<HTML>Hi Anthony,
Great reply... I too believe that it is essential that one exhaust all physical explanations first... and if that doesn't come back with the answer, you go back and see where you have made a mistake in exhausting the physical explanations. And I also agree that leapfrogging makes a mockery of the scientific method since it allows one to easily pass over refuting evidence. But I guess I tend to be one of those who places a huge emphasis on "intent". Intent gives meaning to man's version of morality... tipping the balance towards right or wrong, good or evil. Although I would fault a known debunker for quoting only half the evidence in order to appear correct (deceitful intent), I would not view a newbie student to the subject in the same way. Nor would I automatically assume the same for anyone else who was perhaps stumbling thru what appeared to be the available factual information, but perhaps formulated an inaccurate conclusion from that information.
Even if one argues that deeper analyses would have shown the conclusions to be invalid, I question how deep one must really go before one draws any conclusions. Should we all first have to obtain a Phd. in Chemistry before we continue our attempts to analyze the geopolymer theory? And if not, haven't we just "leapfrogged" to any analyses we make (skipped right over the "undeniable?" chemical compositions/analyses of the samples)? And yet, if we study the available evidence the best we can, shouldn't we be allowed to draw our own conclusions... conclusions that we feel are valid, whether we are pro or con the conclusions of any Phds. involved in the discussions (otherwise, we become nothing more than computers running on the data discs of the Phds. conclusions)?
This method simply doesn't work for thinking humans (ones who don't like running on data discs), so there is where the rift occurs. The academics telling us we have to memorize their data discs... and we thinkers responding "but the data is not always correct and in some cases even corrupted"! Or in other instances, the academics telling us that the data disc is all there is, plain and simple... and we (spiritual) thinkers responding "I just can't buy into your simplicity; I can feel/sense there's more to this world than you accept for yourself, and with each passing decade we often find that your facts were not really the end all facts after all."
And just so it doesn't appear that I only see one side of the fence, in the world of amateur wrestling I become the academic watching all the WWF (staged "professional" wrestling) fans choosing to ignore the facts (my "academic data discs") and hold onto the fantasy that it's all real wrestling!!! I deal with it by accepting the fact that all I can do is offer the truth to them... I cannot force them to accept it... and I cannot fault the WWF organizers for the fans refusal to accept it! And yet we seem to always be faulting GH for his "fans" refusal to give up their views... could it be that most academics and de-bunkers haven't a clue concerning why these fans hold so strongly to those views? Or is it just that they are academics in their respective field but become the laypeople when it comes to human psychology...
Thanks for the exchange, Anthony...
I especially liked the Maslow connection! :-)
Litz</HTML>
