RE: [wta-talk] Specific areas lacking advancement

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 12:03:52 MDT

  • Next message: Devon White: "RE: [wta-talk] Specific areas lacking advancement"

    Giu1i0 Pri5c0 [mailto:gpmap@runbox.com] wrote,
    > You have a good point. I would not say that cryonics is lower in
    > plausibility now than in earlier years, rather that we have now a better
    > understanding of the difficulties involved, so that realistic estimates of
    > when cryonics patients may be revived have to be set later in the
    > future.

    Your entire posting sounds like this. You seem to agree with my basic
    point, but you wouldn't say it in such negative terms. The examples you
    discuss, cryonics, cancer, etc. are the same. We had predicted success much
    earlier. We now know the problem is much harder than we thought.
    Technology is racing ahead much faster, but we are pushing specific
    milestones back farther and farther with our newer knowledge.

    In short, I don't think anybody is really disagreeing with me. They just
    don't want to use negative terminology. They refuse to call these
    occurrences delays, setbacks, or failed predictions. They explain away how
    it was government technology, poor information, mistaken assumptions, or
    whatever. But my point remains. Predictions have been pushed back before.
    Current predictions may need to be pushed back.

    We can't jump on every hyped theory and then assume exponential growth from
    there. Sometimes there are delays, setbacks, and failures. Sometimes we
    have to find a different approach when one path doesn't pan out. This is
    normal scientific method and experimentation. However, many people here
    don't seem to understand this. There seems to be a mistaken belief that we
    only move forward, that things go faster and faster without delays, and that
    all scientific breakthroughs pan out and move into production. That's not
    how it works. Those are the faith-based promises of hype and PR, not of
    real scientists.

    My original point was merely explaining my frustration that there are some
    setbacks occasionally. This has since evolved into a further frustration
    that many people seem to believe that there are never setbacks and I am only
    imagining problems where none exist. Sometimes there are problems, folks.
    Pretending that they don't exist won't help us.

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
    Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified
    InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
    <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 12:13:15 MDT