[Uplillacype]

so you think one day we will have backwards time travel?

[UKkoXJvF]

anyway optimism and pessimism don't come into it. that is just a sly personal insult and has no place in the argument. science is about what is and if that what is is that we now know that something is impossible then that is what is. simple.

Yes they do.
There are examples that if the more optimistic had taken the advice of the more pessimsitic, then certain things may not have eventuated when they did.
Flying is one example...
Going to the Moon is another.
Once again as you so readily seem to ignore and as a result insult me personally, I speak of things within the laws of physics.

[trettegeani]

Well, that's a pessimistic way of looking at it.
I prefer to be optimistic ...

I prefer to be realistic. Unwarranted optimism is as dangerous as unwarranted pessimism. It causes us to chase the impossible and rest on our laurels. At least the pessimists will sometimes be pleasantly surprised.

[SoOW2LeA]

that is not what we are talking about. so no argument. please try to keep on the correct topic.

[Sdinozes]

just so you don't think that is an insult i'll explain. we are arguing about the question of the more we know the more we will realise that there will be things we can never do. people disbelieving flight doesn't come into that category.

[Maymayfor]

I prefer to be realistic. Unwarranted optimism is as dangerous as unwarranted pessimism. It causes us to chase the impossible and rest on our laurels. At least the pessimists will sometimes be pleasantly surprised.

The laws of physics are reality, and although the pessimists may sometimes be pleasantly surprised, that surprise is undoubtably brought on by the more optimistic among them.

[robstamps]

Once again as you so readily seem to ignore and as a result insult me personally, I speak of things within the laws of physics.

No one insulted you BC. Please stop acting persecuted when someone disagrees with you. The opposing points of view that challenge yours are the same voices that you praise that challenge the status quo. Have the discussion and stop reducing everything to this level.

[priordine]

The laws of physics are reality.

I'm glad you finally agree on that point.

[ssiikmuz]

Are pessimists and optimists a mutants v velvets thing, cos it is starting to sound that way. Or less prosaicly just another way of saying, you are wrong, I am right because I am optimistic? With as much value?

[Fekliopas]

I'm glad you finally agree on that point.

There reality of course based on current knowledge.
That could change in the future.
We once thought [and classed it as law] that time and space were absolute, and the speed of light was variable
We were wrong.

[Sydrothcoathy]

There reality of course based on current knowledge.
That could change in the future.
We once thought [and classed it as law] that time and space were absolute, and the speed of light was variable
We were wrong.

"We" once thought Mars was covered in canals and home to a thriving alien civilisation...

[AlexBrith]

"We" once thought Mars was covered in canals and home to a thriving alien civilisation...

Yes we did....But of course time and technological advancement over just a decade or two changed that.

[Piediahef]

Yes we did....But of course time and technological advancement over just a decade or two changed that.

Proving the optimists very very wrong, in that case. Thus showing the advantages of actually testing things out instead of shouting down "pessimistic" opponents.

[wmzeto]

Proving the optimists very very wrong, in that case. Thus showing the advantages of actually testing things out instead of shouting down "pessimistic" opponents.

Might well have been the case here...But this debate isn't about the likelyhood of life elswhere for whatever reasons....It's about achieving technological change one day in the future that we now look on as impossible. And in that debate time is our friend.



Conversely, I see it [the debate] as an example of pessimists trying to shout down optimistic opponents not as you say.


What we, you and I and everyone needs to remember is that any sense of pessimism and lack of ambition are the ultimate dangers. It's only a sense of optimism and continued forward progress can solve our current (and possible future) problems. We must find our destiny in diversity and continue forward rather than meekly await some dismal future.

[WGRocky]

And our destiny is space exploration obviously.
I mean we really have no where else to go, except maybe to the bottom of some of our Oceans.

[goctorsurger]

And our destiny is space exploration obviously.
I mean we really have no where else to go, except maybe to the bottom of some of our Oceans.

Why is it "destiny"?

[PefeFoesk]

http://airandspace.si.edu/education/pubs/ds_guide.pdf

Earth is the cradle of humanity, but it is impossible to live forever in the cradle." ~ Tsiolkovski, 1912 (Russian rocketry pioneer & futurist)

The best way to predict the future is to create it."

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

The best way to predict the future is to create it."

Can't see an argument to that one, though it might also be phrased, 'The best way to predict the future is to be it'.

[k1ePRlda]

Might well have been the case here...But this debate isn't about the likelyhood of life elswhere for whatever reasons....It's about achieving technological change one day in the future that we now look on as impossible. And in that debate time is our friend.



Conversely, I see it [the debate] as an example of pessimists trying to shout down optimistic opponents not as you say.


What we, you and I and everyone needs to remember is that any sense of pessimism and lack of ambition are the ultimate dangers. It's only a sense of optimism and continued forward progress can solve our current (and possible future) problems. We must find our destiny in diversity and continue forward rather than meekly await some dismal future.

There is a vast difference between shouting someone down, and saying something along the lines of "it won't work because...[it violates relativity; the materials aren't strong enough for the proposed design; the design has previously been shown to do something different to what is now claimed; etc]. The former are dogmatists, stuck on one path. And yes, dogmatists can be dreamers. The Spruce Goose is an example of dogmatic dreamers beating down pragmatic experts. New Age spiritualists are dogmatic dreamers, convinced of Man's Destiny and commonly failing to achieve anything towards it.

The space program that led to the moon landings was not led by dreamers, or anyone convinced that it was our destiny. It was spearheaded by propaganda and a need to prove superiority, and it was realised by experts all too aware that it may well be impossible. One could say that their pessimism is what made it a success. Considering every possible point of failure, everything that could go wrong, testing everything to breaking point, including people. Everything they achieved was firmly rooted in existing technology. The engineering of the craft, the chemistry of the fuels, the physics or orbital motion...they took the science that was already there and pushed it to the limits. They didn't stand around optimistically saying "it'll be fine, it's our destiny", or waiting for some future breakthrough that would make it easy.

It is only by considering the worst, that we can avoid it to find the best.

[L8fGLM4d]

The space program that led to the moon landings was not led by dreamers, or anyone convinced that it was our destiny. It was spearheaded by propaganda and a need to prove superiority, and it was realised by experts all too aware that it may well be impossible.

Took the Bay of Pigs fiasco off the front pages and the humiliation from East Germany when he was stared down by Kruschev and on the backs of the US space program publicly going backwards and routinely into flames at the launch pads.