Tom Sarbeck

Jake, _Robert_ doubts that a competing theory is being suppressed by the “scientific religious” and says an example would be denial from publication of a sound research paper.

Here’s something from Hannes Alfven:

“I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical jou…

[Read more]

Whence anthropo, PB?

Read both parts of what Hubble said and you’ll know which part the a-centrists chose.

Track record? Don’t evaluate one until you know it.

Yeah, cosmology’s Standard Model is anthropocentrism’s last hurrah. May it rest in peace.

Thanks,  Jake. At least you and I here on AZ see the Big Bang as a Big Fraud. Of course, with NASA’s budget anyone could publicize anything until many see it as true.

Have you seen Edwin Hubble’s words that point out the unsupported conclusion by a person who, IMO, deserves to remain unknown?

“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the  o…[Read more]

Jake, before I reply, I need to know whether you evaluate evidence or ignore it.

I will explain. Neil deGrasse Tyson opens the first chapter of his book “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry” with:

In the beginning, nearly 14 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume les…[Read more]

Jake, flawed science doesn’t get the same testing as good science.

The Big Bang’s mathematics gets tested—for elegance—by mathematicians. The universe refuses to obey.

private, I’m 87 and live in a veterans home with just over 1000 others: mostly veterans plus a few spouses of veterans. Only one of them advertises his atheism as I do—in a Toastmasters club here I gave a talk on Six Kinds of Atheists to interested-looking others. A few more are open about their non-theism.

My short story is that because xiani…[Read more]

Chris Reeve’s article says there is normal science, and there is controversial science. It says too that our reactions to controversial science reveal the depth of our thinking and our propensity to lead. (Like who wants to lead?)

Geocentrism was once normal science. Alternatives to it were so controversial that medieval churchmen declared th…[Read more]

Robert, religion is of much use for people who want to take from others, especially for taking from unhappy others.

Strega, ten cents says that every kid’s getting a medal fools no one.

Winning is nice, but losing and having helpful parents can teach a valuable, “Your abilities lie elsewhere. Let’s find them.”

My parents didn’t close any paths. An occasional low grade told me I had low desire and suggested a path change. I changed my major subject twice bef…[Read more]

Davis, I agree that my posts are usually impeccable and insightful. That much of my writing for other audiences deals with law and those audiences include attorneys account for the former. That I have decades of experience in hardball politics accounts for the latter.

Your saying I know nothing of philosophy fails a truth test.

I apply Occam’s R…[Read more]

Davis, the shortest duck-and-dodge I ever heard was Catholicism’s “Error has no rights”. Your post deserves and will get better but not on April 29 at 2:55 am.

Hm-mm, 2:55 am where I am is 9:55 am in this discussion. Google says it’s in Greenwich.

That fossilized like buttons have not been found does not imply that none will ever be found. Ergo, suspend judgment.

Davis, another predilection of philosophers is the use of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of words to remark on what non-philosophers can say in a half dozen or so.

Davis, you opened with “Philosophy is alive and well….” and then argued for politics being alive and well.

Simon and Unseen will tire of their debate before they see that good and evil have value in the world only as political words.

Thank you, Zweifel, for trying to prevent philosophy’s suicide.