Is mankind ARROGANT?

[RobertScorpio]

Is it possible that mankind is arrogant. For example. Many believe faster-than-light travel is impossible based on theories made by a species (us) just 5000 years removed from basic ability to farm.

I do believe mankind is arrogant. I don't think we 'know' everything. To say that we have figured it all out from just the time of Newton to now is very presumtive on our part.

Even on Star Trek we hear this phrase all the time 'Sorry captain, not enough data to make a logical determination AT THIS TIME"...at this time is Spock's 'way out'. He is telling Kirk that 'perhaps with more data, I can make a determination."

I don't think we have all the information. Until mankind has the ability to gather in data from all parts of our galaxy, let alone the universe, I don't think we have the knowledge yet to make absolute statements that are 'universal'. At one time mankind thought the world was flat, thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, and in both cases it was based on limited information. As time went on these 'assumptions' were proven wrong.

I believe we are in that same place. Einstien/Hawkins, as smart as they are, were (and are) limited to the data they have. And even Hawkin has said that he is working on faster than light travel.

You may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one...

 

[Kegek]

RobertScorpio said:
Is it possible that mankind is arrogant. For example. Many believe faster-than-light travel is impossible based on theories made by a species (us) just 5000 years removed from basic ability to farm.

Show me a theory that proves that theory wrong and I'll believe in FTL. That's not arrogance, that's just common sense.

We can spectulate that our theories may be wrong; but without hard evidence there's no point in throwing them out on a whim.

 

[USS KG5]

Humans are arrogant, selfish, greedy, cruel, lazy and stupid in various degrees at various times.

We can also be kind, compassionate, clever, industrious, creative, brave and loving.

We are what wqe are - just people. There is no doubt that right now predicting the future with 100% accuracy is borderline impossible, especially technologically as many things affect progress that are hard to predict, like warfare. That said, its what sci-fi is all about isnt it?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Sorry, but 'theories' hardly are 'hard evidence'. Using your logic we'd still be governed by Newtonian theory. And that is the point of this thread. Our 'theories' are products of their time.

So yes, I can not prove to you FTL travel is possible. But you can not prove to me, using 'hard facts' that it isn't. We simply don't know. And to say that you 'do' know 'with out a doubt' based on current theory is as arrogant as the Pope was for thinking the world was flat centuries after it was proven to be round. The title of this thread is very appropiate, wouldn't you say?

 

[Kegek]

RobertScorpio said:
Sorry, but 'theories' hardly are 'hard evidence'.

They're the next best thing, as they are logical extrapolations from existing evidence. And the evidence we have so far says that FTL is impossible.

Using your logic we'd still be governed by Newtonian theory.

No. But we would continue to be governed by the theories we have. That the theories can be cast off is for the moment immaterial. Newtonian theory was replaced by something a little bit more than the hypothesis 'You know what? Maybe this stuff is wrong,' which is all this is at present.

So yes, I can not prove to you FTL travel is possible. But you can not prove to me, using 'hard facts' that it isn't. We simply don't know.

You're applying an absolutist conception of knowledge that is neither consistent with scientific knowledge nor how the word is used generally. We do not know anything without doubt, but we do know things without reasonable doubt. After all, everything you have experienced may be a simulation and you are really a brain in a vat, but in the absence of any evidence that you really are such a brain, which would you chose to believe?

Until there's a cogent argument for FTL, it remains an unreasonable doubt.

And to say that you 'do' know 'with out a doubt' based on current theory is as arrogant as the Pope was for thinking the world was flat centuries after it was proven to be round.

This is untrue. The Papacy has believed in geocentrism (the Earth is the centre of the universe), but has never believed that the Earth was flat.

 

[BriGuy]

USS KG5 said:
Humans are arrogant, selfish, greedy, cruel, lazy and stupid in various degrees at various times.

We can also be kind, compassionate, clever, industrious, creative, brave and loving.

We are what wqe are - just people. There is no doubt that right now predicting the future with 100% accuracy is borderline impossible, especially technologically as many things affect progress that are hard to predict, like warfare. That said, its what sci-fi is all about isnt it?

Actually, what we are is animals, but most are too arrogant to think of themselves as such.

And we're so arrogant as to believe that of all the living things on this planet, there is a god that looks just like us that created us, and put everything else on this orb for our amusement and consumption.

 

[JoeZhang]

RobertScorpio said:
Sorry, but 'theories' hardly are 'hard evidence'.

Do you understand what the term theory means in science? your post seems to indicate that you think it means "a good guess", it does not.

 

[BriGuy]

True or false - the speed of sound was once thought unachievable.

I honestly don't know. I assume at some point it was. But we know how that worked out.

 

[captcalhoun]

would YOU please stop POSTING threads with one of THE words randomly capitalised as it's really ANNOYING as it MAKES you look as though you're SHOUTING oddly. like...you'rebillshatner...or something...

 

[M'Sharak]

JoeZhang said:

RobertScorpio said:
Sorry, but 'theories' hardly are 'hard evidence'.

Do you understand what the term theory means in science? your post seems to indicate that you think it means "a good guess", it does not.

I get the same sense from his use of the word "theory" that I do when I hear "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" advocates using it.

RobertScorpio said:

I believe we are in that same place. Einstien/Hawkins, as smart as they are, were (and are) limited to the data they have. And even Hawkin has said that he is working on faster than light travel.

This just seems to underline it.

"Einstein" and "Hawking" are the correct spellings for the names of those two gentlemen, btw, Mr. Scorpio. You will pardon me if I treat anything you say in the future with some measure of skepticism.

 

[stj]

The last I looked, Miguel Alcubierre had finessed a theoretical end run around the speed of light. Also, closed timelike curves have not been ruled out of general relativity. Time travel is physically equivalent to FTL.

It's always amusing that people zero in on warp drive as impossible, when the sensors on Trek routinely violate the laws of thermodynamics! (You know that one about entropy? Entropy is the enemy of information.) The Universal Translator is also genuinely impossible. Trek's version of invisibility also seems to be logically inconsistent, like Wells' Invisible Man. The Borg have infinite bandwidth it seems which is also truly impossible.

But then, when the Borg assimilate someone and metal implants sprout at odd locations, does anyone but me wonder where the hell the metal came from?!

 

[cultcross]

BriGuy said:
True or false - the speed of sound was once thought unachievable.

I honestly don't know. I assume at some point it was. But we know how that worked out.

What I do know is that it was once thought that a human wouldn't be able to breath if they travelled faster than about 25-30 miles per hour.

Humans make assumptions and accept what is currently believed to get through life - it's not arrogance per sé, it's just that certain everyday functioanlity, particualrly in an age of exponentially increasing technological complexity requires you to accept certain things as 'known'. These may or may not later be modified or discarded, but that doesn't make you 'arrogant' for believing the best scientific explanation currently available, And it doesn't make you any more so for leaving out caveats which explain that in sentences - otherwise an awful lot of sentences would be cluttered up - 'to the limits of our current scientific understanding, hydrogen is the most abundant element' for example.

 

[matthunter]

RobertScorpio said:
Sorry, but 'theories' hardly are 'hard evidence'. Using your logic we'd still be governed by Newtonian theory. And that is the point of this thread. Our 'theories' are products of their time.

As a scientist, I can tell you that the scientific community is very aware that theories are not hard evidence. Even gravity (or rather how it works) is still a "theory", albeit one backed by a substantial amount of evidence.

The ignorance of the general public as to the scientific method should not be confused with arrogance on the part of scientists like Kirk, Picard, Spock, etc. I'm sure Kirk is well aware of what Spock means by "no explanation at this time", or he'd be running to religion for a comforting answer every week.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I actually agree with you.

 

[misskim86]

I thought he was very arrogant thinking he could beat the undertaker

 

[Non-Trekkie Trekkie]

stj said:
The last I looked, Miguel Alcubierre had finessed a theoretical end run around the speed of light. Also, closed timelike curves have not been ruled out of general relativity. Time travel is physically equivalent to FTL.[/i]

Yup.

No Faster than Light Travel because no Time Travel. Ever.

If Time Travel were possible, we'd already know.


As much as I hate to face it, because I would really like to think it's all true and/or possible, this is the same reason why there is no truth in visitations by little green men...They'd have to travel at Faster than Light (Time Travel) to get here.


At least that's how I understand it all, in a few lines...

 

[Non-Trekkie Trekkie]

misskim86 said:
I thought he was very arrogant thinking he could beat the undertaker

Well, he did have the help of the Executioner and Paul Bearer at the time.

 

[misskim86]

I didn't see them help UT chokeslamming him off the cell

 

[cultcross]

Non-Trekkie Trekkie said:

If Time Travel were possible, we'd already know.

The old argument of 'if time travel were possible we'd be inundated by tourists from the future' assumes time travel is exactly how it's portrayed (usually) on TV, where you literally step out of your time machine (remembering where you parked) and go have a pizza and steal some whales. Time travel might be a wildly different phenomenon to this perception. One which would not be obviously distinctive to our senses.

 

[Non-Trekkie Trekkie]

misskim86 said:
I didn't see them help UT chokeslamming him off the cell

I'm not exactly sure of all the details, but we might be getting our two Mankind/Undertaker feuds confused here...

The first, Mankind was still just the (Heel) Mankind, managed by Paul Bearer...And the Executioner (Terry Gordy in his short-lived stint) showed up at the end and helped Mankind bury the (Face) Undertaker, winning the Buried Alive match.

Then later on, MickFoleyKind showed-up as a Face to meet the (Heel) Undertaker in the Hell in a Cell...Then took all those sick bumps. The planned-one onto the table, and the unplanned-one through the cage onto the mat (MUCH more debilitating to Mick).