r, didn't give a definition — he described a process. He told attendees how he learned to do science, giving a detailed overview of formative experiences and underscoring their intellectual value. One of the patterns that emerged is that a mystery can be more valuable than the solution.
When introduced to the mathematical concept pi, Feynman couldn't comprehend it. "But this was a great thing," he said, "and the result [was] that I looked for pi everywhere." When trying to determine why birds pecked at their feathers, he guessed wrongly, but his father revealed the true answer, and Feynman learned something new. And so "the point of this is that the result of observation, even if I were unable to come to the ultimate conclusion, was a wonderful piece of gold, with marvelous results."
With that in mind, read this article with an invisible asterisk, partly because scientists may solve some or all of these mysteries one day — maybe today! But more importantly because failing to solve these mysteries is a journey of discovery in itself.
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/153937/mysteries-that-scientists-cant-even-e...
…
Added by Michael Grove at 10:34 on February 21, 2020
ts-and-bolts environmental or social activist will roll her eyes upon hearing phrases like “The planet is a living being.” From there it is a short step to sentiments like, “Love will heal the world,” “What we need most is a shift in consciousness,” and “Let’s get in touch with our indigenous soul.”
What’s wrong with such ideas? The skeptics make a potent argument. Not only are these ideas delusional, they say, but to voice them is a strategic error that opens environmentalism to accusations of flakiness. By invoking unscientific concepts, by prattling on about the ‘heart’ or spirit or the sacred, we will be dismissed as naive, fuzzy-headed, irrational, hysterical, over-emotional hippies. What we need, they say, is more data, more logic, more numbers, better arguments, and more practical solutions framed in language acceptable to policy-makers and the public.
I think that argument is mistaken. By shying away from the idea of a living planet, we rob environmentalism of its authentic motive force, engender paralysis rather than action, and implicitly endorse the worldview that enables our destruction of the planet.
Charles Eisenstein - Fear of a Living Planet
…
ssues of DIS-EASE, by way of NEW MODEL of the United Nations based on BuckMinster Fuller's concepts of Vector Equilibrium • Synergetics.[IT] IS of course the empty [ ] space between the "islands" of politics, religion & science that have to [BE] "bridged" in order that a fully integrated & INTEGRAL solution might be achieved whether that takes the form of a NEW INTEGRAL MODEL of the UNITED NATIONS or whatever.
…
Added by Michael Grove at 9:41 on September 10, 2022