How big of a trend is the HB's?

[Bill Thompson]

Apart from a few handful of people, how many people are there really who are leading the HB trend?

[JayUtah]

Well, since the commercial authors all quote each other there really aren't many true leaders.

You have David Percy and Mary Bennett, but they've essentially withdrawn from active participation. You can still buy their books and videos, but they don't engage in discussion.

Bart Sibrel is probably the most active.

Bill Kaysing has gone the way of Jim Collier.

Ralph Rene still self-publishes his book and makes appearances, but I feel he soon will retire.

Jack White seems to be taking up the torch dropped by Bennett and Percy, but like "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette and others he hasn't yet done anything commercial.

[truthseeker]

What makes you wonder is not that people have legitimate questions over an important event in history, rather they still persist to refuse to accept any OTHER viewpoint than there own.

Its because they have invested emotional value in the ideas they hold. Well when someone tells you your ideas are wrong, its very hard for you to accept things could be different. Its akin to telling them the emotional pattern they have is incorrect.

Ive tried to teach myself to understand that knowledge can always be re-evaluated, and that concepts, ideas etc, can always change. If my mind does not move with them, then i will be missing the point.

Neither to condemn completely or accept totally, thats my way. This partly comes from my interpretation of the teachings of Bruce lee's philosophy, who in turn was inspired by Zen, and jiddu krishnamurti.

[JayUtah]

I don't see these authors I've named as legitimate inquisitors after historical truth. Honestly I see them as people out to make a quick buck by fleecing the gullible, or at least to make a name for themselves. Jim Oberg suggested this was "cultural vandalism". Unable to make any lasting contribution themselves, they attract attention by desecrating the accomplishments of others.

I have an emotional and professional investment in being right, which makes it very easy for me to change my position when a suitable argument is presented that demonstrates I'm wrong. I'd rather be seen as someone who is persuaded by a good argument, who rejects a bad one, and who is able to chart a defensible course in the face of uncertainty.

I can be confident, of course, because my livelihood depends on my being right more often than I'm wrong. But obviously to close one's eyes blindly to alternatives is foolish. Hence I don't wantonly dismiss ideas even when they seem on their face to be absurd. But I do believe that for some questions -- not all, but some -- there is an objective right or wrong answer.

I'd have to say I follow the philosophy of Frank Lloyd Wright, who said to the effect that you don't need to defend truth; if it is true it will defend you. People often ask me why I am so skilled at prevailing in debate. The answer is simple: I only advocate what I am fairly sure is the truth.

[scooter]

truthseeker said:

What makes you wonder is not that people have legitimate questions over an important event in history, rather they still persist to refuse to accept any OTHER viewpoint than there own.

Its because they have invested emotional value in the ideas they hold. Well when someone tells you your ideas are wrong, its very hard for you to accept things could be different. Its akin to telling them the emotional pattern they have is incorrect.

Ive tried to teach myself to understand that knowledge can always be re-evaluated, and that concepts, ideas etc, can always change. If my mind does not move with them, then i will be missing the point.

Neither to condemn completely or accept totally, thats my way. This partly comes from my interpretation of the teachings of Bruce lee's philosophy, who in turn was inspired by Zen, and jiddu krishnamurti.

It is important to recognize scientific evidence though. Over the last 50 years, the folks of this planet have been sending things into space. They learned to send things into space, to achieve orbit, and to navigate to other celestial bodies. While the technology had to evolve to meet the missions, the physics of the missions, the navagation, hasn't changed. These are based on laws hundreds of years old, and precisely proven over thousands of space missions. They are "givens", and not subject to debate or interpretation. They are a "black and white" of space travel, like 1+1=2. Precise problems with precise solutions.
Unless some significant, bizzarre event comes up, these just "are", and are not subject to some interpretation. No room for "moderation" here.
Dave

[truthseeker]

I did say knowledge CAN be re-evaluated.

Of course over time some things will become self evident by the consistent behavior and nature.

Does this mean that we have a totally and complete understanding of them?

Should we say, "theres no more to learn, its always been this way, and because we already know it all, lets not bother"

The laws of physics should be up for debate, and a search on the internet shows that all is not in complete agreement with Einsteins theory.

Does this mean Einstein is wrong in some aspects? Who knows, time will tell. But if we are in a position where we do not question even our most sacred beliefs, we may miss some amazing new discovery's that lay hidden under rocks, we are just to lazy to pick up.

[JayUtah]

You're simply speaking about the fundamental nature of science.

Newton's understanding of dynamics prevailed for hundreds of years because we simply had no observations that violated it. It was considered complete enough for what we wanted.

Eventually we began to make observations that Newtonian dynamics couldn't predict. Therefore Einstein proposed a new model of dynamics that account for both the older Newtonian observations and the newer observations. Einstein didn't prove that Newton was wrong, only that he was incomplete and that his predictions held only in certain circumstances. As long as those circumstances still hold, Newton's model of dynamics still works and is still very useful and predictive.

Similarly it is a given that we will make (or have already made) observations that even Einstein's dynamics model cannot predict. And there will come forth then a new model that incorporates and explains these new observations. But such a refinement doesn't entirely throw out older theories. Any new theory must also explain everything that was explained by the older theories. For certain (most) velocities, Einstein's equations produce results so close to Newton's equations that we don't care about the difference.

The laws of physics are up for debate, as is every attempt to explain the behavior of the natural world. Scientists wouldn't have anything to do if it weren't for the constant need to refine and adapt their theories. But just because scientific theory is tentative in the abstract doesn't mean it isn't sufficiently reliable or predictive for some particular application, nor that we need grasp for exotic theories that promise new frontiers but fail to explain what we already observe. Consistency at the results level with what has already been accomplished is a requirement of any new scientific theory.

We must question our most sacred beliefs, but we don't do so recklessly or lightly. There is no need, for example, to consider the possibility that gravity is actually a repulsive force rather than an attractive one, as was once argued here. We can't for example, derive a predictive model of orbital mechanics with gravity as repulsion. Therefore the model fails to explain what we have already been able to observe.

In reaching for the new we cannot leave the old behind. We must incorporate the old.

Unfortunately much pseudoscience and conspiracism pays lip service to expanding the frontiers of understanding without realizing the necessity to stay consistent with what is already known. To require a new model to explain past observations is too often dismissed wrongly as closed-mindedness and an unwillingness to think broadly.

Yes, we must have the imagination to devise new ways of thinking about the universe, but we cannot lose sight of the necessity to test and try these new theories and assess their rigor.

I would have a hard time, for example, accepting someone's theory about open-channel fluid flow if I could show that some observation I can make is not accounted for in that theory. I'm not being obstinate about changing my belief in that case; I will have good reason not to change my belief. I have a model for open-channel flow that works very well for every application I need. To be compelled to adopt a different idea, I would need to be shown what's wrong with my current model -- i.e., that there is some circumstance it does not predict, that is predicted instead by the new model along with all the old circumstances I could bring up.

Actually in the study of materials science this sort of thing is very acute. We know that the behavior of any material depends on thermal, electrical, mechanical, and other effects that operate on the atomic and subatomic levels. We could try to adopt a reductionist approach and determine what simple laws, if any, apply at that level of scrutiny that will determine the behavior of any given material in the large scale we naturally observe. But that is beyond our current capacity. Therefore we take an empirical approach. We note that the application of certain quantified causes produces certain quantifiable results, and we can use mathematical formalisms to approximate and parameterize the observed behavior. We are fairly certain that the formalisms do not capture what actually happens in the material. But it predicts accurately enough the behavior of the material, and so it is useful.

[truthseeker]

Agreed!

I raise a glass to you sir, and congratulate your fine fettle!

Cheers!

[Bill Thompson]

I agree.

It is good to find like-minded individuals in the often discouraging Internet world.

Jay gives hope that we might not be so hopeless.