David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[compared2what?]

There's such a plethora of consistent archeological evidence covering six million years of evolution for the human species alone all over the world that's so fully compatible with and/or supported by genetic evidence and so completely and satisfactorily explicable by known and demonstrable mechanisms of biological reproduction that the most jaw-droppingly suggestive cave drawing on earth would have to do a lot more than point in a perhaps uncomfortable direction to throw it into doubt.

I'm not saying that will never happen, or can't. But no matter what value you place on what kinds of data -- including oral histories, cave drawings, and high tech buried for thousands of years -- there's more of it attesting to evolution than undercutting it by (literally) some-millions to one. So it's a pretty high bar to clear.

It's a bar that was set by people with limited understanding of the nature of the universe. As always. We are still learning, and we have to be ready to let go of pet hypotheses. I'm not saying anything new here. We all know history is full of examples of well accepted science being proved wrong.

I agree completely. When we've learned enough about the nature of the universe to trashcan what we know now, I'm ready. But it hasn't happened yet. So:

ATM, that stuff still doesn't throw what there's no presently known reason to question into doubt. I'm not saying that will never happen or can't.

I'm just saying it hasn't.

[Wombaticus Rex]

are you suggesting that we 'get back on topic' or something, because I think we are doing marvelously well at it, myself.

Not at all, and I totally agree with your assessment, this is stigmergy at work.

I just wanted to inject some serious brainfood into discussions about evidential relativism.

There are many, many amazing and useful insights contained in that thread, so I bring it up often.

[Canadian_watcher]

okay word, WR. thanks.

c2w - "there's no reason to question"? really? ...nevermind. don't want to get in to it. but it's an interesting way to approach life, the universe and everything.

[compared2what?]

are you suggesting that we 'get back on topic' or something, because I think we are doing marvelously well at it, myself.

Not at all, and I totally agree with your assessment, this is stigmergy at work.

Am I being stigmergizing? Didn't mean to be. I was just saying:

If the case against evolution is staked on evidence, specifically archaeological evidence (ie -- oral histories, cave drawings, thousands-of-year-old high tech) it's in contention with the archaeological-evidence-based case for evolution (and, in fact, uses the same limited-knowledge-of-the-universe scientific standards, since those are the only ones there are, at present).

And on those terms, it's not enough to throw the case "for" into doubt.

[Searcher08]

It is possible that our entire universe is secretly controlled by a cabal extradimensional toads whose entire purpose is to get us to produce more shoe polish for them to drink.

This does not mean that it's true, nor that we would get very far by endorsing someone who insists that this is an essential key to what's wrong with our Society...

You're trying to dismiss the whole idea by taking it so far out that no one could take it seriously. I could do the same for evolution:

Yes, it is possible that our entire existence is owed to a blob of sperminated space mud and that all the genius of Mozart owes its beginning to a lumpy little fish with enough pluck and determination to say "screw these gills, I'm breathing through my MOUTH!" and that there is no purpose to life whatsoever other than to get what air you can before a bigger animal eats you.

This doesn't mean that it's true, nor that we have gotten very far by believing it.

There's one small difference between Extradimensional Toad Theory and Natural Selection: It's called evidence.

You are comparing ETT, which appears to be a Worldview with natural selection which is a biological process that has been posited a couple of hundred years.

Evidence is not always some objective thing, it is often subject to a huge amount of bias, interpretation, peer pressure, generalisation, deletion and distortion.

AD, do you accept the US governments version of 9/11?

The only people I have ever coming across who spoke of 9/11 Truth being a cult were fundamentalist pseudoskeptics.

Agreed about evidence in general but compare the variety of evidence for Natural Selection Theory, the strength of that evidence and the multiple corroboration for it to the evidence for extradimensional toads and, well there's just no comparison. But I have read lots of science fiction and agree that this by no means rules out intervention from beyond also. I just think there's a big difference between possible and backed up by good evidence.

Whoa - we are in agreement Spookily enough, the toads made me think of Frank Herbert's The Dosadi Experiment

I think a lot comes down to the practical down to earth usefulness of a concept or idea - sometimes something untrue can be useful - e.g. when coaching a swimmer, having them imagine their hands are the size of flippers.


As to 9/11, maybe you missed it but I said just upthread:

I don't think a broad brushstroke dismissal of all 9/11 investigation is helpful but there certainly were very unhelpful fanatics with ties to culty groups who did jump aboard the 9/11 bandwagon. To the detriment of everyone.

Jack Riddler can tell us about that.

Sorry, I did miss that. I know that the La Rouchies were quite involved at one point - interested to hear what JR has to say about it

Cheers!

[Canadian_watcher]

If the case against evolution is staked on evidence, specifically archaeological evidence (ie -- oral histories, cave drawings, thousands-of-year-old high tech) it's in contention with the archaeological-evidence-based case for evolution (and, in fact, uses the same limited-knowledge-of-the-universe scientific standards, since those are the only ones there are, at present).

And on those terms, it's not enough to throw the case "for" into doubt.

You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about "do we have proof of evolution" - I'm not throwing anything into DOUBT, c2w, I'm comparing the ideas in terms of how they sound upon a summary of their mythologies.

I'm also asking about evidence - why is some accepted and some not? You cannot test for evolution any more than you can test for aliens having laid down with the daughters of man.

[compared2what?]

okay word, WR. thanks.

c2w - "there's no reason to question"? really? ...nevermind. don't want to get in to it. but it's an interesting way to approach life, the universe and everything.

I meant it in a very specific and narrow sense, not globally -- ie, ON THE STATED TERMS: A small amount of archaeological evidence that's of no greater or lesser value than that which outnumbers it by (literally) some-millions to one doesn't invalidate it.

That's all. So in that sense, yes, really.

But it's not, like, my life philosophy or anything. And it would be a very dull way to approach it, the universe and everything, imo.

Those were the terms you presented.

[Searcher08]

are you suggesting that we 'get back on topic' or something, because I think we are doing marvelously well at it, myself.

Not at all, and I totally agree with your assessment, this is stigmergy at work.

I just wanted to inject some serious brainfood into discussions about evidential relativism.

There are many, many amazing and useful insights contained in that thread, so I bring it up often.

WR, I read what you just posted and actually said out loud

JESUS!


Because I have been wrestling with a professional question - the modelling of productivity (modelling in both very distinct sense of mathematical and NLP related capture of excellence)
and just a couple of days ago I came across this chap Francis Heylighen - Research Professor, Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
http://scholar.google.be/citations?user=jt7BHBUAAAAJ&hl=en&pagesize=100

This was the first academic paper into the basis of the Getting Things Done methodology by David Allen. It is a brilliant, rivetting read.
http://cogprints.org/6289/1/heylighen-vidal-gtd-science.pdf

A useful paradigm to conceptualize the dynamics of such environmentally mediated activity isthe concept of stigmergy (Parunak, 2006; Susi & Ziemke, 2001; Heylighen, 1999, 2007).
An activity is stigmergic if the action by an agent leaves a mark (stigma in Greek) in the environment
that stimulates an agent (the same or another one) to perform further work (ergon in Greek).
This subsequent action will leave another mark which in turn will stimulate yet another action. Thus, different actions indirectly trigger each other, via the traces they leave in the environment. For example, upon noticing that someone has used up all the paper, you leave a note to your secretary to buy paper; the subsequent appearance of paper reminds you to print that long report; the printout in turn stimulates you to study its recommendations; etc. Stigmergy was initially conceived by Grassé (1959) to explain the activity of social insects, such as termites and ants.
This collaborative activity, such as nest building, is apparently complex, intelligent and goal-
directed. Yet, the individual insects are intrinsically very dumb, lacking anything like a working
memory or ability to plan. Thanks to the mechanism of stigmergy their work is efficiently
coordinated

[compared2what?]

If the case against evolution is staked on evidence, specifically archaeological evidence (ie -- oral histories, cave drawings, thousands-of-year-old high tech) it's in contention with the archaeological-evidence-based case for evolution (and, in fact, uses the same limited-knowledge-of-the-universe scientific standards, since those are the only ones there are, at present).

And on those terms, it's not enough to throw the case "for" into doubt.

You're missing the point entirely. This isn't about "do we have proof of evolution" - I'm not throwing anything into DOUBT, c2w, I'm comparing the ideas in terms of how they sound upon a summary of their mythologies.

That's a whole other thing and a very valuable one. I thought you were talking about evidence in its capacity as proof.

I'm also asking about evidence - why is some accepted and some not? You cannot test for evolution any more than you can test for aliens having laid down with the daughters of man.

Not sure I follow. You can test for what you can test for, in the way of, let's say, DNA. Or carbon. Or whatever.

That yields the limited amount of information that it yields without prejudice, whether you wish for it to be compatible with an alien-on-daughters-of-man theory or a theory of evolution.

And then you evaluate how well the information supports one theory, both or neither.

What evidence is not being accepted?

[compared2what?]

Incidentally, that last post was ALSO not a statement of my life philosophy.

I was just outlining what "evidence" and "test" are generally understood to mean in this context. But if you mean something else, fill me in.

[Canadian_watcher]

yes, you can test for what you can test for, and insofar as evidence fits into something we can currently test for then it is accepted. Oh wait, no it still isn't. bummer. Because some test results - no matter how 'rigorously the tests were carried out' - are not considered evidence of anything by some. And usually the 'some' = 'the establishment.' So, until the establishment decides that a test result is worthy of inclusion in a scientific pantheon then well, it isn't! Which of course ought to send up the next question: which comes first, good evidence or establishment willingness to call it good?

So in answer to your question.. that's one example of "evidence" that isn't being accepted. An example would be studies conducted by the institute of heart math. I'm guessing mainstream science doesn't like their stuff, but I might be wrong. Plus there are no doubt a dozen better examples none of which are coming to mind as I'm in a rush.

[compared2what?]

yes, you can test for what you can test for, and insofar as evidence fits into something we can currently test for then it is accepted. Oh wait, no it still isn't. bummer. Because some test results - no matter how 'rigorously the tests were carried out' - are not considered evidence of anything by some. And usually the 'some' = 'the establishment.' So, until the establishment decides that a test result is worthy of inclusion in a scientific pantheon then well, it isn't! Which of course ought to send up the next question: which comes first, good evidence or establishment willingness to call it good?

I'm lost. Are we or are we not talking about whether some oral histories, cave drawings and thousands-of-year-old high tech are -- by ANY standard you care to name -- evidence for another origin of the species that's better than or comparable to the evidence for evolution?

Seriously. Any standard, as long as it is one. I'm just trying to keep up.

So in answer to your question.. that's one example of "evidence" that isn't being accepted. An example would be studies conducted by the institute of heart math. I'm guessing mainstream science doesn't like their stuff, but I might be wrong. Plus there are no doubt a dozen better examples none of which are coming to mind as I'm in a rush.

Don't know. I was under the impression that we were still talking about what we had been talking about.

[justdrew]

while it's true that science theories are updated as knowledge grows, and some "opinions" promoted with a scientific basis are later proven false and abandoned (man will never fly), there is ALSO a great big ol' track record of people stating shit with no basis whatsoever and it never being fully abandoned.

Much of what Icke's promulgating is just a modern rewrite of a strain of gnosticism. but I would point out that another aspect of the big G, is "show me" - belief not based on "faith" but on KNOWING. Icke provides no path to knowledge, only a divergent faith.

[tapitsbo]

i'd be interested in this board's perspective on the alleged coverup of advanced technology in ancient times

very difficult to know what to believe in this area!

[tapitsbo]

like why is there so little info about underwater ruins in this age of advanced sensors etc?