I believe the point trying to be made by Freeman Dyson is that we, as humans, are so concerned with finding answers, that we lose touch with our ability to imagine and dream. We look to the experts or distinguished names for all of our knowledge, and we undermine and disregard the more abstract reason of people such as Jim Carter and Immanuel Velikovsk. Dyson and Margaret Wertheim, author of Physics on the Fringe, find great admiration in people like them. They are not discouraged by critics who dismay their “different” ideas simply because of their lack in expertise, but instead they have a great passion for their ideas and continue to look for further understanding despite the obvious obstacles and flaws. Many people today in the search for knowledge would classify these people as ignorant and unintelligent, but I, as does Dyson Wertheim, believe that these people should be looked at with high regard. They have not forgotten our capability as humans to dream, as many today have on their search for truth and reason. Freeman Dyson also makes obvious how someone’s worth, respect, or knowledge varies how we accept their thoughts and opinions. The people seen with a lot of worth, respect, and knowledge appeal more to our reason no matter what it is they are saying, whereas someone’s ideas without these traits are easily dismissed. We must recognize imaginations ability to “enlarge our vision when observation fails,” despite the pedestal truth and reason sits on today. The works of Carter and Velikovsk are that “of art and high imagining,” and we all must strive to understand this versus making the same mistakes of those who criticize their works.
It seems that these incorrect theories about the universe don’t stem from a lack of intellect or knowledge, but from romanticism about the universe. The theorists are trying to imagine a universe that is much more interesting than the one that we have. They are being imaginative with the structure of the universe. Doesn’t the multiverse theory sound much more interesting than what we can actually prove? These people are constructing a sort of science fiction that they base off of science. They are constructing a scientific structure of the universe that they create through their own imaginations. These imaginative proposals are interesting ideas that really can’t be proven right or wrong by science. That’s what is so exciting about these theories and science in general. There is so many things that we don’t know. Before we discover the answers any theory or interesting possibility can’t be left out. They hold credibility because they do stand up to logic but no one has proven them wrong. There is a vacancy of scientific fact that inspires these theorists to imagine the most fascinating possibilities. There have been many brilliant people that believed or theorized things that happened to be wrong. Isaac Newton for instance proposed his mathematical models that were later proven wrong by further developments by Albert Einstein. This is just like how Scientologists have based an entire religion off of a book by a science fiction writer. All the laws of the universe may never be discovered and until then there are plenty of things that can fill our imaginations.
The general consensus among the scientifically educated is that Jim Carter’s views, while interesting and entertaining, hold no intellectual water. His hypotheses on circlons are clearly erroneous. The question is, then, how does one arrive at such irrational conclusions? Carter’s intelligence is certainly not in question; it is his rationale that must be challenged. His claims lack any kind of evidence and any kind of support, yet Carter continues to vehemently defend his theories. How did he reach his conclusions? That is the very question that differentiates truth from falsehood. If a person can show how they reached their theories, then those ideas immediately gain credibility. It is when the proponent skips steps, or eliminates them altogether, that we become doubters. Edison could show you how to make a light bulb, Newton could show you how to test his theories, Franklin could show you how to harvest electricity, but I guarantee Carter could not show you how to view a circlon. Imagine the second grader who is encouraged to express his creativity in writing a story; his parents and teacher will tell him how good it was, patting him on the back and throwing out that-a-boy’s. Now add many years and take away all the complements, and you have the circlon theory. If carter wishes to write a science fiction book on cirlons, more power to him, but I do not see anyone benefitting from his scientific work on the subject. I am all about his creativity and scientific advancement, but I do not believe that the two should mix, ever. But then again, nobody believed Copernicus…
What Physics on the Fringe suggests about humanities reasoning is that sometimes what we want to believe is more powerful then the truth. It is not only uneducated people that let their fantasies run away with them but even brilliant minds such as Carter, Eddington, and Velikovsky. They all believe in ideas that you can see within a few seconds are completely unscientific and logically unsound. The question arises then, how can these intelligent men entertain these fantastical theories? It is quite simple they want to believe that they hold a kernel of truth that the rest of humanity does not understand or cannot comprehend. This position puts them in a very favorable place, as the prophet who society shuns at their own peril. They are able to vehemently insist on their positions because in their minds, what they are teaching is entirely sound and they do not doubt it at all. This is why when faced with cold unfeeling scientific facts they are able to reject them out of hand. The world that these brilliant men have created for themselves is one that makes them a hero, not just another minor scholar diligently searching for the truth. They have already found the truth. I believe it is for this reason that these fantastical ideas pop up on the fringes of science. It is always easiest to convince yourself that your right, it is harder to convince the world. What separates these men from Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, is that although both groups theorized about the natural world the experiments and facts backed up the actual scientists and not the amateurs.
While it is easy to come up with and support imaginary ideas of how the universe works, like Jim Carter, it may be a little more difficult to do so and retain the reputation of being intelligent as well. While his theory of circlons may be clearly false to us, and even possibly fringe on insane, we continue to regard him highly as a genius. Maybe we dismiss his heinous claims because he has in fact constructed and conducted tests that support his theories, and we realize the amount of ingenuity and problem solving necessary to do so. Or maybe it is simply because we realize that it is Carter’s imagination that makes him recognizably smart. While we know that Carter’s theories are flawed at best because they are clearly imagined, when we get closer to the end of the extent of human knowledge of the universe around us, we notice professional scientists doing the same thing, imagining theories. They do this because our ability to prove these theories is lacking for the time being but the fake theories still answer the question why to the best of our abilities. Why do we accept professional guesses before we accept those of amateurs? Well the answer to this is simple; the experts make their theories sound better. While they are still making things up, the experts make their theories logically, realistically and mathematically agreeable, with room for tweaking when the instrumentation to prove these theories comes into existence. While science and imagination remain separate on an applicable level, where science cannot yet be proven, imagination takes its place.
It is a very difficult task to be a respected member of the scientific community. Intellect and reason are hard to come by in the general population, but what do you think of someone who is clearly intellectual but has a serious flaw. Are they worthy of the scientific communities respect? Most would immediatly disregard Carter's theory of circlons. While it is obviously flawed it is not something we should lose respect over. I think carter is showing the rest of his bretheren in the scientific community that it is alright to have some creativeness. Someone who writes a book and spends most of their free time, like Carter did when he wasn't diving for abalone, must have creativeness, imgaintaion, and some kind of mysterious drive for something virtually unknown.Do i see any reason or truth in what i believe is a hoax? No, of course not. But who are we to say Carter might not be onto something groundbreaking?
The existence of people like Jim Carter and the recent developments in behavioral economics point out a very important fact about reason and our decisions: that even the most rational-appearing decisions are purely based on emotions. What we order off of a menu, which stocks we buy, and what we answer on an exam are fundamentally based on our emotions, not reason. We might use reason to determine which stocks we think are going to do the best, but why do we want to choose the best stock? Because that stock will yield the most money, and we equate money with happiness, a positive emotion. There have been medical accidents where, after brain surgery, the patient is no longer able to experience any emotions. These patients are also no longer able to make any decisions either, ranging from what to wear to professional business decisions. Behavioral Economics has realized that in order to persuade somebody to make the right rational decision, they need to be reminded of the emotional drive behind the decision. Including a picture of the taxpayer’s car instills fear into them. This negative emotion encourages them to pay their taxes. Furthermore, one of the major drives in being a scientist is the pleasure in discovering something new about how the universe works. This desire has led Jim Carter to believe in a ridiculous theory in order to make him feel like he is making more progress than his peers in discovering the mechanics of the universe. He additionally gets emotional satisfaction from the pleasure he feels in being different then his peers. The existence of Jim Carter points out that scientists must not let their emotions get in the way of discovering the world through reason. The emotional drive to make a scientific discovery must be present, but it should not be too strong.
Is the earth really made up of these wandering circlons that coexist with each other? No, but according to Jim Carter this is the true earth. Once making a very large sum of money after the invention of a lift for underwater objects, Carter spent the remainder of his days observing and testing his theory of circlons in which to the day he believes. The same experiment was done earlier by two men who were later greatly awarded by their countries. Should Carter be rewarded for the work he had done as the other scientists were rewarded for theirs? Though applying reason to his hypothesis that circlons coexist to create the world we live in, he was criticized by the science world for his abstract thoughts. When being interviewed, he was made fun of for his scientific thoughts, but praised for his great imagination. Becoming respected for his abstract imagination is not what Carter was looking for, he wanted to become a respected member of the scientific community, one that apparently mocks at his beliefs daily along with completely disregarding his studies.
t is a delightfully peculiar thing to see examples of very reputable scientists such as Thomson and Tait also believing in far-fetched views of the universe. As a scientist, numbers become law. For someone to work with numbers so masterfully and then to ignore all empirical evidence to come up with something like circlons, is fascinating. Although the ideas of those among the Natural Philosophy Alliance are wildly nonsensical, you can’t help but entertain their intricate universal insights. I think applying your imagination to a much larger scale is healthy, that is of course until you let it consume you. These natural philosophers have championed their hypotheses into infallible truths. It is a dangerous thing to hold believes based on nothing but a hunch, but these individuals have made the leap. You risk the corruption of your reason. It reminds me of when me and a couple of my buddies decided we weren’t going to read our assigned book, Great Expectations. We read all the chapter summaries we could find, and got a general idea of the plot. As for answering the detail oriented questions, we filled in the blanks with our own imagination of how we thought the story would play out. Mr. Curley gave us good marks for participation, but as you might have guessed, we bombed the test. But the thing was that since we were left undisputed on our claims, we accepted them as fact. It was impossible to rewire our perspective on how to characters in the book actually were because we had already allotted each character with their own nature and tendencies to adhere to our blasphemous storyline. It seems that the natural philosophers carried out the same process, but instead of holding beliefs about characters in a book, they explained the ebb and flow of the universe. In there minds the universe or universes adhered to their own dreamt up laws, and it made sense. And when someone works out something in their brain to be rational, it is hard to convince them otherwise.
People like Carter aren’t conventional but they belief in something that’s bigger than life. Everyone tries to make sense of the unknown but all we can do in the end is guess. Beliefs like Carter’s, allow people to have closure and peace of mind. I believe that all-in-all Wertheim was trying to at least convey that. Whether is circlons, fairy-people, or Jesus we have to allow people to express their feelings and not persecute them for it. Tolerance is a key value in the advancement of a society and ultimately, a civilization. From early history we can see that Jim Carter is an inarguably a very smart scientist. But when he published his work on circlons, people weren’t so open anymore to his ideas. He gathered evidence, and provided proof of his research, but all he got was opposition. This is because there is an extent to people’s belief in others. We all have our own beliefs and when we hear something that goes against those, we shut down, and deny the truth to any of it.
It is truly sad to see a masterful thinker fall so far. From making millions an invention that raises large quantities of abalone off the sea floor to the laughing stock of the scientific community is a journey not many people can say they have earmarked on, but Jim carter can. His theory of partials called circlons making up the universe is preposterous. For one there is no logical scientific data to fortify his claims. “An experimental apparatus using garbage cans and rubber sheeting to make long-lived smoke rings under controlled conditions.” Is not nearly the scientific proof need to back up a hypothesis? I’m sure Einstein used more advanced measuring equipment than a “trash bag” and “rubber sheeting” that you could buy at a local hardware store. The meir fact that he thinks that this type of equipment is acceptable goes the point that this man can’t be respected among those who spend millions in specialized labs to prove their theory. If there is anything positive that can be taken from this whole experience is that a creative imagination doesn’t making you an “Einstein.”
Margaret Wertheim’s article, “Physics on the Fringe”, gives scientists like Jim Carter and Immanuel Velikovsk the opportunity to have their scientific findings be heard by the public. Society is concerned with the facts, and if it has not been proven yet, then the people are not interested. Unless you discovered an element or proved a theory correct, then no one is interested in what you are trying to prove. As a whole, society needs to be open to new, imaginative ideas that could change the way we live in the future. There are always some phenomena waiting to be found, we just need to be willing to search for them, or be willing to accept the ones who spend their time doing it for us. The only scientists ever talked about are those who have their ideas supported by reason and intellect. By giving Carter a chance to explain his work, we find that he has valid points for believing our universe in made of “endless hierarchies of circlons”, but he cannot prove his case, so the scientific community does not take him seriously. We could all be missing out on something groundbreaking in the history of the universe, and no one is thinking twice about what Carter has come up with. I believe everyone needs to open their imagination and accept what these scientists are doing every day, because who are we to say that they are not on to something remarkable in the study of our universe.
The prospect of someone, who is as naturally brilliant as Jim Carter, could believe something as ridiculous as circlons shows us how heavily our emotions, and not reason, influence how we make our most important decisions. Every person, from the uneducated to a brilliant mind such as Carter allow their fantasies, which to the average person are clearly unscientific and illogical. There is something about circlons that holds a truth, a truth that only Carter, Eddington, or Velikovsky can understand. It lies somewhere deep in their minds, guarded by thick layers of emotion that reason couldn't possible penetrate. While he has inquired about the nature of the universe, like Newton, Eisenstein, or just the average person, he has failed to prove his ideas and observations with viable experimentation, or even facts. Others who study this area of the universe, often take a similar approach that Carter uses. They simply guess and check. However, they have the ability to back up their hypothesizes with math and experiments that are largely accepted by the scientific community. While imagination does play an important, and hidden, role in the scientific method, it does not merit the replacement of certain key elements that are required to bring forth the validity that a hypothesis needs in order to become fact.
Is the world we live in really made up of these nomadic circlons ? No, however Jim Carter considers this to be the true earth. Ever since Carter made a very large profit for inventing a lift for underwater objects, he's been observing and testing his theory of circlons. This very same experiment has been done before by two gentlemen, greatly awarded for their success by their countries. The other two scientists were awarded for their work, should Carter? He seems to be aloof in the science world due to his work being classified as "too abstract." Then when Carter would be interviewed, people would mock him because of his scientific beliefs. This poor guy can't get a break. His biggest goal in life is to be considered a scientist, but he's constantly being picked on by his fellow scientists. Even though Carter created the idea of applying reason to hypotheses and he proved it by applying reason to his hypothesis that circlons coexist to create the world we live in, he is still the bastard of the science world. He should use his imagination and construct something new and more like able for his fellow co-workers to help him gain his popularity back. But his morals are too strong to do something like that.
Margaret Wertheim’s “Physics on the Fringe”, portrays fascination and respect toward Jim Carter's and Immanuel Velikovsk's idea of circlons. Does the world really consist of nomadic circlons? No, of course not. But why do we immediately reject this idea without a second guess? In society today we sometimes lack the sense of imagination because we are obsessed with facts and reason. We want direct answers to all of our questions. Truthfully, no one cares about a scientific idea unless it has been tested and proven. This is where Jim Carter struggles trying to show his experiments. He may have some legitimate points but with no proven facts that circlons make up the earth, people without delay turn on his thoughts and think he is foolish. Could he be correct in his beliefs? Possibly, but it will take much more experimentation and time before people join him. It would be hard to keep an open mind on this idea but having open mindedness is always good because in the past, many scientist known to be idiotic in their time because of theories they originated, where later glorified for their findings. I'm not saying Carter will ever prove his idea of circlons but there is a possibility
Wertheim's article “Physics on the Fringe” focuses on a extremely intelligent man who aspires to be a scientist, yet is kicked down the stairs only because one crazy hypothesis he has on our world, and how its run by circlons. Although this idea is quite impossible seeming that he does not have actual evidence but only reason to his hypothesis, people or scientist shouldnt have ideas that are considered "too abstact". If Bill Gates was told his computer was too abstact, the world would be a completely differnet, undeveloped place. Abstract ideas in science should get respect, seeming that they could maybe change the future.
I believe the point trying to be made by Freeman Dyson is that we, as humans, are so concerned with finding answers, that we lose touch with our ability to imagine and dream. We look to the experts or distinguished names for all of our knowledge, and we undermine and disregard the more abstract reason of people such as Jim Carter and Immanuel Velikovsk. Dyson and Margaret Wertheim, author of Physics on the Fringe, find great admiration in people like them. They are not discouraged by critics who dismay their “different” ideas simply because of their lack in expertise, but instead they have a great passion for their ideas and continue to look for further understanding despite the obvious obstacles and flaws. Many people today in the search for knowledge would classify these people as ignorant and unintelligent, but I, as does Dyson Wertheim, believe that these people should be looked at with high regard. They have not forgotten our capability as humans to dream, as many today have on their search for truth and reason. Freeman Dyson also makes obvious how someone’s worth, respect, or knowledge varies how we accept their thoughts and opinions. The people seen with a lot of worth, respect, and knowledge appeal more to our reason no matter what it is they are saying, whereas someone’s ideas without these traits are easily dismissed. We must recognize imaginations ability to “enlarge our vision when observation fails,” despite the pedestal truth and reason sits on today. The works of Carter and Velikovsk are that “of art and high imagining,” and we all must strive to understand this versus making the same mistakes of those who criticize their works.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that these incorrect theories about the universe don’t stem from a lack of intellect or knowledge, but from romanticism about the universe. The theorists are trying to imagine a universe that is much more interesting than the one that we have. They are being imaginative with the structure of the universe. Doesn’t the multiverse theory sound much more interesting than what we can actually prove? These people are constructing a sort of science fiction that they base off of science. They are constructing a scientific structure of the universe that they create through their own imaginations. These imaginative proposals are interesting ideas that really can’t be proven right or wrong by science. That’s what is so exciting about these theories and science in general. There is so many things that we don’t know. Before we discover the answers any theory or interesting possibility can’t be left out. They hold credibility because they do stand up to logic but no one has proven them wrong. There is a vacancy of scientific fact that inspires these theorists to imagine the most fascinating possibilities.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many brilliant people that believed or theorized things that happened to be wrong. Isaac Newton for instance proposed his mathematical models that were later proven wrong by further developments by Albert Einstein. This is just like how Scientologists have based an entire religion off of a book by a science fiction writer. All the laws of the universe may never be discovered and until then there are plenty of things that can fill our imaginations.
The general consensus among the scientifically educated is that Jim Carter’s views, while interesting and entertaining, hold no intellectual water. His hypotheses on circlons are clearly erroneous. The question is, then, how does one arrive at such irrational conclusions? Carter’s intelligence is certainly not in question; it is his rationale that must be challenged. His claims lack any kind of evidence and any kind of support, yet Carter continues to vehemently defend his theories. How did he reach his conclusions? That is the very question that differentiates truth from falsehood. If a person can show how they reached their theories, then those ideas immediately gain credibility. It is when the proponent skips steps, or eliminates them altogether, that we become doubters. Edison could show you how to make a light bulb, Newton could show you how to test his theories, Franklin could show you how to harvest electricity, but I guarantee Carter could not show you how to view a circlon.
ReplyDeleteImagine the second grader who is encouraged to express his creativity in writing a story; his parents and teacher will tell him how good it was, patting him on the back and throwing out that-a-boy’s. Now add many years and take away all the complements, and you have the circlon theory. If carter wishes to write a science fiction book on cirlons, more power to him, but I do not see anyone benefitting from his scientific work on the subject. I am all about his creativity and scientific advancement, but I do not believe that the two should mix, ever. But then again, nobody believed Copernicus…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat Physics on the Fringe suggests about humanities reasoning is that sometimes what we want to believe is more powerful then the truth. It is not only uneducated people that let their fantasies run away with them but even brilliant minds such as Carter, Eddington, and Velikovsky. They all believe in ideas that you can see within a few seconds are completely unscientific and logically unsound. The question arises then, how can these intelligent men entertain these fantastical theories? It is quite simple they want to believe that they hold a kernel of truth that the rest of humanity does not understand or cannot comprehend. This position puts them in a very favorable place, as the prophet who society shuns at their own peril. They are able to vehemently insist on their positions because in their minds, what they are teaching is entirely sound and they do not doubt it at all. This is why when faced with cold unfeeling scientific facts they are able to reject them out of hand. The world that these brilliant men have created for themselves is one that makes them a hero, not just another minor scholar diligently searching for the truth. They have already found the truth. I believe it is for this reason that these fantastical ideas pop up on the fringes of science. It is always easiest to convince yourself that your right, it is harder to convince the world. What separates these men from Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, is that although both groups theorized about the natural world the experiments and facts backed up the actual scientists and not the amateurs.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is easy to come up with and support imaginary ideas of how the universe works, like Jim Carter, it may be a little more difficult to do so and retain the reputation of being intelligent as well. While his theory of circlons may be clearly false to us, and even possibly fringe on insane, we continue to regard him highly as a genius. Maybe we dismiss his heinous claims because he has in fact constructed and conducted tests that support his theories, and we realize the amount of ingenuity and problem solving necessary to do so. Or maybe it is simply because we realize that it is Carter’s imagination that makes him recognizably smart. While we know that Carter’s theories are flawed at best because they are clearly imagined, when we get closer to the end of the extent of human knowledge of the universe around us, we notice professional scientists doing the same thing, imagining theories. They do this because our ability to prove these theories is lacking for the time being but the fake theories still answer the question why to the best of our abilities. Why do we accept professional guesses before we accept those of amateurs? Well the answer to this is simple; the experts make their theories sound better. While they are still making things up, the experts make their theories logically, realistically and mathematically agreeable, with room for tweaking when the instrumentation to prove these theories comes into existence. While science and imagination remain separate on an applicable level, where science cannot yet be proven, imagination takes its place.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very difficult task to be a respected member of the scientific community. Intellect and reason are hard to come by in the general population, but what do you think of someone who is clearly intellectual but has a serious flaw. Are they worthy of the scientific communities respect? Most would immediatly disregard Carter's theory of circlons. While it is obviously flawed it is not something we should lose respect over. I think carter is showing the rest of his bretheren in the scientific community that it is alright to have some creativeness. Someone who writes a book and spends most of their free time, like Carter did when he wasn't diving for abalone, must have creativeness, imgaintaion, and some kind of mysterious drive for something virtually unknown.Do i see any reason or truth in what i believe is a hoax? No, of course not. But who are we to say Carter might not be onto something groundbreaking?
ReplyDeleteThe existence of people like Jim Carter and the recent developments in behavioral economics point out a very important fact about reason and our decisions: that even the most rational-appearing decisions are purely based on emotions. What we order off of a menu, which stocks we buy, and what we answer on an exam are fundamentally based on our emotions, not reason. We might use reason to determine which stocks we think are going to do the best, but why do we want to choose the best stock? Because that stock will yield the most money, and we equate money with happiness, a positive emotion. There have been medical accidents where, after brain surgery, the patient is no longer able to experience any emotions. These patients are also no longer able to make any decisions either, ranging from what to wear to professional business decisions.
ReplyDeleteBehavioral Economics has realized that in order to persuade somebody to make the right rational decision, they need to be reminded of the emotional drive behind the decision. Including a picture of the taxpayer’s car instills fear into them. This negative emotion encourages them to pay their taxes. Furthermore, one of the major drives in being a scientist is the pleasure in discovering something new about how the universe works. This desire has led Jim Carter to believe in a ridiculous theory in order to make him feel like he is making more progress than his peers in discovering the mechanics of the universe. He additionally gets emotional satisfaction from the pleasure he feels in being different then his peers. The existence of Jim Carter points out that scientists must not let their emotions get in the way of discovering the world through reason. The emotional drive to make a scientific discovery must be present, but it should not be too strong.
Is the earth really made up of these wandering circlons that coexist with each other? No, but according to Jim Carter this is the true earth. Once making a very large sum of money after the invention of a lift for underwater objects, Carter spent the remainder of his days observing and testing his theory of circlons in which to the day he believes. The same experiment was done earlier by two men who were later greatly awarded by their countries. Should Carter be rewarded for the work he had done as the other scientists were rewarded for theirs?
ReplyDeleteThough applying reason to his hypothesis that circlons coexist to create the world we live in, he was criticized by the science world for his abstract thoughts. When being interviewed, he was made fun of for his scientific thoughts, but praised for his great imagination. Becoming respected for his abstract imagination is not what Carter was looking for, he wanted to become a respected member of the scientific community, one that apparently mocks at his beliefs daily along with completely disregarding his studies.
t is a delightfully peculiar thing to see examples of very reputable scientists such as Thomson and Tait also believing in far-fetched views of the universe. As a scientist, numbers become law. For someone to work with numbers so masterfully and then to ignore all empirical evidence to come up with something like circlons, is fascinating. Although the ideas of those among the Natural Philosophy Alliance are wildly nonsensical, you can’t help but entertain their intricate universal insights. I think applying your imagination to a much larger scale is healthy, that is of course until you let it consume you. These natural philosophers have championed their hypotheses into infallible truths. It is a dangerous thing to hold believes based on nothing but a hunch, but these individuals have made the leap. You risk the corruption of your reason. It reminds me of when me and a couple of my buddies decided we weren’t going to read our assigned book, Great Expectations. We read all the chapter summaries we could find, and got a general idea of the plot. As for answering the detail oriented questions, we filled in the blanks with our own imagination of how we thought the story would play out. Mr. Curley gave us good marks for participation, but as you might have guessed, we bombed the test. But the thing was that since we were left undisputed on our claims, we accepted them as fact. It was impossible to rewire our perspective on how to characters in the book actually were because we had already allotted each character with their own nature and tendencies to adhere to our blasphemous storyline. It seems that the natural philosophers carried out the same process, but instead of holding beliefs about characters in a book, they explained the ebb and flow of the universe. In there minds the universe or universes adhered to their own dreamt up laws, and it made sense. And when someone works out something in their brain to be rational, it is hard to convince them otherwise.
ReplyDeletePeople like Carter aren’t conventional but they belief in something that’s bigger than life. Everyone tries to make sense of the unknown but all we can do in the end is guess. Beliefs like Carter’s, allow people to have closure and peace of mind. I believe that all-in-all Wertheim was trying to at least convey that. Whether is circlons, fairy-people, or Jesus we have to allow people to express their feelings and not persecute them for it. Tolerance is a key value in the advancement of a society and ultimately, a civilization. From early history we can see that Jim Carter is an inarguably a very smart scientist. But when he published his work on circlons, people weren’t so open anymore to his ideas. He gathered evidence, and provided proof of his research, but all he got was opposition. This is because there is an extent to people’s belief in others. We all have our own beliefs and when we hear something that goes against those, we shut down, and deny the truth to any of it.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly sad to see a masterful thinker fall so far. From making millions an invention that raises large quantities of abalone off the sea floor to the laughing stock of the scientific community is a journey not many people can say they have earmarked on, but Jim carter can. His theory of partials called circlons making up the universe is preposterous. For one there is no logical scientific data to fortify his claims. “An experimental apparatus using garbage cans and rubber sheeting to make long-lived smoke rings under controlled conditions.” Is not nearly the scientific proof need to back up a hypothesis? I’m sure Einstein used more advanced measuring equipment than a “trash bag” and “rubber sheeting” that you could buy at a local hardware store. The meir fact that he thinks that this type of equipment is acceptable goes the point that this man can’t be respected among those who spend millions in specialized labs to prove their theory. If there is anything positive that can be taken from this whole experience is that a creative imagination doesn’t making you an “Einstein.”
ReplyDeleteMargaret Wertheim’s article, “Physics on the Fringe”, gives scientists like Jim Carter and Immanuel Velikovsk the opportunity to have their scientific findings be heard by the public. Society is concerned with the facts, and if it has not been proven yet, then the people are not interested. Unless you discovered an element or proved a theory correct, then no one is interested in what you are trying to prove. As a whole, society needs to be open to new, imaginative ideas that could change the way we live in the future. There are always some phenomena waiting to be found, we just need to be willing to search for them, or be willing to accept the ones who spend their time doing it for us.
ReplyDeleteThe only scientists ever talked about are those who have their ideas supported by reason and intellect. By giving Carter a chance to explain his work, we find that he has valid points for believing our universe in made of “endless hierarchies of circlons”, but he cannot prove his case, so the scientific community does not take him seriously. We could all be missing out on something groundbreaking in the history of the universe, and no one is thinking twice about what Carter has come up with. I believe everyone needs to open their imagination and accept what these scientists are doing every day, because who are we to say that they are not on to something remarkable in the study of our universe.
The prospect of someone, who is as naturally brilliant as Jim Carter, could believe something as ridiculous as circlons shows us how heavily our emotions, and not reason, influence how we make our most important decisions. Every person, from the uneducated to a brilliant mind such as Carter allow their fantasies, which to the average person are clearly unscientific and illogical. There is something about circlons that holds a truth, a truth that only Carter, Eddington, or Velikovsky can understand. It lies somewhere deep in their minds, guarded by thick layers of emotion that reason couldn't possible penetrate. While he has inquired about the nature of the universe, like Newton, Eisenstein, or just the average person, he has failed to prove his ideas and observations with viable experimentation, or even facts. Others who study this area of the universe, often take a similar approach that Carter uses. They simply guess and check. However, they have the ability to back up their hypothesizes with math and experiments that are largely accepted by the scientific community. While imagination does play an important, and hidden, role in the scientific method, it does not merit the replacement of certain key elements that are required to bring forth the validity that a hypothesis needs in order to become fact.
ReplyDeleteIs the world we live in really made up of these nomadic circlons ? No, however Jim Carter considers this to be the true earth. Ever since Carter made a very large profit for inventing a lift for underwater objects, he's been observing and testing his theory of circlons. This very same experiment has been done before by two gentlemen, greatly awarded for their success by their countries. The other two scientists were awarded for their work, should Carter? He seems to be aloof in the science world due to his work being classified as "too abstract." Then when Carter would be interviewed, people would mock him because of his scientific beliefs. This poor guy can't get a break. His biggest goal in life is to be considered a scientist, but he's constantly being picked on by his fellow scientists.
ReplyDeleteEven though Carter created the idea of applying reason to hypotheses and he proved it by applying reason to his hypothesis that circlons coexist to create the world we live in, he is still the bastard of the science world. He should use his imagination and construct something new and more like able for his fellow co-workers to help him gain his popularity back. But his morals are too strong to do something like that.
Margaret Wertheim’s “Physics on the Fringe”, portrays fascination and respect toward Jim Carter's and Immanuel Velikovsk's idea of circlons. Does the world really consist of nomadic circlons? No, of course not. But why do we immediately reject this idea without a second guess? In society today we sometimes lack the sense of imagination because we are obsessed with facts and reason. We want direct answers to all of our questions. Truthfully, no one cares about a scientific idea unless it has been tested and proven. This is where Jim Carter struggles trying to show his experiments. He may have some legitimate points but with no proven facts that circlons make up the earth, people without delay turn on his thoughts and think he is foolish. Could he be correct in his beliefs? Possibly, but it will take much more experimentation and time before people join him. It would be hard to keep an open mind on this idea but having open mindedness is always good because in the past, many scientist known to be idiotic in their time because of theories they originated, where later glorified for their findings. I'm not saying Carter will ever prove his idea of circlons but there is a possibility
ReplyDeleteWertheim's article “Physics on the Fringe” focuses on a extremely intelligent man who aspires to be a scientist, yet is kicked down the stairs only because one crazy hypothesis he has on our world, and how its run by circlons. Although this idea is quite impossible seeming that he does not have actual evidence but only reason to his hypothesis, people or scientist shouldnt have ideas that are considered "too abstact". If Bill Gates was told his computer was too abstact, the world would be a completely differnet, undeveloped place. Abstract ideas in science should get respect, seeming that they could maybe change the future.
ReplyDelete