Theoretically possible inventions you would like to see?

[Bill3000]

Well they better hurry, we only have 4 years until 2015


Link to video.

At least one invention from Back to the Future 2 is coming out:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/25/nike-patenting-the-power-laces-from-back-to-the-future-ii/


Link to video.

 

[The_J]

3D-printers. It doesn't need to be as capable as the ones in Star Trek kind. I think there's great potential in simply picking existing technical solutions that can be safely used at home, combine them and bring down the size.

Lab-produced body parts. This "donation" system where body parts are taken from one human and put into another really have to go.

What about a combo?

The technology they are developing allows them to print new blood vessels and capillaries from an ink jet printer. The ink used in the technology is made from artificial cells and medical gel in a solution of calcium chloride. This ink solidifies into a tube with a lining of endothelial cells and an outer case of smooth muscle cells.

The technology isn’t mature enough yet to replace the veins from a patients own body with researchers only being able to create a prototype vessel with an inner diameter of 1 mm and a length of 1 cm. The prototype isn’t strong enough to support blood flow yet either. Tech.co.uk says that once the technology is more mature and robust there is no reason why scientists can’t build up artificial organs from layered, printed sheets using the technology.

I also had somewhere an article about organs from 3D printers, but damn i can't find it.

 

[G-Max]

The parable of the broken window is just that: a parable. It's not a genuine fallacy outside of the fact that there is an unstated assumption in ignoring hidden costs. It's not some sort of grand set of the logical fallacies, it's just an invalid argument used by libertarians to show why analogous arguments are invalid; it is not in any sense a formal fallacy.

As for the slippery slope argument, no it's not always fallacious. The flaw in the argument occurs because of the multiplicative effect of probability in A -> B -> C -> D -> ... Z; If A occurs 95% of the time, B occurs 90% of the time, etc. the total effect would be such that Z occurs a small part of the time. So you just have to have independent justifications for B --> ... Z, that is, justify that B --> Z are true. A slippery slope argument certainly can be non-fallacious as long as you justify the other premises.

Besides, you're missing the more critical point in that knowing logical fallacies has nothing to do with convincing people that they are wrong.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp
http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope

I win.

Don't overlook "some education is junk".

Honestly, I don't understand your example. Is a discussion of the Federal Reserve's purposes and methods supposed to help students learn to think? A student figuring those things out is probably learning some things about thinking, but "teaching this stuff" is bypassing the thinking part, it's just feeding information.

The point is that you'd be saying, "hey look, there's this rabbit hole! Do some independent research and see how far down it goes"

A cloaking device might be cool, but just think of the consequences of everyone wandering around hidden. Cuts back on a lot of interaction, and ruins what is our greatest hobby; people watching.

I'm pretty sure that cloaking devices could only be applied to vehicles and buildings. You wouldn't be able to wear one.

So how are time travel and faster than light travel theoretically possible? Because out current theories tell us they aren't.

Stephen Hawking has already proposed a wormhole-based method of time-travel, and FTL is only impossible if you accept the Theory of Relativity, which itself was based on two completely unproven assumptions.

I have to say that it is not theoretically possible to go far than the speed of light, since you basically need infinite energy for it to be possible.

That's only if you're using traditional, acceleration-based propulsion.

3D-printers. It doesn't need to be as capable as the ones in Star Trek kind. I think there's great potential in simply picking existing technical solutions that can be safely used at home, combine them and bring down the size.

These already exist. Do a Google search for "rapid laser prototyping" or something to that effect.

 

[Perfection]

I'm pretty sure that cloaking devices could only be applied to vehicles and buildings. You wouldn't be able to wear one.

And you're sure of this because?

 

[Bill3000]

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp
http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope

I win.

Er, no you don't. You only proven my point in your links on the parable of the broken window, and did not make a counterargument at all on the part of the slippery slope. You have no original argument of your own, and to be frank I am wondering if you even looked at what I posted. Congratulations; you have the argumentative ability of a teenage libertarian.

Stephen Hawking has already proposed a wormhole-based method of time-travel, and FTL is only impossible if you accept the Theory of Relativity, which itself was based on two completely unproven assumptions.

Wormholes are based on general relativity, chief.

 

[G-Max]

And you're sure of this because?

The device would need to interact with the hull/body of the vehicle in some way, and it's pretty hard to do that with human skin/clothing. The "cloaking devices" that we have now only work when the observer is standing right next to the projector.

Er, no you don't. You only proven my point in your links on the parable of the broken window, and did not make a counterargument at all on the part of the slippery slope.

The links that I posted regarding the Broken Window Fallacy both referred to it as a "fallacy".

The Slippery Slope links both linked to lists of logical fallacies.

Use common sense, please.

Also, in one link, "The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the great French economist, Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat used the parable of a broken window to point out why destruction doesn't benefit the economy." So I was wrong. The fallacy isn't named after the parable; the parable was crafted to explain the fallacy.

Wormholes are based on general relativity, chief.

How so? I was under the impression that wormholes were based on the idea that spacetime itself is something that can be warped and manipulated, whereas Relativity explicitly rejected the idea of an Aether.

 

[Perfection]

FTL is only impossible if you accept the Theory of Relativity

It seems ridiculous to rule out the possibility that the theory of relativity is false and FTL still impossible.

BTW. Relativity is been pretty much shown to be true, so why would you say otherwise?

The device would need to interact with the hull/body of the vehicle in some way, and it's pretty hard to do that with human skin/clothing.

Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with dismissing it because it would be "hard".

 

[Bill3000]

The links that I posted regarding the Broken Window Fallacy both referred to it as a "fallacy".

The Slippery Slope links both linked to lists of logical fallacies.

Yeah, uh, internet websites merely calling something a fallacy do not invalidate my points; namely that the parable of the broken window isn't a formal fallacy, but simply an invalid argument relevant to economics and not to arguments in general, and that the slippery slope argument is not always fallacious for the reasons that I mentioned.

How so? I was under the impression that wormholes were based on the idea that spacetime itself is something that can be warped and manipulated, whereas Relativity explicitly rejected the idea of an Aether.

Er, spacetime isn't an aether as it's not a substance, spacetime is a concept which comes from relativity, and general relativity is a generalization of special relativity in the limit of finite gravitational fields? Wormholes are solutions of general relativity. The two postulates of special relativity hold in general relativity as well.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's pretty easy to demonstrate the slippery slope argument is not inherently fallacious.
By discussing what happens if you sled down a slippery slope.

 

[G-Max]

Relativity is been pretty much shown to be true, so why would you say otherwise?

Some of its effects have been shown to be true within a barely acceptable margin of error. Not quite the same thing.

Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with dismissing it because it would be "hard".

Okay, I admit that it's theoretically possible. I just don't think that we'd ever, ever see it. We're more likely to see the scramble suits from A Scanner Darkly.

Actually, add scramble suits to the list of technologies I'd like to see.

Yeah, uh, internet websites merely calling something a fallacy do not invalidate my points; namely that the parable of the broken window isn't a formal fallacy, but simply an invalid argument relevant to economics and not to arguments in general, and that the slippery slope argument is not always fallacious for the reasons that I mentioned.

These are websites that specialize in logical fallacies.

You are correct, however, in that the broken window fallacy basically only applies to economics.

Er, spacetime isn't an aether as it's not a substance

Nor was the Aether...

 

[ParkCungHee]

These are websites that specialize in logical fallacies.

Oh I see. A website that specializes cannot be wrong.

 

[Perfection]

Some of its effects have been shown to be true within a barely acceptable margin of error. Not quite the same thing.

General and Special Relativity have been validated repeatedly on multiple metrics. For instance, GPS devices need to take relativistic effects into account to achieve the high level of accuracy they have

 

[G-Max]

Oh I see. A website that specializes cannot be wrong.

Oh I see. Sarcastic arguments cannot be wrong.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oh I see. Sarcastic arguments cannot be wrong.

Actually they can and often are.
But if I was to make a website specializing in sarcastic arguments, they'd have to be right.

 

[RedRalph]

Something to record your dreams

 

[G-Max]

Anyway, I was just pointing out that any academic website specializing in logical fallacies is extremely unlikely to count, as a logical fallacy, something that isn't actually a logical fallacy.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Anyway, I was just pointing out that any academic website specializing in logical fallacies

You didn't actually link to any Academic website. Those have .edu

is extremely unlikely to count, as a logical fallacy, something that isn't actually a logical fallacy.

Learn to internet.

 

[Bill3000]

These are websites that specialize in logical fallacies.

You are correct, however, in that the broken window fallacy basically only applies to economics.

Yes. They are dumb websites because they are not correct for the reasons that I mentioned, in addition to the fact that they serve to be useless as it will not prevent people from using those fallacies, and will not convince other people that they are wrong by saying that they have committed fallacies.

The use of the term "fallacy" in broken window fallacy is a layman's form as it is the result of a false premise ("there are no hidden costs") as opposed to an actual error in reasoning. If windows were valueless, and nothing of value was lost by breaking the window, then that premise would be true.

Nor was the Aether...

Er, yes it was. It was a substance with very unusual properties, but it was very much considered a substance; the entire point was that every other wave needs a material to propagate through, and thus light needed a material to propagate through as well. Most significantly, you can speak in terms of motion relative to the aether; you cannot do the same with spacetime.

Actually this is all besides the point that general relativity is the generalization of special relativity and newton's law of universal gravitation; you cannot talk about wormholes (a general relativity phenomenon) without accepting the truth of special relativity.

 

[G-Max]

You didn't actually link to any Academic website. Those have .edu

Yeah, education and academia have nothing to do with each other. My bad

Learn to internet.

"learn to Internet" is something that you say at the end of an argument. It is not an argument in and of itself.

lrn2argument, n00b.

Yes. They are dumb websites because they are not correct

You just used a logical fallacy. "I am right. These websites disagree with me, therefore they are wrong and I am right"

Most significantly, you can speak in terms of motion relative to the aether; you cannot do the same with spacetime.

The whole idea behind wormholes is that spacetime is something that you CAN move relative to.

I'm just going to ignore both of you from now on since you fail so very hard.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You just used a logical fallacy. "I am right. These websites disagree with me, therefore they are wrong and I am right"

A ⇒ ~B
A ⊤
Therefor ~B.
Seems pretty straightforward.