permaculture

[Alia Tsang <alia@dietrick.org>]

A good part of the scientific process is interpreting data that doesn't fit
your expectations. There are a good deal of discoveries that have been made
by accident, or when an experiment gave the opposite results that what was
expected. This wouldn't happen if scientists had a magic power to prove
whatever theory they believe in that day.

Although, I am not discounting the fact that bias does exist in science,
frequently unconsciously, and that bias can make it more likely that you'll
design an experiment that proves your bias.

Alia

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM, loren luyendyk <loren@sborganics.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Good point Toby about the difference between belief systems (religion) and
> science (observed facts).  Independent of the credibility of claimers of the
> esoteric and occult, I must still point out that the further we go into
> "science" the more it starts to blend with "religion".  In the work of
> modern quantum physics the line between science and religion gets a little
> blurry, at least between physics and buddhism.
>
> Furthermore, the Uncertainty Principle states that we see what we want to
> see, or rather what we look for.  Also, there are new "theories" and
> experiments to back them up that suggest there is an influence faster than
> the speed of light, which is "theoretically" impossible (called Quantum
> Non-locality).  This would suggest that any theory could be proven true, if
> that is what you are looking for, and vice-versa, and that we have influence
> over matter independent of time and space.
>
> Back to ORMES- they were "theorized" by Einstein and Bose in the 1920's,
> and hence another name for ORMES is the Bose-Einstein Condensate, which is a
> group of atoms in the same quantum state that perform as a superconductor.
>  None of this means WPG will make your tomatoes grow huge, however.
>
> The real question is, have anyone tried ORMES or Seawater as fertilizer?
>  If not then there is no case for arguing either way.  I haven't so I can't
> contribute "scientifically" to that argument.
>
> If I don't believe that plants will grow better with ORMES and I apply it,
> will the plants sense that I don't want them to grow and do poorly?  Or if I
> just "think" that I want my plants to grow, will they grow beautifully
> without any care?  Is our consciousness more powerful than any fertilizer?
>  I don't know!
>
> I love to entertain alternative "realities", as I believe what limits us as
> designers is our ability to be open to other possibilities.  If we think we
> know it all, then we have a lot to learn.
>
> Loren Luyendyk
> (805) 452-8249
> www.sborganics.com
> www.surferswithoutborders.org
>
>
>
>
> > From: toby@patternliteracy.com
> > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:33:41 -0700
> > To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] Ormus- ORMES
> >
> >
> > On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:41 PM, wenshidi@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > Toby,
> > > I do not mean to argue with you, especially when I consider you to be
> one of the most valuable contributors to this list, but I must point out
> that plate tectonics, just like Darwin's evolution, the Big Bang etc are all
> just theories.
> >
> > I used the phrase "plate tectonics" as shorthand for the movement of
> continental plates and the consequent uplift, which are observed facts, not
> a theory. The relevant observed fact here is that large areas of the
> continents are rising and have been for tens or hundreds of millions of
> years, with no sign of slowing down. There is no evidence to dispute it.
> None. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the continents will
> disappear "in a few million years." The people who wrote that remain
> inexcusable ignoramuses who damage what might be useful work  by bolstering
> their words with nonsensical pseudoscience.
> >
> > I don't think you understand what "theory" means to a scientist or
> philosopher of science. You are using it in the same way that the
> creationists do (I understand that you are not a creationist), as in
> "evolution is just a theory," as if there is some doubt about it. Theory
> does not mean in doubt or tentative. To a scientist, a theory is a
> profoundly powerful explanation that is consistent with, and accounts for,
> observed facts. It it a very different use from the lay person's, "well,
> here's my theory." Einstein's theory of relativity, Newton's theory of
> gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection etc, are "just
> theories" but they explain observed facts in such a coherent manner that the
> likelihood of their being discarded is vanishingly small. There is no more
> powerful word in science for an explanation than "theory." We could call the
> above theories, and plate tectonics, "facts," and I do hear scientists speak
> of the fact of evolution because we have seen i
>  t
> >  and measured it. But formally, they are explanations that make facts
> coherent, and not facts themselves, so we don't call them facts. Of course,
> some theories cover facts that seem contradictory or don't explain every
> phenomenon, but the overthrowing of a theory as established, and as
> consistent with observation, as plate tectonics just isn't going to happen.
> Geology makes no sense without it, just as all of biology and medicine are
> made coherent only by evolution. Those theories may get tweaked, but I am
> willing to bet a large sum that they will never be discarded. (I am a
> student of the philosophy of science, so I appreciate the change to rant
> about this confusion a bit!.  It is a confusion used as a smokescreen by
> numbskulls to ignore facts that conflict with their religion's stories.)
> > >
> > > "Textbooks frequently extol plate tectonics theory without questioning
> what might be wrong with the theory or without discussing a competitive
> theory. How can students be taught to challenge popular ideas when they are
> only presented a one-sided view?"
> >
> >
> > Nonsense and untrue. We should teach that one plus one might make three,
> just so we give other views? Gimme a break. Science is not a democracy where
> every loony-bird gets heard;  "God did it" is not science. Besides, all the
> textbooks I've seen describe the steps we went through to arrive at plate
> tectonics, and the flaws, just as every evolution explanation I've seen
> mentions what it fails to account for. The author of that quote is simply
> lying. Most textbooks have been forced to include creationism and other
> idiocy because that particular lobby is so powerful. It is the facts that
> are in danger, not the religious myths.
> >
> > Toby
> > http://patternliteracy.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more
> about this list here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contacts: permacultureforum@gmail.com and paul@richsoil.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more
> about this list here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contacts: permacultureforum@gmail.com and paul@richsoil.com
>
>