Our tax dollars now tell us that Star Trek's "transporters" are not possible. (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Given that it will be a very VERY long time -if ever- before we are able to explore other galaxies, the "anything is possible" people have certainly given themselves plenty of leeway! There's no doubt in my mind, though, that we could explore a THOUSAND galaxies and they'd still be saying the same thing..."but it's still only a small part of the universe...you never know..."

 

[RobertR]

Another step in acheiving a goal is not wasting your time on avenues that rationally lead nowhere.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

You're talking about the universe here. I'm sorry, but we need more that just theories before we can say we have a very good understanding. How can we say that without being even able to explore it?

 

[RobertR]

No it wasn't. The scientific method succeeded brilliantly. It was the theory that failed.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It was possible before a century ago, the Wrights flew in 1903, their's being the first "sustained, controled, powered, heavier than air flight". Many people had flown controled gliders before the Wrights and some flew powered gliders that for one reason or another were not controlled flight. Regardless, the statement that flight was viewed as impossible not more than a century ago is decidedly false.

I find it quite interesting that in past history the scientists were the one's who knew the earth was really round, that the sun was the center of the solar system and other scientific ideas. It was the masses and the church that were ignorant of the real world; they thought the earth was flat or the sun revolved around the earth.

Today, it seems that scientists know nothing and it is the mystics, the paranormals and the new age thinkers (not to mention the "golden-eared" wire manufacturers) that have all the answers. We have truly come full circle. Even given this relative stupidity of modern scientists, if given my choice, I still want a Physicist teaching me physical laws and a Mathmatician teaching me math. Call me old fashioned.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

I wouldn't say that, on the contrary.

 

[Kenneth]

My only political opposition to teleportation is that I think it is financially irresponsible at this time because it would distract from other space and military technologies that are more useful. Unless we figure out a way to telport (ala "Harry Potter") an actual transporter would be extremely dangerous (which even Star Trek started addressing). I am not opposed to dangerous technologies if they are benefitial (cloning, atomic power, true AI, etc). However, you have to pick your battles and know your limitations.

Cheers,

Kenneth

 

[Jeff Gatie]

As I said, today it seems it is the scientists that know nothing about the universe and the non-scientists who are allowed to say with conviction what "may be" possible. It is the same old, "everyone has an opinion and just because someone is a scientist (film critic, director, etc.) does not make their opinion correct or more important" argument that crops up in every "What's so great about 'Citizen Kane'" thread.

I say it in those threads and I'll say it here, there is a difference between an opinion and an educated or informed opinion.

 

[RobertR]

I find it interesting that the "anything is possible" people will never ever admit that scientists are right with certainty, but they have no problem declaring with absolute certainty that they "know" when scientists are wrong.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Which all depends on where you get your education, and how accurate your information is.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Exactly!

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Scientists are the ones proving other scientists wrong. It's not everybody that can do that. Einstein proved that the ether theory was wrong and, even then, the scientific community wasn't convinced. That's just to show how hard it is to overthrow something that has been widely accepted as being the "truth". Don't you think people at that time would have replied "don't hold your breath for a new understanding" if someone would have said "maybe the ether theory is not absolutely true"? They would have given the same answers you're giving me and show the same arrogance.

 

[JonZ]

I thought I remembered reading a article about a year and 1/2 or 2 years ago that a small object was successfully teleported.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Not in this thread. In this thread it seems to be the non-scientists that are emphasizing that scientists are "often" wrong. The non-scientists are going through much effort to predict the theories of today are wrong by giving instances where they were wrong in the past (not a very good argument, given the % of theories that are actually found to be wrong). The scientists in this thread are simply stating that within the confines of current knowledge about the laws of the universe, 'X' is impossible. The non-scientists are saying the scientists are not allowed to say that 'X' is impossible because there may be something scientists do not know yet. Who is being unreasonable?

 

[RobertR]

If someone comes up with a radical new theory, any scientist worth the label had damn well better say “show me the supporting data”, else he’s not doing his job, and is making a travesty of the scientific method. All scientists must always be on guard against emotional attachments to a certain view of things as well as the emotion that says “I wish wish wish it were true”. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Evidence does, and there’s nothing arrogant about demanding it.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Non-scientists are apparently not bound by this caveat, which is why they get to talk about the "maybe". Unfortunately, the false attachment to either set of emotions is not something that is solely felt by non-scientists. Read Michael Crichton's comparison of Eugenics and Global Warming in the appendix of "State of Fear" for a harrowing example of the "I wish wish wish it were true" mindset in early (and late) 20th century socio-political "science".

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, explain all that 'transporters are impossible' to the husband or wife for that matter who happens to be in a motel room with someone else when the other half magically appears, huh?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Excellent point, Chu.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

 

[RobertR]

The logic you seem to be using is, if the truth of some things is shown to be false or questionable, then all things (such as, for example, saying gold has a greater molecular weight than hydrogen (will that always be true?)) are questionable. I don't see how that follows, no matter how much one wants to believe it.