User talk:Shainathan
February 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm Deor. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Deor (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to add that I would have removed them if they were there when I saw your edits. I agree that they are inappropriate. If the page is yours, then WP:COI also applies. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Please address your concerns on article talk rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Response to Doer and Dougweller's. They deleted a link ("Polar Shift: A Possible Outcome") I added to Wikipedia. They were attempting to stifle a new way of looking at verifiable facts and information simply because "they" didn't think it was true. My response: I can assure you that the research and facts found in my link are true and verifiable. It appears that the people that edit Wikipedia are not interested in any information that does not meet the accepted model of academia. Too sad! I have restored the link in hopes that this research will reach the pubic that is looking for answers. However, if you choose to delete it again, I will not re-post. If that happens, I will simply have to accept the fact that the editors of Wikipedia have no interest in seeking answers outside the programming that has been given to us in our public schools. Case in point: The American Indians did not get to the Americas by way of the “land-bridge” across the Bering Strait. They do not share DNA with the Asians (e.g. no face hair). They got to the Americas by boat. The Polynesians managed to find and inhabit every last scrap of land, every tiny island in the vast Pacific Ocean (1/3 of Earth’s surface area), but modern academia would like us to believe that they somehow missed two giant continents. Modern academia is wrong with so many of their conclusions. Wikipedia is an instrument for allowing the information age to over-come the false conclusions of so-called experts and give us a better understanding of our world. It should always be based in verifiable facts without being constrained by accepted “theories” and single-minded conclusions that limit how the information is used or understood. Our collective knowledge (scientific and religious) has gotten to a point where we have a great deal more to work with today than we had 50 years ago. The same can be said for the preceding 50 years, and so on. In the information age of today we have so much data it is impossible for one person to process it all. In fact, most of us are so busy just dealing with life that few of us have taken the time to put these questions (and the mainstream answers) to the test by really examining them. Most of us accept the answers that the academic world is offering because we don’t have the time or knowledge to tackle the questions ourselves. We trust the so-called “people-in-the-know”, the professionals, the professors, and the scholars. We take it for granted that they must know what they are talking about. After all, they are the experts. Our society has become so specialized that not one of us knows the whole of human knowledge. So few of our scholars and professors have acquired for themselves, through experience, experimentation and observation, the knowledge they profess to know. And why should they? The people that came before them figured it out. The problem is, the things our forerunners figured out still have a lot of questions left to answer. Theories are being taught as fact, even though they are still theories. Concepts and ideas are being repeated by academia like parrots reciting words they have heard a hundred times. They too take for granted that what they learned is correct. After all, they paid good money for their educations. This is not to say that all scholars, professionals, and professors are just repeating what they were taught. There is an exception to every rule and our society has “Newtons” and “Einsteins” working at the forefront of our scientific knowledge. These individuals think outside “the box” on a daily basis trying to figure out what our forerunners did not. However, if their basic precepts are wrong, then they will not make much progress because they will have the tendency to make their findings fit into the accepted model. Consider this…each generation thinks that their level of understand is the height of knowledge and their model of the universe is right. People thought the world was flat and earth was at the center of the universe. We laugh at this now, but they believed this with all their strength. In the 1950s science thought that the moons of Jupiter were cold icy worlds with no activity and little differences between them. They thought this based on the single idea that deep space was far too cold for anything else. We know now that this is false but our belief in our current understanding is no different. With each new discovery we make corrections and then say to ourselves, “Now that we have corrected that error, all of our knowledge is once again correct.” But is it? We might think that we have it right and we can boast of our technology, but we need to admit that not all of our “knowledge” is correct. Just one hundred and fifty years ago our ancestors thought that steam and steel was the height of technology. Before that, they thought that wooden ships with sails were the ultimate power on the oceans. When Newton wanted to resolve a problem or answer a question, he would retreat into solitude and work on the problem with careful study. He was very careful to make sure that he did not assume anything. He was only interested in things that he could confirm and he did not fill in the gaps with things that ‘sounded’ or ‘felt’ right. When he presented his findings to his contemporaries they usually laughed and/or argued with him while citing the accepted model of the day. Very smart men, well versed in their field of study, tried to protect their view of the world from Newton’s observations. This is human nature and nothing about this characteristic of man has changed to this day. If one wants to see the truth of things more clearly, one must be willing to release the accepted model in favor of new ideas. That is not to say that everything we know is wrong, but rather that we must be willing to see things in a new light if we are to advance our knowledge. Try this little experiment: Watch a documentary from at least fifty years ago and pick out the “facts” that are wrong. Then, watch a documentary from today and try to figure out which “facts” (usually assumptions) will be considered wrong fifty years from now. Shainathan
Shainathan, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Shainathan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |