Post by CoolP on Aug 5th, 2012 at 9:55am
Mark, you shouldn't allow the misinterpretation of the folks to distract you. In science, you will hardly find two opinions being the same. Often enough, and especially on the topics with a lot of assumptions included, they will even contradict each other. That's the very nature of science.
Well, if you ever saw two professors discussing items, you get to know how wrong a public audience sums up the word 'discussion' by the way. It's not arguing, it's the very essence of progress, of doubt, of force to drive curiosity. And all those theories we sometimes relate to being facts are the outcome of such discussions. A current consensus (somehow) and science will always look for later proof (or disproof), whereas religion postulates to already 'have proven'.
I absolutely agree to your personal viewpoint when it comes to the chances for being the only life in space. I must admit though, I don't want that to be true of course. So I'm biased. In fact, I would be robbed of a lot of my personal motivation and hope if there ever was a proof that the humans are the the most advanced life in the universe and that Earth is the only living sphere.
Even more so since I've developed an aversion against anthropocentrism which, by the way, our two friends may show in a more or less severe manner. That fact alone is a shame and you folks can expect me to really wonder about the reasons for that (in my eyes) very wrong attitude. Especially among the younger folks.
Carl Sagan once warned people about developing that attitude, but that's from decades back. So seeing 'fresh' minds coming up with it (or tendencies) is a warning sign of some kind. As mentioned before, it blocks a huge amount of paths for the mind and sort of acts as an opponent of open science. Hence his warning, so it's not about not tolerating other opinions. Everyone is free to block himself. :D
But, to be more on your post, you are once again true. Some scientist may end up in a sort of 'I know it all, even the unknown' attitude, leading to follow-up attitudes of all kind, including to look at non scientists as being unworthy to even comprehend simple things.
Lets say those aren't the guys we can look up to. But we do have some interesting minds in our society and those folks do have a sense for 'knowing that we know nothing'. They also bring in some idealism or skepticism, which, again, is vital for science to continue in all possible directions.
By the way. I'm sure you folks know this one special photograph. I'll leave it here and the text from NASA. Can you spot the Earth, can you see 'us'? ::)
Quote:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=52392
All I can say is 'insignificant', which just means that a humble attitude is the preferred one when it comes to the humans speaking about the rest of the (known) universe and everything else surrounding them.
There are more stars in the universe than there are sand grains among all the beaches of planet Earth. So if you took away Earth from the universe, it would be even less significant than taking away one grain of sand. :o
Well, if you ever saw two professors discussing items, you get to know how wrong a public audience sums up the word 'discussion' by the way. It's not arguing, it's the very essence of progress, of doubt, of force to drive curiosity. And all those theories we sometimes relate to being facts are the outcome of such discussions. A current consensus (somehow) and science will always look for later proof (or disproof), whereas religion postulates to already 'have proven'.
I absolutely agree to your personal viewpoint when it comes to the chances for being the only life in space. I must admit though, I don't want that to be true of course. So I'm biased. In fact, I would be robbed of a lot of my personal motivation and hope if there ever was a proof that the humans are the the most advanced life in the universe and that Earth is the only living sphere.
Even more so since I've developed an aversion against anthropocentrism which, by the way, our two friends may show in a more or less severe manner. That fact alone is a shame and you folks can expect me to really wonder about the reasons for that (in my eyes) very wrong attitude. Especially among the younger folks.
Carl Sagan once warned people about developing that attitude, but that's from decades back. So seeing 'fresh' minds coming up with it (or tendencies) is a warning sign of some kind. As mentioned before, it blocks a huge amount of paths for the mind and sort of acts as an opponent of open science. Hence his warning, so it's not about not tolerating other opinions. Everyone is free to block himself. :D
But, to be more on your post, you are once again true. Some scientist may end up in a sort of 'I know it all, even the unknown' attitude, leading to follow-up attitudes of all kind, including to look at non scientists as being unworthy to even comprehend simple things.
Lets say those aren't the guys we can look up to. But we do have some interesting minds in our society and those folks do have a sense for 'knowing that we know nothing'. They also bring in some idealism or skepticism, which, again, is vital for science to continue in all possible directions.
By the way. I'm sure you folks know this one special photograph. I'll leave it here and the text from NASA. Can you spot the Earth, can you see 'us'? ::)
Quote:
| This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed 'Pale Blue Dot', is a part of the first ever 'portrait' of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. The spacecraft acquired a total of 60 frames for a mosaic of the solar system from a distance of more than 4 billion miles from Earth and about 32 degrees above the ecliptic. From Voyager's great distance Earth is a mere point of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun. This blown-up image of the Earth was taken through three color filters -- violet, blue and green -- and recombined to produce the color image. The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification. |
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=52392
All I can say is 'insignificant', which just means that a humble attitude is the preferred one when it comes to the humans speaking about the rest of the (known) universe and everything else surrounding them.
There are more stars in the universe than there are sand grains among all the beaches of planet Earth. So if you took away Earth from the universe, it would be even less significant than taking away one grain of sand. :o