Raising Standards

Hi, Brenda. Just for the record, I tried to read your posts and your off-site essay, just to be fair, but I honestly feel more confused about your idea now than I did before. Also, I’m quite confident that it’s not my fault that I don’t understand it.You haven’t really put forth the basic concepts of your new theory yet: your trend is to write something very, very simple, then immediately dive into the middle somewhere as if you expect your audience to have understood the entirety of your theory already.Here’s an example (from Message #9): This is a good start: it gives a basic introduction to the topic. The next step would be to explain how something moves from one “kingdom” to another: does everything in the old kingdom suddenly transform into a member of the new kingdom? Or, does the new kingdom “evolve” out of a single member of the old kingdom and wipe out the rest of the old kingdom? These are questions you haven’t answered, and, without these answers, I’m completely at a loss as to what you’re presenting here at all.After the above quote, this is your next paragraph that deals with the exposition of your theory: This is quite confusing: I don’t know how this fits in with the most important tenet (the last quote). Apparently, you can communicate with the kingdom that is going to “ascend” from the current kingdom? Does this mean the next kingdom already exists, but in some sort of “spiritual” form? This is very confusing.You go on to say things like, “A 6th kingdom event” and “inviting a girasas kingdom into your life,” all without explaining what “6th kingdom” should mean to us, or how, why or when someone would want to invite an individual girasas kingdom into their life. You also mentioned Jesus in a later post, which is even more confusing, because this whole idea seems contradictory to Christian theology. And, in your essay, you hinted that animals are currently in a different number kingdom than humans.These are just some examples of things you haven’t explained, yet threw out as if you expect your audience to understand. This is why your idea is confusing: not because it is a bad scientific/religious idea (incidentally, I think it is, though), but because your exposition of it is confusing, unfocused and disoriented.What you need to do about it:- Start from the beginning and tell us how “ascension” occurs without referring to ideas from the theory that you haven’t yet explained; maybe pause here and wait for responses before moving on to the next point (this goes for each point in succession)
- Explain from the very beginning what progression has already occurred, step by step, again without referring to ideas that you haven’t yet explained
- Explain how, why and when “communion” with higher kingdoms would happen, and what the results of this would be
- Lastly, if you want this to be considered a scientific theory, rather than just another New Age religion, you need to provide some real data from observations of the world and objective testing on those ideas. Otherwise, science does not have the power to claim it.As it stands right now, this new idea of yours sounds to me like just another half-cocked, goofy religion trying to embrace a faulty interpretation of the science of biology and turn it into a spiritual experience. It sounds one step below scientology to me. It seems to contradict the knowledge science has gained about biology, but doesn’t provide the evidence necessary to overturn current theories.Your task, if you hope to convert me (or anybody) to your new “theory,” is to explain, in the simplest way possible (I’m pretty dense, and I get lost in details pretty easily), what the basic ideas and mechanics of your idea are. I will not go to your temple, attend your classes, or even acknowledge that your idea has any merit, until I actually know what your idea is.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda. Oh. Well, I was speaking within the framework of this debate forum. Nobody here has any idea what Madame Blavatsky's idea really is, so there really isn't much for us to discuss unless you, as the originator of the thread, tell us what it is we're to be discussing. Since nobody has any background in this idea except you, it's up to you to provide the necessary background.Keep in mind that we're all busy people with experiments to run, families to raise, jobs to do, presentations to make, nuclear power plants to run (or mop) and/or classes to attend: unless you present something truly groundbreaking here, none of us is going to see the need to take the time necessary read a book about something that we aren't yet interested in.It's also part of the Forum Guidelines, #5: provide your own arguments, not someone else's. No, not really. Your explaining it to us will give us at least a basic understanding of the idea. Once we have a basic understanding of it, we can compare it to the evidence we have, or we can even design tests specifically to seek the phenomena we should see in nature if your idea is correct.I do counterclaim that the theory doesn't exist under my understanding of the word "theory" (a well-substantiated explanation for physical phenomena that is corroborated by repeated testing). You may be using a different version of the word "theory," but there is only one version of the word that is permissible in science, and that requires you to provide evidence and testing based on that evidence. Until then, I feel that I am justified in saying that this theory does not exist (at least, not in the form of a scientific theory).Edited by Bluejay, : Added specific information about the forum guidelines

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda.This is a little better. I'm still at a loss for a few things though: I need some definitions.What do you mean by "ascent" and "descent?" Do these refer, respectively, to, "upwards" and "downwards" changes? What is a "globe," and how does this term relate to "race?"Next: do kingdoms start on the 7th globe and "descend" through 6th, 5th, 4th, etc.? Or, do they start on the 1st globe and "ascend" through 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.? Or, is it both: 1st globe ascends through 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., to the 7th, then descends again back down to 1st, thus completing one round? Then, they do it again seven times before moving into the next kingdom?Also, when you say "ascend" and/or "descend," does this refer to a simple evolutionary process as described by science? Or is it something more spiritual or religious, such as reincarnation or animism?

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda.More help: what do you mean by "evolving" vs "involving?"Also, when a kingdom ascends or descends to a new globe, does the whole thing just move to the new place, or does a new kingdom rise in the new globe that somehow develops from the old kingdom? By "residual records," are you referring to the fossil record? If so, does this theory you raise have any conflict with the classical notion of evolution: does it reject that humans evolved from apes or that all tetrapods evolved from fish, for example? What is the "energy" that we are exchanging with the other kingdoms? When you say we are not in actual contact with the plante, what do you mean? Does "plante," in this case, refer to something different from trees, flowers, grasses and ferns?

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda. Here we go: this is where we get to the science part. If I'm interpreting you correctly in this thread, you are wanting classes and science in general to consider your "theory" in their studies. To do that, you need to take a scientific approach to explain the physical mechanics of the process.You say evolution happens, but with different rules. If you could explain these rules, we could determine a few things about your theory:(1) Whether or not it's actually something different from evolution as described by modern sciences.
(2) What sort of phenomena we would expect to see in nature becaue of these rules.I am always open to listening to somebody's new idea about how natural processes work. I think it's important to do so. However, I feel very strongly that any idea that wants time in a science classroom should be analyzed, scrutinized and tested by the most objective, honest and rigorous testing available before it is permitted.Keep in mind that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory of evolution as it is now presented, and, to my knowledge, none that contradicts it. However, it is still a growing science, and there may be something more to contribute. I personally feel that the fundamental backdrop of the theory is completely sound, and that only the details remain to be filled in.Now, how does the Blavatsky-Tucker model of evolution/involution differ from evolution by natural selection? Once I have learned what the differences are, it is my intention to suggest a way to test the two models (Blavatsky-Tucker and Darwin-Wallace) against one another.Edited by Bluejay, : Typo.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda. Wow. I don't think I deserved that, even in a Free-for-All . Perhaps you replied to the wrong message? I suspect this was meant for Iblis, because it seems to tie in the topic of his message quite nicely.At any rate, I'm only really interested in the scientific aspects of this discussion. I don't want you to feel that your idea is being discriminated against by scientists, because science is always open to new ideas, as long as these ideas aren't stupid, petty, useless, unsubstantiated or otherwise a waste of valuable scientific time, resources and funding. Thus, I will entertain your idea for at least a little while, until its scientific value can be ascertained. In the event that no scientific value is found, I will reject your claim that it should be taught in classrooms, but I will still be willing to defend it as a legitimate minority religion.Thus, I would like to know the Blavatsky-Tucker take on the process of evolution, so that I (and other scientists on this forum) can determine whether there is ample reason to investigate this new concept. I am somewhat biased against it at this time because of the wealth of evidence supporting the current model and the paucity of evidence contradicting it, but there is the off chance that you've got something worth exploring.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda.I've tried to be polite, patient and helpful on this thread, despite it's placement in Free For All, where I can say all sorts of mean things without getting suspended for it. That’s charity, and it’s a rare gift in science. All I want is a simple explanation of something that I could test scientifically. What you've said is not making any sense to me (or anyone else, apparently).I asked, "How do things evolve in your hypothesis?"You responded, "By different rules than Darwinism."I asked, "What are the rules and how are they different?"You responded, "Look at what I said to Straggler, which is, 'go read a book, then help me figure it out’."The United States was built on a lot of brilliant standards of freedom, equal treatment and balance of power. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can lobby for the right (maybe with some success someday). If you want custody of the stereo when your wife leaves you, you can get a lawyer to lobby for it. If you don’t want Barack Obama to be presient, you can vote for John McCain. Heck, if you want McDonald’s to be at fault for not warning you that your damn coffee is hot, you can sue them!Science is not the United States of America. Science is not required to treat any idea with any sort of respect at all. Scientific theories are not required to share power or even air time with other ideas. Scientists are not required to do what the laypeople want them to do, or even to read the petitions of concerned parents. Nor was it ever meant to be thus.In fact, science is very much the opposite. Science is actively discriminatory against any idea that doesn’t provide adequate support for itself. Scientists are expected to attack and attempt to dismantle any new idea that comes along the pike until the new idea either dies or becomes impervious to their attacks. We have been doing so for a very long time. Science is, in fact, an organized conspiracy against ideas without evidence, old wives’ tales, and unfounded dogmas, in conjunction with a method for finding the ideas that replace the stupid, uneducated drivel of concerned parents.You are asking us, as scientists, to help you bring your idea to public awareness and even to teach it in classrooms. Yet, you won’t even answer my simple questions, which I designed specifically to find out exactly what your new idea is. You expect me to read up on this stuff and help you work out how this could work in real life, despite the fact that I see no compelling evidence that says my current paradigm is not already sufficient.In science, we have something called the “burden of proof,” and it falls on the person who’s making the new claim. The burden of proof once fell on the shoulders of the Theory of Evolution, and ToE rose to the challenge and won. Now, the burden of proof is shifted to the next challenger in line. That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it has always been. Since you’re the challenger, the burden of proof is on you. I’m not going to give your idea any consideration until it has earned it with observations, evidence and experiments.And, you’ve got a big champion to topple if you hope to find a place in biology.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda. But, what if my theory invalidates some types of religion? I am a Christian myself, a member of a priesthood, in fact: I have been through all the spiritual experiences that any Christian has ever been through, and I still sit here as a believer in evolution, not because I no longer believe in my religion, but because I have seen and even personally collected the physical, tangible evidence for evolution. I do not subscribe to mysticism when mysticism is less capable of explaining the facts than empiricism. "Opening my theory" will also render my theory no longer in harmony with the evidence. I prefer to study a reality that offends most people, gods and spirits over a dead-end fairy tale that pleases a megalomaniacal god and all His mindless zombie followers. Standing in front of a doctoral committee or reading what your peer-review board has to say about your latest year-long research project has roughly the same effect. It's neither polite nor fair for any intelligence of any magnitude to demand something from us without providing a reason or explanation. And, demanding supporting evidence is just science: any "higher intelligence" should know all about science, and should thus not be offended when I want to see their research. In fact, if they really are more intelligent than I, they should expect me to want that. And, as I've already said, they should expect that all of our "lower intelligence" scientists will want to see their "greater knowledge." Good for them: I hope they do just that, so that science will finally have proof that they actually exist. However, since nothing like that has ever been reliably recorded, I won't wait around assuming that it's going to happen any minute.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Brenda. Because nobody else wants to.I know it sounds a bit childish, but that's the way it is. Nobody else sees any reason to look at your idea, so we're not going to look at it until it's proponents give us a good reason (i.e. evidence). And, since you're apparently the only proponent, you don't get the luxury of delegating to someone else: you have to do it yourself.Remember at the beginning of this thread? I tried hard to get you to explain your idea, and you did a little bit, then just stopped on me and got upset that I wouldn't do the research myself. I tried. I even read your essay, but it was so unstructured that I couldn't keep up with it. So, I came back for clarification from you, and you refused to provide it for me. How could you possibly expect me to maintain any interest in your idea after you treated my inquiries that way?I still have no idea what your theory even is. And, as long as you allow this situation to continue, you are not going to find anyone who will help you. You have to explain your idea, and, if you want it be seriously considered by scientists, you also have to provide data. No one else will help you until you do this.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.