Seeking to Prove the Souls of People - At the frontier of science...

Let's take the example of the soul and let's "imagine" a way to prove it.

We have two sizeable pools for two people to voluntary drown themselves in, forcing the souls, 2, to separate from the 2 bodies.

Let's "imagine" further that the 2 souls are so friendly and gentle to one another that they are able to follow one another in the forms of 2 souls, human-sized, I guess.

Then some "diverse" interaction between these 2 souls. Then, from this "out-of-body" state the 2 souls decide to retrieve their bodies by "flying" to these 2 bodies lying there lifeless in the 2 pools and "retake up" their respective bodies.

Then, we at the outside of the situation, the friends to these 2 bodies with souls in them, these 2 people, may note they begin to wake in the pools and help them out of the pools.

Later, these 2 people go through (f)MRI scans to confirm the new mental content that also light up "reality" mark in these 2 heads/brains.

I suggest, by the above, that we "now" (by our current imagination here at the blog, Whatiswritten777, reading) have proven the existence of soul/souls, interacting and more.

Proof by inter-subjective/objective facts in 2 people and by clinical death state in these 2 people while "soul-walking". Also, the new (f)MRI scans support our findings.

Good?

--------

Some technical details, suggestions:
Time: 20 minutes to "drown" and 20 minutes of "flying time/soul time". Oxygenated pools and possibly (lightly) chlorinated. Water temperature: 22 degrees Celsius.
Pools, 4x4 meters each, in order to hold sufficient oxygen/air.

Does immorality force one to reject Christianity?

Does immorality force one to reject Christianity? That the logic of the mind by one's lack of morality in "losing" one's soul by deep sins against humanity/nature causes one to reject God/Christianity...

Rejecting God can be the equivalent of embracing non-belief, Atheism, Satanism etc.

So, clearly when one has chosen a path of life outside ethics that qualify for God's grace and Heaven then all on the "outside" must be promising, also thrust a "scientific attack" against Christians for a "magical" thinking as well as displaying a "disbelief" of these propositions of religious belief, i.e., Heaven, God, stories of the Bible, the message of the Bible and so on...

So I see these alternatives for those outside faith:
1. To go on "crusade" against the faithful, the righteous... To wage arguments of chaos and hopelessness ("come, join me in immorality as there's no other way...").
2. To be silent and let life go on.
3. To oppose all life by all one's life and resources by hidden war against the goodness!
4. To enter Christianity in order to subvert/undermine Church and activities and goodness everywhere, to be a hypocrite!

What say you? Any logical soundness to this? Is this credible? A realistic description? Serious as it is!

A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Notes:

This argument is generic in the sense that it can also be used for similar ethical positions such as euthanasia/assisted suicide/willful suicide and legalising cannabis and possibly others!

In my text, I want to limit the pro-abortion position by saying that abortion is, in this context, limited to within 20 first weeks and that it does not include "emergency medicine" where "extreme" measures are used in order to save either, the mother or the fetus. If they intend to kill either the fetus or the mother then, ethically, why not overdose them by sedatives or similar that must be better than "other extremes". I guess this should be part of standard procedure for these cases either way! So as to reduce the dread/brutalities of medicine (by standard procedure)!

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)

The 630 Degrees Riemann Triangle - Much wider than the 270 degrees triangle...

So there on the right is the 630 degrees Riemann triangle. I've been thinking I should add for the fun of it! Thank you!

Over Fake news/Fake media - Media better take the d*mn message because they're guilty!

The media are whining in being blamed for reporting "fake news", but there they are and must have known about phenomena like Operation Dark Room (by police of Norway, "Operasjon Dark Room, pedophile network) and Darknet/Blacknet for years without saying anything, silent about Rwanda and slaughtering people there without bothering It took a long time before the world became familiar with the massacre in Srebrenica before they reported anything!

And they can not even say illegal immigrants without bringing up all immigrants around the world!
Do not tell me they are accused of "fake news" without having earnt it! I just need to mention the journalism from our legal system of various crime around the country where they (the media) fail to say much and mention something just to seem credible!

Media is occupied with explaining "so well" that they are not "fake news" and apologise so much, but never if it is possible to comment freely on the media about it anyway. Conclusion: they HIDE something / much!

Honestly media, it says self-criticism! Where is media self-criticism in the media?

On these monsters, the very morally depraved, psychologists have a definite responsibility to inform society!

(Norwegian:)
Mediene syter over å bli beskyldt for å være "fake news", men der sitter de og må ha visst om fenomener som Operasjon Dark Room og Darknet/Blacknet i årevis uten å si noe, tause om Rwanda og slaktingen av mennesker der uten å bry seg, lot det gå svært lang tid før verden ble kjent med massakren i Srebrenica før de rapporterte noe!

Og de klarer fa*n ikke enda å si "illegal immigrants" uten å ta med alle immigranter over hele verden!

Ikke kom å si til meg at de blir beskyldt for "fake news" uten å fa*n meg fortjene det!

Jeg trenger bare å nevne journalistikken fra vårt rettssystem om diverse kriminalitet rundt om i landet hvor de (fa*ns media) unnlater å si mye og nevner noe bare for å virke troverdige!

Media driver og forklarer så godt de kan at de ikke er "fake news" og beklager seg så veldig, men aldri om det er mulig å kommentere fritt på media om det likevel. Konklusjon: de SKJULER noe/mye!

Ærlig talt, media, det heter selvkritikk! Hvor er selvkritikken av media i media?

In Support of Dualism - The Philosophy of Mind and Metaphysics

Logic is the connecting factor of this mind to this body. The given age determines the number of years that the mind has shaped the body through all experience, even in the sense of the very thinking. Heck, even the creation of the very body happens according to the logic of the mind (if not the mind of the father and mother through the act of creation).

More importantly, as I happen to believe that the soul is proven by OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences), Van Lommel studies, NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences) and Phantom Feelings, I think that those who deny the existence of the soul don't know what they are talking about or that they are lying about the issue. Because I sense that they are subject to the Problem of Induction, they don't know about the "black swans" from their "little" Life-Worlds of information!

That is, they have never incarnated (at least never revealed), they have never been forced out of their bodies into seeming death by abuse or wanton of suicide, etc! They don't have it in their "little" Life-Worlds (of first-hand/second-hand information)!

And how difficult can it be? One can never do "soul walking" in forcing oneself out of the body by drowning in a pool or large bathtub because that's illegal! So how can one prove the soul other than scour the Earth for the very stories (the credible ones, possibly also confirmed by MRI/fMRI)?!

Dualism is winning!

What say you?

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Van_Lommel.27s_study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_pain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

More: (From The Philosophical Notes - https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html#AD)

This may be something I share with one or more people, but it's worth noting that "out-of-body" experiences are examples of thinking or sensing that put marks in brain activity, signal firing when a person recalls this memory. This should be able to pass for being a solid example of an argument for Dualism. This can be confirmed by a MR-examination or something like that where there's created an actual, objective signal firing of the recollection of this sensation. This sensation can also be compared by the signal firing due to the visual stimuli of the artistic picture of this sensation. You then have the recollection and the artistic picture or image, by your instructions and whatever aids used to create it as closely as possible to the subjective view of this "out-of-body" experience such as revisiting and taking pictures of the surgery room. You get the MR image of recollection and of the artistic picture. You can also ask this person to hypothetically try to view one's self while in the surgery room and have this 3rd MR image compared to the other 2. Remember, this person has no reason to lie about seeing one's self in 3rd person apart from the body and in all honesty what ways are there, but the subjective story of which you know nothing and therefore has no authority in? Why shouldn't you at least take this view into mind as a possibility? Of course, the skeptics are questioning the reality of this sensation, sensing, but I can't say that it can represent any weight to the discussion if the empirical examination by MR actually supports this discernment of distinction of experience. Let's just make the note also that the background story of the person having such an experience or the patient who is brought to the hospital in cardiac arrest or some other serious condition.

Thoughts? Does this clinch the case for Dualism? At least, "out-of-body" experiences remain anomalies in the Reductionist account.

It is understood that this Dualistic account suggests that the actual sensing/thinking happens in the mind outside of the body and thus it doesn't require any brain to function/exist! This should be, bang, in the middle of the street of the Dualism. Emergentism is backed by a number of underlying structures and as such can't be compared to the "out-of-body" experience which has no material links, no physical foundation. Your response?

If you are in fact outside of your body, which you have to be to truly see yourself from the outside of it (it doesn't count if you use your eyes in the skull to see a reflection in some mirror), then there's something that escapes the physicalist account. This sensing that happens outside of yourself transfers to your brain as it is carried with the non-physical soul, consciousness, mind to the brain and make the appropriate signal firings there as one recalls the "out-of-body" experience. So why is this not understandable? Why is it hard to understand that other people have truths to tell? Do you have problems with imagining an "out-of-body" experience or do you question its reality such as naming it fantasy?

It should take a near-death or short period of clinical death to be able to have the OoB experience, something which should be too harsh to demand for any amount of money, although, of course, I can understand James Randi. Second, it is not given that the OoB experience is controllable in any way more than seeing one's self looking down on one's own body in 3rd person perspective. Therefore, if the situation arises at all, the account from the patient/person is what it is, "...looking down on my self...", which is not like "let's do an OoB experience on this person. The whole argument, new or not, builds clearly on a recognition that an unknown phenomenon takes place and produces the account in the mind of the patient which is consequently told. By the way, this is not a thought experiment. I haven't invented the OoB phenomena. It's a story told by several people around the world, I believe. All I want to show, is a kind of procedure that should certify the OoB experience and in turn make the case for Dualism. I can't make an OoB-exp on my self like that. This should be a sufficient answer to what you've written.

Key words: no James Randi contest - accidental OoB-exp - no physical links, material basis - recollection of OoB-exp produces/is creating signal firings in the brain.

Foundation: several accounts of OoB-exp by different people with no motive of lying.

As I've noted, this is not a thought experiment in the classical sense because there are actual stories from people forming the investigation on it and providing the basis for this thread's purpose of highlighting possible consequences from it in respect to a case for Dualism.
Here's a link from Wikip.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience. I'd like you to put special attention to the section of Van Lommel studies. The rest is crap, I think.

As much as the beginning of the universe or existence itself is a mystery, you'll have to accept other people's accounts, subjective stories as accounts/stories of possible factual reality that may give directions on what actually exists! You can't subject people to near-death or clinical death and at the same time exercise good ethics for proving something experimentally. If one denies the possibility of an honest story of some phenomenon, then one is at a loss because one may lose important leads about what reality has to offer. In there being "no physical links" I emphasise the mystery of this phenomenon. What can I do? People mysteriously see themselves in 3rd person perspective. If there have been physical links, this would be a matter of physicalism! The nature of this is subjective and I find no possibility for solving it other than asking people to be serious about other stories outside their own heads! Read the Van Lommel stuff and write what you think, please! I have no more than you have, other than some belief in possibility and the logical connections from it as in this thread!

You can also take note of this from Dr. Sam Parnia (a scientist indeed, clearly...): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...t-of-body-experiences.html. There are serious efforts from serious people who are investigating this. Article is from 2008. Hah!

It's a procedure that is meant to be applied after someone is reporting having had the OoB-exp so that there's no interruption in the surgery situation and that every report can be treated equally. It's still possible to apply a procedure to something without having a case of experiment, this should be obvious.

In the traditional literature, as of today and given that "ghosts" exist and are not detectable, an OoB-exp that is confirmed in either way, using my account of the procedure or Dr. Sam Parnia's, is undeniably Dualism, whether you like it or not! It's just too easy to write off Dualism by asserting that all must be physical. As long as "ghosts" are seen as "non-physical" in the current literature, there's no way around this. I agree that the future may be able to change our view and describe "ghosts" as physical, but it's simply not the case today!

In current literature as a matter of fact:
Physicalists generally speak of mind as being the brain or something commonly known to be physical and not something else!
Substance Dualists (incl. Descartes) speak of the mind as being a distinct entity apart from the brain!

So, if you want to go on to redefine the literature of Philosophy of Mind, then go ahead and do so!

As for Physicalism: I take it from p. 11 in Jaegwon Kim's book, Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., where it says: "Since physicalism broadly understood is the basic framework in which contemporary philosophy of mind has been debated..." It says further: "Take two immaterial minds: We have to say that they are exactly alike in all physical respects since neither has any physical property and it is not possible to distinguish them from a physical perspective." I don't intend to shrink all physicalists to identity theorists, I just want to write that physicalists don't speak of minds like the substance dualists and that every physicalist require that mind is in or is something material or physical, whether it's non-reductionists, reductionists or functionalists. It says physicalist for a very good reason and that reason doesn't include "ghosts" or minds outside of the body or other traditional physicality.

By Terje Lea, 30th December, 2009 and 2nd January, 2010.

Suggestion for a New Modality "S5m" - The logics, the logics...

Suggestion for a new "S5m" Modality. This is then given as example by a (triple-)possible (◊◊◊) company that operates by necessary (□) principles A, B and C and then effectuate this (triple-)possible (◊◊◊) company and by these becomes a necessary (□) company in this World, say Intel, Microsoft, Alphabet, Nike, Adidas, Asics, Sony or any other! The possible (◊) X "principle" must be interpreted in relation to this and with this modality in mind that it's a possible (◊) X "principle" able to effectuate "success", that is a possible Future that holds (□) "company" or proves to hold Necessary Truth in some scope of time!

Refutation of Time Travel - Against Time Travel

Claim:
If Time Travel would be true throughout the history of human kind, at any point in time whether past or future, time travellers would be "all over us" in telling about the future or past or whatever.

However, there are no stories of either such people or common stories of such being told from one person (the traveller) to another.

Therefore, time travel isn't going to exist ever!

Logic: Modus tollens

If Time Travel then Time Travellers (or common stories of such)
No Time Travellers
No Time Travel

Please remember that:
An assumption that Time Travellers are lying to us all the time is an unreasonable story!

Also, stories of the future would hold a kind of plausibility or coherence so that if the stories would be prevalent then the "Nostradamus" stories would be recorded or a record of place and people would be with us.

The coherence here would be that of our reality entails/is able to hold the story of the future by specific calculations, inventions, a record of history from the future or technology all the way up to that point in time.

A fake story of time travelling will quickly fall apart because it's not coherent with you travelling in time and discovering new histories of science in the future or whatever the "bridged" story that marks a genuine story of time travelling. First, fx., where's your time-travelling UFO? In your garage?

Good?

Norwegian song - Det går til helvete (It, the World, goes to hell) - Nesten ferdig

Det går til helvete!
Sang av Lukas F. Olsnes-Lea

Det går til helvete (Vokal: mørk og dyp, bass! Rytme: monoton tvers igjennom sangen)
Det går til helvete (Musikk: noe bass komp og annet, hva finner til pass)

Hungersnød her og
USA kriger med alle de der
Det kan jo derfor sies...

Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete

Været varmer jo mer og mer og
Skibakker i sanden til sine klær
Her og der, her og der

Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete

MRSA blir fler og fler
Menneskene dynger jorda mer og mer
Det gjenstår bare det her

Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete

Korrupsjon og profesjon blandes så der
Advokater og politi går'kke no mer
Igjen sies det her

Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete

En mur her og
en atombombe der
Det er slutten på denne sangen her

Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete

Robotøyne i huet, ulovlig implantert som
sjømissiler på et fyrtårn
Politistaten tar over

Det går til helvete ("Fading")
Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete
Det går til helvete ...

(Takk til Espen Beranek Holm for "Dra til hælvete" for inspirasjon.)

Case in Point - Astronomy - Against Kuhn's Revolutions and Paradigms

First, some links,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos Aristarchus of Samos, c. 310 - c. 230 BC
- The heliocentric view that has failed to take hold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomical_diaries Babylonian astronomical diaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy Ptolemy, c. 100 AD - c. 170 AD
- The geocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century#List_of_translations
"- Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.)
Almagest: from Greek, Sicily c. 1160; Gerard of Cremona, from Arabic, Toledo 1175
Optica: Eugenius of Palermo, from Arabic, c. 1154"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press Printing press
"The printing press spread within several decades to over two hundred cities in a dozen European countries. By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes. In the 16th century, with presses spreading further afield, their output rose tenfold to an estimated 150 to 200 million copies. The operation of a press became so synonymous with the enterprise of printing that it lent its name to an entire new branch of media, the press."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus Nicolaus Copernicus, 19 February 1473 - 24 May 1543 (AD)
- The heliocentric worldview (start)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe Tycho Brahe 14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Wrongly posited the geo-heliocentric worldview, the Tychonic system
"Well known in his lifetime as an astronomer, astrologer and alchemist, he has been described as "the first competent mind in modern astronomy to feel ardently the passion for exact empirical facts." His observations were some five times more accurate than the best available observations at the time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope History of the telescope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_telescope_types List of telescope types

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory#Oldest_astronomical_observatories Astronomical observatories - oldest
A selection...

• 1577: Istanbul observatory of Taqi al-Din, Turkey
• 1580: Uraniborg, Denmark
• 1581: Stjerneborg, Denmark
• 1642: Panzano Observatory, Italy
• 1642: Round Tower, Denmark
• 1633: Leiden Observatory, Netherlands
• 1667: Paris Observatory, France
• 1675: Royal Greenwich Observatory, England
• 1695: Sukharev Tower, Russia
• 1711: Berlin Observatory, Germany
• 1724: Jantar Mantar, India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refracting_telescope
- Galileo's use: "Galileo Galilei, happening to be in Venice in about the month of May 1609, heard of the invention and constructed a version of his own."
- Kepler's use: "The Keplerian telescope, invented by Johannes Kepler in 1611, is an improvement on Galileo's design. It uses a convex lens as the eyepiece instead of Galileo's concave one."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei Galileo Galilei, 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642
- The heliocentric worldview (supported)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Refracting telescope, Galilean telescope, supporting the heliocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler Johannes Kepler, December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630
- The heliocentric worldview (supported)
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Refracting telescope, Keplerian telescope, supporting the heliocentric worldview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism Heliocentrism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binoculars Binoculars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope Reflecting telescope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton Sir Isaac Newton FRS 25 December 1642 - 20 March 1726/27
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- Reflecting telescope, Newtonian telescope (1668), supporting the heliocentric worldview
- Theory of gravity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope Newtonian telescope
- Newton's invention
"In late 1668 Isaac Newton built his first reflecting telescope. He chose an alloy (speculum metal) of tin and copper as the most suitable material for his objective mirror. He later devised means for shaping and grinding the mirror and may have been the first to use a pitch lap to polish the optical surface."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel Frederick William Herschel KH, FRS 15 November 1738 – 25 August 1822
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
"During his career, he constructed more than four hundred telescopes. The largest and most famous of these was a reflecting telescope with a 49 1⁄2-inch-diameter (1.26 m) primary mirror and a 40-foot (12 m) focal length. Because of the poor reflectivity of the speculum mirrors of that day, Herschel eliminated the small diagonal mirror of a standard newtonian reflector from his design and tilted his primary mirror so he could view the formed image directly."
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe The Universe
"The earliest scientific models of the Universe were developed by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers and were geocentric, placing the Earth at the center of the Universe. Over the centuries, more precise astronomical observations led Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) to develop the heliocentric model with the Sun at the center of the Solar System. In developing the law of universal gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton (NS: 1643–1727) built upon Copernicus's work as well as observations by Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) and Johannes Kepler's (1571–1630) laws of planetary motion. Further observational improvements led to the realization that our Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and is one of many solar systems and galaxies. It is assumed that galaxies are distributed uniformly and the same in all directions, meaning that the Universe has neither an edge nor a center. Discoveries in the early 20th century have suggested that the Universe had a beginning and that it is expanding at an increasing rate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble Edwin Powell Hubble November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
- "was an American astronomer who played a crucial role in establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy and is generally regarded as one of the most important observational cosmologists of the 20th century. Hubble is known for showing that the recessional velocity of a galaxy increases with its distance from the earth, implying the universe is expanding, known as "Hubble's law", although a preliminary version of this relation was proposed by Georges Lemaître two years earlier in a less prominent journal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_Shapley Harlow Shapley November 2, 1885 – October 20, 1972
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
"He used RR Lyrae stars to correctly estimate the size of the Milky Way Galaxy and the sun's position within it by using parallax. In 1953 he proposed his "liquid water belt" theory, now known as the concept of a habitable zone."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein Albert Einstein 14 March 1879 - 18 April 1955
- Growing archive/database of observations, library of astronomical data
- All telescopes for this era!
- Library of theories (Theory of gravity, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc.)
- Theory of relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite Satellite
"The world's first artificial satellite, the Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. Since then, thousands of satellites have been launched into orbit around the Earth. Some satellites, notably space stations, have been launched in parts and assembled in orbit. Artificial satellites originate from more than 40 countries and have used the satellite launching capabilities of ten nations. About a thousand satellites are currently operational, whereas thousands of unused satellites and satellite fragments orbit the Earth as space debris. A few space probes have been placed into orbit around other bodies and become artificial satellites to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Vesta, Eros, Ceres, and the Sun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing Moon landing
"A Moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions. The first human-made object to reach the surface of the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2 mission, on 13 September 1959.

The United States' Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969. There have been six manned U.S. landings (between 1969 and 1972) and numerous unmanned landings, with no soft landings happening from 22 August 1976 until 14 December 2013."

My claim is then that "bits and pieces" make the scientific day against Kuhn's "orderly" Paradigms and so on, that science takes place in a "Cumulativist" way where science gets increasingly accurate and on Truth!

Additionally:
I've identified a mark of stupidity in history of science in that Galileo Galilei's superior has failed to commission/make the order for building, let's say, 10 Galilean telescopes when in fact his opponents and contemporaries alike have been in need of one!

This is remarkable because it shows that his contemporaries have not (to my knowledge) been interested to learn what Galileo Galilei has seen in his telescope!

Conclusion: the opponents of Galileo Galilei have not been driven by a (first-hand) thirst for knowledge!

History shows that there are quite some examples of this kind of behaviour, I think!

This also shows that Galileo Galilei has failed to teach people the way of the telescope and the calculations for his (famous) claim in support of Copernicus!

Kuhn also seems to forget that the Galilean telescope can be directed at a far-away tree or any other object. This is, of course, not a "new worldview", but enhanced sight!

From this text I intend to show that the title reveals the truth. Largely speaking "revolutions" is the
language of the tabloids!

Case in Point #2: Swinging stone in ancient Greece vs. pendulum in renaissance Italy

Relating to Aristotle and Galileo by Kuhn and SSR, p. 118 - 125 and the difference of a swinging stone and the pendulum.

Aristotle: 384 BC - 322 BC, seeing a swinging stone, I guess, by chain or thread.
Galileo: 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642, seeing the pendulum.
The difference between them: roughly 2000 yrs.

So, by Cumulativism, if we have 2000 years between 2 people and suppose a "revolution" as Galileo considers the pendulum I'd like people to think again because that's 2000 years of engineering history as well.

Let's list some factors for these 2000 years of engineering history:
* Measurements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
* Accuracy and precision - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
* Technological ability to manipulate objects (i.e., tools and more) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance (for "simple machines")

So it proceeds from the factors above that a "revolution" hardly can be noted over the course of 2000 entire years and with the advance of the factors above.

Orderly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum.

For comparison, one can note that difference in weaponry as well, in telling a story of engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Gun

History of metalworking:
http://www.hackingtheuniverse.com/science/history-of-science-and-technology/genarticles/timeline-of-metalworking

Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Galileo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

"Thus the press/media reports an ongoing revolution by transition from a swinging stone to a pendulum for 2000 years."