If we know the task, we know the tool. If we don't know the tool then
all we have is a wish. What room is left for "invention"?

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:24:20 +0100, J Jones wrote:

Mistakes and unintentional outcomes?
====================================
Fleming recounted later that the date of his breakthrough was on the
morning of Tuesday, September 28, 1928[2]. At his laboratory in the
basement of St. Mary's Hospital in London (now part of Imperial College),
Fleming noticed a halo of inhibition of bacterial growth around a
contaminant blue-green mold Staphylococcus plate culture. Fleming
concluded that the mold was releasing a substance that was inhibiting
bacterial growth and lysing the bacteria. He grew a pure culture of the
mold and discovered that it was a Penicillium mold, now known to be
Penicillium notatum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin
=======================================

J Jones wrote:

Well to use your own stream of reason, it would be knowing the task.
What is it that craves invention? Have need, satisfy need.

There again, sometimes invention isn't so causal. You might discover
the tool and then look for an applicable task. Have tool, create market.

To this end there is discovery by design, in pursuit of some or other
goal. There is of course discoveries by chance. You might purposely
pursue the idea of 'chance' as a means to discover. Its not the path
of choice taken by science, even so imagine throwing as many variables
as you knew, up in the air just to see how they fall.

You would then have the task of understanding random, or determining
useful from not. Its as good a way to genuine discovery as the trusted
incremental approach.

There is something here on recognizing how we are deceived by illusions,
and making the same leap to see what as yet to be seen.

On Apr 13, 5:24 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

I disagree.

About the task of curing Aids. Would you say we know that task? We
certainly don't know the tool.

On Apr 13, 3:24 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

The "drunk man walking" theory of [disovery] invention. Invention is
really just discovery of what is possible in our universe, right, onto
the drunkard school of tool discovery and usage in gutterology;

DAVID GERGEN: You used an analogy, which I found quite helpful to me,
in thinking about the randomness of it all. You talked about the drunk
coming out of a bar and staggering. Could you--

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:24:20 +0100, J Jones aol.com>
wrote:

There are tasks that have not had tools invented for them yet...

On Apr 14, 3:09 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

So would you call the action that turns a wish into a task? Lets say
someone discovers a means to cure Aids tomorrow how did they turn tat
wish into the tool?

MichaelNJ@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 16, 2:51 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:

MichaelNJ@gmail.com wrote:

No I say. I think this is a strong response:

If AIDS is understood, then the tool is given. Otherwise a 'cure' for
AIDS is merely a haphazard, fortuituous outcome of a wish - that outcome
is called 'luck'.

It is a vanity to call what we do not achieve through knowledge 'a cure'
- it's simply luck.