richard moody jr

Berne, NY, United States

About richard

Bio

While technically a geologist my first real excursion into creative writing was an article I wrote for the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory". In this article I describe a new procedure for problem solving called, "Intuitive Iteration". The steps are: 1)Get a gut reaction, 2Introduce the facts and logic, 3)Compare the facts and logic to your gut reaction, 4)If they are in agreement then you are on to something significant, 5)If they disagree try to resolve the differences, 6)If they cannot be resolved, throw out your intuition, facts and logic 7)iterate i.e. get a gut reaction Using this procedure I have discovered paradigm shifts in geology, chess, & other topics. In chess I have had to iterate as many as 1000 times to find the "truth". It is my prejudice if as few as one scientist in 100 could understand and perfect this methodology we would see a doubling of the rate of paradigm shifts over and above that which would occur in the absence of these methods. The chess book called, The "Evans Gambit Revolution" was published in 1995 just as World Champion Garry Kasparov began playing the opening. Two other books and dozens of articles followed. An article called, " Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century" was published in two journals. I published my magnum opus in geology called, "Beyond Plate Tectonics: 'Plate' Dynamics" an attempt at the first new school in the earth sciences in forty years. The article is on line. Next was an article called, "The Eclipse Data from 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science". This is the greatest corruption and derogation of any data set in history. It was used to validate general relativity and improperly cemented Albert Einstein as the preeminent physicist and genius of all times. Recently I completed two science papers on hormesis and nuclear power i.e. that low levels of radiation are beneficial. Hormesis is the single most important concept that is below the radar. The EPA has failed in its fundamental duty to, "First do no harm". Their anti-radon policies are harming Americans. Lung cancer is a radon-deficiency disease. The equation for radon is: smoking + radon = bad. Radon by itself = good. My novella, "The Christ Chronicles" is scheduled for release this fall. I have Christ surviving crucifixion, holing up in a leper colony for thirty years where he continues his writings. Think of this as an attempt at an "Addendum" to the New Testament.

An idea worth spreading

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Greenpeace fought valiantly to stop nuclear power and they and their supporters got us coal instead, the only viable alternative for major base-load power. Coal-related deaths will surpass the holocaust 3-4 times over in the next fifty years.The Greenpeace co-founder soon realized the errors of his ways and agreed that nuclear power was the only real hope for a green energy base-load power source. Hormesis is the idea that while high levels of radiation are lethal, low levels are beneficial. Cows exposed to high levels of radiation in the Trinity A-bomb tests were euthanized because of extreme old age, during the Manhattan Project mice living in uranium dust lived longer than control groups, men who ingested large amounts of plutonium during their work had lower mortality than the general population and workers in nuclear industry in the UK had a 15-20% lower incidence of cancer than the general population.

I'm passionate about

Promoting a nuclear power plant and wind complex on Lake Superior. It would permit us to achieve energy independence, balance the budget and turn American into the greatest exporter of hydrogen energy

My TED story

As someone who has gone through the highs and lows and the hellish experiences of a bipolar disorder and all it entails leads me to believe that I would never subject another human being to this hell---except for those who crave creativity. It is my belief that I have gotten to the "other side" of insanity and there is a vast wealth of information on the other side. There seem to be distinct steps in this process. I like to think that mania is a catalyst for the mind i.e. the mind is forced to a higher level of disorder and then drops down to a lower more orderly efficient state. These steps: 1)Initial excitement at some discovery, 2)Generation of faulty assumptions i.e. if "A" then "B", 3)Generation of bogus "logic" based on the failure to challenge those assumptions, 4)mania, 5)hypomania, 6)Medical intervention, 7)Additional lower levels of mania, 8)"normalcy", 9)"consolidation" headaches approaching migraines that tend to signal the acquistion of creativity.

Comments & conversations

Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 4 months ago
Is there anything truly original?
Thomas Edison used in practice a method I thought I'd invented until I read that Edgar Allan Poe had come up with a similar idea called Imagination Iteration. Mine is Intuitive Iteration. The most fundamental characteristic of II is that facts and logic must never override intuition so when we talk about science and reason we have left out one of the the legs of the three-legged stood---intuition. We should always refer to intuition, reason and science, not just science and reason.
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Will androids save or destroy our economy?
When you factor in that one android in health care (I suspect mass produced for under 100k) can do the work of 4 RN's each making $70-$80,000/year and the cost savings are obvious. But what do we do with the vast mass of unemployed people?
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Is the scientific method the best way to get at the "truth"?
Aren't you arguing for an intuitive alternative---that seems to lead to truth i.e. his/her relief? So, if the scientific method provides one explanation e.g. an origin for the Big Bang, wouldn't a spriritual origin based on intuition be as valid as one derived through the scientific method? Should we view that intuitive response as an alternative to the scientific method?
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Is the scientific method the best way to get at the "truth"?
Here is an anecdote comparing the scientific method to II. In a complicated opening called the Wilkes-Barre, I enlisted the aid of a top Grandmaster. At his disposal two of the strongest chess playing programs in the World running on multiple processors or, as he phrased it, "Just below industrial strength". He provided me with what he said was "perfect" theory and that White was clearly winning. My "gut" told me that White was getting "too much" advantage and that Black could improve. After examining his analysis, I found a key improvement for Black that the GM agreed posed more problems for White, but was still winning for White. My "gut" told me he was wrong and I went back a third time and found another key improvement for Black, which, again, the GM said was the best try for Black. Anyone who is an average player who was told by a top professional relying on the strongest computers in the world that his analysis was perfect might have relied on the scientific method and agreed with his initial assessment. I relied on II and twice was able to repudiate his analysis. With regard to the creation of "fact". 95% of all chess theory written pre-strong chess playing programs is "junk". This same percent of "junk" facts will be mirrored in the sciences as more and more facts are created of vastly superior quality than those generated over the past 200 years. An illustration of the corruption of the scientific method occurred when a friend of mine conducted an review of an ethics violation by a physicist. During the course of this interview in an unrelated manner, this scientist presented two graphs. The first showed copper contamination. The second showed no copper contamination. But then my friend noticed that the background readings which are as unique as a fingerprint were the same. The scientist was confronted and agreed he had just used white-out on the peak. The physicists present indicated this was standard procedure; sometimes time constrainst forced this!
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Is the scientific method the best way to get at the "truth"?
Intuititve iteration is the alternative; it depends on the falsification of fact, not hypotheses. The basic premise is that strong models corrupt the factual record. We must elevate greatly the quality of "facts", not focus on testing hypotheses. Intuitive-driven science depends on everything you say with the proviso that logic and fact does not override intuition; they are coequal elements of thought and must be reconciled. My suspicions is that if we were to focus on high quality fact generation, not quantity, science would improve greatly. Surely you are not if favor of the facts created by the biomedical community where we are being told, on the one hand, to take hormone replacement therapy---no wait that might not be a good idea or that testing saccharine with 3000 times the average consumption of diet drinks has no relevance to cancer. There is a vast sea of junk science that drives policy, like the linear no theshhold model of the EPA. If were to eliminate all low-quality science that is "out there" fully 90% of all data, "facts" would disappear. II forces the acquision of high-quality facts; the scientific method does not as witnessed by the acceptance by many physicists of the Eclipse data from 1919, probably the lowest quality "factual" record ever attained. Eddington created junk science and cemented in place a strong model with it. If the fatuous members of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society would have repudiated, not endorsed the work of Dyson and Eddington, the course of history would have been different. We might see other models of the universe arise that received support from a true "factual" record. To show just how much the scientific method doesn't work, is that Scientific American ran a junk article by Minkle endorsing the Eclipse data of 1919. So now we see almost a Century later that low-quality data has been converted to high-quality data by the Scientific Method. Focus on facts, not hypotheses and this travesty ends.
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Is the scientific method the best way to get at the "truth"?
The biggest problem with the scientific method is the large number of scientists who violate the scientific method and set back good science, in some cases, decades: “The world of science was stunned, and the hopes of many people dashed when Professor Hwang Woo Suk of Seoul National University was recently found guilty of massive scientific fraud. Until 2006 he was considered one of the world’s leading experts in cloning and stem cell research. Yet he was found by his own university to have fabricated all the cell lines he claimed, in articles published in Science in 2004 and 2005, to have derived from cloned human embryos” “By the time he was exposed, Hwang had been given the title of leading scientist in Korea by the government. A postage stamp had been issued in his honour, showing a paralyzed man leaping out of a wheelchair to embrace his lady love. Schoolchildren read specially produced stories of the indefatigable scientists who supposedly worked 365 days a year for the sake of saving humanity from disease and disability.” This is from an online article by David S. Oderberg, “Science, Stem Cells, and Fraud,” http://www.intellectum.org/articles/topics/Scientific%20fraud%20and%20Stem%Cells%20(David%20Oderberg).pdf. “In 2002, the famed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California had to fire physicist Victor Ninov, when it was discovered he was behind a fraud relating to their 1999 announcement that they had made the heaviest atomic elements so far synthesized. The original article, published in the leading journal Physical Review Letters, was retracted in 2001. Again, Jan Hendrik Schon, a physicist at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, was fired in 2002 for having falsified data at least 16 times between 1998 and 2001. He had been regarded as a star researcher in electronics, had published eighty papers in two years, and was hailed as a future Nobel Prize winner.
Noface
richard moody jr
Posted 7 months ago
Is the scientific method the best way to get at the "truth"?
You kind of have to draw a distinction between applied research and basic research; having worked in a basic research establishment (about the only research I have done as applied research was studying a site for the storage of high-level radioactive waste at sea and doing a geohazard assessment of the outer continental shelf for oil exploration) you have a little more latitude in terms of research. I guess my primary criticism of the scientific method is the large number of icons who presumably profess to follow the scientific method who do just the opposite. Einstein had good intuition, but was too willing to accept data that confirmed his theories without challenging it. Charles Lane Poor, Professor Emeritus of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia Univeristy, didn't believe in general relativity. He wrote an article (Poor, C.L. 1930. “The Deflection of Light as Observed at Total Solar Eclipses,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 20, 173-211) that showed beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Eclipse data of 1919 was fraudulent, yet Einstein preferred to rely on his friend Eddington. Einstein had to have known of the article (Obviously if I can find it 80 years later, he could find it!) and that the Eclipse data in 1922 was just as unreliable as the 1919 data. I regard Einstein as a dilettante and mathematician, not a scientist. True scientists laboring unseen in the trenches are the "real" scientists One of my best friends is a recipient of a Life Time Achievement Award from the Geological Society of American. He is a "scientist's scientist". He has done everything you can think of--basic research, spectacular teacher (he was the only teacher who ever gave me a C in geology!), advisor to countless graduate students, participated in many committees, was in charge of funding or not funding research projects in funding agencies, and, even now at 80, is fighting to maintain standards of excellence in academic standards at SUNY at Albany.