Visit China

Question:

> Those darned "skeptics."  Being selective, using all those sources.  Why > can’t they use your one source.  By the way, how long did it take you to > find that one source (the children’s book) that you rely on exclusively?

It was on his bookshelf next to the other book – the one he hasn’t colored in yet.

Response:

> That’s not a mistake.  The fact is that PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT > changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another.  It did in > Columbus’ time, and it does now.  One learned scientist can say the > world is flat, another that the world is round.  That was my point.

Well then, you should quote a "learned scientist" of Columbus’ time who said the world is flat. Absent that, your point – by your own admission – doesn’t stand. So, which learned scientist said the world was flat, and what’s the source for that statement? — Scott Baxter "listen:there’s a hell of a good universe next door;let’s go" – e. e. cummings

Response:

> This, again, is an assertion based upon certain references. > As I pointed out in my previous post, historical > accounts are not perfect.  The ones you cite, and the > one’s I cite, are not necessarily absolutely correct. > What we have, here, is my logical deduction of the events.

Why am I reminded of the play "Rhinocorus" (yes-I misspelled it, sue me) in which one character "proves" logicially that a dog is a cat?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > In this present period of history, spread out over a period of a few decades, > > there is predominsnt scientific opinion. There is also scientific opinion > > that > > runs contrary to that which is predominant. > > Psychic phenomena and alternative medical treatment have been > > found to be viable by well respected, and learned, scientists. > > Other scientists have not find them valid.  As time passed, > > alternative medicine became more accepted, and is now in the > > process of becoming the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  The > > same is happening regarding psychic phenomena, as it is now > > becoming more widely accepted as valid. > Your mistake is connecting your medicine and psychic phenomena ideas to > "They were wrong about Columbus". > That’s not a mistake.  The fact is that PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT > changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another.

You really are an idiot.

Response:

> Psychic issues will stand or fall on their own merits, not that of > misunderstood beliefs over 500 years ago.

That’s why Kettler drags out the old Columbus myth.  Because psyhic issues will stand or fall on their own merits. > Why not up the ante and provide some actual proof of your claims rather > than harshing on how wrong science often is?

Kettler claims to be psychic, but nobody has yet to learn what his psychic powers are.  He won’t tell us. Dan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Educated people believed the world was round. > > Educated people believed the world was flat. > > "Educated people" are not what I was writing about. > > You are writing a "red herring" logical fallacy. > > What I _was_ writing about is "PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT." > Anyone in that era with a decent classical education would have known > the earth was round.  The Greeks knew it and educated people of that > era would have read those books. > Okay, then, look at what the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FASLAP!

Obsession noted.

Response:

| | I’ve shown the logic behind what I wrote. | The pseudo-skeptic-fanatic’s "replies" | have not responded to that logic.  Some | have cited references.  Historical accounts | are not perfectly correct.  Even the | references cited show that.  In the final | analysis, no-one here listened | to Columbus, or Queen Isabella. | No-one here _knows_ of the "learned men" | who would not talk to the King because | they feared the King’s sailors would | fall off of a flat Earth.  No-one, | here, _knows_ of the supposed argument | Columbus was having over the _size_ of | the round earth, and that, supposedly, | learned men, all of them, thought the | world was round. | Why don’t you ‘listen’ to Columbus- I found a quote from Christopher Columbus, which constitutes his excuse for thinking he could make it around the world without arranging for tender services along the way. "The cosine of 36 degrees is .20908.  Just a thousand leagues or so due west under a fair wind, and I’m in China."       — Chris (Thank you John Griffith for the quote) Christopher, dear boy, is arguing the size of the Earth not it’s roundness.

Response:

… > <snip> > I’ve shown the logic behind what I wrote.

By quoting a children’s book. Gawd, yer a friggin’ kook.

Response:

> Why don’t you ‘listen’ to Columbus-

He doesn’t need to.  He’s already said he’s relying on his superior logical reasoning. Dan

Response:

| | That’s not a mistake.  The fact is that PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT | changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another.  It did in | Columbus’ time, and it does now.  One learned scientist can say the | world is flat, another that the world is round.  That was my point. | You never answer points, but write comments that have nothing to | do with what I’d written. You say that "PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another" demonstrates that you have no concept what "Predominant scientific thought" means.  If the predominant scientific thought of an era changed from scientist to scientist it would be their "personal scientific thought" not the "predominanant scientific thought". The predominant scientific thought of any age is what the majority of scientists, or learned ones, thought to be true. We have already shown that the educated people of that day new the earth was round so that would by definition be the "PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT". If there were some educated ‘flat earth’ fanatics running around (which I’m sure there were) they would not be expressing the "PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT" of the day.

Response:

> I’ve shown the logic behind what I wrote. > The pseudo-skeptic-fanatic’s "replies" > have not responded to that logic.

I haven’t seen any logic from you. > Some > have cited references.

Yes, and lots of them. > Historical accounts > are not perfectly correct.

Except for your children’s book.  ROFL! > Even the > references cited show that.  In the final > analysis, no-one here listened > to Columbus, or Queen Isabella. > No-one here _knows_ of the "learned men" > who would not talk to the King because > they feared the King’s sailors would > fall off of a flat Earth.

You are right.  No one here personally knew of such men.  Therefore, such men MUST exist!  ROFL! > No-one, > here, _knows_ of the supposed argument > Columbus was having over the _size_ of > the round earth, and that, supposedly, > learned men, all of them, thought the > world was round.

You are right.  Nobody here personally heard those arguments back then. Therefore, such arguments MUST have taken place!  ROFL! > And, these people are supposed to be "skeptics," > yet they believe, wholeheartedly, in the opinions > of _certain_ people who write of the history.

Those darned "skeptics."  Being selective, using all those sources.  Why can’t they use your one source.  By the way, how long did it take you to find that one source (the children’s book) that you rely on exclusively? ROFL! Dan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In this present period of history, spread out over a period of a few decades, > there is predominsnt scientific opinion. There is also scientific opinion > that > runs contrary to that which is predominant. > Psychic phenomena and alternative medical treatment have been > found to be viable by well respected, and learned, scientists. > Other scientists have not find them valid.  As time passed, > alternative medicine became more accepted, and is now in the > process of becoming the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  The > same is happening regarding psychic phenomena, as it is now > becoming more widely accepted as valid. > Your mistake is connecting your medicine and psychic phenomena ideas to > "They were wrong about Columbus".

That’s not a mistake.  The fact is that PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another.  It did in Columbus’ time, and it does now.  One learned scientist can say the world is flat, another that the world is round.  That was my point.   You never answer points, but write comments that have nothing to do with what I’d written.   You make assertions, and do not back them up with fact of logic.   Your writing, essentially, is meaningless.  You write of a "mistake," yet you seem to have no grasp of what the "mistake" is. > [ This is because they were RIGHT about Columbus.  No one of importance > to funding his trip seriously thought the earth was flat, rather they > all thought it was bigger.  Turns out they were right and he was simply > *lucky*]

This, again, is an assertion based upon certain references. As I pointed out in my previous post, historical accounts are not perfect.  The ones you cite, and the one’s I cite, are not necessarily absolutely correct. What we have, here, is my logical deduction of the events. What we also have, is your dogma, not skepticism, that the accounts you cite are correct, and no rebuttal to the logic I apply to the accounts. > His luck of finding what he was NOT looking for does not add weight to > *your* theory.

Your writing has little to do with what I’d written. > In fact, if you were right in the same way Columbus was right, you > would drone one about pychic powers and then rush off to prove it and > end up inventing a better moter oil.  His "discovery" had nothing to do > with his theories!  You don’t seem to get that.

I acknowledged the fact that he discovered an altogether different land than he’d originally thought he would. I did "get that."  It’s obvious, because I wrote that in the original post of this thread _before_ your "replies." You, evidently, do not read what you are supposed to be "replying" to. <snip nonsense> > —- Andy

–           send private e-mail via web site www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com

Response:

> What we have, here, is my logical deduction of the events.

ROFL!  Like that’s worth anything! Dan

Response:

> What we have, here, is my logical deduction of the events.

So Kettler just made it all up! I just KNEW I would get something really good for BDKWHDAW if you kept this up! Dan

Response:

> That’s not a mistake.  The fact is that PREDOMINANT SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT > changes.  It varies from one learned scientist, to another.

Of course it does.  In many cases the predominant scientific thought turns out to be very, very wrong.  I can think of many examples of this. Pick a better example than Columbus though.  He was wrong and his doubters were right.  His discovery had nothing to do with round/flat it had to do with the size (he was wrong) and the unexpected continent (he didn’t see that coming) The nobility of the era and the advisors to that nobility would have had a classic education and would have read the great Roman and Greek authors.  They would not doubt the shape of the earth was that of a sphere. > One learned scientist can say the > world is flat, another that the world is round.  That was my point.   > You never answer points, but write comments that have nothing to > do with what I’d written.  

One "can", but in Columbuses era the shape of the earth was not in serious doubt.  Even the size was begining to be understood because sea faring nations had sponsered trips to the equater which settled the matter forever. > You make assertions, and do not back them up with fact of logic.   > Your writing, essentially, is meaningless.  You write of a "mistake," > yet you seem to have no grasp of what the "mistake" is.

I do.  His mistake was thinking the world was small. Luckly for Europe he tested his idea and while it turned out he was very wrong, he did make a wonderful discovery along that way that had nothing to do with his original "small world" idea. > [ This is because they were RIGHT about Columbus.  No one of importance > to funding his trip seriously thought the earth was flat, rather they > all thought it was bigger.  Turns out they were right and he was simply > *lucky*] > This, again, is an assertion based upon certain references. > As I pointed out in my previous post, historical > accounts are not perfect.  The ones you cite, and the > one’s I cite, are not necessarily absolutely correct.

You’re gonna have to do better than that.  There are endless references to the Greeks and Romans knowing the true shape of the earth.  There are NO references (from the era of Columbus) of serious scientific thought beliving the earth was flat. Can you quote a single document from that era which indicates they felt the earth was flat?  Not a childrens book from modern times, but an actual quote from an actual person back then?   When I contrast multiple spherical earth references to ZERO flat earth references from that era I have a clear and easy choice. If you want to prove psychic phenomenon then prove it.  Finding examples of science being wrong on other issues does not lend weight to your argument that it is wrong on your issue. Psychic issues will stand or fall on their own merits, not that of misunderstood beliefs over 500 years ago. Why not up the ante and provide some actual proof of your claims rather than harshing on how wrong science often is? — Andy

Response:

> In this present period of history, spread out over a period of a few decades, > there is predominsnt scientific opinion. There is also scientific opinion > that > runs contrary to that which is predominant. > Psychic phenomena and alternative medical treatment, have been > found to be viable by well respected, and learned, scientists.   > Other scientists have not find them valid.  As time passed, > alternative medicine became more accepted, and is now in the > process of becoming the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  The > same is happening regarding psychic phenomena, as it is now > becoming more widely accepted as valid.

Your mistake is connecting your medicine and psychic phenomena ideas to "They were wrong about Columbus". [ This is because they were RIGHT about Columbus.  No one of importance to funding his trip seriously thought the earth was flat, rather they all thought it was bigger.  Turns out they were right and he was simply *lucky*] His luck of finding what he was NOT looking for does not add weight to *your* theory. In fact, if you were right in the same way Columbus was right, you would drone one about pychic powers and then rush off to prove it and end up inventing a better moter oil.  His "discovery" had nothing to do with his theories!  You don’t seem to get that. For every misunderstood, yet in the end right, person you can come up with, I can find a crack pot who really was wrong in the end. Don’t wiggle around with talk of others who may or may not have been right, but rather focus on the issue you really want to talk about. —- Andy

Response:

> In the same way, the pseudo-skeptic so called > "learned" ones, are idiots too.  They do not > bother to look at what many esteemed scientists > have discovered.  For more about this, use > GOOGLE, look up the word "science," find me > as author, and search in alt.paranormal

Yes, thank you very much for this suggestion.  This is a wonderful way to get knowledge about science — searching for articles by you. Dan

Response:

><snip>

DK: > In this present period of history, spread out over a period – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> of a few decades, there is predominsnt scientific opinion. > There is also scientific opinion that runs contrary to that > which is predominant. > Psychic phenomena and alternative medical treatment have been > found to be viable by well respected, and learned, scientists. > Other scientists have not found them valid.  As time passed, > alternative medicine became more accepted, and is now in the > process of becoming the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  The > same is happening regarding psychic phenomena, as it is now > becoming more widely accepted as valid. > The pseudo-skeptics of this time in history do not see > this.  They "think" that the old ways of viewing the > world are correct.  They cannot see clearly. > In the same way, the pseudo-skeptics of Columbus’ > day thought the world was flat.  This is not > just from some children’s book.  It’s in other > hostorical accounts, and the flat earth idea > is what "learned" men, of that day, "thought."

<snip> I’ve shown the logic behind what I wrote.   The pseudo-skeptic-fanatic’s "replies" have not responded to that logic.  Some have cited references.  Historical accounts are not perfectly correct.  Even the references cited show that.  In the final analysis, no-one here listened to Columbus, or Queen Isabella.   No-one here _knows_ of the "learned men" who would not talk to the King because they feared the King’s sailors would fall off of a flat Earth.  No-one, here, _knows_ of the supposed argument Columbus was having over the _size_ of the round earth, and that, supposedly, learned men, all of them, thought the world was round. And, these people are supposed to be "skeptics," yet they believe, wholeheartedly, in the opinions of _certain_ people who write of the history. They know that all historical accounts are not always correct, yet they believe what they want to, and call themselves "skeptics."  That’s not skepticism, according to the dictionary.  That’s dogma. They are PSEUDO-SKEPTICS. What is a pseudo-skeptic-fanatic?             http://www.psicounsel.com/pseufana.html —           send private e-mail via web site www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Educated people believed the world was round. > Educated people believed the world was flat. > "Educated people" are not what I was writing about. > You are writing a "red herring" logical fallacy. > What I _was_ writing about is "PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT." > Anyone in that era with a decent classical education would have known > the earth was round.  The Greeks knew it and educated people of that > era would have read those books.

Okay, then, look at what the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS of this period in history do.  They do not read the data about alternative medicine.  They do not read the data about psychic phenomena, or the writing of scientists who have discovered that both are viable.   No, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC=FANATICS of Columbus’ day could just as well have done what the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) do today. What, by the way, is a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF)?              http://www.psicounsel.com/pseufana.html If you look at the history of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF) debates in these newsgroups, you will find that PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANTATICS argue, for the most part, out of complete ignorance of what Nobel Laureate Scientists have evidence of.  See GOOGLE archives…              http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search See the debates copied from USENET, in a link from…              http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html Note, how completely idiotic the fanatics writing shows them to be. > Aristarchus of Samos compared the curved shadow of the earth on the > moon during a lunar eclipse to deduce the relative size of the earth > and moon.

As I pointed out, this is not relevant.  This shows that certain scientists knew the truth.  This does not show the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT of that time, or what a leader of any nation would likely be confident of. > Eratosthenes used shadows in a well to deduce the > size of the earth in 230BC.

I realize this.  So, also, has alternative medicine been proven effective many centuries ago.  Herbs were used, effectively long before modern medicine. Still, modern medical educators, for decades, decried the use of these safe methods in favor of truly dangerous drugs.  Only recently has alternative medicine been going mainstream. This is a perfect illustration of how your arguments are completely wrong regarding what people knew in 230BC, and what the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT of Columbus’ day was. The PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT can be completely contrary to what actual, and known, scientific fact is. You still, it seems, do not get this, do you? > During the time of Columbus there was serious scientific debate as to > the exact size of the earth.  Some argued for larger or smaller values.

Others argued that the WORLD WAS FLAT.  This is known history.  It’s not just in children’s historical accounts.  The argument that Columbus had, was whether the world was flat.  The revised version of history that PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS use, is for the purpose of propaganda, to protect themselves. > The Portugese secretly knew the size of the earth because they had > sailed further than the equater and knew how long a trip that was. > They kept that information as ‘trade-secret’ because it was crucial to > their business interests and they did not want to aid their > competitors. > Columbus became convinced the earth was at the smaller range and, if > true, would enable  easier sailing west to get to the east. > Columbus was very, very  wrong. > Columbus’s life and reputation were saved not because he knew something > and stuck to his guns, but rather the accident of an unknown continent > being in the way.  He did not expect or plan on that.  He simply ran > into it as food and water were running out.

It is generally understood that Columbus made a mistake about the area of the world he was to land in.  I acknowledged that fact, in my original post of this thread.  In that original post, I also pointed out that others knew the world was round, not just Columbus.  So, you are not writing anything new, just repeating yourself > He was a lucky fool.  Had the Americas not been here, the world would > have occasionally wondered what became of that idiot who sailed west > and was never heard from again. > — Andy

Your points, above, still do not answer what I’ve written. In this present period of history, spread out over a period of a few decades, there is predominsnt scientific opinion. There is also scientific opinion that runs contrary to that which is predominant. Psychic phenomena and alternative medical treatment, have been found to be viable by well respected, and learned, scientists.   Other scientists have not find them valid.  As time passed, alternative medicine became more accepted, and is now in the process of becoming the PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  The same is happening regarding psychic phenomena, as it is now becoming more widely accepted as valid. The pseudo-skeptics of this time in history do not see this.  They "think" that the old ways of viewing the world are correct.  They cannot see clearly. In the same way, the pseudo-skeptics of Columbus’ day thought the world was flat.  This is not just from some children’s book.  It’s in other hostorical accounts, and the flat earth idea is what "learned" men, of that day, "thought." In the same way, the pseudo-skeptic so called "learned" ones, are idiots too.  They do not bother to look at what many esteemed scientists have discovered.  For more about this, use GOOGLE, look up the word "science," find me as author, and search in alt.paranormal —           send private e-mail via web site www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com

Response: