ZetaTalk: Being Human

different, in truth? How many citizens are starving on the streets, in increasing numbers? How many tiny school

children sit with hollow eyes because their bellies are cramping in an insistent demand for the breakfast they never

seem to get? How many families try to make moldy, bug ridden quarters cheerful, with not much more than a plucked

dandelion or two. Children playing in the mud because this is their only toy. This is Capitalism's outcome. In point of

fact, these statistics would be a thousand times worse if Capitalism were allowed to run full course. It is held in check by your laws.

All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com

http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b09.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:08 PM]

ZetaTalk: Scientific Theories

Mail this Pageto a Friend.

ZetaTalk: Scientific Theories

Note: written on Feb 15, 1996

Humans like to believe that they do not give credence to any theory that cannot be verified in the labs or in some other

manner. This is just not true. Children are taught that evolution developed man, but what is called the missing link has

never been discovered. Astronomers work on the premise that a Big Bang started things going, but most certainly have

never viewed this or reproduced this in their labs. The wonders of electricity are extensively utilized in human society, as are the wonders of magnetism, radio waves, and light, but the theories guiding these wonders are plastic and forever

under adjustment by humans. Humans in fact use their theories as guidelines, during their search for a more perfect

explanation. A pleasant pastime, both in publications and when meeting each other socially or at conventions, is to

debate scientific theories.

Where do humans go wrong, in their search? Where are they on target and where off? How can they better direct their

energies? A key fault in the debates that humans conduct is allowing the debate to address a limited scope. This is

done many times to allow any discussion at all to progress, but when pertinent aspects of the subject under discussion

are excluded, then the results will invariably be twisted in some manner. Human scientists are so used to limitation

being the rule that they become furious when the scope is broadened. Since humans, intellectually, are not really

capable of dealing with many factors at once, it is best to admit where human explanations falter. In this way, at least, one is not led astray or time spent arguing absurdities.

All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com

http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b52.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:09 PM]

ZetaTalk: Human Infallibility

Mail this Pageto a Friend.

ZetaTalk: Human Infallibility

Note: written on Jan 15, 2002

In any discussion about human science there is more than discussion about facts, assumptions, and theories. There is also posturing and the need for comfort. Postulating a theory becomes, too often, a matter of ownership and pride. The

theory thereafter cannot be wrong, or the owner is somehow discredited and falls in stature. Then there is the structure

built around a theory - published books, lectures and curriculums, clubs meeting regularly and discussing the matter.

All this is like a web, holding the theory up, and any attempt to change the theory brings howls of distress from the web which must likewise change. Thus, in human society, one has the Catholic Church apologizing only recently for

dismembering and burning alive those who pronounced the Earth round, not flat, and the Flat Earth Society still in

existence today.

How are the sciences, in human society, treated any differently today? Einstein’s works, when first presented, were not

only pronounced wrong, but were shouted down. They were treated by those whose posture required the existing

theories to continue as a threat, which Einstein’s work was. The worst garbage could be calmly discussed, but

Einstein’s lectures were disrupted by shouting sessions and physical assaults. This was, one was to assume, because

Einstein was wrong, but in fact the heat of the debate was the opposite, because he was, compared to the existing

theories of the day, correct. But Newton is still taught in the schools, to the young, along with Einstein’s theories, and when they contradict the students are expected not to notice. This is because the professors require a posture of being

all-knowing and infallible, and any student implying otherwise suffers at their hand.

Then there is the comfort factor, the need to feel that sudden calamity will not descend, as the facts are known and thus the future somewhat predictable. Lighting strikes, and strokes fell strong and stout humans like a lightning bolt, but the factors surrounding lightning and strokes can be analyzed and thus the likelihood of occurrence somewhat predictable.

How, beyond the comfort of sameness that a posturing professor or scientist requires, are current scientific theories

tied to the human comfort factor? If the theories on how lightning is produced were to change, then this implies that those smug in their assumptions about the likelihood of a strike might be wrong, and thus vulnerable. If the theories on the cause of stroke were to change, then this likewise implies that those smug in their assumption that they are

immune might be wrong. Thus, discomfort with change causes resistance to change, and theories often develop

solidity for no other reason than this.

All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com

http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b83.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:09 PM]

ZetaTalk: Independent Thinking

Mail this Pageto a Friend.