Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by vectorpush on Thursday September 22, 2016 @02:25AM (#12554848)

Hindsight is 20/20. You can look back on many innovations and say that they'd be impossible to imagine in the past, but that doesn't have any bearing on the inherent viability of a given idea. I'm not saying that the Zuck/Chan moonshot isn't a worthwhile endeavor, only that examples of past skepticism prove nothing about what is actually possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by jamesrcole on Thursday September 22, 2016 @05:25AM (#12555597)

> You can look back on many innovations and say that they'd be impossible to imagine in the past

I'd suspect that most innovations would have had plenty of experts and other people saying why they weren't possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by chii on Thursday September 22, 2016 @07:08AM (#12555959)

There are lots of extraordinary claims being made everyday. It's the correct rule of thumb to be as skeptical possible, for there are many more outrageous claims than there are legitimate ones.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100 by jamesrcole on Friday September 23, 2016 @04:25AM (#12563117)

If you're interested in truth you should always be skeptical about everything.

But I think it needs stressing that being skeptical is not the same as being dismissive or ridiculing or having a hostile attitude towards things.

I think that the reason people tend to reject new ideas tends to be more on emotional terms rather than for truly skeptical reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]