Re: OT: Intelligent Falling

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:44:57 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:19:06 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>The irony here, of course, is that the technology was available in
>>Galileo's day to build flying machines like hot-air balloons and hang
>>gliders; it wouldn't have been all that difficult. The only thing it
>>lacked was the imagination to believe it to be possible.
>>
>>People of Galileo's time saw birds and squirrels fly, and trees
>>uprooted by the wind, and believed in angels and dragons, so manned
>>flight wasn't even much of a leap.
>>
>>There are still lots of radical things that are achievable if people
>>are first willing to admit they're possible. Very eminent scientists
>>told Townes that maser action was forbidden by thermodynamics.
>
>No one should feel the least bit sheepish about having an imagination
>capable of novel ideas. You are right to value that. Coupled to a
>rigorous mind, it can be an awesome thing.
>
>You wrote, "the simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed,"
>and it may be a suggestion for an inquiry of some kind. I've heard it
>before, of course, certainly in some rather old SF stories, in fact.
>So it's not as though you've suggested something novel or scary to
>think about. But it's not to be compared on equal footing with
>science theory. And I read you doing just that.
>
>Let me requote all of what I'm thinking about, here:
>
>> Life creates complexity from simplicity. You are more complex
>> than the carrots you eat, and the carrots are more complex than
>> sunlight and water.
>
>This plays down the grander implications of what you were about to
>say, by saying something few would viscerally disagree with. At least,
>that is, if they keep their blinders on as to where you are about to
>lead them. But there is no rigor to your meaning of 'complex' here,
>except to draw upon common ideas about it -- not quantitative ones or
>objective ones. But who can argue at this point, assuming a vulgar
>and imprecise meaning?
>
>So let's see where you were headed, now:
>
>> The simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed;
>
>It is neither simplest, as other posts have already amply indicated,
>nor is it an explanation.
>
>> nice job, in fact.
>
>A pat on the back of whomever and, anyway, who could possibly disagree
>that our DNA is nice? Of course, it carries with it the underlying
>assumption of the claim you just made and walks right on past it,
>nonchalantly.
>
>> But any explanation for the origin of the universe is hopelessly
>> flawed, so any opinion, including the orthodox ones,
>> is about as good as any other.
>
>Okay, so let's get down to brass tacks.
>
>What you offered isn't an explanation, at all. And in order to
>justify the fact that you aren't really offering anything of any
>value, you then, with a wide sweeping brush, toss away without so much
>as a nod a great deal of important work that has gone on and continues
>to proceed now by scientists who really are taking steps to increase
>our body of scientific knowledge in that direction. One gets from
>ignorance to some knowledge in steps. Steps are being taken. But not
>by your suggestion.
>
>As I noted, your comment is no explanation at all -- despite your
>contrary assertion. It doesn't have quantitative potential, does
>nothing to inform us about the will or intentions of such aliens,
>foretells nothing at all that we can observe -- even conceptually, let
>alone practically, adds no novel breadth or depth about what to expect
>when we look, ... it is utterly and fundamentally useless.
>
>It explains nothing -- it is not an explanation.
>
>You might just as well have said Loki did it, for all the explanatory
>power it provides.
>
> "The cause supposedly given, we still know not the effect."
>
>Jon


I read a report just yesterday that very complex organic molecules
have been detected around stars, by observing the spectra of light
that was emitted roughly four billion years after The Bang, or about 8
or so billion years ago. So it's reasonable to assume that intelligent
life has existed all over the universe for many billions of years. As
I said, only one civilization in our galaxy need elect to launch a
seed project for us to be their creation. If the human race survives
another thousand years, I have no doubt we'll carry on the tradition.

I'm always wary of people who prefer rejecting ideas to playing with
them; they make rotten engineers. This sort of attitude is especially
prevalent in the physics community, where half-baked ideas, and the
people who suggest them, are often ravaged without mercy. Read Townes,
"How The Laser Happened."

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Most Painfully Annoying Business Jargon
    ... expression "out of left field" indicates a surprising outcome that is ... There is nothing surprising in the baseball explanation. ... trouble getting the ball to first base to put the batter out. ... a suggestion from left field, it is a suggestion that is not ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
    ... You wrote, "the simplest explanation for DNA is that it was designed," ... and it may be a suggestion for an inquiry of some kind. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: What happened to the University of California Admissions Case?
    ... Public school started pushing evolution when I was in 6th grade. ... was never any suggestion that any other explanation was possible. ... after year, straight from the textbook without commentary or debate, it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unicon Xv Logo Design Competition
    ... Ken, thanks for the explanation. ... suggestion for the future that might make a difference since there were ... Jamey ... unicycle6869's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8990 ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: OT - Why No Tea and Sympathy?
    ... >Was that an explanation - or a suggestion? ... >Theory don't mean squat if it don't work. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)