Humans react the same way. They will react to the present status quo being challenged the same way people who used THC react to the newer theories that their mental and emotional growth and capabilities are damaged by THC, since the consensus was that THC had no long term debilitating addiction or negative consequences.

Ohm has an interesting achievement, called Ohm’s Law. The ohm unit is named after him. His peers thought he was an off the rocker idiot or flake. The evidence is there for science, but are humans ready to accept the Unreality of their bullsh beliefs…

Every single time an Ohm, Tesla, or Wright Brother turns up, the mass consensus is that they crazy or delusional or liars. The list goes on. Copernicus didn’t publish cause he knew. In human history, it wasn’t so much the churches suppressing knowledge as other humans that refuse to understand new knowledge. Newton had to create a new branch of mathematics, calculus, for his gravity theories.

The Pre Flood civilizations had better technology than 1930s America had. Evolution can’t explain that.

Evolution also can’t explain how a Flood can kill birds and all life on Earth, because that isn’t a normal flood.

Why are there fossils which cross the gap between strata that are considered millions of years old? They are just anomalies right. Stuff evolution and the geological standard works cannot explain, so the data must be erroneous.

Things like continental drift and reverse magnetic lines on the seabed, also don’t stand up to scrutiny.

There was a story about Einstein that he changed the variables to ensure that the formulas wouldn’t lead to a Big Bang, because they refused to believe that creation could come from nothing, as written in Genesis. Matter/Energy cannot be destroyed or created after all, so for the Big Bang to be actual, where was all this energy before? They didn’t want to explain it, because they could not, so they just ignore it and call it the Big Bang. There’s no theory behind it. Because they would have to start debating Genesis by understanding Genesis, and few humans are even qualified for that let alone achieve it.

Scientists and the Doctor Class, don’t know half of what they claim they know. But humans swallow the mainstream propaganda line, even as they self righteously criticize Leftists and other human zombies for falling for bullsh.

I tried to respond twice by way of appreciation, linking to articles about Richard Muller’s criticism of Eddinton’s foundation for the arrow of time.

But they would not take.

Maybe this one will.

At any rate it is profoundly interesting to consider that our psychological reality, the experience of time as we conceive of it, may be as disconnected in some ways from what is, as our limited natural comprehension of the radiation spectra. More so.

Frankly, if time is in some sense unreal, it is way more radically impactful than is say the existence of ultraviolet light or cosmic rays.

We would have to completely rethink our being-in-the-world and reality itself. No longer would the “problem” be just a matter of not yet visible horizons, or things to swift or small or ethereal to be perceived and taken account of in the ordinary course of our existence.

Good Lord. We might have no bloody idea of what also exists within our reality right “beside us”, but in principle is never accessible.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

–Max Planck

physicsguy: Well, that’s the pro forma answer, which is good as far as it goes. But how far does it go in practice when the PRESENT TIME theories are challenged?

The climate scientists seem to circle the wagons, organize in offline email lists to orchestrate attacks on opponents, refuse to share data and even threaten to destroy data.

According to Smolin, it’s tough to move ahead in a physics career if you aren’t on board with string theory.

I’ve run into tons of people who believe they are wonderfully open-minded. I’ll credit them with saying the words. But they don’t walk that talk.

As an ex-physicsguy, I know that even the narrow area in which I worked as a graduate student (elementary particle physics) was far from being “final”, although the pace of change was slowing in my time and there was talk of a “particle desert” (basically nothing new to be discovered within the range of energies available to particle accelerators that fit within the radius of the solar system).

Karl Popper wrote cogently about this sort of thing.

This is not about belief systems per se. This is about conflation of logical domains, when it serves to undermine the utility of science, and especially when it is exploited to injure individuals and competing interests.

The discomfort is two-fold. One, acknowledge the limits of human perception and causality (e.g. separation of logical domains). Two, limit the establishment of atheist and theist orthodoxies. Well, three-fold. Three, limit the control and exploitation (e.g. political) of conscious entities (e.g. human).

There is another possibility. Science is a method and philosophy that function within frames of reference where accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from the observer, which reflects a common understanding that human natural and enhanced perception and causality are both limited.

The problem is not pattern matching per se, but the promotion of a perceived pattern or theory as an established orthodoxy, which offers no clear benefit and may, in fact, retard understanding and exploiting the physical world.