>On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, John K Clark wrote:
>> We've been trying to find a mechanism to ensure that all posters
>> to the Extropian list have the ability to get a C+ or better on a 5'th
>> Science test, but as your post demonstrates we have not always been
>Fine, condemn me.
>If this list has such a 'mechanism' then consider me un-subscribed - I am
>sure Da Vinci or Picasso would have both failed your little test.
>I actually got a double A in science. This was in a country in which
>the standards are (in my (albeit limited) experience) higher than those in
>> You have to understand, with all the amazing discoveries in this incredible
>> age it's difficult for even the best of us to keep up with it all,
>> and we just don't have time for such ..., how can I put it politely...,
>> male bovine excrement.
>I understand. Good luck to 'the best of you' in deciding what isn't.
>I am currently interested in what is and what maybe. I think this
>attitude if far more extropian than you may realise.
>"Those who have their head up the ass of science are blind to the
>stunning vistas of reality. This used to be true of religion, but the name
>has changed to protect the 'intelligent'."
> - 'Book of Joy', M.El.Mir
Mike, I think your gesture of rebellion or defiance here is misplaced.
You are of course free to believe what you like, but whether you like it
or not, your belief bears a certain relation to reality, to the way
fings really is (as opposed to the way you or I think they are); and the
scientific consensus would say that the belief in that kind of car is
just fruitless - it isn't possible, it couldn't be made.
Now that's just an opinion too, of course, but if you were to question
it, you would find lots of quite convincing arguments based on demonstrations
you could verify with your own senses, and would have to accept if you
accepted the validity of your senses as giving a good image of reality
most of the time, in normal conditions.