From: iwsbarke@acs.ucalgary.ca (I W Scott Barker)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: dragons were dinosaurs?
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:09:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) wrote:
> In article <92Aug20.152740.16231@acs.ucalgary.ca>, iwsbarke@acs.ucalgary.ca (I W Scott Barker) writes:
> >Your reasoning makes some sense, but that one statement above makes me think
> >you have never put any real thought into the matter. If you had, you would 
> >realize that nothing is "scientifically impossible". It may be HIGHLY
> >improbable, but in science, one can never assume something is impossible. That
> >something may just come up a take a bite out of you someday.
> 
> This is a weird piece of sillyness that seems to have become an American
> trademark.  Assuming something is impossible absent any evidence that it
> is _is_ bad science.  However, the fossil record is more than sufficiently
> complete that we _can_ say that it is impossible that humans and dinosaurs
> ever co-existed.

Indeed. And has every piece of dirt in the world been dug up to prove that?
Who is to say that there isn't some evidence somewhere? I'm not necessarily
agreeing that dinos and humans co-existed, but unless you are some kind of
omnipotent being, you cannot *prove* anything is impossible.

> This idea that _everything_ is possible, even if very unlikely, and that
> _every_ point of view must be respected, no matter how stupid, is a recent
> and unfortunate development in this country.  Let me give you a quick
> update:
> 
> For astrology to be true as specified is _impossible_.

Who says? Maybe there is a single individual in the world who always gets their
astological predictions right. Have you interviewed them all? Are you so all
powerful that you can definitely say there is nothing beyond your
comprehension?

> For "psychic seers" to reliably and accurately foretell the future for you for
>   $2.00 for the first minute and $.95 per minute thereafter is _impossible_.

Same argument as above.

> For an enormous range of cars, from different manufacturers and with no parts
>   in common to suddenly and mysteriously gain the miraculous power to
>   accelerate so far beyond their designed maximum rates that it is beyond the
>   ability of an alert driver employing their perfectly-functioning brakes to
>   stop or slow the car before running someone over, and to thereafter not show
>   any evidence that this was the case, is _impossible_.

Well, I've got you there. My car did in fact accelerate out of control for
no apparent reason once. Luckily, I didn't hit anyone, and did not go out of
control, however, the only way I could stop it was to turn it off. The engine
revved so much that the brakes *were* useless, even though they were
functioning perfectly. After shutting it off, neither I nor the mechanic I
took it to could figure out what happened, but it hasn't happened since. Thus,
it was quite possible that I could have run someone over, and would have had no
evidence as to why. Thank god that didn't happen.

> There are many other examples.  Every human being needs a reliable and
> functional bullshit detector, it is sad that most every American has
> had theirs disabled by this sad misinterpretation of the concept of
> "tolerance".

Back to science for a moment: it is an accepted truism that every scientific
law is fact *until proven wrong*. Thus, there is a built in "tolerance" to
science today, which recognizes that human beings ARE NOT capable of 
DEFINITIVELY determining what is or is not possible.

And BTW, I'm not American, I'm Canadian.

--
Scott Barker
barker@enel.ucalgary.ca

"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every
   six months."
   - Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science