Columbia

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sri rsridhar, :)
re. #38. Actually, I am only to aware of the limitations of logic and as a practioneer of TM, have read -- and imbibed (or hae tried to)-- the taeachings of many Eastern spiritual masters. (Direct experience of God, whcih IMO is the only way one can know God, is a discussion I`d liek to have someday)
But logic is a useful tool in countering it`s own *misuse*, which i believe much of what passes as scientific exploration really is. The proposition that the vast expanses of space MUST contain other life is exactly one such misuse, having nothing to do with intuition, though perhaps something to do with our newfound sense of lonesomeness -- y`know, since God died and we found ourselves all alone-- combined with a dash of species` egotism.

You wrote:
``Further to my earlier post, we need to prove that the huge space out there is a waste and not just presume it is. Science demands more proof than mere logic.``
See, sridhar, this is neither Science nor Logic. Science, being a disinterested discipline, demands nothing, and even if it did, it would certainly not be the proving of a negative. :) That would be tantamount to saying that Science demands proof that God exists.

in #40, you write: ``We must pursue space exploration because that is how science progresses: by sheer imagination and fantasy..``
Carl Sagan did wonders with his imagination and in a sense, fulfilled many of out fantasies-- all without getting into even the stratosphere. All that space exploration does is fulfill BigBusiness` fanstasies of having a continued cash-cow at public expense.

``If someone had not fantasised that men could fly one day (a thought that was ridiculed as illogical at that time), we would not be flying today.``

Perhaps we are misusing the word `illogical` here, as with your other examples. In any case, I did not say that the search for ET lacked logic... I simply said it was improbable enough to make it idiotic to spend the kind of monies that are being spent in its pursuit.

Also, the analogy with the idea of flying is a wrong one -- all endeavours to take to the air were based on a POSITIVE theories -- however erroneous -- of how this might be accomplished.. based on an understanding of physical laws. The search for ET is based on NO known scientific principles or hypotheses. The fantasy is the only thing common between the two endeavours.

And LOL! I know Jodie Foster played the heroine! I just wasn`t sure about the charachter`s name.

regards,
PM

re:#39 by PM
I appreciate your post. I, however, am not so much sold out on logic. The world, for many millenia, did not think it logical that anything but earth should be the center of universe. After all, this is where all the action was, so it was felt. We know better now.
Hitler resorted to a skewed logic in trying to exterminate a race. So much for logic.
We must pursue space exploration because that is how science progresses: by sheer imagination and fantasy. If someone had not fantasised that men could fly one day (a thought that was ridiculed as illogical at that time), we would not be flying today.
BTW, Contact`s heroine was Jody Foster. I too enjoyed that movie immensely.
Sridhar

re: PM`s post # 39
Further to my earlier post, we need to prove that the huge space out there is a waste and not just presume it is. Science demands more proof than mere logic.
I like your ``Natural Justice`` analogy to proof of God. It does appeal to logic but as i have said, logic has its limitations. If you read books of spiritual masters (i have read some of them), they talk not from the point of view of logic but from a direct experience of God. That is why, it is so refreshing to read their views and teachings.
Sridhar

re. #38, rsridhar:
Perhaps in my haste to criticize the space program and that insanity of search for extraterrestrial life (ET), I did not pay due respect to the blessings of remote sensing in my #36. That was not intentional. I do, in fact, believe that satellite technology, especially as costs fall, have a great deal to offer developing nations, for whom, let`s not forget, the cost/benefit ratio should not be forgotten.

As for the search for ET, I loved Sagan`s Contact, and thought the movie was one of the few that actually did justice to the book. Human imagination and the `need` for answers needs to be given free reign and such works of fiction are the ideal vehicle for such endeavour. However, to go from there to spending millions - maybe billions - just to maintain those arrays of supersensitive parabolas in the Americas (that part of the movie is not fictitious) --and to do all this while millions of babies starve on the earth and whales die in the sea -- is a good example of the irrationality and imperiousness of scientists trumping common sense.

As for the Contact heroine`s (Megan?) `logic` that if there is no life out there, it seemed to her to be an awful waste of space, I would encourage you to examine whether this is a scientific position at all. If anything, the lack of life in even our relatively hospitable solar system should lead us properly to assume by deduction the futility of such a search `out there`. I am reminded of the argument for the existence of God by so called `Natural Justice`, which as a good brahmin might ring with you too: It goes that since there is much injsutice in whis world, where evil prospers and good men suffer, there MUST be a just God out there to serve us another life/another world. As morally appealing as such a scenario might be, it is not logical, let alone plausible. I mean, were you to find the top layer of mangoes in a crate bad, would you presume the lower layers to be better so as to fulfill `justice` requirements? Why, then, presume life-by-sheer-waste-of-space-otherwise?

rgds,
PM

re:#36 by PM
I will have to respond to your post in greater detail some other time. I genuinely believe there are a lot of potential benefits from sending rockets to space. I am not sure about the Spacecrafts though. Many in US are questioning the logic of such a costly undertaking, especially when there is no guarantee of safety.
Remote sensing in itself has a lot of benefits. It is an area where expertise comes only with time. When i last visited India,i observed that the weather forecasts had improved tremendoulsy as compared to the drab presentations in the past. Thousands of lives in coastal Andhra Pradesh were saved some years ago due to timely warning of impending cyclone. Of course, there is much scope for improvement. India lags miserably in disaster management (eg the earthquake relief in Gujarat) mainly due to bureaucratic apathy and poor infrastructure. So, yes, satellite warning of a flood would do little if there are no contingency plans for immediate evacuation.
I read a few days ago that Konkan Railways, built by the same guy who built the Delhi Metro, is a marvel in that it passes thr` hundreds of bridges and aqueducts. Satellite imagery was used in this to figure out the shortest distance thr` the hills and ravines. One more eg of use of Satellite.
I do not know enough about Space exploration to comment upon your observation that to search for life in the galaxy is meaningless. I am reminded of the movie Contact in which Judy Foster (who plays the part of an Astronomer in the movie), when asked about extra-terrestrial life, says that if there is none, it seemed to her to be an awful waste of space. That is how i also feel.
Sridhar

from Ras`s ode:
``Almost all religions have been
Up close to God in space flight
But we mourn
Those he kept this time. ``

Couldn`t help thinking of this one. I forget the poet:
*******
I sougt to hear the voice of God
And climbed the highest steeple,
But God declared, ``Go Down again``
``I dwell amongst my people``
*******
At the risk of jarring some nerves, will someone please tell me how this accident was any more tragic than the bus that falls off a ravine every other month in the subcontinent, carrying real people with hopes and dreams of their own? OK, granted, that never makes it to Network Television, and the bus doesn`t cost $1.2b., nor go out with quite a bang, but c`mon, a life is a life is a life, isn`t it?

re. #15 by rsridhar:
While there no doubt are some benefits -- though I would argue very limited beyond defense considerations -- of sending manned or unmanned missions into space, I wonder if a cost benefit analysis has ever been applied to the application of this technology even to achieve the `good things` you mention: ``exploration of weather conditions, forestery, geological data etc.`` For instance, I wonder what fraction/multiple of the cost of such exploration (R&D included) would be needed to educated folks in more environment-friendly forestry practices, or build safer homes to better withstand the vagaries of nature, rather than have elaborate and expensive early warning systems.

At any rate, even satellite-launches cost not a fraction of the cost of space-exploration, and no, the latter is not necessary for the former. For perspective, just installing and fixing the Hubble cost in excess of $1b. (not counting the shuttle mission cost), while the launch of a typical 18-transponder weather/ communications satellite is in the neighbourhood of $75m.

As for the wet dream of finding intelligent life outside our Solar System, it`s patently absurd, and driven by sheer childishness (not child-likeness, mind you!) garbed in scientific accoutrements. Absurd for a number of reasons: It has already been estalished that the statistical probability of proteins synthezying randomly in such a way as to create life (we`re talking simple viral structure thingies here here, btw) is somewhere in the order of one-upon-one-raised-to-40. Now, assuming one is math-challenged enough to assume that this allows for the probablity of life somewhere else in the universe, you`d also have to be stupendously optimistic to think that those life forms would have evolved in a manner as to be capable of communication and, of course, incredibly stupid to think that they would if they could.

And then of course, assuming we did make contact with some 3-eyed microbe, so what??? There`s plenty of low-life here on earth we haven`t even begun to figure out, (George W. for instance) and in fact, about which we seem to have altogether lost the capacity for mystery.

My point is that behind all the highly respectable talk about NASA ``streching the the frontiers of science``, there is little but the childish, giddy impulse to excitement, backed up by billions of taxpayer`s dollars to make it sound really, really important. I remember this nerdy scientist on a Discovery program some months ago gushing excitedly, almost manically, about the eventually of ``walkling down the street one evening some billion years in the future, and seeing that the sun really wasn`t half as bright as it is today.(sic!)`` The scary thing is this guy didn`t know how absurd he sounded. And neither, apparently, did the filmmaker.

Whereas our forefathers, raised on a healthy dosage of myth, looked to the heavens with wonder and in awe, mindful of our place in the stars, yet rooted firmly to the earth, our present day wont to explore and to find other life (the search fopr a God-substitute?) is indicative of a deepseated malaise resulting from man losing the myths that keep life -- earthly life -- enchanted and assured him a place in eternity. Of course, in reality, the old myths have simply been supplanted by the new, `scientific` ones.

And I haven`t even started to talk relative costs of the search for extra-terrestrial life and that of saving millions of terrestrial lives! Is it any wonder E.T. was so eager to go home!

re. #14 by amit:
A sprained ankle and nothing much on Star Movies tonight have combined to keep me from taking a pass on commenting on some remarks of yours. You write:
``This tragedy is a grim reminder of our limitations as human beings. We fight, argue and try to accomplish all that we can but everything comes to an end anyway. Makes you wonder, why bother ? What is the point of all this useless hindu-muslim squabbles, when all of us are going to turn into dust some day?``
Amit, tragedies such as these, or the death of one near-and-dear, do help to put into perspective the meaning of our livesand help us rethink how we should live it. Mostly, it has the effect of seeing the futility and silliness of our squabbles.
However, your ``but everything comes to an end anyway`` comment could easily be interpreted as a call to a fatalistic resignation from life. (It certainly is a logical conclusion.) I would hate to think that you are suggesting that, were we all not ``to turn to dust some day``, these hindu-muslim squabbles might actually be of come use. :)
I guess the point I`m making is that deriving a conclusion of futility from the reality of our mortality, even as a race, is just not on. It`s the eternal ``Why are we here?`` problem dressed differently. We could never know logically or rationally because there will ALWYAS be an antecedent `WHY` to every because. So, like the man said in his song (the song I`m going to write :)) ``Don`t ask why! You already know you ARE. So just DO!``
rgds,
PM

re. #16 by ferozk
Doth not the good man protesteth a teeny weeny bit too much?!
:)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Farzana #1,
you are right on the mark with your comments.

What a tragedy. But still people dont hesitate to get some political use

out of it.

Ras

#26 by AmericanExpress on February 4, 2003 10:37am PT

Do you mention yours every time you post? And if education is so important, let’s start with yours.

#23 by jay on February 4, 2003 5:58am PT

<<<>>>

So what? I would still express my opinion. And what makes you think it is born out of ignorance? As if and arguing and squabbling is a sign of great intellect.


#23 by jay on February 4, 2003 5:58am PT

<<<>>>

Do you mention yours every time you post? And if education is so important, let’s start with yours.

American Express # 24

I have been thinking for the past few days, since the Columbia exploded, why I did not feel a thing this time. Whereas when Challenger had an accident I sobbed with tears in my eyes. I was thinking on the lines that may be I have become morally bankrupt since I have stopped feeling strongly about the loss of human life. But then I remembered that I usually do not feel a thing whenever there are news of God-made disasters like accidents, floods, earthquakes, derailing of trains and famine etc. However, man made disasters like wars, genocides, and murders on the other hand break me down. I think over the years after surviving through a civil war and watching death and mayhem on the TV on daily basis sitting on my lazy-boy seat has ``desensitized`` me to death. I dread the day when I will be desensitized to the man-made disasters as well. I fear that I will have no moral value as regards to human suffering like so many others I see around me. Will I have moral values even when I won`t feel a thing for others?

harish 12,

May be it is time that you read some religious books. There are people who seek death, there are priests who implore their listeners to seek death, one religion even says that the only way to secure space in heaven is to get killed, to become a martyr.

Noble sentiments backed by ignorence is plain stupidity, to be exploited by others. Murder and death is celebration to many billions of humans. Read some where on the responses to this article the statements by the maulavi in an mosque in england - reflect on it before writing another similar post on chowk