wux:
Even though I naturally am (and obviously do), I haven't written anything yet that would be worth publishing, let alone quoted -- especially anything incorrect, like that scientist you're after! Nevertheless, being instinctively intuitive. I'll keep you posted!!! (just in case...)

Really??

Not to change the subject matter here, but....

I was listening to a radio show last night and there was a Professor Kaku ( a well know physics professor ) who was going through some of the things that were said to be " impossible " just a few years ago, that are now being proven.

Who was it that was saying these things were " impossible "?

Scientists, of course.

I will take some time, at my earliest opportunity, to find a link or two that will back up what I have said.

The point is, scientists say things are impossible all the time. They are also being proven wrong all the time. New things get discovered every day. 150 years ago, it was blasphemy to say that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around. It was impossible.

One of the main things that has caused me to get into arguments with people is my thought that mankind cannot confidently say what is impossible until we know all the things that are possible.

OUR ABILITIES ARE LIMITED ONLY BY OUR MAGINATIONS!!!

I'm glad you at least noticed and noted that you were changing the topic before saying this, otherwise we might be left wondering if you thought this was somehow relevant Wux's suggestion that you might provide a quote related to your claims about instincts.

And, oh, yeah, I was once very well versed in the history of scientific folly. Some people look at the detailed cause and effect and circumstances of this folly - others just like to generalize.


Thank you for giving me something to laugh about. Have you taken the time to really think about the implications of what you've written here, and how it might relate to this conversation?

JustAGuy,

I just re-read what I wrote last night, and I don't think I expressed myself very well. In the first paragraph, I wasn't being sarcastic. I really do think it speaks well of your intelligence that you realized how tangential your next comments would be, and it speaks well of your communication that you noted this before doing so.

No worries. I don't take things personally. I really didn't read sarcasm in that paragraph. Just a point made. :-)

I do realize that there are times when my logic can be somewhat " circular ".

While I can understand why the statement I made has the potential to make people laugh a bit when they really think about it, I have run into an awful lot of people who take the word of scientists as gospel ( so to speak ) and completely ignore the fact that science is an ever evolving discipline.

As to it's being relative to the conversation...

I think it's relative in the fact that science and scientists will, at times, make claims about the things that are and aren't " possible " without taking into account the realization that they still don't have the knowledge or equipment necessary to truly make the claims.

Is the claim that there is " no such thing " as cellular memory based on absolute fact?? Or is it, like many other things, based on nothing more than the current knowledge?

Basing things on current knowledge is fine. It really is the only way that actually works.

I just don't, in most cases, take the claims to be fact because new technology, new ideas, more knowledge are being found on an almost daily basis.

Neglecting past discoveries is Ignorant!

But Ignorance of the future didcoveries is absurd!!!

Thus, arguing from the perspective of the future didcoveries is a complete nonesense!!!

Not really.

Isn't science all about discovery??

Are they not discovering new things every day???

Why would it be so absurd to have a scientist say " we have some pretty good information as it is, but we can't be 100% positive as of yet "???

What, exactly, is so " absurd " about wanting them to face their own limitations.

Isn't science also about pushing themselves t break the limitations??

Because that would mean "We're 95% certain, but we can't be 100% positive as of yet "

However, what I'm referring to is:
One cannot argue that 2*2=5 just because the future might confirm it!!!

You seem to be missing what I am saying here.

I am only saying that, it would probably serve science better, to stop placing limits on people's thinking by saying things are " impossible " when, in reality, they simply don't know what really IS possible.

" Highly unlikely "...fine.

" Impossible "....

THAT is exactly the point.

Those that claim things are " impossible " have simply stopped imagining.

Meanwhile, someone, somewhere, is asking " What IS possible " and isn't limiting themselves.

Thanx, I seem to comprehend what your referring to. However, a concrete example wouldn't hurt:

I'm still looking. I'll have more time this weekend.

But...just as an example...there are many physicists who have said that space travel, at the speeds necessary for another race to come to our planet simply isn't possible due to the laws of physics.

But...having listened to Professor Kaku speak about the Large Hadron Collider, he said that many of the things physicists believed to be impossible are now being shown to be quite possible.

I know this has nothing to do with instinct...but it does, in a way, illustrate my point.

There are also rumors going around that the problems relating to the collider are the results of scientist working on the collider in the future trying to prevent scientist working on the collider now form destroying the earth. Therefore negating the existance of the scientists in the future from affecting the scientists working on the collider now from eliminating their existance.

Do you have a headache yet? I know I do.

LMAO!!!

Professor Kaku was pretty convincing in his explanation of why the LHC doesn't have the ability to destroy the world.

Not familiar with his thoughts, but very interested, I'll have to research.

Dr Michio Kaku. Theoretical Physicist.

http://mkaku.org/

Very interesting dude.

Apparantly, the scientists FROM THE FUTURE -- by authority of Dr. Larchio Kaku (the grand-son of the latter) -- must've been given Dr Michio Kaku a "GO AHEAD"! ! !

LMAO!!!

Quite possibly....lmao

However, such hypothesis -- Future scientists preventing potentially bad discoveries -- kills the initiative of researching anything:
rather than pursuing the goal of research, scientists might as well give up at the first difficulty -- claiming the future scientists are preventing them from accomplishing the task because it might have negative implications in the future...