You are joking, right?
But humans have been with arms for much much longer than millennia and we can flap them as fast as we can ever since we saw the birds doing it. Claiming that human can do what the birds do is utter nonsense and has been much much longer than millennia.
I've made myself clear for years that my idea of "utter nonsense" has nothing to do with "my $100,000 TT setup made me hear my entire LP collection with new ears" but claims of faster than light signal propagation, devices that don't conserve charge, violate the 2nd law in some obvious way. etc. Constantly repeating the Galileo story is not productive.
Apologies for the second comment, things are not normal these days.
It's simple.
Humans were born with feet - able to walk on the ground.
It's the nature of design, evolution.
Gravity allows this, and also prevents humans from floating around.
These are simple facts.
Flying in a manufactured device (airplane, etc) is not a normal natural way to get around for humans, and has its drawbacks and dangers.
Of course, there are those few who insist that flying in a plane is a natural thing. 😱
No such claim was made. Nor do I recall mentioning spade lugs. When communication across long distances meant travel by foot, animal, sail or rail, days to years for most of our existence, millisecond communication over thousands of miles was miraculously 'instantaneous'. This is such an obvious and trivial truism denying it sure to be difficult, though someone here is also sure to try.
No offense taken! It's DIYA.
I should have said it's a "taken for granted" thing.
A lot of people don't give a second thought to flying.
That, and other modes of "speedy transportation" are "natural" to people.
One doesn't think that by getting into a car it's taking a chance on their life.
It's not on their minds. - grocery shopping or getting the kids to school are.
But... nevertheless, it's not a natural human thing, because we were not born to do this, we were born with feet, legs, to walk.
See where I'm going with this?
'Reject' is wording that doesn't align with your conclusion as it implies confirmed contrary knowledge. Rejecting to participate in the belief as true was warranted - though socially harder to justify in a world of miasmas and the four humors - but rejecting the possibility out of hand much less so. Declining without judgement might be better.
Getting back to where this started, without the fortune of a few rare open minds who didn't reject the possibility ("There is absolutely no virtue in "keeping an open mind...") we might still be chasing vapors.
For example, audio cable claims have been debunked through DBT and the reasons for certain perceptions arising out of cable swap have been exposed. For such product, why is there still a need for an open mindedness? 2 theories can apply to this, 1) the person insisting open mindedness on this is not aware of debunking and exposed info that already exist, 2) trying to promote the product, a.k.a. shill.
Last edited:
For some reason, Scott dislikes me quoting what I find, significant examples, of what I have found that might show that many people have ignored significant 'facts' due to their reliance on their standard education (at the time) and ignoring everything else.
My quote regarding Galileo for example and many others came from a book that I obtained perhaps 30 years ago: 'The Experts Speak' 'The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation'. I found this book so interesting, that even after I lost my first copy in a 1991 firestorm, I bought another copy, the one that I have now.
Let me give a few examples: We all know that Lord Kelvin was a really big influence in science, especially over 100 years ago. We now have the Kelvin scale for temperature, etc, etc. He was a great scientist in the 19th century, but he made a few poor predictions, apparently based on his vast knowledge (up to the time) of science and engineering like: "Radio has no future" 1897; "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" 1895; etc, etc. You might ask, how could someone so educated, and successful be so close minded? Well look to yourselves, and see. '-)
My quote regarding Galileo for example and many others came from a book that I obtained perhaps 30 years ago: 'The Experts Speak' 'The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation'. I found this book so interesting, that even after I lost my first copy in a 1991 firestorm, I bought another copy, the one that I have now.
Let me give a few examples: We all know that Lord Kelvin was a really big influence in science, especially over 100 years ago. We now have the Kelvin scale for temperature, etc, etc. He was a great scientist in the 19th century, but he made a few poor predictions, apparently based on his vast knowledge (up to the time) of science and engineering like: "Radio has no future" 1897; "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" 1895; etc, etc. You might ask, how could someone so educated, and successful be so close minded? Well look to yourselves, and see. '-)
Your examples are mainly of people that made speculations where there was a lack of full knowledge. This is not the same as saying you made a device that creates energy from nothing by accident in your basement.
Is it that hard? 🙂 My brother, whenever nature was mentioned he would say, what's that, can you point to it?
Shouldn't that have been "look in the mirror"? Unless you consider yourself to be exempted.
Physicist Niels Bohr is often quoted as having said: “It’s very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” 🙂
BBC Two - Origins of Us, Bones, How our bottoms are designed for running
I wonder what vegans would make of that? The ones that are convinced we are herbivores ("naturally")
I wonder what vegans would make of that? The ones that are convinced we are herbivores ("naturally")
Last edited: