.....Griffin Announces "To the Moon and Mars" a Religious Quest !!!

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.

I think your syllogism is busted.


So his conclusion that Nasa's goal is based on faith, NOT science
to use his words, is acceptable to you?

Yet another busted syllogism.

Maybe you don't know what the word "syllogism" means?

Why won't anyone answer
that simple question? The answer is obvious, because there's no
reasoning with faith.


Main Entry: sheep
Pronunciation: 'shEp

2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially
:
one easily influenced or led

And another one.

But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
works.

I agree completely. You miss the point, which is that science
and rational thought should decide the goals for Nasa.
The administrator just stood up and said the goal of
going to the moon WASN'T based on science


"But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
an act of faith, not an act of science."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189


But on faith. Faith in history repeating itself ala Lewis and Clark?
Who thinks that's going to happen in less a couple of centuries???
With the 'burning' issues of oil supplies and global warming
........WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG !!!!!!!!



I insist it be an act of science. I insist our faith should
be placed not in history, but in our science and researchers
to overcome any hurdle needed to give us a new clean
energy future. His faith is placed in the hopes of unimagined fabulous
discoveries, the unknowable. My faith is placed in human
intelligence, the known, and its ability to solve any problem
placed before it. They have chosen to place their faith
in the unknown (religion), I place it in the known (science).

This administration deliberately removed the problem from consideration.
Why? Are we allowed to ask them why? No, because
how dare we question any man of faith?

We're supposed to sit down, shut up and listen to them.



Jonathan

s

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 22:16:37 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

*You* are nothing. You have a history of posting unsupported nonsense, and
have done so again.

....True. He's turning more into ~CT every damned day. Makes me wonder
if the two putzes are related in some way.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
: "jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
: generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
: the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
: If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.
:
: I think your syllogism is busted.
:
:
: So his conclusion that Nasa's goal is based on faith, NOT science
: to use his words, is acceptable to you?

: Yet another busted syllogism.

: Maybe you don't know what the word "syllogism" means?

: Why won't anyone answer
: that simple question? The answer is obvious, because there's no
: reasoning with faith.
:
:
: Main Entry: sheep
: Pronunciation: 'shEp
:
: 2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially :
: one easily influenced or led

: And another one.

: But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: works.

Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion. Perhaps, YOU need a
lesson in logic?

Eric

jonathan ) wrote:

: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
: "jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: He is saying they are in the process of designing our next
: generation of spacecraft for just that purpose. He is in
: the process of committing us to it. I am only asking why.
: If that offends you, then I know it's the right question.
:
: I think your syllogism is busted.
:
:
: So his conclusion that Nasa's goal is based on faith, NOT science
: to use his words, is acceptable to you?
:
: Yet another busted syllogism.
:
: Maybe you don't know what the word "syllogism" means?
:
: Why won't anyone answer
: that simple question? The answer is obvious, because there's no
: reasoning with faith.
:
:
: Main Entry: sheep
: Pronunciation: 'shEp
:
: 2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially
: :
: one easily influenced or led
:
: And another one.
:
: But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: works.

: I agree completely. You miss the point, which is that science
: and rational thought should decide the goals for Nasa.
: The administrator just stood up and said the goal of
: going to the moon WASN'T based on science


: "But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
: to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
: an act of faith, not an act of science."
: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189


: But on faith. Faith in history repeating itself ala Lewis and Clark?
: Who thinks that's going to happen in less a couple of centuries???
: With the 'burning' issues of oil supplies and global warming
: .......WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG !!!!!!!!



: I insist it be an act of science. I insist our faith should
: be placed not in history, but in our science and researchers
: to overcome any hurdle needed to give us a new clean
: energy future. His faith is placed in the hopes of unimagined fabulous
: discoveries, the unknowable. My faith is placed in human
: intelligence, the known, and its ability to solve any problem
: placed before it. They have chosen to place their faith
: in the unknown (religion), I place it in the known (science).

But discovery in the scientific sense is operating within the unknown
realm in a manner to make it known. You cannot operate purely in the known
realm to reveal the unknown.

: This administration deliberately removed the problem from consideration.
: Why? Are we allowed to ask them why? No, because
: how dare we question any man of faith?

: We're supposed to sit down, shut up and listen to them.

My feeling about this is as follows:

If we must placate those persons of faith to get them onboard, then let's
do so as they often have deep pockets. Will faith alone produce the
science and enigneering results we need to reach our goal? No. You know it
and I know it. Them? Let them believe anything that they want to as long
as it doesn't impede our goal. For you to try and force then into science
and away from faith is just silly as they aren't going to change. And
that's fine, as long as they don't impede our goal. In the end let them
claim God's hand was in our hands and so on, just as long as we reach our
goal. In short, work around them and with them rather than try and correct
them. The whole point is to reach our goal.

Eric

: Jonathan

: s

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:58:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: works.

Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.

Can you identify them?

Perhaps, YOU need a lesson in logic?

No.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
jonathan ) wrote:

: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
: "jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:


: "But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
: to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
: an act of faith, not an act of science."
: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189


: But on faith. Faith in history repeating itself ala Lewis and Clark?
: Who thinks that's going to happen in less a couple of centuries???
: With the 'burning' issues of oil supplies and global warming
: .......WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG !!!!!!!!



: I insist it be an act of science. I insist our faith should
: be placed not in history, but in our science and researchers
: to overcome any hurdle needed to give us a new clean
: energy future. His faith is placed in the hopes of unimagined fabulous
: discoveries, the unknowable. My faith is placed in human
: intelligence, the known, and its ability to solve any problem
: placed before it. They have chosen to place their faith
: in the unknown (religion), I place it in the known (science).

But discovery in the scientific sense is operating within the unknown
realm in a manner to make it known. You cannot operate purely in the known
realm to reveal the unknown.


Logical thinking is a problem here. I am talking about using
the known, our intellect, to form a rational goal. In this case
space solar power, which involves many unknowns in the
breakthroughs yet to be solved. They are doing the opposite.
They are setting a goal from belief, from faith.

And we end up operating in the known with their faith based
goal. We're repeating what we've already done, to the Moon.

A goal that is derived from faith is a goal made from ignorance.
So the whole thing will fail. There is no logical reason why this
goal of to the moon and mars will succeed. None whatsoever.

A goal to solve our energy future would appeal to groups and
people across many spectrums, it would inspire us to imagine
a better future. Such a goal makes sense as it addresses directly
our greatest planetary threats to the future, energy and global
warming...at once. While the current goal is seen as a waste
of time and money by almost everyone outside the space
business.

If you want Nasa to thrive, it has to be relevant.
It's not to those paying the tab.

All I'm really saying is we should think about what we're
going to do...before...we do it. Their belief in this goal
has no rational basis.

Are we to follow them blindly into a goal that's doomed and
wasteful?


Jonathan

s






: This administration deliberately removed the problem from consideration.
: Why? Are we allowed to ask them why? No, because
: how dare we question any man of faith?

: We're supposed to sit down, shut up and listen to them.

My feeling about this is as follows:

If we must placate those persons of faith to get them onboard, then let's
do so as they often have deep pockets. Will faith alone produce the
science and enigneering results we need to reach our goal? No. You know it
and I know it. Them? Let them believe anything that they want to as long
as it doesn't impede our goal. For you to try and force then into science
and away from faith is just silly as they aren't going to change. And
that's fine, as long as they don't impede our goal. In the end let them
claim God's hand was in our hands and so on, just as long as we reach our
goal. In short, work around them and with them rather than try and correct
them. The whole point is to reach our goal.

Eric

: Jonathan

: s

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:58:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: : works.
:
: Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
: premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.

: Can you identify them?

Premise: Science is a form of faith.
Conclusion: Science works.

The above is NOT a syllogism. One could argue that your premise is not
sound, nor a priori. You do know what 'a priori' is, right? Also, maybe
you have two conclusions with no premises? It's difficult to tell when you
obviously don't have a syllogism.

: Perhaps, YOU need a lesson in logic?

: No.

Well, you sure as hell don't know what a syllogism is.

The classic example:

All ducks have feathers.
Donald is a duck.
Therefore, Donald has feathers.


It's about form and style, you have neither.

Eric

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:58:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: : works.
:
: Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
: premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.

: Can you identify them?

Premise: Science is a form of faith.
Conclusion: Science works.

As I suspected, you cannot.

The above is NOT a syllogism.

I never claimed it was. I simply made two statements. I neither
said, nor implied, that one followed from the other.

Idiot.

: Perhaps, YOU need a lesson in logic?

: No.

Well, you sure as hell don't know what a syllogism is.

Of course I do. I just never claimed that I had made one. You're
hilarious.

jonathan ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: jonathan ) wrote:
:
: : "Rand Simberg" wrote in message
: : ...
: : On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 01:56:38 -0400, in a place far, far away,
: : "jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: : such a way as to indicate that:

:
: : "But no society can reasonably predict that a given venture will prove
: : to be worth its cost. Sponsorship of such a quest is always
: : an act of faith, not an act of science."
: : http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=20189
:
:
: : But on faith. Faith in history repeating itself ala Lewis and Clark?
: : Who thinks that's going to happen in less a couple of centuries???
: : With the 'burning' issues of oil supplies and global warming
: : .......WE CAN'T WAIT THAT LONG !!!!!!!!
:
:
:
: : I insist it be an act of science. I insist our faith should
: : be placed not in history, but in our science and researchers
: : to overcome any hurdle needed to give us a new clean
: : energy future. His faith is placed in the hopes of unimagined fabulous
: : discoveries, the unknowable. My faith is placed in human
: : intelligence, the known, and its ability to solve any problem
: : placed before it. They have chosen to place their faith
: : in the unknown (religion), I place it in the known (science).
:
: But discovery in the scientific sense is operating within the unknown
: realm in a manner to make it known. You cannot operate purely in the known
: realm to reveal the unknown.


: Logical thinking is a problem here. I am talking about using
: the known, our intellect, to form a rational goal. In this case
: space solar power, which involves many unknowns in the
: breakthroughs yet to be solved. They are doing the opposite.
: They are setting a goal from belief, from faith.

Faith aside. I was asked what is larger, the known or the unknown? I
answered the unknown. Okay, why operate from the place that is smaller,
necessarily? Hard to argue with that, harder to put into practice, but
akin to operating out of the box. Not like Guth's mental gymnastics, but
more at revelation through discovery rather than trying to expand the
known. It is about approach, but again, faith aside. More of a philosophy.

: And we end up operating in the known with their faith based
: goal. We're repeating what we've already done, to the Moon.

This isn't a form of mutual exclusion. They may think it is, but it isn't;
you have the facts, science and engineering on your side. Let them HAVE
the faith. As long as they don't deny you what you need, then what,
necessarily, is the problem?

: A goal that is derived from faith is a goal made from ignorance.
: So the whole thing will fail. There is no logical reason why this
: goal of to the moon and mars will succeed. None whatsoever.

But that isn't due to having or lacking faith, so IT really is a wash.

: A goal to solve our energy future would appeal to groups and
: people across many spectrums, it would inspire us to imagine
: a better future. Such a goal makes sense as it addresses directly
: our greatest planetary threats to the future, energy and global
: warming...at once. While the current goal is seen as a waste
: of time and money by almost everyone outside the space
: business.

: If you want Nasa to thrive, it has to be relevant.
: It's not to those paying the tab.

We did our best work when we were in a 'race'. No race, no success. It is
a shame, really. We need to change that mindset if we want to ever achieve
the type of success we had during Apollo days now that there is no 'race'.

: All I'm really saying is we should think about what we're
: going to do...before...we do it. Their belief in this goal
: has no rational basis.

What was the rational basis for Apollo? Beat the Russians? Fulfill the
commitment of a dead president? Provide a screen to the war in Vietnam? Do
it because we can? What?

: Are we to follow them blindly into a goal that's doomed and
: wasteful?

I don't believe in following anything that is only faith-based, especially
where science and engineering are concerned.

This is indirectly related to what we're onto here. Please read.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iron.html

: Jonathan

: s





:
: : This administration deliberately removed the problem from consideration.
: : Why? Are we allowed to ask them why? No, because
: : how dare we question any man of faith?
:
: : We're supposed to sit down, shut up and listen to them.
:
: My feeling about this is as follows:
:
: If we must placate those persons of faith to get them onboard, then let's
: do so as they often have deep pockets. Will faith alone produce the
: science and enigneering results we need to reach our goal? No. You know it
: and I know it. Them? Let them believe anything that they want to as long
: as it doesn't impede our goal. For you to try and force then into science
: and away from faith is just silly as they aren't going to change. And
: that's fine, as long as they don't impede our goal. In the end let them
: claim God's hand was in our hands and so on, just as long as we reach our
: goal. In short, work around them and with them rather than try and correct
: them. The whole point is to reach our goal.
:
: Eric
:
: : Jonathan
:
: : s
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:58:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: : : But since you asked, science is a form of faith. Except it's one that
: : : works.
: :
: : Syllogisms require two premises and a conclusion. You only have a single
: : premise (a questionable one at that) and a conclusion.
:
: : Can you identify them?
:
: Premise: Science is a form of faith.
: Conclusion: Science works.

: As I suspected, you cannot.

And you did, as a means of correction?

: The above is NOT a syllogism.

: I never claimed it was. I simply made two statements. I neither
: said, nor implied, that one followed from the other.

: Idiot.

....typical.

: : Perhaps, YOU need a lesson in logic?
:
: : No.
:
: Well, you sure as hell don't know what a syllogism is.

: Of course I do. I just never claimed that I had made one. You're
: hilarious.

But your lecture of syllogisms to another poster and here you are spouting
off with nothing based upon logic. Yes, what you expect from others is
very different from what you give of yourself. That is intellectually
dishonest.

Eric