Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Тази тема е заключена 
Правила и насоки за дискусии
Докладване на публикацията
Not at all. Perhaps someday faster-than-light (sci-fi seems to believe) teleporters, that are dressed up like teapots, will be possible (I don't think enough people share in this dream - it will probably be shaped like a magic circle or a telephone booth instead) but I don't think you'll be the one to invent it & certainly not any time soon.
Science also isn't defeatist until a definitive proof showing, in detail, that something is impossible, & why it is impossible, is discovered. Being open to possibility is the whole reason science has been able to do anything new at all & is also the only reason it's taken seriously or ever funded.
Perhaps you've heard of the "coffee ring effect". Who could possibly believe that spending millions of dollars to study coffee stains is a good idea? Politicians used this to argue against such studies but they were funded & it turned out to reveal an important means of manufacturing better computing systems:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/10/physicists-unravel-mystery-coffee-stains
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121506
"Weird semantics" are the whole reason we can engage in ANY meaningful conversations & conceptualize things that have not -yet- been invented... but eventually do get invented.
Also, if you look to all of the different species of animals there currently are (& there's an enormous amount of them, even just that are mammals (the closest in similarity to humans)) there's a wide-range of diversity in what nature has already proven possible with genetics.
Saying that one animal could -possibly- have or develop (especially by gene-editing) just a few properties of a related species isn't really all that far-fetched, imo.
(In fact, subjects quite similar to this are the subject of much debate on ethical standards in science. )
I'd say, only time will tell - & this may be true, but again... with ethical standards still in place, that time will probably come after we're both dead.
Right... like the time when the kids on the playground just say "prove it" to everything.
Perhaps we should listen to that advice & never try anything, experiment with anything, & most of all, not expect anyone else to ever surprise us.
As I've already stated, I think that attempting to pursue a "what-if" such as the one presented in this topic, through real experiments, would be an unwise idea & unethical - however, that's not necessarily going to stop someone else from trying.
So, this isn't really a responsible subject to encourage people on, I think, but by all means, perhaps that's the message we should be sending to everyone, on all things - that if you can't prove it, you shouldn't even bother trying.
No need to ever be surprised. No one else will figure it out either - it's just not possible.
The world isn't so black & white; we don't need to always try to force people into one extreme position or the other - especially when there ARE in-between perspectives. Sometimes one can just say, "I think it's possible & people might just be determined enough" & leave it at that. Especially in a generalized conversation about hypotheticals, imaginings, & simple daydreaming; none of these activities mean that someone has to "prove" every little thing, especially at train stations & video game forums, which are very distinctly NOT research labs.
We could just leave such a subject at "I don't know" (instead of saying "yes, it's definitely possible", or "no it's definitely impossible") but that doesn't really give us anything to discuss or think about - at all.
That's boring & also encourages people to never dream or experiment ...or even have responsible discussions about ethics & things that would be wise to -NOT- try. Things that the public -should- be considering before it actually ends up a reality in the news that lawmakers (or in a more pessimistic future, juries) might need to vote on.
Please just... let it go!
I don't care about ifs and buts.
You claimed it would be possible, and now you're just talking hot air.
I'm not interested because you've demonstrated you haven't the first clue how science works. So, sorry, but I'm out.
I have demonstrated no such thing.
I believe you have done a better job of demonstrating that of yourself.
If you want to talk proofs of possibility & impossibility with scientific researchers... then perhaps you should be having this discussion on a forum for scientific researchers.
Then my point stands, glad we got there in the end.
You cannot make cat girls or boys in all seriousness. Genetics doesn't work like that.
These were my exact words:
What I meant by this is that people would definitely attempt it if it weren't for ethical standards barring gene-editing & human experimentations.
In any event, there's a LOT that can go wrong, ethically with scientific innovations & we can't even begin to discuss / consider where we should be drawing ethical & unethical boundaries when we simply say that things are definitely impossible & don't even consider the fact that we MIGHT be wrong about that &, meanwhile, someone else who we're not paying attention to might try & succeed at the thing that we're too busy claiming is impossible & not even considering the ethical & unethical ramifications of it.
Yes, and I pointed out that it wasn't ethical considerations stalling it. That's like saying "well, the reason we don't have robots yet is because they can't be trusted".
No it's because we don't have the technology or ability yet.|
Cart before horse and all that.
as for me i just do my research from youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiUc7vtzFA
The person asserting a claim ALWAYS has the burden of proof. That's schoolboy level logic, so I don't know why you think think that's either high level stuff or unusual.
This is something that applies to EVERYTHING in reality.
And what's wrong with that anyway? If someone were asserting this is possible, wouldn't you be asking for evidence hmm?
Taking it to a bit of an extreme, though, don't you think?
If someone who is not hungry says they like peanut butter jelly sandwiches, that doesn't necessarily mean they want to prove it by making a peanut butter jelly sandwich and eating it right now ...& while peanut butter, mustard, & cinnamon sandwiches are at least, most-likely possible, it would be a waste of food to make one just to "prove it".
Also,
While in math & science it is required to prove that something is absolutely true, in order to call it a "law", it's not uncommon or even unheard of to take a stance that isn't proven yet in order to start application of the knowledge, rather than waiting around for whichever mathematician or scientist is technical-minded enough to formulate an actual proof. These are known as "conjectures":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture
...it can sometimes be hundreds of years until a conjecture is turned into a proof & shown to be a "law" - but the point is, a proof isn't necessary to start utilizing the information & considering things about it sooner rather than later.
...& we're not even scientists here. This isn't a research forum.
It's really not that unreasonable for someone to have an unproven opinion on a subject in informal social settings, nor to believe that something which hasn't been formally disproven, is probably possible with enough precision & effort.
[The only time I'd argue that proofs are necessary in an informal social setting is when people start making accusations about each other's character - but even then... once someone does that, doesn't it cease to be an informal social setting due to the severity of the claim? ]
All I did was respond to YOUR original claim.
You said it would be possible. I detailed why it isn't and tackled your misundertstaing of basic science.
That's all.
Sometimes science can go too far. It's for the best.
Today, cute cat girls and fun and jokes. Tomorrow, dystopian Jurassic Park like sabre-toothed cat women monsters threatening humanity as a whole.