 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2011 7:32 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>> useful
>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>
> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
> idea of how to go about doing so?
>
Yeah, about as absurd as assuming that you can do something like a
holodeck (fields and positional light), or replicator (using fields, of
some sort, to directly organize material into structures), without some
idiot inventing a lightsaber with it. The sad thing is, the replicator,
to a limited extent (might) be feasible, for some range of things. You
don't need absolute precision, if you are making something with a simple
chemical structure, which isn't prone to producing toxic byproducts, if
you get it wrong. You just need a way to, layer by layer, apply the
materials, something we already do, with printers, for some things now,
including simple circuits.
But, it doesn't require quantum anything to do it, or precise field
manipulations, or anti-grav, or the whole host of other shit that either
seems improbable at all, or requires shit that quantum mechanics
experiments haven't even come bloody close to providing us any sort of
clue for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
> useful things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
> Lightsabers no, maybe in a 1,000 years more when we learn to be more
> civil. If it's useful and moral I think is good for Humanity.
Since you seem to believe seriously in all those things you have been
writing about in this thread and apparently are not just joking, can I give
you some friendly advise?
Spend some time studying how science works in general, and physics in
particular. Read some books about science and the scientific method, as
well as some introductory books on subjects like general physics and, if
you like, more specific subjects such as astrophysics. Take some course
on these subjects. Enroll into a university or similar school.
Also, study a bit about human behavior and psychology, about how the
brain works and how people interpret what they see. Get acquainted with
common misconceptions, argumentative fallacies and urban legends.
When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
saying and why.
As the adage goes, a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2011 1:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
> investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
> supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
> the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
> saying and why.
>
I will go one step beyond this and say, "If something seems to support
the claim, but there is no link, article/page numbers, or other
information that can be used to find the original source, which they
claim supports them, find it anyway." Odds are, all too often, the
original source either doesn't say what they claim, says something
similar, but which does not come even close to supporting their
contentions, or even completely, flat out, contradicts them. People who
badly want something to be true, will grasp at any straw they can, and
you can usually tell they are grasping straws, or either intentionally,
or unintentionally, misrepresenting something, by, not merely failing
to, refusing to link to the original source.
Then, of course, there are the delusional, who link to the source, fully
certain that either you won't bother checking it, or that, when you do,
you will agree with them (even when the article in question directly
addresses claims like their own, and refutes them). In any case, never
take the word of someone claiming things that don't fit the common view
at face value. They might have a great idea, but they might also be a
long standing nutcase, who mangles every paper they get their hands on,
in an attempt to use even the words of people that undermine every claim
they are making, in the very article being referenced. You can't be
sure, unless you compare what is claimed *about* the article, with what
it *actually* says. At least, not with any level of trust, especially
when the claim is something that falls in the "fringe" zone, of theory,
and gives skeptics a case of hives. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2011 14:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> or even completely, flat out, contradicts them.
Like the people who quote the judge in the court case that said "the 16th
amendment granted no new ability for the federal government to impose
taxes." And then they dance all around saying "See? You don't need to pay
taxes!"
The judge finished the sentence with "because the federal government already
had and has always had the ability to impose income taxes. This amendment
just (paraphrasing) adjusted how the accounting works."
People do the same thing with patents. "Look, a patent on peanut butter
sandwiches! How stupid!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
>> useful
>> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
>
> Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
> idea of how to go about doing so?
>
You missed the point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you
have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything
there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced
are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are
you sure I'm a complete illiterate?
You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of
ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Are you sure is me who is arguing out of ignorance? are you sure you
> have the last word on the subject because you know absolutely everything
> there is to know about it? Are you sure the life threatening experienced
> are not memorized efficiently for decades of some UFO interactions? Are
> you sure I'm a complete illiterate?
> You should ask this questions before assuming, hence writing out of
> ignorance, about someone. take this also a s friendly advice.
You clearly don't understand what "argument from ignorance" means.
It does not mean "you are an ignorant person, your argument is bollocks".
"Argument from ignorance" is a form of argumentation where a positive
claim is drawn from something not having an explanation. For example,
a classic form of argument from ignorance is: "Science can't explain where
the universe came from. Thus it must have been created by God." In other
words, if something cannot be explained (by science in general or by the
person you are talking with in particular), that's taken as evidence for
the claim.
You see this all the time in all kinds of situations, especially ufology.
Every "unexplained" phenomenon is taken as evidence of UFOs, the main
argument being that it's unexplained. Hence argument from ignorance.
Of course this is a completely flawed argument. If something is unexplained,
then it is unexplained. Taking it as evidence of an explanation is flawed
argumentation. In fact, it's self-contradictory. It's basically saying
"this cannot be explained, thus it can be explained".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to
avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through
science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and
what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance
because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat
the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it
doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Forgot to say, check the series 'UFO Files' and again, not everything is
false not everyone/everything is true but some things are. Bob Lazard is
a attention whore fake witness for example that does appear in the
series but there are others that do offer truthful and objective
indication of ET presence, I suggest you to re-read my post:
news://news.povray.org:119/4e9f7644@news.povray.org you're assuming many
wrongful things about my posts & myself when I explained how and why
precisely to avoid people assuming things but you looks like you
over-read it and did it anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/25/2011 4:43 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well such a basic assumption is old and of course every one tries to
> avoid it and yes you don't know nor can't explain everything through
> science now, as are many thing in nature, nor you haven't seen how and
> what those cases are all about you're generalizing out of ignorance
> because you saw a few cases and wrongly assume situations will repeat
> the same for the most part. And because something can't be explained it
> doesn't mean is not indication something is going on, you need to open
> your mind to toher possibilities and stop that attitude "Give me facts
> or give me death!", you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing
> what you want to see, science and nothings else.
Ugh.. Its the, "Different ways of knowing", argument, combined with what
can best be called the, "If we keep doing it, maybe next time it will
happen a different way!", argument, which most people would define as a
sign of, if not potentially insanity, then at least extreme wishful
thinking.
Here is a hint, every other "way of knowing" has been a dismal failure
at providing explanations, facts, evidence, or anything that might
otherwise result in progress towards doing anything useful with the
"knowledge" thus produced. When someone can show *any* example to the
contrary, which doesn't, at some point, rely on scientific experiment,
repeatability, and elimination of other possible explanations *before*
reaching something *usable*... well, then we will open our minds to the
above "possibilities".
Now, I need to go and see if, this time, the pot I put on the stove
freezes, instead of boiling. Apparently, I need to open my mind, and a
few repeated cases of it boiling isn't sufficient reason to imagine that
I know what will happen the next time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
