701151 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

I'm not close minded, I use logic that I have carefully thought about.

The same logic which lets you state dimensions and formulas wrong and the 'careful thoughts' leading you to jump on anything harming your personal view on the world of lets say the aviation business, Peter?  ::) Open question, not just within the limits of this thread though.


Quote:

Searching for e.t life in our universe is the only 'scientific' thing we do in which we have no evidence of it's existence.

'Evidence' as a word being used by someone praising his own logics has a certain value. I just don't know which.  :-?

But, more on the case, why not start asking folks at a local research facility about what they think of lets say a cure for HIV or cancer, a future way of producing energy without ripping the planet apart or just the foreseeable demise of social integrity due to a lack of resources and, hopefully, successful ways to deal with it?

What's their 'evidence for success' if there is something like that? You know, just to get a feel for the word. Also ask them about chances and how one can estimate those. And don't forget what motivates them and the folks paying the funds.

On a wider scale, why not look on how prominent guys think about the chances of life beyond the boarders of capitalism or nuclear war? Take Stephen Hawking, how did he come to the conclusion that, in a mathematical view, there is no way to deny a possibility since the value is clearly between 0 and 1. Just means that the ones denying are as wrong as the ones 'knowing' that there is something out there.

Keep asking about those things and your strange view on the word may hopefully change. Nobody in science stops of there is uncertainty. No, that's where science actually starts! Right between the 0 and the 1. So stop believing and thinking in fixed ways and admit that there is a lot to know about. That's the spirit and just these days the next Mars explorer is about to land. Ask them why! Ok, here's a hint.  8-)

Quote:

Its as-signment: Investigate whether conditions have been favorable for microbial life and for preserving clues in the rocks about possible past life.

NASA fact sheet. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/mars-science-laboratory.pdf

Guess what's the name of the vehicle. Curiosity!  :D
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html



Quote:

This is not why I think, but why I know that this global warming hysteria is a load of B.S. if you have all these scientists in agreement about something, it isn't natural, it means there's only greed for funding behind it.

So we have the environmental concerns being declared as  'B.S.' while, at the same time, surely being a proud supporter of the 'war on terror' and the billions being spend without any greed for funding in place.  ::) Ah, I see, the logics again.  :P

The same logics which let 'us' built thousands of nuclear warheads (we didn't had much terror back then, so what else could we do?), to blow up the planet several times. What was the evidence basis of that move again? I'm lost, but I'm sure it was very important and I'm even more sure that it still is very expensive.



Markoz wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 2:54am:

Chances are that we will have destroyed this planet and ourselves before that happens.

In that case, we had a least a good investment. Well, not in my book, but in quite some as it seems.