next up previous
Next: Elaboration 21.1 Up: Elaborations Previous: Elaboration 20


Elaboration 21

Undoubtedly, the well-willing reader encounters such 'cannot' opponents. For this case, let his answer be: a) What do you know about influencing people? and b) When you oppose, when you fight our common-sense, you are directly responsible for all that is going to happen, all that happens already in fact (Lebanon, etc.). When ridicule does not work (ha, ha, stupid ass, you talk about things you don't know a thing of), we must try the responsibility angle. 'You don't have kids as seems clear, you don't want them to survive, do you, etc. ' Then accept rational ideas, do not torpedo them by braying that it is all in vain, is impossible. You yourself then 'cause' the causes. This is one principle at the base of the 'cannot' statement. In social science it is known or ought to be known, that it is typical for idea, to tend towards realizing itself. Thinking and advocating 'cannot', therefore actively causes the very cannotness. In general science it is not realized enough that one should be careful with the 'cannots'. Science is the history of cannot being made can-like. Besides, what is impossible one does not, as a rule, investigate. Fundamentally, cannot is only valid and of value in pure physical science (Elaboration 48.1), where there is ample knowledge available. Because pure physics is fully automatic, is for 100 % predictable when all factors are known and calculable, we can safely state that e.g. the mass and hardness of a pea on the rails 'cannot' stop a 100 ton locomotive moving with 100 Km per hour. No such statement is possible when life is involved. When there is life, 'cannot' becomes a useless and meaningless term. A python is usually fed on life-mice. How much chance is there then, of the mouse killing the python? Yet, it has happened. Stupidology also, shows how cannot and impossible are meaningless. Rational behaviour often gives no more than one or two 'solutions' for a problem. Irrational behaviour has always thousands of different 'reactions' to a signal. Today, scientists, medicine men, pseudologists and even ministers of health do not know the difference between the binary: 'It is dangerous' and 'It is not dangerous' for health. They do not realize that the first can often be demonstrated by somebody getting hurt by it (a clear cut fact), but the second statement rests only on a (repeated) absence of such proof, certainly not on the proof of the opposite (clear cut fact). A minister of health was heard to state officially that these anti-flea collars of dogs, and anti-fly strips in the house, were not damaging for our health. A real scientific and warranted statement would have been that there is no solid evidence for harmful effects. Toxologists and pharmaceutists, reckon the effects of medicines (toxines) in units of body weight. A flea, then, is a tiny promillage of the dog's weight, and minuscule to a human (baby) weight. Yet, when the toxines are not broken-off and exsecreted in time, the addition simply goes by time (almost a 9000 hours per year). One hour for killing a fly, may result in the baby getting cancer when it is 20 years of age. We may doubt this, but we don't 'know'. A same minister wholly agreed to print on tobacco products that they could impair your health, which is, of course, true. He would recognize the social havoc, and personal misery by gambling, yet, would welcome tax, paid over gambling, gambling institutes, gambling palaces, etc. Ministers, again, are never competent, intelligent, nor, with any scruples where their ego is concerned. Doctors have the same unscientific attitude towards their trade. 'You cannot get veneral diseases or aids, from a toilet' is such an antiscientific statement. Again, it should have been put as 'we have not (yet) found an instance ..., etc. ' It may be that a toilet-seat is tested and found never to exceed a temperature of 25 degrees in praxis. Also may it be found that the bacteria or virusses get killed when below 32 degrees. The 'ergo' however need not be valid for long. It works admirably when pure physics is under discussion, but not with life. Next day, a mutant may crop up that withstands and under cooling to 10 degrees. We pump our atmosphere full of radio waves of all sorts. Everybody thinks that this is not dangerous because direct evidence of harm is lacking (still). But it seems likely that all unnatural environmental influences are bad and radio waves of this sort, and on this level 'are' unnatural. Harmful, thus, may be usable as truth, the opposite is not so, nay often is unscientific nonsense. This, also, is an aspect of the cannot syndrome, its un-scientificness. When you think you cannot induce absence of pain in a patient on which you are going to operate his leg away, by 'mere' talk (idea-analgesis or hypno-analgesis), you 'make' it impossible first, and you don't even try second. Thirdly, you pump him full of poisons, you induce an extra shock by intoxication, over the operational shock. One case in this respect has to be stressed and stressed again. It is Aristotle's dictum that 'what has happened, is therefore possible'. This wipes away most of the stupid 'cannots' with regard to science and medicine but, alas, a world-government has never been, never even been tried, except in science-fiction. This certainly is no proof for a 'cannot'. With Wells we absolutely agree?"No existing government can become a world government, and a world government cannot be a large-scale imitation of any existing government." (The Holy Terror).

Subsections
next up previous
Next: Elaboration 21.1 Up: Elaborations Previous: Elaboration 20
Ven 2007-09-11