link to Home Page

ZetaTalk and the Assumption of Human Infallibility

At the bottom of the disagreement with anything ZetaTalk is the
assumption of human infallibility.  The human logic, more properly
defined as the human ego, states “WE think and spout thus, and as WE
must be right, and thus anyone disagreeing must be wrong.”  The Zetas
wish to expand upon this.

    In any discussion about human science there is 
    MORE than discussion about facts, assumptions, 
    and theories.  There is also posturing and the 
    need for comfort.  Postulating a theory becomes, 
    too often, a matter of ownership and pride.  The 
    theory thereafter cannot be wrong, or the owner 
    is somehow discredited and falls in stature.  
    Then there is the structure built AROUND a 
    theory - published books, lectures and curriculums, 
    clubs meeting regularly and discussing the matter.  
    All this is like a web, holding the theory UP, and 
    any attempt to change the theory brings howls of 
    distress from the web which must likewise change.  
    Thus, in human society, one has the Catholic 
    Church apologizing only recently for dismembering
    and burning alive those who pronounced the Earth 
    round, not flat, and the Flat Earth Society still in 
    existence today.  

    How are the sciences, in human society, treated 
    any differently today?  Einstein’s works, when first
    presented, were not only pronounced wrong, but 
    were shouted down.  They were treated by those 
    whose posture required the existing theories to 
    continue as a THREAT, which Einstein’s work 
    was.  The worst garbage could be calmly discussed, 
    but Einstein’s lectures were disrupted by shouting 
    sessions and physical assaults.  This was, one was 
    to assume, because Einstein was wrong, but in fact
    the heat of the debate was the opposite, because he 
    was, compared to the existing theories of the day, 
    CORRECT.  But Newton is still taught in the 
    schools, to the young, along with Einstein’s 
    theories, and when they contradict the students are
    expected not to notice.  This is because the 
    professors require a posture of being all-knowing 
    and infallible, and any student implying otherwise
    suffers at their hand.  

    Then there is the comfort factor, the need to feel 
    that sudden calamity will not descend, as the facts 
    are KNOWN and thus the future somewhat predictable.
    Lighting strikes, and strokes fell strong and stout 
    humans like a lightning bolt, but the factors 
    surrounding lightning and strokes can be analyzed 
    and thus the likelihood of occurrence somewhat 
    predictable.  How, beyond the comfort of sameness
    that a posturing professor or scientist requires, are 
    current scientific theories tied to the human comfort 
    factor?  If the theories on how lightning is produced 
    were to CHANGE, then this implies that those smug
    in their assumptions about the likelihood of a strike 
    might be WRONG, and thus vulnerable.  If the 
    theories on the cause of stroke were to CHANGE, 
    then this likewise implies that those smug in their 
    assumption that they are immune might be WRONG.
    Thus, discomfort with change causes resistance to 
    change, and theories often develop solidity for no 
    other reason than this.