If an eminent and senior scientist says it is possible, the claim is almost certainly wrong. And if he/she says it is impossible, the claim is first of all wrong.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/クラークの三法則
- It is difficult to prove that it is impossible, and that “eminent and senior scientists” who assert that it is “impossible” are not worthy of trust because they are no longer in a proper state of mind, even though as scientists we should not assert anything uncertain.
Created a derivative form 2021-07-04
If an eminent, older scientist says that a tool used by a young person is beneficial, the claim is almost certainly wrong. And if he/she says it is futile, the claim is first of all wrong. This is also indicated by the similar “Asymmetry of proof difficulty”.
It is difficult to prove that a tool is beneficial to use, whereas it is sufficient to try it out for a bit and get beneficial results, whereas it is difficult to prove that it is futile. If you try it yourself and do not get useful results, it is difficult to discern whether this is because the method is futile or because you are not using it properly. If there is more than one person who uses it because they think it is beneficial, then the hypothesis that “I’m right and they’re all idiots who believe that something is beneficial when it is not” is quite unreasonable. Yet the “eminent and senior scientists” who assert that it is futile are not worthy of trust because they are already no longer in a sane state of mind.
relevance - Why do you assert this?
orthographical variants - Highly respected scientist
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/クラークの第一法則 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.