Share Your Most Dangerous Idea 1060
GabrielF writes "Every year The Edge asks over 100 top scientists and thinkers a question, and the responses are fascinating and widely quoted. This year, psychologist Steven Pinker suggested they ask "What is your most dangerous idea?" The 117 respondents include Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond -- and that's just the D's! As you might expect, the submissions are brilliant and very controversial."
72,500 words!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's my idea: If you have a Bose-Einstein condensate of heavy atoms, why happens when they radioactively decay? Does every atom decay simultaniously? Wouldn't that be kinda like a bomb?
Shooting for mod points... (Score:4, Informative)
Teach people to think for themselves.
Re:The Most Apt Response Out There (Score:2, Informative)
Re:72,500 words!!! (Score:4, Informative)
And the other poster's comments about "heating it up really quick" is pretty much wrong, as far as I can tell.
I work with BEC, and there's no way it could be used as a weapon.
But your question about nuclear decay from a group wavefunction is pretty interesting, but the nuclei should behave independently. When a BEC scatters a photon, for instance, a single atom is rejected.
m
device exists, and is in use! (Score:3, Informative)
People say that fluoride is "not lethal in small doses" - of course it isn't lethal in 1 or 4 ppm, but that's not the point: it still effects you, especially as the fluoride builds up in your body over time.
Unfortunately, fluoride in drinking water (common in the United States) is only one tiny part of your daily exposure - almost any product processed with water probably contains fluoride, as well as tea.
So, because it is so pervasive, I have given up on trying to avoid fluoride... or is that the fluoride talking?
Re:evolution of evil (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Most Dangerous Idea of All (Score:3, Informative)
Re: In SOVIET RUSSIA maybe. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:mind control (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?f
However, I'm certain that this would not prove sufficient prior art in today's patent climate.
I highly recommend this book, as an amazing glimpse into the prescience of this man's predictions about the kinds of technologies and conveniences we would have in his future, and our today, and how they would be (mis)used.
Incorrect again (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Incorrect again (Score:4, Informative)
Re:OK, here's one. "Alcohol Economy". (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Most Dangerous Idea of All (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, he is long gone...
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Most Dangerous Idea of All (Score:3, Informative)
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist [m-w.com]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic [m-w.com]
Re:Incorrect again (Score:2, Informative)
you're right on athiesm though.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Atheism/Agnosticism (Score:4, Informative)
- Strong Agnosticism
- The view that the existence (or not) of a supernatural God (or gods) is not something that can be classified as knowledge. By this definition, a person can simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a theist (or atheist) if he believes that no kind of evidence justifies belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, but chooses believe that God exists (or not) anyhow as a matter of faith or principle.
- Weak Agnosticism
- The weak agnostic does not take a position on whether the existence of God is a possible subject of knowledge, but merely asserts that he is not aware of any evidence that justifies belief one way or the other. A weak agnostic could also be a theist or atheist, but will typically hold the position only tentatively on the basis that a proof one way or the other may show up eventually.
- Non-Agnostic
- ("Gnostic" not used because it is associated with an early quasi-Christian sect.) Someone who is not agnostic takes the position that there exists an acceptable proof either for or against the existence of God or gods. We might further categorise this as "weak" (the belief that such proof is possible in principle) or "strong" (the assertion that a specific argument constitutes valid proof).
- Strong Atheism
- A strict denial of all god-like entities. A bold assertion that no such thing exists.
- Weak Atheism
- Scepticism with regard to the proposition that there exists a God or god-like entities in general. Weak atheists feel that the non-existence of godlike beings is more likely to be true than the alternative, but aren't certain about it.
- Weak Theism
- Scepticism with regard to the proposition that no godlike beings exist. Symmetric opposite of weak atheism. Weak theists suspect that there is some kind of supernatural God, but lack assurance as to detail.
- Strong Theism
- A bold assertion that a specific God or gods exist. Also covers "deism", which is the position that God exists, but is disinterested and/or impersonal.
If there is a genuinely neutral position between the weak forms of theism and atheism, I'm neither familiar with its name, nor sure how such a person would behave (although "erratically" springs to mind).Re:Hamlet II, ii (Score:4, Informative)
You really don't understand the meaning of that passage, do you? Shakespeare wrote it before sarcasm tags were around, but anyone with passing familiarity with the subtext of that scene would never toss that quote up to support this particular point. The preceeding lines (from memory, so forgive misquotes...)
I have of late, but wherefore I know not lost all my mirth. This goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory. This most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with gold and fire, why it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestulant congregation of vapors. What a piece of work is man!...
Re:The Most Dangerous Idea of All (Score:3, Informative)
As a former religion major, I've got to jump in here. I have yet to see a good definition of an agnostic on Slashdot, so I'll clarify.
Agnostics believe that it is logically impossible to understand God (or the Divine, or Reality, or whatever you want to call it). The argument goes like this:
GIVEN:
1. God is inifite.
Stop right there. As soon you assert that anything has infinite being, that is the last thing you can say about it. Anything else you say about it becomes a limiting factor on the infinite. ("God is male", "God has will", "God wants"...all have counters based on our first assertion.) This is actually the first thing they teach you in Philosophy of Religion, which is why I ultimately decided the entire field was mental masturabtion. (Really. They assert God is infinite, and then refuse to discuss it. The pointlessness of it is staggering.)