonio Alejandro]

You mean your old martial arts tai chi teacher could not demonstrate anything, and you had not experience anything? You must not get around much, then. I have had many martial arts teacher who had chi development and would use it. Most notable was a KoreanTeacher who build a Cult and a Martial Arts empire. His name was John C. Kim. A greedy and powerful man who made millions. One day as part of a demonstration, he gently touch my solar plexus with two fingers and floored me. I had to sit on the floor and try to squeeze out the pain that was overcoming my body. I could not even think about countering his top students and much less him. He left such an impression with me that since then i measure a teacher in relation to john c. kim's abilities.
In Fort Lauderdale, I once met this hard martial artist who was able to break 2x4 with his shin. I asked him what he thought about internal martial arts? He said..I believe. And he proceeded to tell me of a story about a tai chi teacher who struck him and made him feel sick. Not only was he sick, by morning he was so sick he called the teacher to tell him how sick he was and what he could do about it. For years I was curious who this tai chi teacher was but he would not tell me. I eventually found out who he was and went to visit him.
I have had met many martial artist who demonstrated chi, that is including emptyforce.
However, If you feel that you can sit around and wait for randy to tell you what is really happening, then that is your choice. I am interested in learning and I realize that I have to make my own judgements about things. For myself, I am most definately convince that i cannot learn anything of significance, from Randy.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
.... snip ...

For myself, I am most definately convince that i cannot learn anything of significance, from Randy.
Can you demonstrate this power to Randi, though?
Yes or no?

[espritch]

For myself, I am most definately convince that i cannot learn anything of significance, from Randy.

I am pretty well convinced that you cannot learn anything of significance from Randi either. But that still doesn’t explain why, if empty force is real, you can not provide convincing evidence of the fact. The medium supporters are always talking about how they are convinced that such and such medium is the real thing. But as soon as you ask them to put that claim to the test, you get the standard litany of excuses.

The training for emptyforce is not that easy and the people that do this type of training are few and far between. It entails more than three hours a day, 365 days a year, minimize sex, etc.
Additionally:
Due to the fact that humans are not machines are therefore not one hundred percent efficient one hundred percent of the time, then it would be a statistical issue. Yes it would be interesting if Robert Jahn, took an interest and validated emptyforce statistically.
No I would not be interested in randy's method of discovery. I dont suggest it to anyone who practices emptyforce. Anyone can design a bad test:

So let’s see. The empty force folks have a genuine power that allows them to knock a man down at a distance, that takes years of constant practice and minimized sex (?) to achieve, but they can’t reliably demonstrate it under test conditions? What a useless super power that is.

All the medium supporters claim exactly the same thing: “So and so can speak to the dead. It took him years to develop the skill. But he isn’t a machine so he could have a bad day and fail the test. Beside, Randi would cheat and design a bad test. Blah blah blah, statistics, blah blah blah, blindly following Randi, blah, blah blah, think for my self, yada yada yada.”

It gets a little tiresome after a while.

I find the parallels between the claims and excuses of the medium supporters and the empty force proponents like yourself far more interesting than the actual claims themselves. If you aren’t prepared to present any evidence to support your claims, why post here? You know this a skeptic board. You know we are going to ask for evidence to support claims of super powers. So what could possibly make you think we would just accept your word for it?

[Antonio Alejandro]

I needed only one thing to demonstrate emptyforce, and i am certain that randy would not be able to provide this, thus your demans are irrelevant.

[Antonio Alejandro]

So you are waiting for Randy to tell you what is true and what is not true. Is that your contention? You dont want to bother going out and finding out things for yourself? You dont trust yourself...is this what you are saying?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
So you are waiting for Randy to tell you what is true and what is not true. Is that your contention? You dont want to bother going out and finding out things for yourself? You dont trust yourself...is this what you are saying?

That's not what he's saying at all. Are you even paying attention?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I needed only one thing to demonstrate emptyforce, and i am certain that randy would not be able to provide this, thus your demans are irrelevant.

Tell us what this "one thing" is. What do you need?

[Jet Grind]

I'd reccommend that those participating in this thread stop feeding someone who is obviously a troll.

[espritch]

I needed only one thing to demonstrate emptyforce, and i am certain that randy would not be able to provide this, thus your demans are irrelevant.
This still ignores the question. Since you are certain that Randi would not be able to provide this one mysterious thing you need to demonstrate empty force, why post here to begin with? You’ve already made up your mind that nothing will come of it. You know that without a demonstration of your claims, no one here will be convinced. So what’s the point?

Let me be clear. I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you. I demand nothing. I have absolutely no expectation that you will agree to demonstrate your super power regardless of whether Randi can provide this one thing or not. You are just like every other woo woo believer who posts on this board. You talk and talk and when someone asks you to prove it you just talk some more. Your words are as empty as your force. Put up or shut up.

[Ladewig]

Tell us what this "one thing" is. What do you need?

Stong anti-psychotic drugs?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Chaos


Tell us what this "one thing" is. What do you need?

A life? A clue? A date? A day job? ... Magic Superman underpants?

[CapelDodger]

If Randi can't provide this "one thing", and you don't have it, then one must assume that targets of your super-power have to bring it with them. Since you won't enlighten us, I'll make a wild guess and asume "it" is their medication. Which suggests a rather simple way of negating the effect - leave your medication at home. Whatever "it" is, at least Randi is immune to your black arts.

[CapelDodger]

A possible protocol:

The target is to be suspended by a harness and unable to see or hear the testee. A strain-gauge on the cable will be able to measure any movement of the target when the alleged force is invoked. Cameras can be set up to record any movement on three axes, although any effect noticable enough to be worthwhile in self-defence will create a very obvious oscillation. No "double-blind" will be necessary, as all that's being done is detection and measurement of an applied force - something that scientists do quite regularly.

Obviously the target and other circumstances are mostly immaterial, unless the "force" requires a specific environment (which would make it pretty useless as a self-defence technique). Even darkness is no problem - infra-red cameras are readily available.

(edited to remove most typos)

[Antonio Alejandro]

I never initiated a discussion about emptyforce, nor should it be a subject to be discuss here.

[Antonio Alejandro]

Yes you are correct, it cannot be reliably demonstrated. My experience so far is that it cannot be reliably demonstrated. Not only can it not be reliably demonstrated, it can exhaust the individual rapidly.
However, it does exist.
Additionally, no one wants to be involve in what is perceive as a political quagmire.

[CathodeRay]

This place just draws 'em in, doesn't it? It's a real loon magnet.

[c4ts]

Oh yeah. Agur, Franko, Jedi Knight, Muscleman, and now this guy... the list goes on. Why does the R&P board get all the genuine lunatics?

[xouper]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that while people were focused on the main woowoo in this thread, namely Antonio Alejandro, the following comment fell through the cracks:

Ladewig: The RCC was not following the Aristotelian model of the universe until 1983(!) when it reversed its decision against Galileo.I always thought it was the other way around. Is it possible someone snuck the word "not" in your post while you weren't looking? :)

[xouper]

Antonio Alejandro: Anyone can design a bad test: Reference sTARBABY http://www.psicounsel.com/starbaby.htmlFor me, anyone who cites something from Danny "the woowoo" Kettler in support of his argument has lost a huge chunk of credibility. Sure, anyone can design a bad test, but if you're trying to claim that Randi is likely to design a bad test for you, you're going to have to come up with a whole lot more evidence than the word of a known fruitcake like Kettler. You'd have to show that a good percentage of Randi's recent tests are badly designed, and it's highly unlikely you can do that.

Also let me add that i know emptyforce to be factual.I'll wager half a million dollars you can't knock me backwards with your "emptyforce". Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

[c4ts]

Wait. Did he say what "empty force" was? If he didn't specify, it could be a really heavy mallet or a large rock.

[xouper]

c4ts: Wait. Did he say what "empty force" was? If he didn't specify, it could be a really heavy mallet or a large rock.Dragon's post earlier in this thread quoted Antonio Alejandro's webpage:

... The Lin Kong Jing practitioner has the ability to move an individual, without physical contact but by mere projection of their internal energy. ...Sounds like a paranormal claim to me. Anyone else have an opinion?

[Zep]

We are still waiting for Alex to tell us the "one more thing" he requires to allow Emptyforce to work. But he is being extremely evasive so far. Never mind that Randi would probably be in another country lecturing or appearing on TV or something, and the JREF challenge would be scrupulously fairly done by reputable and credentialed scientists. I'm sure Alex would be allowed to prepare in whatever way he liked, but he would not be allowed to cheat.

Actually, I suspect that, given that the test subjects would be something like 5 metres away, Alex's secret ingredient is a 6-metre pole. :)

BTW, all this chat about the Wright brothers was merely a diversion - it has no relevance at all to what Alex is claiming to do. One could just as easily bring Roswell and the Titanic and Leonardo Da Vinci into this - all utterly irrelevant. But regardless, here's his chance to "prove his point" and he's letting it and immortality slip through his hands. And US$1M too, if he is of a mind.

One gets the feeling that Alex is now too scared to tell us because he realises his "powers" are illusory, no matter how much he would like to believe otherwise.

Well, Alex, are you going to even THINK about applying for the JREF Challenge if you are so sure of your powers?

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I never initiated a discussion about emptyforce, nor should it be a subject to be discuss here.
Antonio,


You started this thread purporting to show that the "Scientific establishment" is hindering progress.
On the front page of your own website you make a paranormal claim for a martial art called Lin Kong Jing.
Putting these two facts together, I am asking if you are prepared to demonstrate this power under controlled conditions.
In other words, I am challenging you to put your claim where your mouth is.
If you can do this you, Antonio Alejandro, can reveal something truly amazing; that is, a new force which the "Scientific establishment" says does not exist.

So, do you see how Emptyforce is very much 'on topic' here?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
You should reflect a bit on what you are saying. What difference does it make to the "evidence vs bias" question at hand? What if the Wright Brothers conducted their design in secrecy. I know that is in an irrelevant statement because if the Scientific establishment knew the secret design vs witnessing flight....the latter would most definately be the most important. Once you see the plane flying, and you understood its significance, you world would be changed forever. The science behind the flight is irrelevant to the debate at hand. It is the experience of witnessing plane flying and understanding the significance.
It appears you are writting without fully thinking about its relevance to the debate at hand. *sigh* okay, I guess I can go over this one last time.

The scientific community doubted the Wright's claims because the Wrights were not willing to perform public demonstrations. This was mostly a business decision, not a scientific one. While they may have been good engineers, they were very also very shrewd businessmen. I agree that demonstrating flight would have silenced the skeptics. I agree that from the public's perspective, seeing the plane fly is more important than understanding the physics behind it.

Where I (and others) are apparently losing you is in your claim that science hinders progress because it is biased. People doubted the Wrights because they were not willing to provide evidence (i.e. a demo flight) for their claims.

Just as we are now doubting you and your so-called "empty force" because you cannot provide evidence. Even you admit that the force cannot be replicated consistently, yet you claim it exists. And you're not overly willing to discuss how to produce this force, nor are you providing any kind of explanation as to how the scientific community is hindering the exploration and exploitation of empty force, which seems to be the overarching purpose of this thread.

[CapelDodger]

from Antonio Alejandro:
I never initiated a discussion about emptyforce, nor should it be a subject to be discuss here.
You're missing a parallel. The secrecy of the Wright brothers provides a chink that woo-woo partisans can exploit. The secrecy of the woo-woo partisans provides a chink that rationalists can exploit. To make it simple for you I choose to refer to the brand of woo-woo you're familiar with.

(I'm not familiar with it - I haven't visited your site, nor do I intend to. For all I know I'm going to get a dose of bad energy or inverse chi or what-all else down the line if I do. I have reasonable confidence in anti-virus software because I understand computer viruses, but I know nothing about the woo-woo world and thus have no reliable means of protection.)

The chink in the rationalist armour is easily filled, of course. Your original example has been thoroughly discredited. It presumably seemed convincing when you were fed it - after all, it fits with your prejudices and therefore is unlikely to have been thought about too much if at all - but it's bollocks. I must say it's refreshing to see some honest, down-to-earth, disinterested idiocy for a change, and I thank you for that. It's like watching a smiling baby crawl into the alligator pool, without all the blood and the guilt about seeing the funny side.
Yes you are correct, it cannot be reliably demonstrated.
Which makes it a rather piss-poor martial-arts technique, wouldn't you say? OK, maybe you can wait for a good mojo day before attacking someone, but in the self-defence mode a club would be a lot more reliable. Despite being a very material thing.

The chink in the woo-woo artists' armour is a rather harder to fill. In a couple of pages we've arrived at "it exists but does not manifest itself" as your particular defence of the Empty Farce. And you've fallen back on it without anyone learning about your secrets. A "force" is, of course, entirely within the scientific "paradigm". Something we have in common. It can therefore be detected and measured ... except it's just disappeared in a puff of smoke (invisible, undetectable, immaterial smoke, of course, but it exists, oh yes).

[CapelDodger]

Another nail in the coffin of "science as religion" is the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe. At first it manifested as discrepancies in calculations of the Hubble Constant - something gleefully trumpeted by anti-rationalists. Then the study of supernovas (type 1a, was it?) indicated the accelerated expansion, which would harmonise the Hubble Constant calculations. This result was subjected to criticism and detailed examination, just as it should be. Then microwave background measurements were found to support the concept. Now a third study, of galactic clustering, has pretty much confirmed it. All within the last ten years or so. How does that sit with the idea that a scientific mindset is retarding the progress of knowledge and discovery? Not well.

[sackett]

I have trouble with that whole business about a "science establishment." Science is a method, not a bunch of people. The word "establishment" has been used and over-used for thirty years now, always for the purpose of rejecting something, and yet I've never heard it defined.

Is there a martial arts establishment? An alternative medicine establishment? Well, maybe, if you want to see the world that way; but it's just as useful to describe an unaffiliated gaggle of woowoos, all of them with something to sell and none of them able to "establish" the credibility of their products.

Where's 'Tonio? I don't see him around much anymore.