WHY ARE SCIENTISTS who get it wrong ,no longer known in current time
of the Now moment?.
by Henryk Szubinski
Some pointers in the invention of science about 1500's to 1600's.
The AGE of ENLIGHTENMENT started at the change from 16 00's to 17 00's.
It's main concept was the invention of HISTORY as the new method of storage
of the wrongs and rights in the invention of science. At the time previous to the
age of enlightenment there were some very basic rules that functioned for everyones
needs as being scientists. The science ideals were that if you got it wrong, you would
be just as famous as anyone that got it right. In fact anyone that got it wrong would
share the publicity with other who were wrong. So why does not the current age of the 2000's
include the wrongs as being just as important as the rights.The fact that the wrongs were
the beginnings of those that did right in science as the development were just as popular
and just as famous. This may have some descriptions.
That the age of enlightenment made use of terms like "fused horizons (from the science
of history) and that theese would be the wrong being just as right as the right. Meaning
that their "fused horizons were just as needed for any scientist doing right work as it was
with a scientist who did wrong work in science as the lower or higher horizon. It did not matter.
Any work was accepted. So why dos not that happen today with so many who have either
right or wrong work in science.
The pointer may be that the "temporal spacial " functions of the brain that define the time
and space were in some cognitive progression of the frontal brain as "temporal =doing science
that was wrong. Or as rear brain as "spacial" = doing science right.
The temporal spacial also has much mention in the science of HISTORY, though not much
is known about it. It has however the larger view than the usual time because HISTORY has
greater space than just "measurements" which developed by Newton and the right method
that followed after many who did science wrong.
Not that it was meant to be wrong, it simply filled the space and any type of data on anything
could be made. It did not always have to be wrong. But because we work out the right theories
because we know that the wrong theories are wrong may indicate how HISTORY and the
FUSED HORIZONS may be brought back into the ways we do science because it's enjoyable.
FUSED HORIZONS as
FUSED =knowing that the right has real value because
HORIZONS = because we know that getting it wrong is about good approaches that later
become known as wrong. But the scientists were "accepted anyway" because of the
temporal spacial positioning of the human sense that we cannot always be right and that
this defines the act of creation which has artistic value as well.
The invention of science by David Wootton.
May be as important as if not more important than science itself.
of the Now moment?.
by Henryk Szubinski
Some pointers in the invention of science about 1500's to 1600's.
The AGE of ENLIGHTENMENT started at the change from 16 00's to 17 00's.
It's main concept was the invention of HISTORY as the new method of storage
of the wrongs and rights in the invention of science. At the time previous to the
age of enlightenment there were some very basic rules that functioned for everyones
needs as being scientists. The science ideals were that if you got it wrong, you would
be just as famous as anyone that got it right. In fact anyone that got it wrong would
share the publicity with other who were wrong. So why does not the current age of the 2000's
include the wrongs as being just as important as the rights.The fact that the wrongs were
the beginnings of those that did right in science as the development were just as popular
and just as famous. This may have some descriptions.
That the age of enlightenment made use of terms like "fused horizons (from the science
of history) and that theese would be the wrong being just as right as the right. Meaning
that their "fused horizons were just as needed for any scientist doing right work as it was
with a scientist who did wrong work in science as the lower or higher horizon. It did not matter.
Any work was accepted. So why dos not that happen today with so many who have either
right or wrong work in science.
The pointer may be that the "temporal spacial " functions of the brain that define the time
and space were in some cognitive progression of the frontal brain as "temporal =doing science
that was wrong. Or as rear brain as "spacial" = doing science right.
The temporal spacial also has much mention in the science of HISTORY, though not much
is known about it. It has however the larger view than the usual time because HISTORY has
greater space than just "measurements" which developed by Newton and the right method
that followed after many who did science wrong.
Not that it was meant to be wrong, it simply filled the space and any type of data on anything
could be made. It did not always have to be wrong. But because we work out the right theories
because we know that the wrong theories are wrong may indicate how HISTORY and the
FUSED HORIZONS may be brought back into the ways we do science because it's enjoyable.
FUSED HORIZONS as
FUSED =knowing that the right has real value because
HORIZONS = because we know that getting it wrong is about good approaches that later
become known as wrong. But the scientists were "accepted anyway" because of the
temporal spacial positioning of the human sense that we cannot always be right and that
this defines the act of creation which has artistic value as well.
The invention of science by David Wootton.
May be as important as if not more important than science itself.
/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
from PMC
US national library of medicine national institutes of health.
2017
sep 24
The scientific status of History was compared to other sciences in the critical areas event selection, investigative operations, and theory construction. First, in terms of events studied, history is regarded as a quasi-scientific study of past events. However, viewed from the science of behavior's perspective of what historians actually do, history becomes a study of current records. As a study of currently existing records, not the non-existent past, history has potential to become a science. Second, like other scientists, historians may undertake manipulative investigations: they can locate the presence and absence of a condition in records and thereby determine its relation to other recorded phenomena. A limitation has been the lack of quantification that results from emphasis on the uniqueness of things rather than on their communality. Scientific training would facilitate viewing similar things as instances of a larger class that could be counted. Another limitation that cannot be easily overcome is the inability to produce raw data. This limitation has created problems in theoretical practices, the third area of comparison, because theoretical constructions have frequently been substituted for missing data. This problem too could be reduced through scientific training, particularly in other behavior sciences. An authentic science of history is possible.
The above article is downloadable in full. It shows how the HISTORIANS are scientists that define the current "NOW" time of theories that occur in HISTORY. And this may also be illustrated by the placement of the HISTORIAN as in the same positions as the "SCIENTIST WHO GETS IT WRONG" with the "SCIENTIST WHO GETS it RIGHT".
This is defined by "QUASI SCIENTIFIC" or "SUPPOSED SCIENTISTS".
So why is not the science as it was invented also part of the science of the inescapable rule that famous scientists do not get it right every time?.
The limitations of the social or communal input has already been shown to have had such inputs and that they were by scientists that got it wrong in the 15 00's and early 1600's.
The "larger class" that also could be counted by way of the fused horizons.
Fused horizons as the way that the night unifies the space of the universe with the shadow of Earth, so that their connection brings the state of things as they "in large" , are ,"UNKNOWN" but with the HISTORY as the LIGHT that shows how many scientists are usually wrong and should be counted in this light just as those who do better after them.
That the theoretical construct go as missing data implies that the
TEMPORAL SPACIAL part of the brain must also have influence on the
FUSED HORIZONS as the way that HISTORY RECORDS IT as being
present ( For why would this be here as such to show it).
from PMC
US national library of medicine national institutes of health.
2017
sep 24
The scientific status of History was compared to other sciences in the critical areas event selection, investigative operations, and theory construction. First, in terms of events studied, history is regarded as a quasi-scientific study of past events. However, viewed from the science of behavior's perspective of what historians actually do, history becomes a study of current records. As a study of currently existing records, not the non-existent past, history has potential to become a science. Second, like other scientists, historians may undertake manipulative investigations: they can locate the presence and absence of a condition in records and thereby determine its relation to other recorded phenomena. A limitation has been the lack of quantification that results from emphasis on the uniqueness of things rather than on their communality. Scientific training would facilitate viewing similar things as instances of a larger class that could be counted. Another limitation that cannot be easily overcome is the inability to produce raw data. This limitation has created problems in theoretical practices, the third area of comparison, because theoretical constructions have frequently been substituted for missing data. This problem too could be reduced through scientific training, particularly in other behavior sciences. An authentic science of history is possible.
The above article is downloadable in full. It shows how the HISTORIANS are scientists that define the current "NOW" time of theories that occur in HISTORY. And this may also be illustrated by the placement of the HISTORIAN as in the same positions as the "SCIENTIST WHO GETS IT WRONG" with the "SCIENTIST WHO GETS it RIGHT".
This is defined by "QUASI SCIENTIFIC" or "SUPPOSED SCIENTISTS".
So why is not the science as it was invented also part of the science of the inescapable rule that famous scientists do not get it right every time?.
The limitations of the social or communal input has already been shown to have had such inputs and that they were by scientists that got it wrong in the 15 00's and early 1600's.
The "larger class" that also could be counted by way of the fused horizons.
Fused horizons as the way that the night unifies the space of the universe with the shadow of Earth, so that their connection brings the state of things as they "in large" , are ,"UNKNOWN" but with the HISTORY as the LIGHT that shows how many scientists are usually wrong and should be counted in this light just as those who do better after them.
That the theoretical construct go as missing data implies that the
TEMPORAL SPACIAL part of the brain must also have influence on the
FUSED HORIZONS as the way that HISTORY RECORDS IT as being
present ( For why would this be here as such to show it).