Nice that each has found someone who "understands".
Let us hope they email each other directly, incessantly.
Maybe someone should fund a think-tank for these great minds--with
padded walls? We have a couple of other candidates, absent from this
group (mercifully) for a while, but not forgotten...
F. LeFever
In <913570714.12075.0.nnrp-06.d4e44203 at news.demon.co.uk> "Andrew K
Fletcher" <andrew.k.fletcher at naturesway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Thanks for your kind review Ken
>>Would like to offer the following remark to the use of a microscope,
and
>hope it is received in a positive context.
>>Education has been the downfall of science and prohibits free
thinking.
>Education causes people to stop before they say something. A child is
far
>more clever than some well educated people, whom I have met. They have
>become too well educated, and no longer see the wood for the trees.
>A top scientist was talking on a BBC radio program about the advances
in
>science. Listeners were invited to ask him questions.
>>Needless to say there were not many takers. However I asked him this
>question: "When you look through your microscope, do you see more or
less of
>the object which you are focused on?". To my surprise he couldn't
answer the
>question and blinded the question with B.S. and somewhat hesitant
political
>skill. A child would have probably answered "More", meaning more
detail, but
>you actually see less of the object.
>I was trying to point out that the closer one looks at the details the
less
>one sees. In other words step back and look at the whole picture. This
is
>particularly important with regard to trying to work out how things
happen
>in the real world. You can't take a slice from a tree any more than
you can
>take a slice from a vital organ, to find out how it works because you
have
>disconected it. "Sorry for stating the obvious again".
>kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
><36733F0D.5BA589C9 at pop3.concentric.net>...
>>Good for you, Andrew, the integration inherent in your Theory is
>>Quite-Nice. You can Verify your position be-cause, if it's Correct,
the
>>"tube"-construction must be graded over the length of the tubes
>>(greatest where the tube is oldest, least where the tube is newest.)
a
>>carefully cross-sectioned tree, a microscope, and the Will to do
what'll
>>be a lengthy cross-correlation process are all you need.
>>>>I enjoyed reading your work. Cheers, Ken Collins
>>>>Andrews K Fletcher wrote:
>>>>[his Interesting Theoretical Position re. water flow in trees]
>>
