posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 06:51 AM
There's a difference between philosophically possible, and actually possible. Everything is philisophically possible. The Earth really could be at
the center of the universe. The stars really could be attached to a crystalline dome holding back the firmament. Christopher Columbus might have been
sailing west to find cheese. You might spontaneously change genders. It doesn't matter. You can't say that it's impossible, because we do not have
a total and complete understanding of this universe and there may be forces at work or details unknown which could prove these statements true.
The problem is though... it's bunk. That line of thinking doesn't get you anywhere because you could go in any direction with that line of thought,
and always be correct in any assertion you make regardless of whether or not it's actually possible. And make no mistake, that's exactly what it is.
It's a shelter for people who like to spout off claims without any hard evidence to back them up.
Instead, it's best to look at any given proposition with the mindset of what is probable. Is it probable that outer space is filled with water? No...
and we can state that because we have actually been there. Beyond that we have mountains of empirical data stretching back several millennia that is
contradictory to the very notion. Yes, it is still philisophically possible that all of our observations were wrong - and that the space station may
spring a leak and our astronauts will drown. The chances of that being true, however, are so pitifully small that it's not even really worth
mentioning. For all intents and purposes, it's impossible,
If you want to see that as closing down an avenue of thought which could lead to a profound discovery, then so be it. However I'd rather us be
exploring space and taking that "risk", than sitting on Earth for the next 2,000 years studying the sky for evidence of water in space - just in
case we were wrong. I mean, you never know, you can't ever prove anything 100% right? Better to be safe than sorry.
No, instead I'd rather take the approach of looking at the evidence, making the best judgment calls we can based on that evidence, and changing out
viewpoints only when new evidence suggests that we need further study or demands a shift in that worldview. Do not put anything and everything that
might be possible on the same level as what we can show to be probable. In the 1800's, they would have been right to call you insane for raving on
about cellphones - the evidence known to them at the time did not suggest that cellphones were probable. At the time, it's realistically impossible
of them to have invented a cellphone. However, if you had all of the applicable and demonstrable evidence to convince them that it could work, then
you would probably find a much more welcoming reception than a loony bin.
Or let's look at it this way. Next time you have a headache, why not get a cranial drill and poke a few holes in your nugget. It's possible that
there really ARE demons in there clawing at your consciousness right? Maybe they're just hiding from asprin and other pain relievers because they
want you to think they work, and therefore you won't bust your own skull open trying to release them. You could revolutionize medicine, and help
billions of people.
I bet you won't do it though. Why? Because the evidence we have suggests that if you're not completely retarded before the procedure, you damned
well will be afterwards. Assuming you survive that is.
[edit on 27-11-2008 by Lasheic]