You seem to want to bring religion into this, what does it matter if Clarke was a atheist? His statement, 1st law is one of basic faith in the impossible is possible, therefore nothing is impossible. It is not really logical, but emotional, and that is a driving force to discover and to challenge.
So a conjecture also may not require the process of faith, correct?
In other words, faith is either required or not based on the conjecture one is making.
I was thinking of that, if faith may not be required for some conjectures. Perhaps or perhaps not, I’m not sure. Faith uses part of the creative process, not the analytic process of the mind. The conjecture can be refined by the analytic process, but the initial conjecture may have to be faith based.
Where does Clarke’s law say anything about ‘faith’ ?
It says that if a scientist says something is possible, he’s likely right, and if he says something is impossible, he’s likely wrong - and that is a basic ‘truth’ about how science works as well as his qualifier about it being a ‘stodgy old’ scientist that is ‘set in his ways’.
There is nothing about ‘faith’ of any kind there.
You say this is a basic truth, but it is also a statement of faith, unless you can show Clarke, in making this rule analyzed the probability that this (generic) scientist was likely right/wrong and made it based only on a that analysis.
First - science does not ever try to ‘prove a negative’ - you will not hear a scientist say that ‘X does not exist’ - what you will hear them say is "there is no evidence for X’s existence’ - so for a scientist, young or old to say something is ‘impossible’ means that they are making a mistake wrt to the way science works.
Now, there are likely valid exceptions to that - but more likely you would hear a scientist say “that is improbable” instead, or they will qualify the impossible statement with the data to back it up.
Now, many times you will also hear about the ‘null hypothesis’ - which is to state tht ‘X is impossible/does nto exist’ as a default - then you look for evidence to disprove that notion. For example - “nothing unreal exists” or “God does not exist” or “zombies do not exist”. You cannot prove something ‘does not exist’ - you work to prove something does - but you start with the assumption (theory, if you will) that they do not.
So - back to you - where is ‘faith’ involved? You want this to be a statement about ‘Faith’ so you are reading into it - it is nothing of the sort. If anything, its a ‘warning’ about shutting your mind down to new evidence.
The first two laws did not appear in a scientific paper - IIRC they appeared in the introduction to or first chapter of his book Profiles of the Future which was an outrageous batch of predictions which I loved when it came out about 1962. Most have not come true, but that wouldn’t have surprised him a bit. In this context the laws make a lot more sense. The first law is saying don’t worry too much about old tenured profs saying that a prediction can never come true.
And you totally miss the point of the second law. It is not that the impossible is truly impossible - it is that it is hard to find the limits of them until they get challenged. Some things that would have been considered impossible in the past are common today. Which does not mean that everything is possible, only that we were wrong in calling these things impossible.
That’s the funnest thing I have read today. But you are right in that it takes a man of faith to blaze new trails. Science is standing still cranking out theories.
You are exactly wrong here - again -
I’ve been looking over Clarke’s first law for some time and it is very interestingly phrased and can accept there are many ways of interpreting it.
The most interesting thing I see in it is that Clarke is saying that the scientific opinion (as represented by the “distinguished but elderly scientist”) is irrelevant and the answer is it is most likely possible.
Re:
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
The Man of Faith goes forth into the unknown, blazing new trails, followed by the Man of Logic holding a working flashlight…who notes all the times the Man of Faith screwed up and went down the wrong path.
[/QUOTE]
Yes I think I’m going to save link that and post that whenever Czarcasm to let others know that deep down inside it takes faith and even Czarcasm knows.
Wrong. What I know is that the Man of Faith would have fared a lot better with the Flashlight of Logic. Way to twist a simple saying, kanicbird:rolleyes:
My conjecture is that faith is part of the human sentient being - a necessary part of our thought process. It is needed for who we are and how we advance. Is it emotionally based, not logically based, but can be logically refined. It is the reason for human advancement it is the reason to venture forth as stated by Czarcasm
It is faith that we venture into the unknown. With the addition of analytical thinking we are able to discern the correct path that we would never have discovered if it were not for faith.
It also begs the question is artificial life possible without emotion.
Twisting things around is your specialty, now enjoy it when it has returned to you 
If you interpret Holy books as badly as you interpret Clarke, no wonder you believe in such a non-skeddo theology.
Can you please define non-skeddo
Just adding to it because it is fun. The man of logic would have never ventured forth on his own, there needed to be a motivational reason, hence the man of faith.
So the logical man with the flashlight would stay at home with his thumb up his, if it was not for the man of faith who would venture forth even with out the flashlight.
I do see that these two men are inside each one of us (or two women, or whatever you are into), the logical and the exploratory. It is that quality that has allowed us to advance as much as we have IMHO.
Sorry - it is from Lenny Bruce, who used it as an analogy to non-scheduled (which he called non-skeddo in a famous bit) which back 50 years ago or so would have erratic schedules. So a non-skeddo theology (might be from Religion Inc. but not positive) is to traditional churches as a non-skeddo airline is to United.
Even the man with a flashlight knows there are unexplored regions beyond the beam. But he has a better sense of which way to go based on what he can see.
Sometimes the man of faith tried to throw rocks at the flashlight to equalize things.
Yes I agree, sometimes the man of faith does try to destroy the flashlight (and sometimes, perhaps rarely that’s exactly what is needed), and sometimes the man of logic will sit and map a passage every which way possible and never move on. Both types of men are needed.
I see the man of faith and man of logic in each one of us (including women of f/l). Emotional and reason centered, some lean more heavily on one then the other, some have a greater balance with all sorts of interplays of power, suppression and domination in some.
I do feel a balance is needed for the greatest good and advancement of humanity and the individual, but barring that balance inside a single person, a group that is tilted one way and a group tilted another way also might maintain the balance, so still would advance humanity — perhaps.