I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, claim infallibility. That kind of authority is best left to the Pope on Church matters. Having had some past experience on high-payoff research, which by now is certainly obsolete, I understand that absolutely nothing is certain.
It might surprise some to learn that the probability of having a Mack truck go right through a brick wall without leaving a trace of such a miraculous tunneling is quantum mechanically not zero. It is, however, vanishingly small. Therefore, I find it prudent at times to avoid the strain of disproving a negative scenario that may or may not be disprovable (the latter being a meta-debate that no one in his right mind would debate). In such situations, I beg off by insisting that I was wrong, once — back in '76 I thought I had made a mistake; I was wrong.
Having recently been asked to attempt a technical explanation for how a seemingly impossible scenario might have been accomplished, I could only posit that either the collection of premises might contain an inexactitude (or even an outright fabrication), or it is one of those rare events that quantum mechanics allows. Or, indeed, it might just be one of those nefarious conspiracies that Michael Moore is so full of.
Whatever the case may be, I would much rather ponder the limitless possibilities that have a reasonable chance of affecting me and all those I care about, than spend my limited time, energy and negentropy on the kind of (what is the polite way of saying 'shit'?) that Michael Moore is in the business of selling to those who eat it.
It might surprise some to learn that the probability of having a Mack truck go right through a brick wall without leaving a trace of such a miraculous tunneling is quantum mechanically not zero. It is, however, vanishingly small. Therefore, I find it prudent at times to avoid the strain of disproving a negative scenario that may or may not be disprovable (the latter being a meta-debate that no one in his right mind would debate). In such situations, I beg off by insisting that I was wrong, once — back in '76 I thought I had made a mistake; I was wrong.
Having recently been asked to attempt a technical explanation for how a seemingly impossible scenario might have been accomplished, I could only posit that either the collection of premises might contain an inexactitude (or even an outright fabrication), or it is one of those rare events that quantum mechanics allows. Or, indeed, it might just be one of those nefarious conspiracies that Michael Moore is so full of.
Whatever the case may be, I would much rather ponder the limitless possibilities that have a reasonable chance of affecting me and all those I care about, than spend my limited time, energy and negentropy on the kind of (what is the polite way of saying 'shit'?) that Michael Moore is in the business of selling to those who eat it.
No comments:
Post a Comment