Video Here it is: And here is Greg’s talk: Transcript I followed this closely during the speech, but did not adhere to it perfectly. I don’t have a transcript of Greg’s talk. A fascinating experiment was conducted not too long ago. An experiment about
Goethe vs. Newton all over again, and again, and again. Goethe was also interested in natural sciences. He independently discovered the human intermaxillary bone in 1784, was one of the many precursors in the history of evolutionary thought, popularized the Goethe barometer using a principle established by Torricelli, and published his Theory of Colours in 1810, which he considered his most important work. In his Farbenlehre (Theory of Colours), Goethe was vehemently opposed to Newton’s analytic treatment of color.
Goethe’s Theory of Colours
By the time Johann Wolfgang von Goethe developed his interest in natural sciences, Isaac Newton’s color theory was already generally acknowledged. However, as Goethe later wrote
“… as I looked at a white wall through the prism, that it stayed white! That only where it came upon some darkened area, it showed some colour, then at last, around the window sill all the colours shone… It didn’t take long before I knew here was something significant about colour to be brought forth, and I spoke as through an instinct out loud, that the Newtonian teachings were false.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours Original title
Zur Farbenlehre
Translator
Charles Eastlake[1]
Language
German
Publisher
John Murray
Publication date
1810
Published in English
1840
OCLC
318274261
Light spectrum, from Theory of Colours – Goethe observed that colour arises at the edges, and the spectrum occurs where these coloured edges overlap.
The work originated in Goethe's occupation with painting and primarily had its influence in the arts, with painters such as (Philipp Otto Runge, J. M. W. Turner, the Pre-Raphaelites, Hilma af Klint, and Wassily Kandinsky).
Although Goethe's work was rejected by some physicists, a number of philosophers and physicists have concerned themselves with it, including Thomas Johann Seebeck, Arthur Schopenhauer (see: On Vision and Colors), Hermann von Helmholtz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel, and Mitchell Feigenbaum.
Goethe's book provides a catalogue of how colour is perceived in a wide variety of circumstances, and considers Isaac Newton's observations to be special cases.[2] Unlike Newton, Goethe's concern was not so much with the analytic treatment of colour, as with the qualities of how phenomena are perceived. Philosophers have come to understand the distinction between the optical spectrum, as observed by Newton, and the phenomenon of human colour perception as presented by Goethe—a subject analyzed at length by Wittgenstein in his comments on Goethe's theory in Remarks on Colour
Carl Gustav Jung stated in one of his book - truth is what works. I have lived with that in mind. Whatever a doctor or whomever says, what works for me is what I do. Lots of people tell me not to take aspirin. I have white willow bark and I take it and it works. I took a prescription drug a few weeks ago and after 4 tablets I was so sick I thought I would die. That is one I don not take - it worked the wrong way. I think the biggest mistake made in science, is to treat every person as identical, which we all know is total nonsense. Statistics can be used in every which way. Science can too. It is based on statistics, mostly. And I think the 'more' the so called experts know, the less they grasp about life. Biggest healer - sun, fresh air, clean water, a good walk with the dog, and rest. Have you ever seen any animal go to the gym? (bad air, lots of sweaty bodies - yuk!)
You can't be totally wrong just as being totally right. Everything is in succession, the most wrong headed ideas collapses first. Here are a few points I bothered to copy and paste to make a comment, your posts are far ranging.
There are too many scientists, there is too much money and too many resources being spent on science. - Here is an original thought. What makes/takes money.
ecological fallacy - What do you mean using the word ecology?
Cause remains vague to extreme degree. - The corporation that makes masks siphoned way more currency from the marketplace than they deserved. A big win for investors.
“Climate change” will simultaneously cause every beast and bug and weed which is a menace to flourish, and it will corrupt or kill every furry, delicious, and photogenic animal. That's funny. I have this theory the ecology is a grand recycling program and became so efficient it produced a stable climate, relatively compared to the past climate as reported by, um science, and could recycle any and all emissions and who know what else no problem. Now humans are curtailing the ecological effect. No one, not one time has anyone thought this an interesting concept to consider.
My books debunk many subjects that have been accepted as truth for centuries. My book THE UNTOLD NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY debunks the bible, my other two books debunk the medical system and psychology. ANGRY LOUD AND CLEAR TRUTH debunks evolution and the justice system and journalism, as well as what we are told is democracy and tears apart history as taught in schools. There are some heavy-duty lies and liars out there, and you need to keep in mind the nature of the character of those who control the narratives.
A few points that should be taken into consideration. Statistical mathematical science is difficult to master, it is quite complicated. Second, what do you call a student who graduated medical school or law school with an average score of 70% correct on tests? Doctor or lawyer.
While indeed there are many conflicting stories in medicine, health, and other fields, all it means is that many of these so-called scientists attended college, where they learned to repeat as told to, were taught obedience to authority and their bosses and the scientists preceding them were correct.
Science, by definition, is seeking absolute truths. Going to college and learning to accept facts previously found and regurgitating those "facts" to pass tests does not make scientists, it makes tools of the globalists who will do as told to. Furthermore, there are obviously moneys, very lucrative careers made by saying what rich people want them to say.
The problem is not science. The problem is morons passing as scientists, acceptance of past information gathering as being accurate, and money ruling over what science says.
The only way to defeat statistics is by not taking part in them.
Correlation and causation can depend on their frames of reference, but for good reasons, that's left out of official equations. People MUST believe in "science," because "scientists" need to make a living and, anyway, they have been assigned to become the new priesthood once the "God gene" is eradicated...
The irony of the "egg" example is that some eggs are good and others are bad, and none of them is the same for everyone or all the time. :)
Perhaps the important part of "scientific truth" is the way it is employed for or against the people. The existence of "viruses" is a good example:
AI with a self-improving algorithm easily outperforms humans at problem-solving. Depending on its complexity, it can handle fantastically complex multi-dimensional open systems without its human operators ever knowing what it's doing. Whether it's "intelligent" or not, makes little difference, because it represents a formidable power that can now make or break the future of life on Earth.
I really enjoyed reading this piece which I discovered through Ray Horvath's cross post Many important points were made which I only wish more scientists, doctors, applied mathematicians etc. would familiarize themselves with. I particularly liked and agree with your suggestion that a better command of Aristotelian metaphysics would be very helpful for those in the so-called hard sciences such as physics. Too many scientists I encountered over the years seemed for example, unaware of the 4 causes of Aristotle/Aquinas, which can lead to mistaking a metaphysical cause/explanation for a material/efficient one. Thank you for making this excellent article available.
Outstanding speech. Kinda all goes back to man's fallen nature, doesn't it? That proposition is verified with each life. Maybe that's science.
Goethe vs. Newton all over again, and again, and again. Goethe was also interested in natural sciences. He independently discovered the human intermaxillary bone in 1784, was one of the many precursors in the history of evolutionary thought, popularized the Goethe barometer using a principle established by Torricelli, and published his Theory of Colours in 1810, which he considered his most important work. In his Farbenlehre (Theory of Colours), Goethe was vehemently opposed to Newton’s analytic treatment of color.
Goethe’s Theory of Colours
By the time Johann Wolfgang von Goethe developed his interest in natural sciences, Isaac Newton’s color theory was already generally acknowledged. However, as Goethe later wrote
“… as I looked at a white wall through the prism, that it stayed white! That only where it came upon some darkened area, it showed some colour, then at last, around the window sill all the colours shone… It didn’t take long before I knew here was something significant about colour to be brought forth, and I spoke as through an instinct out loud, that the Newtonian teachings were false.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Colours Original title
Zur Farbenlehre
Translator
Charles Eastlake[1]
Language
German
Publisher
John Murray
Publication date
1810
Published in English
1840
OCLC
318274261
Light spectrum, from Theory of Colours – Goethe observed that colour arises at the edges, and the spectrum occurs where these coloured edges overlap.
The work originated in Goethe's occupation with painting and primarily had its influence in the arts, with painters such as (Philipp Otto Runge, J. M. W. Turner, the Pre-Raphaelites, Hilma af Klint, and Wassily Kandinsky).
Although Goethe's work was rejected by some physicists, a number of philosophers and physicists have concerned themselves with it, including Thomas Johann Seebeck, Arthur Schopenhauer (see: On Vision and Colors), Hermann von Helmholtz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel, and Mitchell Feigenbaum.
Goethe's book provides a catalogue of how colour is perceived in a wide variety of circumstances, and considers Isaac Newton's observations to be special cases.[2] Unlike Newton, Goethe's concern was not so much with the analytic treatment of colour, as with the qualities of how phenomena are perceived. Philosophers have come to understand the distinction between the optical spectrum, as observed by Newton, and the phenomenon of human colour perception as presented by Goethe—a subject analyzed at length by Wittgenstein in his comments on Goethe's theory in Remarks on Colour
Carl Gustav Jung stated in one of his book - truth is what works. I have lived with that in mind. Whatever a doctor or whomever says, what works for me is what I do. Lots of people tell me not to take aspirin. I have white willow bark and I take it and it works. I took a prescription drug a few weeks ago and after 4 tablets I was so sick I thought I would die. That is one I don not take - it worked the wrong way. I think the biggest mistake made in science, is to treat every person as identical, which we all know is total nonsense. Statistics can be used in every which way. Science can too. It is based on statistics, mostly. And I think the 'more' the so called experts know, the less they grasp about life. Biggest healer - sun, fresh air, clean water, a good walk with the dog, and rest. Have you ever seen any animal go to the gym? (bad air, lots of sweaty bodies - yuk!)
You can't be totally wrong just as being totally right. Everything is in succession, the most wrong headed ideas collapses first. Here are a few points I bothered to copy and paste to make a comment, your posts are far ranging.
There are too many scientists, there is too much money and too many resources being spent on science. - Here is an original thought. What makes/takes money.
ecological fallacy - What do you mean using the word ecology?
Cause remains vague to extreme degree. - The corporation that makes masks siphoned way more currency from the marketplace than they deserved. A big win for investors.
“Climate change” will simultaneously cause every beast and bug and weed which is a menace to flourish, and it will corrupt or kill every furry, delicious, and photogenic animal. That's funny. I have this theory the ecology is a grand recycling program and became so efficient it produced a stable climate, relatively compared to the past climate as reported by, um science, and could recycle any and all emissions and who know what else no problem. Now humans are curtailing the ecological effect. No one, not one time has anyone thought this an interesting concept to consider.
My books debunk many subjects that have been accepted as truth for centuries. My book THE UNTOLD NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY debunks the bible, my other two books debunk the medical system and psychology. ANGRY LOUD AND CLEAR TRUTH debunks evolution and the justice system and journalism, as well as what we are told is democracy and tears apart history as taught in schools. There are some heavy-duty lies and liars out there, and you need to keep in mind the nature of the character of those who control the narratives.
https://truthforce.work
A few points that should be taken into consideration. Statistical mathematical science is difficult to master, it is quite complicated. Second, what do you call a student who graduated medical school or law school with an average score of 70% correct on tests? Doctor or lawyer.
While indeed there are many conflicting stories in medicine, health, and other fields, all it means is that many of these so-called scientists attended college, where they learned to repeat as told to, were taught obedience to authority and their bosses and the scientists preceding them were correct.
Science, by definition, is seeking absolute truths. Going to college and learning to accept facts previously found and regurgitating those "facts" to pass tests does not make scientists, it makes tools of the globalists who will do as told to. Furthermore, there are obviously moneys, very lucrative careers made by saying what rich people want them to say.
The problem is not science. The problem is morons passing as scientists, acceptance of past information gathering as being accurate, and money ruling over what science says.
Excellent essay! A lot of fun to read it.
Reminds me of my making fun of science (https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freaks-of-science), but it goes into a lot more details.
The only way to defeat statistics is by not taking part in them.
Correlation and causation can depend on their frames of reference, but for good reasons, that's left out of official equations. People MUST believe in "science," because "scientists" need to make a living and, anyway, they have been assigned to become the new priesthood once the "God gene" is eradicated...
The irony of the "egg" example is that some eggs are good and others are bad, and none of them is the same for everyone or all the time. :)
Perhaps the important part of "scientific truth" is the way it is employed for or against the people. The existence of "viruses" is a good example:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong
AI with a self-improving algorithm easily outperforms humans at problem-solving. Depending on its complexity, it can handle fantastically complex multi-dimensional open systems without its human operators ever knowing what it's doing. Whether it's "intelligent" or not, makes little difference, because it represents a formidable power that can now make or break the future of life on Earth.
I really enjoyed reading this piece which I discovered through Ray Horvath's cross post Many important points were made which I only wish more scientists, doctors, applied mathematicians etc. would familiarize themselves with. I particularly liked and agree with your suggestion that a better command of Aristotelian metaphysics would be very helpful for those in the so-called hard sciences such as physics. Too many scientists I encountered over the years seemed for example, unaware of the 4 causes of Aristotle/Aquinas, which can lead to mistaking a metaphysical cause/explanation for a material/efficient one. Thank you for making this excellent article available.