dimreepr

sorry my fault I was editing sorry my fault I was editing (edit) lmao

Ok I was being flippant sorry you are clearly intelligent but I’ve been you as a layman I had one these Idea’s. This was partly qm’s fault, Imo, because to the layman it seems that so much is still unknown. In reality it pretty much knows everything about the observable universe from now right back to 0.0000000001 (this numbers from memory feel free to correct anyone) of a second from the very beginning of the universe. My mistake is forgetting the Knowledge pyramid is essential for understanding and I simply haven’t spent a significant percentage of my life in complete dedication in first building the pyramid and then adding height my hat is most definitely off to you Scientist’s.

Carefull guys this is a very large wall, someone's going to get hurt

Ok thanks. It was the fermi paradox that lead me to think that the equation needed an extra function to make the number more realistic wrong again.

I did struggle with that question yes it does seem to but surely as the question is a search for intellegent life then a distinction should be made between the two.

It stikes me that the one thing Drake forgot in making his equation is the moon and the stability it provides. Surley this must be factored into the equation as time is very much a factor in the evolution of life let alone intelligent life.

Here here, I to am an atheist and I to think my moral compass is generaly pointing in the right direction. The one thing I take from the bible is Imo the only rule we need live our lives by "Do unto others etc".

Yes I can see your point It's very difficult to describe in english what maths has to say as illustrated by an armstrong and miller skit in which a prof is trying to describe his theory to a layman. (edit) sorry for the English reference here but I'm English what can I say??

Of cource your completly correct however science is seriously undervalued and is due in some way to this disconect. We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.

Whilst watching a program by the bbc's panorama series called "finding the higgs". I realised just how arrogant I've been on this forum, but just how much is this due to our culture? My sister has a phd and I remember a conversation she had with a friend of mine, where she had to defend herself against his ridicule in terms of "peer reviewed work". At the time this meant little to me, as I was trying to have my say. Now though with my experience on this forum it strikes me that science itself is partly to blame in as much as the "language" science uses, which is open to specious ridicule and argument and therefore in day to day life is easily dismissed. Programs like this are essential Imo in educating the mass' and eliminate idiots like me postulating with little or no real knowledge. Does this however in a way create the confusion in a recent bbc program called "a night in with the stars" presented by Prof Brian Cox in which I thought he explained that Pauli's principle means that every atom in the universe has a different energy level or spin and that changing the state of one atom would change that of every atom in the universe. This wasn't the case so I imagine this is a case of making it understandable to as many as possible. In conclusion: I think, programs of this sort is needed for education and understanding but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

maybe there's an app for the iphone, not looked as I avoid apple products like the plague.

I have to admire your persistance but not your understanding of what THEORY means. At best this idea can be considered a hypothesis, which in science would be tested and IF it conforms to ALL the known evidence THEN it would be considered a THEORY not before.

Of cource not but how does this argue my point? I didn't say the system shouldn't be in place just that idea's will be lost. (edit) The point being that ethics has it's place and shouldn't be used where it can only hinder.

Firstly please don't make the mistake that our prehistoric ancestors were less intelligent than ourselves we just have more education than they did. I think Gods evolution went something like this: The tribe's leader has a problem to solve, how to control the tribe? He knows the problems that uncontrolled people can do. Hunt one animal too much and it disappears for example. He has a light bulb moment and thinks I know I'll scare them into not doing that. He invents the spirit world and assigns different spirits for different everyday things that need careful handling and so reduce the excess' we humans can go to. A moral compass if you will but we humans are scallywags and will insist on inventing new things and as a consequence the list of spirit's increase. This means they become less and less credible to the young of the tribe. The tribe is getting bigger and bigger and the young always ask bloody stupid questions that, by accident, reveal a fundamental truth. The current tribe leader (a clever bugger) decides that too many spirit guardians, is just too confusing, especially as the number of new inventions begin to increase. He decides the simplest way to achieve this is one spirit guardian and so God becomes that guardian.

Not really how do you know it works for the medical profesion? How many ideas has the system prevented?

Any censorship on ideas will, given enough time, lead to an idea being dismissed that would have lead to a, for instance, cancer cure. Even in your example it is just possible that the research in this area would give a researcher an idea that branches off and becomes benefitial to humanity.

Maybe but it did work for a while.

I hate to ask but as so often repeated in this thread, numbers please...

How can you tell which idea will lead to a cancer cure and which will lead to the death ray?

I have to agree, Jesus was real, however insted of devine. I think he had a huge intellect and realised the only way to solve the problems of the day was to re-invent the excisting religion, around himself. In challenging the authorities, he new his death was inevitable and so wove this into the myth he new he was creating. A very great man.

Isaac Asimov touched on this idea in his foundation series, psychohistory is an elaboration of this idea.

Hadn't thought of having a signature, untill now. Watch this space...

Interesting read thank you

I'm from England so I feel your pain...

I joined this forum because I thought I had a brilliant idea that should be shared with the science community. Sadly I was wrong but it did get me thinking, if I am unable to recognise my own incompetence, can anyone?If, for instance, a doctor miss' a diagnoses through lack of knowledge and is later correctly diagnosed. Would the doctor recognise his/her incompetence and seek the knowledge he/she lacks or would he/she simply shrug and say with a sheepish grin "oops missed that one" and carry on with the day. From what I have observed of human nature I would say the latter is most likely. In industry whistleblowing or flagging up incompetence is more likely to be met with hostility, than rewarded for the potential savings this act could make. How much damage is this phenomena secretly doing to our society?