Burden of Proof

Sometimes we delve into places where few people have gone before. When you start rearranging the puzzle pieces to find a different picture, you have to sometimes step back and ask yourself - how do i know this is true?

As a scientist, the mechanism for publishing truth is well defined. The submission takes on a life of it's own in the peer review process, where editors give your thoughts to referees who have proved their enlightenment in the area of concern. The system creates an old-boys network where additional science must be built on the foundation of prior verified science. Each advance must show rigor in moving the state of the art forward.

Otherwise - you can write science fiction and not have to deal with the burden of proof. Pons and Fleichman tried to take an end around and go to the popular press with cold fusion in the 90's. The science establishment then ganged up to discredit them. Fine tooth combs will always catch some debris, but now the jury is still out on cold energy sources. I believe that energy works differently from how it is explained currently, but the burden of proof to demonstrate different energetics is well beyond the scope of my ability. I do have the math background to realize that our current thinking is skewed.

So what can we do to redefine our approach to a world view that doesn't hold together except with the bailing twine of political force? Neal Stephenson's latest work Anathem uses fiction to delve into a world of crossed timelines. My tangents to reality are based on his thought stream, along with the thought of Nassim Haramein in working with particle geometry. Nassim was on Coast to Coast AM with George Nouri on August 18 - well worth the listen.

I sense that we are stuck in the current fiction only because we accept the values of the thinkers that came before us at face value. The assumptions that went into setting the ground work need to be reexplored in terms of new knowledge that is being passed through the people of the earth at a huge rate of download. Our computers allow mechanical redefinition of our own lives, pushed to faster and faster rates of spin.

Sometimes we seem howdt of control - stuck in our boxes of limits and regulations. What worked in the past is not working now, and we have no latitiude to make individual responses. How do we teach our youth to use judgment when the course of action has already been perscribed? The time has come to step beyond conventional wisdom and explore new territiory in accommodating life.

The four deer that just visited and the hawk that has decided to call lead me to believe that nature has this climate change concept figured out. One current agenda (The American West at Risk) suggests sustainable growth is still beyond Gaia's support capacity and that people must change behavior. I don't see the latitude available for people to make these changes.

"reaching for true sustainability represents a profound change in current American culture and economic life. Yet it takes us back to the practices of only 60 or so years ago. Americans, particularly in the Western states, have a long way to go before reduced per capita consumption takes them to the level of most Europeans, who live quite well and tend to register higher satisfaction with their lives than Americans."

I would like to read the entire book, but i do not believe in the process of being risk averse. We need to have multiple models to test theories against - not just a single system that holds an idea to be true until proven false, then discarded for eternity. The cost of living in this society is rising in a zero sum game that breaks down for everybody except the priviledged few. Time to change focus and allow beings to be, without requiring that everybody play the same money chase games to climb the mountain of establishing proof.