Skip to content

A Word on Biblical Literalism, Tower of Babel Edition

October 22, 2009
by

A moderatly tall, highly fictional buildingAfter the great flood in which god massacred every puppy, polar bear cub and infant, Noah’s family set to repopulating the world. Soon, people were up to their self-aggrandizing tricks building a tower that reached to heaven. God got pissed off, so he went all 9/11 on that shit.

The question comes to mind: how far need we delve into the skies before god goes fucking nutty? Currently, the world’s tallest building is 2,684 feet tall, and it’s doing ok. So the Tower of Babel had to be more than half a mile tall.

But here’s the problem, we regularly send people a couple hundred miles up – the altitude of the International Space Station is 191 nautical miles – and they don’t smack into Jesus. On a few very special occasions, we shot people a quarter of a million miles out to the moon without angering the lord and savior.

Success!It gets worse. The Voyager 1 spacecraft is the furthest artificial object from Earth. Built to explore Jupiter and Saturn, the Voyager was launched in 1977. To say it has outlasted its original mission would be an epic understatement. This fucking thing is on its way out of the solar system.

As of July 31, Voyager 1 was 10,287,000,000 miles away from our planet. That’s more than 110 times the distance from the sun to the earth. It’s still functional, and NASA expects it to remain functional for long enough to figure out exactly where the sun ceases to be the boss and the mysterious interstellar medium begins.

Astoundingly, terrifyingly far from homeIf it seems absurd to say that the Tower of Babel had to be more than 10 billion miles tall in order to become an affront to god, I suppose it is. But, for all the data it has gathered over all those miles, Voyager 1 hasn’t turned up a god. Not even a communion wafer. I guess those ancient architects really had their shit together.

Advertisements
25 Comments
  1. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 1:06 am

    OK Barry, since you think you’re so smart, let me pose a question to you: Why are you so critical of the blind faith practiced by religious people, when you yourself have blind faith that we have been to the moon and that we have sent fucking spacecrafts to the edge of the solar system?

    Let me tell you about a man named Charles K. Johnson. Johnson was president of the flat earth society from 1971 until his death in 2001. The flat earth society believes that the earth is flat like a pancake, that it is covered with a dome, and that the sun and stars are just painted on. Charles Johnson believed that the space program was nothing but a huge hoax perpetrated by the govenment in order to get tax dollars out of us, and scare other nations with our might. He even conducted scientific experiments in order to prove that the world is flat, and he published them in the quarterly flat earth news.

    So, how do you know that the world is round and that there are really space ships? You make fun of Christians because they have never really seen God, but have you ever been to space? Have you ever seen a satalite with your own eyes floating through the cosmos? Or have you just seen images on TV and the internet? Because, you know, those can be faked.

    • Barry permalink*
      October 22, 2009 1:36 am

      It’s a good question, Jonathan; how do we know anything about the planet and space?

      As for Earth’s curvature, the ancient Greeks had several ingenious proofs. My favorite, for its simplicity, was their observation of ships approaching shore. When a ship first comes into view on the horizon, the masts are visible before the hull. It would only make sense for the tallest part to be visible first if the ship is navigating over some sort of curvature. Of course, there are many other ways to know, but I have always been struck by the cleverness of that one.

      Secondly, neither days nor seasons make sense except in light of the earth’s oblate spheroid shape and the axis that it rotates on. If the sun were somehow affixed to a dome above a disc-shaped earth, its light would not hit the continents in the manner we observe. It would not appear on the eastern horizon, travel across the sky, then disappear over the western horizon. As for seasons, summer occurs in the northern hemisphere when the earth is furthest away from the sun; the warmth we experience during those months is due to the tilt of the planet’s axis with respect to the sun. If the earth were flat, the seasons would occur at the same time in both hemispheres (if seasons occurred at all.)

      Thirdly, the problem is that a conspiracy as grand as the one that this nut allegedly posited would be impossible to conceal. Put another way – one of this nation’s presidents couldn’t keep secret his involvement in a tiny conspiracy to break into an office; another president couldn’t keep secret his sexual dalliances with one person in the Oval Office.

      When all is said and done, more than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo moon missions. Astronomers, engineers, astronauts, mission control, janitors, etc. Not one of them has ever come forward with a confession or even an accusation that it was faked. The missions to the moon happened during the Cold War, yet our then-enemies in the Soviet Union verified our lunar samples had to have been brought back in a ship (for one thing, they did not bear the telltale signs of damage from the atmosphere.)

      Fourth, a guy publishing in his own flat-earth journal smacks of an attempt to avoid the grueling peer review process to which scientific findings are subjected. One of science’s greatest strengths is that practitioners around the world are called upon to keep their colleagues honest. There is constant checking on each others’ work, and you can rest assured that frauds and hoaxes are exposed and torn to shreds.

      Finally, much of the video footage from space the moon could not have been faked in the 1960s. The technology did not exist to render convincing footage of microgravity aboard the ships or the 1/6 gravity on the lunar surface; especially telling is the video demonstrating fluid dynamics in space. For all their efforts, movies that spend tens of millions of dollars on special effects, employing creative and technical geniuses, lack the natural elegance of NASA footage.

      Of course, these are just the answers that popped into my head upon reading your questions. There are many, many more responses that I don’t know enough to give.

      • Jonathan permalink
        October 22, 2009 1:53 am

        1- The ship approaching you is an optical illusion. Even round earthers believe this, as it has been known since the 19th century.

        2- I can no longer find his news letters online, but Charles K. Johnson did experiments that have to do with the light hitting the earth. They had to do with measuring shadows as one moves along a straight plane. I don’t remember the specifics, but he started at one end of a runway and his shadow was infront of him, and he got to the other end and it is behind him. He calculated that the sun was… I don’t remember the numbers, but as far away as “New York is to San Francisco” I seem to remember, and with I think a 34 miles radius, if I remember. Anyway, there is no reason to assume the dome moves in exactly a straight orbit… I think he figured it moving more like a girascope, pulled and pushed by magnatism.

        As for how the conspiracy could be conceeled, I don’t know, use you imagination.

        As far as the footage, there were many problems with the original. The flag waved, they were walking with the same background scrolling like a Mario game, etc. NASA claims to have lost the original footage, and redone it with computers for the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, which just kind of sounds a little hoaxy to me.

        Anyway, even if you do believe in all the space mumbo-jumbo, the bible says they wanted to get up to heaven. Heaven is much further than voyager. The Kabalah says that the tower reached 10 billion kilometers, which is also further than voyager has gone, so we’re not there yet. Also, the story is very clear that God’s anger was not at the hight of the tower, but the spirit in which it was built, i.e. as a direct affront to God.

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 2:19 am

        As I said, there is plenty of evidence beyond the simple observation of ships. For example, many private companies launch satellites. They bank on things like the curvature of the earth to plan the placement of the satellites. Sirius XM radio would be all kinds of fucked if the earth were flat. Even more compelling is the data from global positioning satellites that so many people have in their cars.

        As for the runway experiment, it would of course depend on how long it took him to cross the runway, the length of the runway, and the time of day. I can’t comment further without knowing more. Ditto for whatever information allegedly points to the sun being ~3,000 miles away with a radius of 34 miles and a magnetically-controlled dome.

        One more point on this issue; the work of one guy just doesn’t match the persuasive power of all of astronomy, not to mention nuclear physics.

        The Voyager is much further than 10 billion kilometers; it’s over 16 billion kilometers away.

        Let’s say that the tower existed and had been 10 billion kilometers tall (leaving aside that the primary Kabbalistic text – the Zohar – pre-dated the metric system by 500 years), its enormity would have guaranteed that it was visible from every point on a flat earth; actually, its radius at ground level would have probably taken up more room than is available on the earth – I am not sure how to begin computing that, but come on. A building 10 billion kilometers tall? Where would they get the material, time, and labor to construct something so gargantuan?

        If it were so big, why isn’t it mentioned in every ancient text contemporaneous with its alleged existence? It’s relegated to the mythology of one middle eastern group. This is not evidence for its existence.

        Finally – if there is a god, I declare the spirit behind this blog’s existence to be a direct affront to it. Let’s see what happens…

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 7:22 am

        Note: I have moved the following comment by Jonathan because it was out of order on the page. The text has not been changed.

        Jonathan said:
        The later it gets the drunker I get.

        The Kabalah says the tower of babel reached 2,360,000,000 parsas tall, which is around 10 billion kilometers. By some coincidance, this is around the radiace of the solar system as described by your scientists. There is another Kabalah story that says it was not a tower but a flying craft or machine that was used to gain control over the world.

        These two stories obviously contradict each other. You see, I am open minded, and am receptive to all different ideas.

        Also, the idea of a tower that tall also contradicts the notion that the sky is a solid dome or sphere. The Kabalah version would not work unless the earth were round. Is it any wonder then that it was written so soon after Columbus’s voyage?

        Let us explore exactly what Columbus did: Columbus said to everybody, “The world is round, and I will prove it by pointing my boat in the opposite direction of India, and sail around the world until I reach that continent.”

        So, Columbus pointed his boat in the opposite direction of India. He landed on a foreign shore which he mistook for India but was really America, and then turned around and went back to spain and declared that the world was round.

        But he didn’t prove the world was round. He traveled in a straight line, reached America, and then turned around and traveled in a straight line back. He had no hope of ever reaching India. If anything his story demonstrates a flat earth.

        I point this out because it is an example of things not being what they seem. Have you, Barry, ever seen any evidence with your own eyes, not on TV, the internet, or in a photographic represntation, that the world is round? As Charles K. Johnson said, “Any damn fool can see it’s flat.”

        Maritime navigators still use geometry that assumes the world is flat, because if they used round-earth geometry to plot their courses, they would get lost. The evidence is all around us, in our perceptions, and in physics.

        I have a GPS in my car, but it never gives me good directions so I stopped using it. Everybody I know who uses those things is always lost. They don’t prove the world is round because they don’t work. People get addicted to them in some kind of reward-punishment complex, like slot machines.

        As for satalite radio, do you have any proof that it is not terrestrial? Is the sound that different? Just because the FCC does not regulate it, this does not mean it comes from outer space.

        As for you declaring your blog an affront to God, I don’t think that God will make you speak a strange tongue, but he may make it so that others can not understand you. He made the builders of the tower speak different tongues because he knew that without cooperation, they could not challenge him. Maybe God will isolate you from your fellow man, make you into a loner, who, without the support of his fellows, can not rise up and do significant things in this world. Just a thought. Not everything God does has to look all supernatural and shit.

        As for the sun, I just don’t remember the numbers, but I remember the calculations making sense. I haven’t read Johnson in about three years, and can no longer find his original writings online.

      • korbie permalink
        October 22, 2009 9:25 am

        Are you seriously suggesting what you’re saying? Do you really believe everything’s just a giant conspiracy theory to undermine the sanctity of your holy texts?

        Let’s not even get into the arguments you currently hold and think about logic. Is it more likely that a flat earth did exist and pretty much every scientist, every politician, and every intelligent, knowledgeable person on the planet is lying to you, or is it more possible that the flat earth theory is just false?

        Have you every heard of the Occam’s Razor? If you have two or more opposing hypotheses, usually the simplest one is the best. You don’t need all this other stuff. What you’re saying is also completely devoid of evidence.

        If we had a flat earth, none of our accomplishments in physics would work as indeed the calculations would all be incorrect.

        Where do we get an atmosphere if the Tower of Babel were to be that high? We’d all be dead.

        There’s no structual integrity when you get that high. Heck, we didn’t have the building materials necessary to even make skyscrapers until we came up with steel foundations.

        GPS’s work fine. I use one quite often. Perhaps it’s because you don’t read the instructions? I’m not saying anything about your intelligence, but please read the instructions if you don’t understand how to use it.

        If satellites weren’t around, how can certain areas without cable get reception?

        If the earth were flat, how would you explain Magellan’s trip around the world? Indeed, how would you explain all the trips around the world that undoubtably happen everyday? How did we have World War II if we didn’t go over the Pacific Ocean to fight the Japanese? The Japanese which are connected to Asia, which is connected to Europe, which is connected to the Americas with the Atlantic Ocean, which is connected to the Japanese with the Pacific Ocean, and so on?

        By the way, nobody in hell thought the earth was flat back when Colombus set out for India. Colombus stupidly thought the earth was shaped like a pear. Everybody laughed. We all knew it was round, it’s just that there would’ve been way too much ocean between Europe and India to get there safely.

      • korbie permalink
        October 22, 2009 9:29 am

        Plus, even if it were all just a big conspiracy, and everyone’s lying to you, that doesn’t make your little hypothesis any more correct. You still haven’t put forth any evidence for your claims. Where are they?

      • David permalink
        October 22, 2009 11:33 am

        Korbie just tanned Jonathan’s hide.

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 1:54 pm

        This is Jonathan’s most recent reply. Sorry about the mess in the comment ordering. I am going to look into that.

        Jonathan said:

        Korbie,

        The point isn’t that the earth is flat, or that it’s round. The point is that scientific literalism is no different from biblical literalism. Read Barry’s original post, and figure out what the argument is about before you reply next time. Your argument that all these people can not possibly be lying to me about the earth being round is the same argument a Christian could make, that all these people can not possibly be lying to you that the earth was created in seven days. There may be a lot of smart scientists writing a lot of stuff, but there have also been a lot of smart theologians who wrote a lot of stuff. I am sorry, but just because a lot of scientists and politicians write a lot of stuff, that is not going to make me believe the world is round.

        Science and religion are both manifestations of opposing cultures. We chose which culture we most want to identify with, and then adopt that culture’s beliefs.

        There are people who believe in evolution without understanding the scientific mechanisms behind it, i.e. natural selection, genetics, etc. There are also people who believe in creationism without understanding the theological arguments behind it.

        Both beliefs are about acceptance into a specific culture rather than well thought out analysis. Scientists are just priests in modern clothing. We chose our culture, and then adopt that culture’s beliefs.

        It is the same with flat-earth round-earth. Round-earthers are conformists. They believe in the round earth because they were told in school that the earth is round, and so was everybody else, and they couldn’t go against what everybody else thinks. Have you ever heard of Foucault’s panopticon? It is the mechanism by which society gets you to believe the earth is round.

        Flat-earthers are free thinkers. We don’t accept that something is true just because we were told so in school. We go out and come to our own conclusions, based on our own observations.

        And come on, the flat earth is by far the simpler of the two explanations. Occam!

        I hope this helps to clarify things.

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 2:07 pm

        Just for the record, Jonathan – I think Korbie’s most persuasive argument was that you travel west to get to Asia, and you travel East to get to Europe. If you continue traveling west from Asia while I am traveling east from Europe we’ll meet.

        And before you ask if I have observed this – yes, I have. I have flown over the Atlantic Ocean several times. I have also flown over the mainland of the United States several times. Flying east, I saw what I expected to see: England, France, Italy. Flying west, I saw the flat center of this country, the Rocky Mountains, California, and British Columbia. Everything I saw (and I pay careful attention from airplane windows – another story entirely) corresponded beautifully with everything that maps, globes, and aerial photography had me expecting to see.

        I think that what you are arguing is that the world is essentially a flat disk with the North Pole as the center. If that were true, access to sections of Antarctica other than those that lie directly outward on the surface of the disk would require trips across the entire diameter of the flat earth. That’s simply not the case.

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 2:12 pm

        Finally –

        This picture of the flat earth model

        demonstrates what I meant above about Antarctica. Furthermore, the images in this very picture come from satellite photography. Clearly.

      • Korbie permalink
        October 22, 2009 2:43 pm

        I probably needed to further explain Occam’s Razor. You may say that the flat earth hypothesis is simpler, HOWEVER, both arguments also REQUIRE evidence. Even if one were simpler, it would not be considered factual if there were no evidence for the claim.

        For example, theory of gravity versus theory of relativity. The theory of gravity is much simpler than the theory of relativity, but the theory of relativity has better evidence towards it, and is thus correct. The theory of gravity produces results though very close, not entirely on the dot while the theory of relativity does.

        What you’re suggesting, the flat earth hypothesis, does not have a shred of evidence to confirm it. All you have are supposed observations when such observations would give the impression of a flat surface if the distance were to be quite large. Such is not the case.

        And indeed, as Barry said, if the earth were flat, we would not be able to go west/east and come back to the same place and we would not be able to go south/north and come back to the same place.

        Also, I’m insulted that you would deem my reliance on science similar to that of religion. Religion is based upon blind faith. Faith, by definition, means without evidence. Science is entirely the opposite. It requires evidence. Being science means it can explain and, most importantly, predict behaviors. If the earth were flat as you say, it would mean we would eventually fall off the earth. That is entirely incorrect. If the earth were flat as you say, all of the earth’s oceans would have gone down the sides long ago.

        Do you seriously disrespect science to place it into the same category of religion? Do you seriously put all of our huge technological and scientific advances in the same classification of that which men thought up thousands of years ago when nobody even had a clue about anything? Do you seriously dismiss all the knowledge we have since acquired, everything we have learned, to go back to the bronze age cultures and medieval cultures where illnesses are demons and from whence when the church was in control, advancement was slow and repressed?

        Do you use science today? Your computer, where does it come from? Science. Are you suggesting otherwise? Where do we get all our modern medicines? Science. Would you like to die at the age of 30 like long ago? Where do we get indeed everything that modern society holds dear? Science. Are you seriously suggesting that you consider all of this just lies?

        And no, I do not confirm to science because it’s there as I do not confirm to religion because it’s there. I choose science because there’s evidence. What I mean by evidence is physical evidence. If you really believe in religion, be my guest, but where is the physical evidence? What does religion actually do besides comfort? Comfort doesn’t mean reality. I do not believe in science just because others also do. I believe in science because there’s tangible evidence of it in ever facet of our lives. Cellphones? Science. Computers? Science. Television, automobiles? Science.

        What has religion done for me? Any answers that it may bring has no real usefulness, no practicality. Remember a day long past? Where does lightning come from? God. Where does rain come from? God. Why do volcanoes erupt? God. Why are there hurricanes? God. What usefulness comes from these explanations? Nothing at all. It explains nothing. It only replaces it with simply another, even more impossible question.

        Why do you believe in a flat earth? Have you ever thought about it? Why do I believe in a round earth? BECAUSE THERE’S EVIDENCE. Why do I not believe in a flat earth. Because there isn’t any. It’s a very simple premise. And you’re insulting me if you’re calling me a conformist. I happen to be extremely skeptical of whatever anyone says. I do question scientists in those theories that do not have sufficient evidence for my needs. However, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT SAYS THERE’S A FLAT EARTH! We have astronauts, we have satellites, we have mathematics that simply prove the earth is round. What do you have?

      • Korbie permalink
        October 22, 2009 3:27 pm

        By the way, did this Charles K. Johnson ever publish his papers in a peer reviewed science journal or magazine? The greatness of the science is that is welcomes criticism. Criticism is key to the advancement of humanity. If you bring up ideas, make sure it can hold up to the scrutiny of the rest of the population. If indeed he did believe in a flat earth, why? If he did do experiments, did he allow other scientists to do the same?

        If there’s one things scientists won’t do is to immediately dismiss an idea. If he has published it in a peer reviewed magazine, what is the result of that? Were his experiments confirmed by other scientists? I would not believe anything unless it was confirmed.

        You might remember the cold fusion fiasco a few years back. We all thought it was absolutely wonderful. Then we tested it. Instantly, we found it was just a hoax. Has Charles K. Johnson done that peer review process? If it was never tested by another scientist, I wouldn’t just immediately accept such an idea.

      • Barry permalink*
        October 22, 2009 3:29 pm

        Commenting on this post is closed. Please comment here: https://isitluck.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/the-shape-of-science-jonathan-weighs-in/

      • Alek permalink
        October 22, 2009 7:58 am

        I’m feeling quite a draft from all the hand waving.

  2. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 2:13 am

    More on the conspiracy of the space program:

    You talk about what a huge scale it was, and how something so big can not be a hoax. This is the same argument religious people use. There are so many ruins, the stories are so expansive, it is so big that it can not be a hoax. Some guy told a tribe of Hebrews: Once you were slaves in Egypt, now you are free, and although they had no memory of being slaves, they were like, Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I believe you!

    The fact that something is large in scope does not mean it’s real. Not a great argument.

  3. David permalink
    October 22, 2009 9:12 am

    I don’t think being drunk is your problem, Jonathan. Being a moron is. Sit down.

  4. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 1:41 pm

    Korbie,

    The point isn’t that the earth is flat, or that it’s round. The point is that scientific literalism is no different from biblical literalism. Your argument that all these people can not possibly be lying to me about the earth being round is the same argument a christian could make, that all these people can not possibly be lying to you that the earth was created in seven days. There may be a lot of smart scientists writing a lot of stuff, but there have also been a lot of smart theologians who wrote a lot of stuff. I am sorry, but just because a lot of scientists and politicians write a lot of stuff, that is not going to make me believe the world is round.

    Science and religion are both manifestations of opposing cultures. We chose which culture we most want to identify with, and then adopt that culture’s beliefs.

    There are people who believe in evolution without understanding the scientific mechanisms behind it, i.e. natural selection, genetics, etc. There are also people who believe in creationism without understanding the theological arguments behind it.

    Both beliefs are about acceptance into a specific culture rather than well thought out analasys. Scientists are just priests in modern clothing.

    It is the same with flat-earth round-earth. Round-earthers are conformists. They believe in the round earth because they were told in school that the earth is round, and so was everybody else, and they couldn’t go against what everybody else thinks. Have you ever heard of foucault’s panopticon? It is the mechanism by which society gets you to believe the earth is round.

    Flat-earthers are free thinkers. We don’t accept that something is true just becuase we were told so in school. We go out and come to our own conclusions, based on our own observations.

    And come on, the flat earth is by far the simpler of the two explanations. Occam!

    I hope this helps to clarify things.

  5. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 2:59 pm

    But Barry, there is nothing you have done that you couldn’t do with a flat earth model. Yes, the North Pole is in the center, but you could still reach England from North America without flying over it.

    Here is a chapter from a book on Zetetics, which was the forerunner of the modern flat earth movement, which explains why and how your travels could work on a flat earth:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm

    I should ask though, why are so many people getting so emotional about this? I have been called a moron, and all sorts of names. Well, I am tough, and I can take it, but I still ask, why the hostility? Does such anger have a place in reasoned scientific discourse, or does it spring from the insecurity that always accompanies blind faith?

  6. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 3:02 pm

    And here is another similar chapter:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm

  7. Jonathan permalink
    October 22, 2009 3:15 pm

    Sorry, I keep on hitting reply instead of starting a new thread. These two book chapters illustrate how

    But Barry, there is nothing you have done that you couldn’t do with a flat earth model. Yes, the North Pole is in the center, but you could still reach England from North America without flying over it.

    Here is a chapter from a book on Zetetics, which was the forerunner of the modern flat earth movement, which explains how your travels could work on a flat earth:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm

    And here is another similar chapter, on circum-navigating, explaining why:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm

    I should ask though, why are so many people getting so emotional about this? I have been called a moron, and all sorts of names. Well, I am tough, and I can take it, but I still ask, why the hostility? Does such anger have a place in reasoned scientific discourse, or does it spring from the insecurity that always accompanies blind faith?

    Why am I being accused of being a religious nut? Is God evoked in either of the two above chapters, or are reasoned calculations and measurements used? Science is a great tool. I am not bashing it. It helps us explain the world, and learn about it. What I object to is science being misused, and Korbie, it sounds like you are misusing science. Hey, I object to religion being misused as well. Everything has its place in this world. And while science is great, it is not so great that it is above being abused by its adherents.

    The Flat Earth chapters I have posted were not thought up thousands of years ago. They were come to during the scientific age, through reasoned scientific analysis. But because they are a little different from the mainstream, you blow a casket.

  8. Korbie permalink
    October 22, 2009 3:23 pm

    By the way, did this Charles K. Johnson ever publish his papers in a peer reviewed science journal or magazine? The greatness of the science is that is welcomes criticism. Criticism is key to the advancement of humanity. If you bring up ideas, make sure it can hold up to the scrutiny of the rest of the population. If indeed he did believe in a flat earth, why? If he did do experiments, did he allow other scientists to do the same?

    If there’s one things scientists won’t do is to immediately dismiss an idea. If he has published it in a peer reviewed magazine, what is the result of that? Were his experiments confirmed by other scientists? I would not believe anything unless it was confirmed.

    You might remember the cold fusion fiasco a few years back. We all thought it was absolutely wonderful. Then we tested it. Instantly, we found it was just a hoax. Has Charles K. Johnson done that peer review process? If it was never tested by another scientist, I wouldn’t just immediately accept such an idea.

Trackbacks

  1. My Little Baby’s All Grows’d Up « Is It Luck?
  2. Best of Luck « Is It Luck?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: