“Cool, does this mean I’m famous now?”

Yes it does, just not as famous as me.

My apologies for my factual inaccuracies, however it was not their scientific ideas that made it to their current prominence on their own merit.

You’re right to a point. Charles was a disappointment to his father because he was not the accomplished man his father thought he should be, and even the captain of the ship did want Darwin to go despite his incredible credentials. Fitzroy wanted a gentleman companion which, in effect, was nothing more than a job. Darwin did, however, make the best of the situation and officially became the ship Naturalist by default, and later published The Origin of Species all because the Captain’s first choice, Darwin’s buddy Henslow, couldn’t go because his wife said so. He did go to “work” as the captain’s companion because he was the only one who was able to go because he was unemployed. Not necessarily to appease his father (my true inaccuracy), but because his friendship got him the opportunity. None of these facts imply that Darwin alone went out of scientific altruism.

As for Hawkings, yes he was already accomplished to a certain extent but was not motivated, and I was in no way maligning him for having the disease or saying it was the wheelchair that got his work acknowledged, but rather the opposite. Had it not been for his misfortune, and, no, I would not wish it on anyone for any reason, he might not have focused his life on cosmology, and push himself, his ideas, and through his brilliant work got others to accept his ideas enough to make the contributions he has. He, himself, says something similar on his own website http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/dindex.html.

You’re right about Einstein, as well; however it was in his spare time that he did his work which was what later helped him to eventually get his first academic appointment only after it was given to someone else because of politics, and they turned it down. It was after he left the patent office, not only because of his science but politics, that he had the position to publish his Relativity paper which is the one relevant to this discussion.

All these men worked hard to get their ideas heard. They politicked. It was the adversity in their lives, great character, and willingness to politick in the scientific community that got their work to the forefront, and eventual acceptance. It part of the job. That was my point.

Stross, himself, brought politics into the discussion with statements like:
“I’m all in favour of advancing the scientific enterprise. But actual space colonisation is another matter entirely,”

And

“Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive.”

If colonization is not something that can be done strictly for its scientific value, and should be put into an economic/socially relevant context, then what else could it be other than a political issue since, I think we will all agree, for one person, or a small group of people this sort of undertaking would not be feasible. Possible, yes, but not likely.

I was referring to the politics in general as the:

“power relationships in specific field: the interrelationships between the people, groups, or organizations in a particular area of life especially insofar as they involve power and influence or conflict” Encarta

And, no I don’t think they have the same political agendas, or motives. They just happen to be involved in relatively similar situations.

I’ll concede somewhat on Copernicus’ proof being wholly mathematical, but its foundation was based in mathematics, namely geometry; and, Kepler, in his 3rd Law (P²=a³), did use math as part of his proof.

I will not concede, however, that the “creationists,” have not been of some help the scientific community. They have just not in the way that they had hoped. Their radically idiotic and outright dismissal of evolution has only made people, both in and out of the scientific community look at the work with more scrutiny. As a result, the existing proof for evolution is itself evolving and getting stronger. I will, however, concede that my assessment of their benefit is a more positive one than most others would grant them. But hey, I like to look at the glass as half full. That’s just me.

As for the complacency deal, I’ll agree to disagree with you on that one, and not go into it since you’re out of steam, and I’m sure everybody else is probably tired of hearing about it too.

I agree that the phrase “spirit of the age” is literary in a sense, but not altogether pure puffery. There are prevailing trends in the different areas of thought that do somewhat, loosely I’ll agree, define certain times in history.

Going back to the feasibility issue, I agree that this subject is something to be dealt with more in the future. However, I think that an assessment of the feasibility of the enterprise should entail the technical, scientific and political aspects of surrounding it.

Re: 105 (clew)

I’m flattered that you thought it to, at least, be shiny, and appealing.

Re: 108 (Rigel Kent)

Cool, does this mean I’m famous now?

I’m reasonably intelligent, I’m completely ignorant, and I’m listening instead of talking. :)

And your saying that our past belief in alchemy is irrelevant to our present hopeful beliefs in… whatever… is arguing from hindsight; you’re assuming that you’re smarter, relevant to our society, than Isaac Newton was to his, which is a bad bet.

And finally — you wouldn’t want the gold I made, because of course I made it with a nuclear reactor, and it’s in a chunk of radioactive mostly-lead. Literal success at the alchemical transformation; useless in the real world. That’s how most technological attempts work out. Some of the ones that are useful are so because optimists got lucky; others because pessimists fixed a lot of gaps. See you at the finish-line.

Nothing to be sore about — I didn’t lose.

“Semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.”

Semantics are the difference between a reliable system and one that crashes every other time it runs — if it runs at all. So I’ll see you a scoundrel and raise you to a boob. (To make an even more obscure British intellectual reference.)

“I want you to know Segeante E your concern for my reputation touches me, deeply. Very deeply. So deeply that if you were a priest I’d have to sue.”

Well, I should be offended, but then I’d have to take time out to actually worry about which priests you allow to touch you.

And Sergeante E (or Sergeant E whichever it is),

“He can have it — the only way he’s going to graduate is to copy other people’s work.”

You shouldn’t be such a sore loser, that’s not; well I was about to say that’s not like you, but it is like you, so you go right on being a sore loser.

Oh, and as for your ‘rebuttal’ in #109 to my post in #108, Semantics is the last refuge of a scoundrel. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.

Oh and Sergeante E as for this

“Let me give you some advice, young jedi — you only advertise your own ignorance when you offer opinions about the nature of war and the value of military service. For the sake of your own reputation, please stop, before you make an unfortunate spectacle of yourself.”

I want you to know Segeante E your concern for my reputation touches me, deeply. Very deeply. So deeply that if you were a priest I’d have to sue.

He can have it — the only way he’s going to graduate is to copy other people’s work.