His sister Elizabeth Mary, who married John Thomlinson indied the following year. The plan for Young to work, after his training at Messrs.
Young Since there is no way known to science by which the planets could influence human events, it is natural that scientists have rejected astrology.
On the other hand, people who have studied the subject find enough evidence for its validity so that, despite a lack of quantitative precision comparable to some science, there is sufficient evidence for general agreement among those who practice the subject that they can employ the same rules and get the same results.
We come thus to an impasse between theory or belief and fact. In the three hundred years since the Copernican revolution, when science got its start in Galileo and Newton's discovery of the laws that accounted for the motion of the planets, science has repeatedly revised its theories to accommodate facts that when first discovered seemed incredible.
In retrospect facts have won out.
For example, Galileo with his telescope could see mountains on the moon, and this was not accepted at the time because the moon was believed to be a perfect sphere. He demonstrated that bodies fall at the same speed irrespective of their weight, whereas Aristotle, the authority, had said they fell with speeds proportional to their weight.
Most scientific discoveries were similarly at first at variance with widely held belief. Even Planck's major finding that light was radiated in "quanta" or units of action, such that their energy divided by the frequency was always the same, was not generally accepted for 25 years.
Here again it was theory that had to yield to facts. Quantum theory, which recognizes uncertainty, replaced the determinism of classical theory. One could then ask, since the objection of science to astrology is theoretical it could not be true because there is no explanation for itit must eventually follow that the facts of astrology would win out and make it necessary for science to revise its theories, as has happened so often before -- and properly too, since science got its start, and has made its progress, by attention to facts.
Now I realize that science would insist at this point that the facts of astrology have not been proved; but since I have, to the best of my ability, verified many of the claims of astrology I would have to answer science as Newton answered Halley when the latter criticized him for his study of astrology.
In any case the judgment of science against astrology is based on a belief of science, and science has progressed by revising its beliefs, not by insisting on them. Which brings us to a most important aspect of the subject. Science, by which I mean the first principles on which physics is founded, and which entitle physics to its claim that the other sciences -- chemistry, biology, etc.
To the science of physics, life is an accident, an extremely unlikely one at that, and none of the principles which science has discovered and on which it is based, even though they be necessary to life, are sufficient to account for it. Presumably life has come about through some sort of evolution, but the current view that evolution is the result of chance and necessity is the opposite of a first principle, in that it gives a positive role to chance.
Chance is accident; it is something that happens despite law, as an exception to law. As for necessity, to say that survival is necessary to life is a truism, not a principle. Science is based on the derivatives discovered by Leibniz and Newton.
The derivatives are rates of change. The first derivative is rate of change of position, or velocity; the second derivative is rate of change of velocity, or acceleration. The third derivative, change of acceleration, because it is an option, is ignored by science. But it is because we can change acceleration that we can drive or control a car.
Through control we use the laws of determinism.
This control is the principle which makes it possible for life, in similar fashion, to use the laws of determinism to control metabolism, to store energy and move against entropy.
But since the third derivative is not recognized or so interpreted by current science, I will set it aside and call attention to another feature of life which can assist in laying at least a foundation for the phenomena of life.
This foundation is prerequisite to a fair consideration of astrology. What do we know about life? One thing is self-evident: It is impossible below freezing and above degrees Fahrenheit, a relatively narrow range from absolute to absolutewhereas the temperature range in phenomena studied by physics covers from zero to millions of degrees.
We also find life is dependent on the sun for this temperature, and that the growth of plants is seasonal; it varies with temperature. The only attempt at an explanation of life that I've heard was that, for life to get started, there must have been some kind of self-contained cell which exchanged energy with the environment and experienced this variation of temperature.
Because of this variation there were times when it could draw on the environment to gain energy, and times when it would suffer a loss of energy.
The cell, subject to this variation, could only survive if it stored more energy than it lost. There would be a premium on having a net gain, otherwise it would expire in winter.
Once having acquired the ability to store order or energythe basis for growth would be established. Growth would include cell division and ultimately reproduction, and life would be started. Of course this would require the control that I mentioned. It would also require something to choose, even if such choice were blind.
Note that this is a different approach from that of Urey and others who were able to find that some of the amino acids were synthesized by electrical discharges in a suitable atmosphere.free essay: department of government, history and justice campbell university analysis of arthur young’s travels in france by danielle king submitted to.
Read this essay on Us V Arthur Young. Come browse our large digital warehouse of free sample essays. Get the knowledge you need in order to pass your classes and more.
Only at grupobittia.com". This letter marks the opening of GW’s correspondence with Arthur Young (–), the great English agriculturalist and prolific writer. Young published Letters from His Excellency General Washington, to Arthur Young, Esq., F.R.S., in London in When he wrote Young again on 16 Nov.
, GW enclosed the duplicate copy of this letter. Before making the duplicate, GW revised his retained copy, or draft, of the original letter, introducing scores of changes in wording, punctuation, and spelling. Arthur Middleton Young (November 3, – May 30, ) was an American inventor, helicopter pioneer, cosmologist, philosopher, astrologer and author.
Young was the designer of Bell Helicopter 's first helicopter, the Model 30, and inventor of the stabilizer bar used on many of . Which Way Out?
and Other Essays, ( p.) , Recordings of Arthur M. Young – extensive video and audio archive of Young and the Institute for the Study of .