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: Elaboration 21.1
Up: Elaborations
Previous: Elaboration 20
Ven
2007-09-11