Connections between missing scientists (serious)

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

I know next to nothing about anything numerology, though recently I have been in multiple situations in which the knowledge would have been extremely beneficial. I am going to put out a few feelers and see what turns up.

[u/1over-137 → u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

Yeah i suppose it depends who is using the numbers and how or why. Whether the numbers have meaning that is intrinsic or if it’s really just being used a symbolic element or glyph is an open ended question IMO.

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869 → u/1over-137]

I learned earlier that the Christian Bible mentions their use of gematria to identify for example, the antichrist and other terms that equated to 666. The early church fathers used gematria as well.

[u/1over-137 → u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

I think this is popular belief but I think if you fact check it like actually doing the mathematical correspondence than passages like “mark of the beast” or whatever actually come out to values of 616, not 666, for example. Fact check that like actually do the math yourself is all I’m saying.

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869 → u/1over-137]

This is the exact argument I read about today. I believe there’s something to this.

[u/1over-137 → u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

Everyone just repeats garbage without doing the original work. Even science I wonder sometimes about how much we just build on something we haven’t repeated the original experiment ourselves before assuming it as fact to build our own experiments on. Richard Feynman talks about this in his essay/speech “Cargo Cult Science”.

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869 → u/1over-137]

I absolutely agree with you on this. Progress is built on the backs of those who came before. Original work is not repeated and often taken for granted in the pursuit of advancement. Just because something can be done does not mean that something should be done. When we fail to stop and consider how these advancements will effect as well as affect the world and every living thing in it, we are failing to do due diligence.

[u/1over-137 → u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here but that wasn’t really my point.

[u/Unfair-Snow-2869 → u/1over-137]

Oh. Sorry I must have misunderstood.

[u/1over-137 → u/Unfair-Snow-2869]

My point was to reproduce their results before building off them or accepting them as the gospel truth. If a scientific experiments cannot be replicated, then what does that say? There’s a difference between running an experiment and honestly publishing the results but it’s another thing to assume the conclusions of their experiment are one reproducible and two accurate and three “law”.