LANDSLIDE? Hidden Vote?

**WickedTribe** · 11-04-12, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Not it wasn't. Man had the idea they could go into space. They used science to accomplish what their gut already told them they could do. Now by all means go tell someone that sits on top of enough solid rocket fuel, jet fuel, and liquid oxygen to make a MOAB crater look small if something goes wrong that its all about the math and their gut instinct has nothing to do with it.

No "gut feeling" necessary. Before we landed on the moon, we (and Russia) had an established history of manned space flight. Before manned space flight, we had a history of animal test flights. Before animals, we had unmanned space flight. Before that, we had atmospheric rockets. Etc. You're equating "it hasn't been done before" with "gut feeling," and that's simply wrong.

**WickedTribe** · 11-04-12, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Are you serious with this shit? Lift was NOT a understood scientific concept at the time. Hence why they figured out pitching the wing gave additional lift. If it was an understood concept at the time they would not have discovered it. They built the wind tunnel because they did not understand lift well and used it to find out why they were not getting the lift they expected.

Death, go do a quick read. They researched the work, and tested their own ideas. That's science, not gut feeling.

Now go tell your trust in science bs to the crew of the Challenger mission. While your at it go grab those failed rocket launches out in the atlantic. Maybe even a small discussion with the apollo mission astronauts. If it was all about the science we would never have a failed experimental aircraft, rocket, or invention.

What about the Challenger mission is a failure of science, or a triumph of instincts? The tolerances are low on space flight. Mechanical failure and human error caused the challenger to fail. This is akin to saying that when modern medicine fails, it's evidence for the power of prayer. No, it isn't.

Instincts comes before the science and again after it. Also another reason astronauts and test pilots are carefully screened. Their faith is not in the science. Its in their ability to come thru when the science fails. They do that by prior experience and instincts.

Space flight is physically and psychologically grueling, and so of course they have to be selective on those grounds. That said, you certainly can't be an astronaut without a degree in science or engineering. More importantly though, the astronauts are just one of thousands of people responsible for getting to the moon and space, and we certainly wouldn't be successful if it weren't for the teams of engineers, physicists and mathematicians on the ground.

You know what the astronauts did when they were in trouble on Apollo 13? They didn't react on instinct, they did massive amounts of calculations by hand.
Apollo 13 Astro’s Emergency Calculations Auctioned for More Than $388K - ABC News

**deathgodusmc** · 11-04-12, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

No "gut feeling" necessary. Before we landed on the moon, we (and Russia) had an established history of manned space flight. Before manned space flight, we had a history of animal test flights. Before animals, we had unmanned space flight. Before that, we had atmospheric rockets. Etc. You're equating "it hasn't been done before" with "gut feeling," and that's simply wrong.

Gut feeling came long before the first rocket even got tested. That same gut feeling ended with several astronauts losing their life both for our program and russias. "It hasn't been done before" takes a gut instinct to think we can do it for the first time. Your trying to brush it away under a veil of science and that is not accurate.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-04-12, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Death, go do a quick read. They researched the work, and tested their own ideas. That's science, not gut feeling.

Thats gut instinct. At the time we did not even have the technology to make the trip. We decided the space program was a worthy cause and then put science to the test.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

What about the Challenger mission is a failure of science, or a triumph of instincts? The tolerances are low on space flight. Mechanical failure and human error caused the challenger to fail. This is akin to saying that when modern medicine fails, it's evidence for the power of prayer. No, it isn't.

It was neither. They believed in the science and science had proven itself up to then but the instincts of the crew are not negated by the science. Both items failed due to the nature of the failure. A rare occurrence. More times then not when the science fails the instincts of the crew have salvaged lives. They dont put ejection seats in aircraft because the science never fails but you can rest assured a pilot wont pull the handle until his gut tells him its time to go.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Space flight is physically and psychologically grueling, and so of course they have to be selective on those grounds. That said, you certainly can't be an astronaut without a degree in science or engineering. More importantly though, the astronauts are just one of thousands of people responsible for getting to the moon and space, and we certainly wouldn't be successful if it weren't for the teams of engineers, physicists and mathematicians on the ground.

You know what the astronauts did when they were in trouble on Apollo 13? They didn't react on instinct, they did massive amounts of calculations by hand.
Apollo 13 Astro’s Emergency Calculations Auctioned for More Than $388K - ABC News

See your skipping the best part. They had the gut instinct that they could find a way to get it done. Skipping over it does not get rid of it.

**WickedTribe** · 11-04-12, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Gut feeling came long before the first rocket even got tested. That same gut feeling ended with several astronauts losing their life both for our program and russias. "It hasn't been done before" takes a gut instinct to think we can do it for the first time. Your trying to brush it away under a veil of science and that is not accurate.

As I said, the space program is the result of lots of incremental steps, not one leap of faith. Before any astronauts were allowed to risk their lives, extensive testing with unmanned probes and then animals took place. That's not gut feeling, it's science. If you think that "it hasn't been done before" in scientific endeavors is the same as a gut feeling it's only because you don't know how science works.

**Fovezer** · 11-04-12, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Are you serious with this shit? Lift was NOT a understood scientific concept at the time. Hence why they figured out pitching the wing gave additional lift. If it was an understood concept at the time they would not have discovered it. They built the wind tunnel because they did not understand lift well and used it to find out why they were not getting the lift they expected.

So lift wasn't an understood concept at all, but they built a wind tunnel to find out why they weren't getting the lift they expected? How could they expect anything if they didn't understand the concept? You can't even keep your story straight in one paragraph.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Now go tell your trust in science bs to the crew of the Challenger mission. While your at it go grab those failed rocket launches out in the atlantic. Maybe even a small discussion with the apollo mission astronauts. If it was all about the science we would never have a failed experimental aircraft, rocket, or invention.

They did trust in science or they wouldn't have been on that shuttle or that rocket. Failures are a possibility that is accepted by all those who take on these challenges. It a hazard of the job.

Why did they get on that shuttle and rocket if they had a gut instinct, though? Why the hell didn't it tell them that their shuttle was going to blow up? Were their gut instincts defective? So much good that did them, huh?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Instincts comes before the science and again after it. Also another reason astronauts and test pilots are carefully screened. Their faith is not in the science. Its in their ability to come thru when the science fails. They do that by prior experience and instincts.

Now your arguing to argue against something I said. You can never, ever agree with anyone, you always have to take the other side no matter how contradictory you sound or how many hoops you have to jump through in your mental gymnastics.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No one is saying science is worthless. All thats being said is science does not replace instincts. A simple example of that is we still put pilots in fighter aircraft not because we have to but because we as of yet can not replace gut instincts with science.

You have been saying science is worthless your last few posts. You've been saying the equivalent of prayer is better than modern medicine. Why trust science when we can pray to our digestive tract, right?

**WickedTribe** · 11-04-12, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Thats gut instinct. At the time we did not even have the technology to make the trip. We decided the space program was a worthy cause and then put science to the test.

That's my favorite Presidential speech of all time, but it has nothing to do with instinct. As I said several pages ago, being hard does not mean that it's not based on well established science. Similarly, the fact that we weren't technologically capable of going at the time doesn't mean that the theory behind space flight wasn't well known. It was an incremental step.

It was neither. They believed in the science and science had proven itself up to then but the instincts of the crew are not negated by the science. Both items failed due to the nature of the failure. A rare occurrence. More times then not when the science fails the instincts of the crew have salvaged lives. They dont put ejection seats in aircraft because the science never fails but you can rest assured a pilot wont pull the handle until his gut tells him its time to go.

The science was sound. The failure was in an o-ring, hardly cutting-edge technology at the time - mechanical failures are always a possibility. Furthermore, instinct didn't save anyone on that vessel. It also didn't save the astronauts on Apollo 13 - which is why the calculations that saved them sold for so much money.[quote]

See your skipping the best part. They had the gut instinct that they could find a way to get it done. Skipping over it does not get rid of it.

I skipped the last part because it was irrelevant to the topic of human innovation. Fighter pilots aren't the ones responsible for the technology that got their planes into the air.

I'm not doing this for 10 pages with you.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-04-12, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

As I said, the space program is the result of lots of incremental steps, not one leap of faith. Before any astronauts were allowed to risk their lives, extensive testing with unmanned probes and then animals took place. That's not gut feeling, it's science. If you think that "it hasn't been done before" in scientific endeavors is the same as a gut feeling it's only because you don't know how science works.

The space program envolves lots of incremental steps and lots of incremental leaps of faith. It took both to get us where we are. It isnt just. Science does have more then its fair share of gut feelings to come up with shit. As an example. The theory of evolution is as proven as we can currently make it yet it is not complete. Our instinct, guts, and science tell us that it is true but without the missing pieces it can not be scientifically accurate. Yet science has excepted it as fact.

Another job filled with gut feelings/instincts is the medical field. Oddly enough i read an article on just this topic not long ago. Doctors' 'gut feeling' should not be ignored, study suggests

Your trying to explain away something that even those in science recognize to be reality. You yourself have had gut feelings before but its up to the individual to act on them. Many children learn by instinct. They disassemble toys for no known reason and in some cases make a new toy from the ones they tore apart. Intellectual curiosity itself is instincts in action.

Once again though im not saying instincts are a replacement for science. Im saying they go hand in hand as instincts do with just about anything else. We have all had the feeling of knowing we could do something or to not do something for no good reason other then its what we thought.

If we could bottle that we would make a fortune just selling it to people to avoid speeding tickets. I know i have had more then my fair share of knowing there was a cop up ahead long before i could see one.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-04-12, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That's my favorite Presidential speech of all time, but it has nothing to do with instinct. As I said several pages ago, being hard does not mean that it's not based on well established science. Similarly, the fact that we weren't technologically capable of going at the time doesn't mean that the theory behind space flight wasn't well known. It was an incremental step.

Then you haven't been listening to it. We made the call to go to the moon before we had the technology to do so. He even lists in his speech before we had the metal alloy possible to get the job done. That takes a gut instinct in both our ability and our science to get it done.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The science was sound. The failure was in an o-ring, hardly cutting-edge technology at the time - mechanical failures are always a possibility. Furthermore, instinct didn't save anyone on that vessel. It also didn't save the astronauts on Apollo 13 - which is why the calculations that saved them sold for so much money.

You keep trying to act like someone is taking the science out of the equation and that is not the case.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I skipped the last part because it was irrelevant to the topic of human innovation. Fighter pilots aren't the ones responsible for the technology that got their planes into the air.

I'm not doing this for 10 pages with you.

You also skipped it because you know you cant explain why a college educated person knows when the plane is a lost cause and when it can be saved at the last minute.