links.gif (3062 bytes)       Site moved to http://eonix.8m.com

This is not an Alternate Science Site!!

Due to DMOZ misclassification this url has closed down. 

 

Home   The Book Darwiniana         

  
This site on the eonic effect has suffered an unfortunate misclassification as an 'alternate science' site in many of the Web directories. This is in part the fate of the biased classifications built into these directories, and starting with the DMOZ Open Directory where any critic of Darwin is classified as alternate science by the Dawkins groupies who run them. This unfair tactic was challenged repeatedly by the author, but in vain. They have a weapon and they know how to use it, and they are not professional librarians. And it is biased and unfair. If libraries were given over to such tactics they couldn't function. These tactics have ruined the Internet Search Engines which are mostly bought and paid for now. 

World History and the Eonic Effect has a library of Congress classification as

1. Social Evolution. 2. History—Periodization. 3. Human evolution. 4. Evolution (Biology)—Religious aspects. 5. Civilization. I. Title. HM106.L361999 303.4    

Such a site should be placed either in a history or evolution category. You may disagree with this book, but that's its classification, performed by a professional librarian.

 Instead, as a deliberate tactic to discredit the material and reduce traffic it gets shifted to the 'alternate science' area, where it doesn't belong.

The Big Question is, if the eonic effect belongs in 'alternate science', what is science? Is there a science of history? At a time when sociobiologists wish to invade history, the old hype about a science of history, exposed long ago by Karl Popper, is now getting Darwinian endorsement. Don't fall for it. So the question is, 'Alternate to what?'

The study of the eonic effect, although not a 'science of history', does approach history from a scientific perspective, to the degree that can be defined. But this stands in a paradoxical relation to the 'philosophy of history'. You can't escape this unless you can make philosophy a science, which is 'best of luck'. And no, Darwinism doesn't escape this problem. Here most Darwinists are utter klutz' and ought to be in the 'Alternate Basket Case' category. Whether this is possible depends on where Kant left the problem. See Kant's Challenge.

The books replaces 'laws of history' with periodization, and its use of periodization is extremely conservative and non-speculative, and demonstrates its strengths and weaknesses directly.

It is a bit too easy to hype 'science', declare the discovery of 'laws of history', and then declare anything in the realm of philosophy of history to be unscientific. Don't be fooled by such nonsense. The correct study of history can certainly be approached by modeling with complex systems, but the full nature of a science of history has never been clarified, for reasons study of the eonic effect makes amply clear.

 

  Beware of Internet Search Engines, they are all biased!