( .. is an ephiphany, ..a shortcut... )
(Reprise old website, ~2011)
The point deserves a stern look, and from whom better than the man himself.
Louis Pasteur (wikipedia)
"Chance favours only a prepared mind."
So what is this 'eureka' moment? An observation, .. interpretation /conjecture /theory, .. a hypothesis, an intuitive guess?
No, ..none of these. It is simply being in the right place at the right time - with the experience and realisation to see a relevant connection to a pattern that is already apparent. It's a very personal thing to which no-one else is privy.
Such moments (always something of a red light) nevertheless can provide valuable shortcuts when they happen to be right. They represent a realisation of the way that data is (or should be) structured with respect to symmetry scale and form in relation to experience. There is nothing mystical, magical or 'intelligent' about it. All it is, is having a previous context within which to fit observations and to understand their implications. It is 'filling out', extending the boundaries of previous observation. To others without the same experience, however, it is easily seen as "off the wall", an invention of the crackpot screwball (cite Feynman - Aunt Minnie, last sentence..
No, ..none of these. It is simply being in the right place at the right time - with the experience and realisation to see a relevant connection to a pattern that is already apparent. It's a very personal thing to which no-one else is privy.
Such moments (always something of a red light) nevertheless can provide valuable shortcuts when they happen to be right. They represent a realisation of the way that data is (or should be) structured with respect to symmetry scale and form in relation to experience. There is nothing mystical, magical or 'intelligent' about it. All it is, is having a previous context within which to fit observations and to understand their implications. It is 'filling out', extending the boundaries of previous observation. To others without the same experience, however, it is easily seen as "off the wall", an invention of the crackpot screwball (cite Feynman - Aunt Minnie, last sentence..
Such realisation is not an outward process of thinking of external things, but very much inward and passive - almost not thinking at all. It's simply letting the 'obvious' reveal itself through context, scale and design. It's as unthinkingly or'nery as can be, and typically happens in moments of reverie in the most or'nery of places. If it is regarded by others as special, that is only because by definition they do not have the same experience, the same 'preparation', .. the same contextualisation.
And as such it is indeed *highly* subjective.
Or is it? To be sure it is peculiar to the individual, but by the exclusion of consciously directed thought it is arguably also as objective as can be, ..as if the mind itself is an eye of sorts, passively observing and bypassing the filters of conscious thought. Context is already given by personal experience.
It is top down, a glimpse of the 'destination', of the wood rather than the trees. In the jigsaw analogy it is the picture on the front of the box. The cognitive work of assembling the pieces are already largely in place.
Science on the other hand is typically a bottom-up affair. It is elemental, anatomical and to a degree an often piecemeal construction in the way that it busily, almost obsessively assembles the data, where more loosely may be more helpful. It takes pride in being 'objective', but it's kidding itself - this sort of 'objective' assembly is typically derived from a plethora of hypotheses, contributed by many people. In science however this variation masquerades as the versatility of one - the so called 'consensus' view. This 'versatility' has enormous value for those in a position to call for 'more research' to 'finesse' the theory in ever more detail, but in terms of useful result it can go nowhere. By chasing its tail it has painted itself into the proverbial corner.
On the other hand a correct theory predicts the outcome. Other than routine 'space-filling' it obviates the need for research. In a sense, and within its own terms of reference it also has nowhere to go. Its very success is its nemesis. It has, for all intents and purposes, 'arrived'.
And herein lies the career scientist's dilemma. For which is the more successful - the one that may be continually used to justify funding, or the one that has arrived at the destination the funding was intended to reach? Problems, particularly ones that seem insolvable, are money in the bank, .. a milk cow to the career scientist. Life support. Nothing less.
With the realisation that Plate Tectonics is false, then all must be reassembled: no plates, no collisions causing mountains, no crumpling of the crust causing folding (in the manner Plate Tectonics says), .. nothing of all of that. Earth expansion effectively presses the reset button on the Earth sciences and offers a whole different paradigm for geology, ..one that has not yet even begun to be broached by the broader community, and one that poses a formidable challenge to educational institutions. For how can these continue to teach a syllabus that by the deliberate exclusion of logical alternatives, is at best demonstrably false and at worst, corrupt.
So where to next? Is there Life after Plate Tectonics? ... Indeed, is there life for geology after Earth expansion once, it is consolidated?
Well (again), .. it wouldn't be the first time geology has been the start-point for enquiry into the human condition and its place in the environment, and no doubt it won't be the last. The implications of an earth that is in a state of slow explosion has obvious implications with respect to physics. However they are more appropriately addressed by the respective disciplines, and anyway are not ones that should unduly concern us given the time scale on which humanity exists (notwithstanding the hype of "Climate Change" since this (present) article was posted on my website way.y back). 'Climate' has a different connotation in geology than it does in more regular public parlance.
With the realisation that Plate Tectonics is false, then all must be reassembled: no plates, no collisions causing mountains, no crumpling of the crust causing folding (in the manner Plate Tectonics says), .. nothing of all of that. Earth expansion effectively presses the reset button on the Earth sciences and offers a whole different paradigm for geology, ..one that has not yet even begun to be broached by the broader community, and one that poses a formidable challenge to educational institutions. For how can these continue to teach a syllabus that by the deliberate exclusion of logical alternatives, is at best demonstrably false and at worst, corrupt.
So where to next? Is there Life after Plate Tectonics? ... Indeed, is there life for geology after Earth expansion once, it is consolidated?
Well (again), .. it wouldn't be the first time geology has been the start-point for enquiry into the human condition and its place in the environment, and no doubt it won't be the last. The implications of an earth that is in a state of slow explosion has obvious implications with respect to physics. However they are more appropriately addressed by the respective disciplines, and anyway are not ones that should unduly concern us given the time scale on which humanity exists (notwithstanding the hype of "Climate Change" since this (present) article was posted on my website way.y back). 'Climate' has a different connotation in geology than it does in more regular public parlance.
No comments:
Post a Comment