yes, the education doesn't want the stuff it teaches challenged...for obvious reasons.

It leads to science too often being about micro-advances; micro-challenges....which as I said is more akin to research and development, than science.
A few cranks get through with their wacky ideas, and are good enough at the analytical stuff to have their ideas taken seriously...it is these people who advance science, which is all that makes it science... — wax

I agree totally, they do not teach us to be thinkers, but followers of a set designed plan of how to be, but the human mind like you and I have the ability to adapt and become other so they cannot control all of us but a large portion are not as capable as us.

WE SEE!!!

Is there a tendency to sideline the people who actually advance science, within the scientific community? — wax

My answer to this is a definite YES!!!

Humans resist any other humans that differ with them, especially if they think they are gifted and the top dog smartest in the bunch, which is rather sad, I would always prefer to be second in command to the smartest dude on a deserted island that could hunt, fish, trap, make a map and any other shit that we needed to survive.

These people might often occupy the higher levels of scientific authority, and that might lead to new ideas arising, not flourishing....indeed, a new theory might require more intuition even to analyse how it fits in with scientific thinking.....I dunno... — wax

I am in total agreement on this one brother.

Analytical logical people might be good at understanding existing theories, and fleshing out other people's ideas, but can they come up with much in the way of new insights, and new ideas, themselves? — wax

I do not know, but gathering other peoples ideas and mixing them with other peoples ideas takes quite some time and much reading and effort. To come to some formulation of your own. And present it in a new and never before thought of way.
This requires great skill and an enormous amount of effort and understanding not knowledge knowledge and understanding are two distinct things.

Who actually has the big new ideas in science? Is it the analytical people, or is it the more intuitive and creative people? — wax

I would say the the more intuitive people but the education system pumps out the analytical, or should I say those that follow the norm or guidelines and do not encourage out of box thinkers.

People who may not be as good at the technical stuff, but operate far more intuitively, may not do so well in education in the sciences. — wax

I totally agree!!!

Are we better off knowing things one step at a time, or could we handle the key to it all? — Atlas3d

If you knew it all, no one would like you, you would be hated and despised, maybe even imprisoned and your knowledge would be extracted by force to be used by those that had the power over you to control others.

Peace

so when that sukka hits your eye, you’re not going to see anything anyway.

LMAO!!!

If light informations stops at the eyes, how would we experience what we’re looking at?

- Mww
Light is electromagnetic so after the rods and cones all signals are transmitted by electro-chemical signals, so this is why I stated that we go from the speed of light entering our eyes to a slower speed of information transmission. How an apple is imprinted in our brain is an amazing thing. So these signals diverge into all areas of the brain. Now imagine if we had only one neuron as a brain and imagine it was located right in the eye. How would our experience be in this instance? Would we experience things at the speed of light due to no additional processing time through all those neurons?

What I meant by that statement is imagine if there was a pellet or something in that light beam, Einstein told us that for it time stops or should we say there would be no way of knowing what time it is by looking at a clock not on the beam and no way of determining it was in motion. So when it hits the eye and the rods and cones it is in effect not in motion. So it being a pellet is equal to whatever information is contained in the light of some object being looked at.

Now that pellet has to be transferred into the brain but it is not moving or has no time because time is the measure of motion and going at the speed of light you cannot determine speed in reference to anything.

This is the question if that pellet hit you eye and then right to your neuron how fast would you experience things? At the speed of light continuously? If so does light get slowed down with many neurons or do you think that if that 0 speed the pellet has due to traveling at the speed of light how does it go to the negative since it is not moving an anything experiencing travel at the speed of light is instantaneous. Do you see the problem? In essence from the pellets frame of reference there is no time and no speed all is 0 what does it experience when it comes upon the eye it has to slow down but it is at 0 speed.

Peace

Quantum physics? Show me a quantum. What do you mean by quantum? Do you mean the smallest physical thing? How about a grain of sand? Do you mean something we cannot see or experience? So if that is so how can you analyze something not seen or experienced is it like God? Is God a Quanta?
Tell me about these things you experience that you call quanta, are they red, blue, square, oval, spherical. Please show them to me, I must see them for myself.

Oh and when they delved into these things coming from the double slit experiment and ventured off into wave particle duality and Schrodinger, De Broglie, Heisenberg and Dirac had to work out the maths for this problem it is interesting that Dirac stated this tidbit in his The Principles of Quantum Mechanics fourth edition page 6 para 3.
"Questions about what decides whether the photon is to go through or not and how it changes its direction of polarization when it does go through cannot be investigated by experiment and should be regarded as outside the domain of science."

"Quantum physics disagrees. All these are technically possible. " - Echarmion

So you say quantum physics disagrees yet Dirac states we cannot know what these quanta do or how they do it, how then can you know how quanta decide things?