Slashdot Mirror
Nine Crazy Ideas in Science
Here's the deck of nine ideas under consideration:
- More Guns Mean Less Crime
- AIDS is Not Caused by HIV
- Sun Exposure is Beneficial
- Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are Beneficial
- The Solar System Has Two Suns
- Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic Origins
- Time Travel is Possible
- Faster-than-Light Particles Exist
- There Was No Big Bang
So in this review I'm going to give you generalities first, and bury "the butler did it" type information after a SPOILER warning.
One of the problems with the execution of this work is that you can pretty often tell when Ehrlich is enthusiastic about an idea just from his general tone as he writes about it... and conversely, in retrospect I think I should've been able to spot when he disagreed with, because the writing in those chapters was a little confusing.
Part of his schtick is that at the end of each chapter he rates the idea on a scale of 0 to 4 "cuckoos". Oddly enough I often find that I strongly disagree with his cuckoo ratings even just based on the evidence that he presents. But the absolute magnitude of my disagreements are typically no more than a single "cuckoo".
I was worried about some of his evaluation criteria (see the introduction available on-line as a sample chapter), because he includes several points that strike me as fairly dicey: "Who proposed the idea?"; "How attached is the proposer to the idea?" and "Does the proposer have an agenda?" These all relate to judging the person rather than the idea itself. (Consider that "consider the source" and "ad hominem argument" are pretty much the same as far as logic goes.) But he does clearly understand that these are just rules of thumb, and I note with some amusement that he doesn't resort to these particular rules anywhere in the later chapters. He's more interested in the logic of the arguments, which is as it should be.
I could bring up lots of quibbles (and I probably will after the spoiler warning), but overall I found this to be a great breezy read. I learned quite a bit from it. While nothing here made me do a reversal of my beliefs, I was often surprised that the evidence for something was stronger or weaker than I'd supposed.
Here we have an educated, astute, person doing a relatively independent review of some controversial, interesting technical subjects. Why aren't there more books like this?
Ah, but at least there's one more! I see that a sequel has just come out: Eight Preposterous Propositions: From the Genetics of Homosexuality to the Benefits of Global Warming . I bet I'll be submitting a review on that one shortly ...
Anyway, now into the nitty gritty. Here's your SPOILER WARNING. Skip the following if you want to play the "guess where he's going" game with this book. Let's take it chapter by chapter:
More Guns Mean Less CrimeI'm a "right to bear arms" kind of guy myself, and I was surprised that the data doesn't seem to support private ownership of guns as a crime deterrent. Ehrlich argues persuasively that the statistical evidence for this is very weak. I appreciate the fact that Ehrlich concludes that both the pro and anti gun sides are nuts: he rates them 3 and 2 "cuckoos" respectively, where a 3 is "almost certainly not true" and 2 is "very likely not true."
But here, we come to my first strong disagreement with him. If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself.
AIDS is Not Caused by HIVI've had the impression that the the Duesberg hypothesis was pretty screwy, but I was willing to tentatively consider it might have something of value. For example, what about the possibility that multiple diseases are now being diagnosed incorrectly as one single syndrome "HIV"?
But Ehrlich's analysis satisfies me that there's not much of scientific value in Duesberg's ideas at all. I don't argue with his 3 cuckoo rating (but I wouldn't blame you if you thought it deserved the full 4).
Sun Exposure is BeneficialEhrlich concludes that this looks fairly plausible, and gives it a 0 cuckoo rating, pretty much as I would have expected. Many people might find this surprising though, certainly the popular impression these days seems to be that sunlight is deadly.
Low Doses of Nuclear Radiation Are BeneficialHere, Ehrlich lays out the case for "radiation hormesis", and I really don't think this is that fantastic a notion (the difference between a poison and a medicine is often a matter of dosage, why wouldn't this be true of radiation?). But radiation is so demonized in the popular imagination that "radiation is good for you" comes off an insane joke. Ehrlich takes it seriously, and essentially concludes that while there are reasons for suspecting that this effect exists, it hasn't been entirely established. And here we have one of my quibbles: he awards it 1 cuckoo, which translates to "probably not true, but who knows". But there is no reason for saying it's probably not true. If something is not crazy, just not established, I would be inclined to award it "0 cuckoos," aka "Why not?"
The Solar System Has Two SunsThis is the "Nemesis" hypothesis, which it will probably come as no surprise is rated at 2 cuckoos. The short version of the story: originally they looked at part of the extinction record, and it looked like there was a definite cycle. But if you look at the whole record it doesn't seem to be there.
Oil, Coal, and Gas Have Abiogenic OriginsThis is subject that's been of some interest to me, ever since I heard Thomas Gold give a talk on this idea about a decade ago. It turns out that this is now looking much less like "an intriguing possibility" and much more like a truth awaiting a few funerals before it will be declared established. The odds are good that "fossil fuels" don't actually come from fossils, rather they're from hydrocarbons that pre-existed the formation of the earth, which means we're probably not going to run out of them. (So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but maybe he should have invented a "-1 cuckoo" for this one.
Time Travel is Possible2 cuckoos: no surprises.
Faster-than-Light Particles ExistEhrlich mentions in his introduction in the interests of "full disclosure" that he's actually strongly attached to one of the ideas discussed here (the existence of tachyons), but by the time I'd gotten to that chapter I'd entirely forgotten about this, and I was disappointed to realize that he was being an advocate, not an independent reviewer (it includes a picture of him wearing a "no tardy-centrism" T-shirt).
Ehrlich rates this at 0 cuckoos, but come on. Even just based on the write-up he presents, it's a clear 1 cuckoo.
There Was No Big BangClocks in at 3 cuckoos, as you might expect.
You can purchase Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
When it was first thought of, the theory of relativity was just a 'crazy idea'.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
VeryGeekyBooks has more reviews of this book.
1. Duplicates are a thing of the past
2. Editors will stop rejecting relevant stories that aren't theoretical (ie overheated Teflon causes flu-like symptoms for 2 days)
3. Spelling errors will become a thing of the past on the front page
4. Trolls will be stopped
5. Reviews about books written over a year ago won't appear on the frontpage
where apes evolved from men?
I mod this post "-1, Cuckoo".
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
The biggest test of intelligent design would be the number of other life forms/civilizations in the known universe. If besides us it's close to none, we're probably just random chance CA's running forever. If it's exactly none, we're almost definately put here for a reason. Of course the evidence for either of these two is still inconclusive...
...atomic power should be a consumer product. Many people would rate this as a 4 cuckoo because of the "danger" of terrorists developing a nuclear weapon. The truth is that atomic power is exceedingly easy, safe, and clean to produce and should be a zero cuckoo idea. Don't think that they'd completely rid us of batteries tho. In order to power your car with a RadioIsotope Generator (non-fission), you'd need hundreds of pounds of plutonium. However, if combined with batteries, you could reduce the amount of plutonium significantly, and have an auto-recharging electric car. Sure, it means a few more pit stops on long trips, but you NEVER have to refuel!
A great site on atomic energy is:
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AEI_Topics.html
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
(So that means we can ignore those environmental wackos, right? Nope: imagine what happens to the atmosphere if we keep ramping up the rate at which we burn this stuff.)
Well, yes it still does mean we can ignore them as CO2 absorbtion by sea water covers the excess not "eaten" by plants. SO2 gets washed away, but it can be a localized problem, like was in Copper Hill, TN and other places where intense smelting was conducted.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Slashdot: nearly 700,000 cuckoos.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I'm not a geologist, but I was under the impression that fossils are regularly found in coal, and that we've observed the intermediate steps of its formation from peat bogs.
"Intelligent Design" is neither a particularly new theory, nor a particularly compelling one.
The chances of all of those variables being "perfectly tuned" to allow human life to evolve are certainly small, but are only statistically interesting if you presume that human life was some sort of universal "goal" from the outset. At that point, arguing for Inetlligent Design is just question begging.
Intelligent Design is just the latest attempts of the creationists to pretend they are scientists. It suffers from the same flaw as other such "theories" -- it presumes that which it seeks to prove. In a nutshell, their argument is that life is too complicated to have arisen from a random process, so must have been created by some intelligence. In other words, we can't explain it, so it must be god.
Re guns: If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side?
Because (like the vast majority of such things) the pro- and anti- positions are themselves asymmetric -- the anto-gun position is not a simple negation of the pro-gun one, similarly the pro-life position is not a simple negation of the pro-choice one.
It's something quite a few studies like this one suffer from, too many fall foul of the same few logical fallacies.
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'm not convinced any hypothetical "design" at work is all that intelligent to begin with. Nature is not without flaws, and lots of them. We just accept it as normal because we don't know any different.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Intelligent design should be 3 or 4 cuckoos, because for every argument that exists in favor of ID, there's a better argument that shows why that argument is a fallacy.
For example, the argument you gave about the extremely unlikely odds that we would be here is trivial to refute. ANY event that happens is dependent on an extremely unlikely chain of events. Any little shift in that chain, and poof, the entire thing is completely different. For example, a big lotto win for Bob XXX in Des Moines is an extremely unlikely event. The odds against it are unimaginable, and any little change would have made Bob XXX lose the lottery. Even a little molecular sized disturbance in the airflow propelling those little balls would have done it. Nevertheless, people win the lottery almost every week. They beat the unimaginable odds.
After Bob XXX won the lottery, would Bob be justified in thinking that he won the lottery due to intelligent design? No, because if he didn't win the lottery, either someone else would have won, or nobody would have won. When he looks back at his lottery win, it's hard for him to see that *all* the possibilities were equally unlikely to happen, but one of those possibilities *must* happen.
When you add up the probabilities of every extremely unlikely event, you always come out to exactly 1.
Please, present more arguments, and I will present the superior counter-argument. Intelligent design is very interesting to think about, and studying it can be an instructive act in itself.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
"Dogs Flew Space Ships!"
"The Aztecs Invented The Vacation!"
"Men And Women Are The Same Sex!"
"Our Forefathers Took Drugs!"
"Your Brain Is Not The Boss!"
Yes, That's Right, Folks.....
"Everything You Know Is Wrong!"
Well duh, that is one way our body makes vitamin D, if I remember correctly. It is the amount of exposure that matters. Speaking of sun exposure, my favorite university memory of walking across the medical school campus was the cluster of smokers puffing away and sunbathers roasting right next to the Cancer Research and Treatment Center sign. One of these days I have got to take a picture of that.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
It depends on what you accept as "evidence." For instance, the major reason some people oppose the Big Bang theory is because it goes hand-in-hand with evolution, and necessitates a univers billions of years old. Since this "goes against the Bible," both the Big Bang and Evolution are considered false.
If this is your evidence, then yes, you are cuckoo.
However, if you have compelling, or even rational, evidence to the contrary, please let us know.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There is no greater proof that science has won the Evolution VS. Creationism argument than the "Intelligent Design" theory. The religious right knows that they cannot win with a "faith based" argument in this day and age, so they've resorted to rhetorical jujitsu and created "Intelligent Design" theory. (Intelligence Design summary : the world is so gosh darn complex that SOME higher power must have created it, right?).
...to Maryland Governer Robert Ehrlich (http://www.gov.state.md.us/).
would you ever see such a quote:
"But the absolute magnitude of my disagreements are typically no more than a single "cuckoo"."
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
You ever play Civilization with no other nations? Pretty boring.
One theory proven and thounsands of nuts are forever vindicated! ;-)
Quack, quack.
Most scientist will assume the ideal situation and assume that colleagues are playing fairly. Therefore, the system is fairly easy to game, for at least a little while. All it takes is a small group of 'scientist' with an agenda. This usually involves some idea that they really want to be 'true'. These characters only need to selectively choose demonstrations and filter data in such a way that their 'truth' is shown to result from the data. Of course real science has great difficulty defending against such attacks because, as in all things, playing by the rules to discover truth is vastly more difficult than just asserting something is true and then picking the few examples that support the position. Even when no malice is involved, such fictions have taken years to disprove.
In the case of softer sciences, or even the harder sciences where duplicating of demonstrations are really difficult, the credibility of the person is critical. The ease by which such sciences are gamed is the reason why we have so much confusion over a variety of social issues, even though the basic consensus is amazingly clear. OTOH, consensus can be wrong, which is why science uses resources to look at all sides of the issue
As an aside, the physicists, and really scientists in general, I know are extremely open minded. They just get jaded after a while due to the number of malcontents that abuse science to promote personal doctrine. To a trained and logical mind, the rhetoric some of these idiots spout is really equivalent to just throwing throwing feces everywhere.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
John Baez's Crackpot Index is a great way to quantify your ad hominem atacks in physics. http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
The Crackpot Index A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics: A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comp
Yes, this definitely makes you a cuckoo. Not only was there a big band, but there have been, and continue to be, many, many big bands.
This post is so reflective of the circuitous arguments that are often used to justify Intelligent Design.
There is no respect to ID given by the scientific community. I don't know where you get those numbers 26 and 66 on the number of variables needed for "our existence".
You 3rd paragraph is a bunch of nonsense strewned with enough difficult words to make it sound important but actually contain no information.
Finally, I think I've just fed a Troll.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
It has been readjusted (I take it you're speaking of the general version) multiple times, not the least because of quantum theory and Feynman.
As for the reviewer agreeing that "there was no big bang" is absolutely kooky, and deserves a full set of birds, I beg to disagree. If you read up on Stephen Hawking's works, you'll see that there's multiple possible alternatives to a Big Bang -- at least a Big Bang originating from a singularity. String theorists have also lent credulence to this, where a 10- or 26-dimensional universe doesn't necessarily have to have gone through a Big Bang, nor will it ever have to go through a Gnab Gib or infinite expansion.
In short, the hon. author and reviewer have managed to call Stephen Hawking and many other leading scientists cuckoos, without being able to refute what they said -- probably because they never read it.
Regards,
--
*Art
Five cuckoos.
From the original Slashdot article:
Science is a human endeavor. It's conducted by humans. Science is a process, however, and that process is defined in such a way that it doesn't matter which humans conduct it.
Perhaps with homeopathy and other forms of medical quackery coming as a close second, "creation" "science" is the canonical example of why "Does the proposer have an agenda" and "How attached is the proposer to the idea" are important questions you have to ask yourself when evaluating a theory.
The scientific method is independent of humanity. Any sentient being is capable of doing science. But to the best of our knowledge, the only sentient beings that are performing science are humans. We know from observation that humans are fallible. Humans let their emotions get in the way of the facts. When a human is very attached to a theory, and even more so when a human has an agenda that can be advanced by promulgation of that theory, it's not guaranteed, but it's highly more probable, that the human will depart from the scientific method in an effort to cling to a theory that's been repudiated.
One of many links: A Bullshit Detection Guide
Creation "science" fails on: 1A: Manipulative buzzwords - "Intelligent"? "Design"? :)
1C: Audience the BS appeals to: Self-explanatory here
1E: Underdog appeal: "Just the little ol' Christians fighting the hordes of Godless Atheistic Communistic Scientists that Run the Schools"
1F: Requires A Negative View of Authority: As above. Evolution is part of the Grand Conspiracy to Keep The Christians Down.
2B-1: A small group of "experts" pretending to own the field
2B-2: Experts beyond their field of expertise.
2B-3: False claims of objectivity. It used to be called Creation Science, then it got renamed to Intelligent Design. Wonder what it'll be called next week when the scam is exposed?
2E: Blizzard of Numbers - the Creation "scientist" to whom I'm responding is the case in point: "26 variables? 66 variables? Does he really know enough about physics, cosmology, and biology to be sure it's not 27, or 65? Does anyone?!?!
Intelligent Design: Pegs the BS Detector. Five cuckoos.
ID is a nice belief system if you're already a creationist who accepts on faith that the Universe was created by the God of Genesis (optional: 6,000 years ago in a week), but it's not science.
For the record, I'm not bashing Christians here. Frankly, I see zero inconsistency between Genesis and our presently-understood notions of cosmology. Take a guy from 4000 BC and show him a PBS documentary on current theories of cosmology, and ask him to write what he saw. You're likely to get something like "Umm, I saw this vision with moving pictures about how the universe came to be. So, like, first there was nothin'. No time, no space, zilch. Then Something Happened, a couple of branes smacked into each other and nobody knows quite what that means yet. But that was the start of our universe. Then they said something about electromagnetic force breaking symmetry with the weak force, which I couldn't understand, and there was light, which I could understand. Then it cooled enough that the mean free path of a photon got pretty long, and I didn't know what that meant, but that was when it b
I think the non-fossil origins of oil and other subterranean hydrocarbons is just about a lock. Of course, I'm not any sort of chemist or geologist, but the idea that only biological processes can produce hydrocarbons has been in trouble ever since we found out Titan has a methane atmsophere (aka "Natural Gas").
When you consider how much biomatter would have to have been tied up in swamps and then covered in just the right ways and held at just the right pressures and temperatures to produce the amount of oil and coal we've already pulled out of the ground, and how inefficient that process would have to have been, the "fossil" explanation becomes pretty unlikely. When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much, then someone noticed plant leaves and bark patterns in some lumps of coal and everyone said "Oh, that must have been it." (HINT: Petrified forests weren't grown by stone trees)
Cook's theory isn't really "abiogenic", BTW. The only abiogenic "fossil fuel" under his theory would be plain methane. Rather, he believes that methane left over from planet formation is steadily separating out, and somewhere in the mantle (around 10-30 kilometers subsurface) a bacterial ecosystem based on sulfides and methane is forming it into complex hydrocarbons. Given that we already know of sulfide-based, high-temperature ecosystems in the deep ocean thermal vents, it's really not much a stretch anymore.
By that theory, the oil-richness of the Middle East becomes inter-related with the East African Rift (both being the consequence of a deep upwelling of methane-rich rock). But we're going to have to wait for those funerals before it will be acceptable for a petro-geologist to admit they have been back-asswards about it for the last century. The "Appropriate Technology" bunch is going to have a screaming fit, as well.
--Dave
*sigh*
Even secular science is constantly questioning "The Big Bang". For example, M-Theory (modern string theory) postulates that the Universe could have been born of a collision with another M-Brane (i.e. Universe). Such a collision could produce more than enough stress on space-time to produce the matter and energy in our universe. Thus the inception of our universe was less of a "bang" and more of a "splat".
Personally, I think that's one of the best theories I've heard to date. The only problem is that until we can find some unique properties of M-Theory that allows us to develop proofs, we can't prove that the Universe started in that fashion. (Similarly, the traditional laws of physics break down in the "Big Bang" concept.) On the other hand, if the M-Brane theory is correct, our Universe could be destroyed far sooner than we expected. A single collision from another M-Brane would completely reorder all the material and energy currently in existence. Not a pretty thought...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the effects aren't strong enough to measure, why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side?
With an obvious answer. An excellent review! This is really useful information in deciding whether to buy the book. Since I prefer not to pay for biased pseudoscientific drivel, I won't be purchasing the book.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Seriously though, it would have been so much easier if you'd just said "I'm a Creationist" right at the beginning. Then we could have laughed and pointed that much sooner.
Anyone know anything about this two-sun theory? I have never heard of this and it seems rather bizarre to me. I'm disappointed that the review doesn't say what the theory is.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Intellegent Design isn't really all that respected. It's taught in schools because Creationists are very powerful in some parts of this country, and ID is basically Creationism's way of dressing up for the scientists.
Physicists will gladly accept that things do <i>appear</i> unusually tuned to our existance, but many would argue "if the universe wasn't in such a way as to make our existance possible, we wouldn't be here to care." There's a few slightly more formalized ways of dealing with that (quantumly paralell universes, for example) but that's what most of them argue.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
...there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life...
The one problem everybody has with the Standard Model. [whine]It's not preeeeeety![/whine] Yes, it's unsettling when we don't have a reason figured out for fundamental shit like Planck's constant and c, but, much like the incredible mysteriousnessness!!! of both the moon and the earth being almost perfectly spherical, (what are the odds?!) it's not such a leap to presume that maybe, just maybe, there's an explaination out there waiting to be stumbled upon.
Um....if they prexisted the formation of the earth, but they're in the earth now, where would they be coming from that "we're probably not going to run out of them"?? Unless there's some wormhole down there in the bowels of the planet, their origin doesn't affect their finite nature, only the possibility that our estimates of their quantities are wrong.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I think Dire Straits had 7 when they broke up. It gets fuzzy when you think of groups like the 'usa for africa' with about 30 biggish names.
john titor would dissagree with the time travel one.
The Cuckoo rating is entirely irrelevant. Consider the Big Bang Theory. It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
There is no such thing as "formal acceptance" there isn't even really such a thing as the "scientific community". The big bang is generally accepted as the current best theory by the majority of astrophysicists. Does this mean it is true? No, it just means its the theory that fits most consistently that observational and experimental data currently available to us.
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right. With further investigation, ideas are refined, and those that don't fit the observations are rejected.
That's correct and exactly the way it should be. Science is a process, not a collection of laws or facts. You gain knowledge of the way things work by applying the scientific method. That means that the set of best theories is constantly being re-evaluated and changed. That's a key differentiator of science from (for example) dogmatic religions.
But the process takes a long time. For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.So even though I believe that the scientific method has its merits, I recognize the limitations.
As opposed to which system? The limitations of the scientific method are usually limitations of our ability to gather data. We can't attach more certainty to theories like Big Bang or Evolution because we have incomplete data to work from, for obvious reasons. That's not a limitation of the scientific method at all. If your notion of gathering knowledge is not based on the evidence available, then you are in a considerably worse situation that science can give you, incomplete though that may be.
If I had a time machine and could travel to the future, I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past.
While that's certainly a possibility, its much more likely that they will be considered incomplete. Much as Newtonian physics wasn't replaced by relativity, it was just seen as a particular case of relativistic physics at "low" speeds compared with c.
Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
Not really. Would you care to cite these supposed problems, or are you just trying to argue from authority?
Sailing over the event horizon
Where does the article say anything about the second amendment? It is about the correlation between gun ownership and crime rates. Period.
Sheesh.
If there is just one civilization, that just means that it is very hard for a single universe to get the parameters right for life. There is no particular reason to think that only our set of parameters exists. According to Big Bang theory, the number of non-circular dimensions and some nature constants where set early on. But according to the many-worlds (which I would argue is almost certainly more correct than the Copenhagen interpretation) interpretation of quantum physics all the other possible parameters were also tried.
You simply find yourself in a universe well suited for life, because of observational bias (for the same reason that you find yourself on a planet well-suited for life). If it is the case that most sets of paramers will just give a sterile, boring universe, then it would seem very likely that almost every life-bearing universe would have only one civilization.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
I realize you aren't supporting Intelligent Design but there are two counter-points which are standard and obvious but also one SURPRISING AND SCARY INSIGHT to do with Darwinism and human REVERSE-EVOLUTION.
First the counter-points:
1. Who created the intelligent designer?
2. Evolution works because of the survival of the fittest and that DOES make sense.
The insight:
In today's society, EVERYBODY survives and in many cases the successful are NO MORE LIKELY to reproduce than the poor, unwealthy and/or unsuccessful. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that the OPPOSITE is in fact true and that very successful people rarely have large families (though I'll admit this is anecdotal coming from me at this point).
I find this a surprising trend that goes in the face of evolution. If this is true, are we not, as a species, saying that perhaps we will be DEVOLVING?
Hey, given the reputation for nerds to be simply UNABLE to reproduce, maybe we are even dumbing down the species. Slashdot may be extinct in a few generations.
Sunny
Be my Friend
Ooooohhhh... I wish I had mod points for you.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
So, given that objects do move through time (that's why it's called space-time - it's possible to move about any of the axis) the question is, why does one axis (time) seem to be uni-directional (arrow of time problem).
The only people who could argue against this have already assumed room temperature, and I don't hear them saying much.
Great idea. Clearly there is not the slightest danger in placing highly radioactive material in the hands of every single car owner on the road. The average citizen is so intelligent, thoughtful, and environmentally conscious, there would be not even be any waste problem. No person on the entire planet would ever do something stupid like disposing of a car improperly. Even if they did, it's really easy to clean heavy metals out of groundwater. ::eyeroll::
The real problem isn't with terrorists. It's with everyday morons, who are less predictable, more randomly destructive, and far more common.
A curious teenager once seriously contaminated most of his neighborhood, just with the insides of a bunch of smoke detectors. Consider what would happen if someone just as curious, but even stupider, started playing with a few pounds of plutonium. It's not a pretty thought.
Actually "Intelligent Design" is another in the series of attempts by creationists and atheistic anti-evolutionists, to attempt to return science to schools...
the mantra from the evolutionists that "you propose a god and therefore cannot be scientific" has been answered...
and now for my favorite quote(greatly paraphrased) "In the beginning, nothing exploded and became something... and over billions of years the nothing congealed... into suns and planets... and it rained on the rocks and made soup...and the soup came alive and here we are..."
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Wouldn't it be more like playing Master of Orion without any other races?
Heh I don't think anything as ever really been proven right. Other than the ol' "I exist" clause. But even that's questionable in some circles.
- shazow
Unlike you, most people find that site to contain very useful content.
I personnally find the hypothesis that the energy of the Zero Point field is the substance of God more plausible than "Intelligent Design".
Maybe we deserve this world ?
In special relativity, faster than light travel (FTL) implies time travel quite directly.
So to treat the two subjects as being significantly different means to be working in a theory other than relativity.
Special Relativity (SR) is nice and simple but fairly limited in scope, but agrees extremely well with experiments within that scope.
Its extension to cover gravity, General Relativity (GR) is extremely elegant, and also agrees well with experimental observations, but is not integrated with the rest of the infrastructure of fundamental physics (quantum physics, quantum electrodynamics, the Standard Model...)
So general relativity may eventually become obsolete, even though currently it's currently a great theory, and whatever replaces it may modify special relativity too. So this isn't some kind of absolute statement.
Still, in the absence of a theory that is trying to supplant relativity, FTL implies time travel. Presumably the author of the book knows this, despite listing FTL and time travel as two different subjects.
For more info see these two sections of the relativity FAQ: relativity: time travel and relativity: FTL , hosted by and partly written by John Baez, a quantum gravity researcher with impeccable physics background (I've done some online study under him; he's also a fantastic teacher).
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Well, since evolutionary theory is less than 200 years old vs creation theory which is at least 4000 years old... I propose that we give it more time... If evolution is right then it will prevail regardless of resistance and if it is wrong it will fail under its own weight.
it took quite some time for a complete understanding of gravity and the size/shape of the earth to be solidified... so let's give origin science the same chances...
and of course, both theories adequately and accurately explain biology as we know and understand it today... and since we can't know with certainty that the earth/universe is more than ~10K years old... let's wait on more evidence...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Calling "Intelligent Design" a respected theory for the creation of the universe is like calling "just hucking the ball down the lane without looking" a respected theory for bowling.
If you ignore any of the important aspects of evolution that actually help us in other fields of biology, and only look at evolution as a means to the end of explaining what we're doing here, then yes, ID is great. So's strict creationism. So's scientology, for that matter. All of them offer a nice story to go along with the pure science of creature a becomes creature b, etc.
But the point of evolution is not to explain a possibility of why we're here. That will always be a function of philosophies like ID and creationism in general. ID doesn't prove anything, so as a scientific model of the universe it's pretty useless. The purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain how we got here, and where we're going based on that. It doesn't matter if the process of evolution was initiated by a natural series of events or an intelligent system, because the end result is the same. In other words, it doesn't matter if we were DESIGNED to be here, or if we're a complete fluke of a completely random system. Improbability is not impossibility: the fact that we are here proves that we can be here, and any arguments about how unlikely a coincidence our existance just make for pleasant conversation.
ID is simply an effort to explain away what we don't know yet by attributing it to a spiritual entity. It's trying to find a place for God in a gradually decreasing window of the unknown. As a materialist, I feel that this is dangerous thinking. I'd rather find the underlying cause and study it than write it off as the hand of God. After all, just because you know how a process works doesn't make it any more miraculous. You know how babies are made, right? Still impress you? It impresses the shit out of me.
As for free will, you're once again talking about a philosophical issue. There's no way science can prove "free will" without first asserting what can or can not be attributed to it.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
For all it's problems, the theory of evolution has one important thing going for it, that is a lack of alternative scientific theories. In fact I can't think of a single competing theory. Are there any out there that I haven't heard about?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The right to bear arms is not granted. Rights aren't granted or taken away, they are inherent. The constitution only recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right of the people.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Of course time travel is possible. I'm doing it right now. Going backwards is still a problem, though.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
It's not possible to derive a meaning from a single species in the universe that's strong enough to deserve the words "definitely put here for a reason". It would be more likely that development of life is very improbable. Please see my other post in this thread for why improbable things don't indicate an intelligent designer.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
Are you refering to darwinian ideals of evolution, or the concept as a whole?
True original darwinism as the sole motivator for the changes in species over time is being challenged, but the concept as a whole - that life came from very simple beginings and has changed/adapted over time is not. The mechanisms involved are what are being challenged - such as the idea that small changes in genotype over time that favor the survival of a particular subset of a species lead to massive changes in the long-view. Fossils for the 'in-between' variants are not being found, hence it is becoming more widly accepted that large leaps are made, and that such large leaps could actualy be triggered by environmental pressure.
However, these new mechanisms being discused and discovered are just that - mechnisms. Evolution as Darwin envisioned it may be being disproven, but the idea that life evolves over time is not.
If, instead of refering to darwinian evolution, you are refering to evolution as a whole - then you are seriously mistaken. There is no creationist or other theory of life that is being pushed ahead of evolution by scientists. The logical and statistical problems you mention are about the problems with darwinian evolution and its mechanisms.
man is machine
- There are observed objects older than the suggested 10-15 billion years ago that big bang happened, including Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy
- Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years
- our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape
- There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.
Read up a little before you laugh and pointSaying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
"nothing" exploded and "soup" came alive? Read a freaking book before you bash a theory you don't understand.
The most intriguing explanation for the Big Bang I've seen recently come from String theory.
The idea is that the Big Bang may have been another universe colliding with our own at a single point in 11-dimension space. The energy of the collision resulting in a huge amount of mass being created.
If this is true, this means that there may be more than one Big Bang (or more in the future). For more on this read the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, or watch tv series at here.
It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
I think you will be very hard pushed to find experts (i.e. cosmologists) who refute the Big Bang theory; indeed, to claim that it hasn't been formally accepted is pretty disingenuous.
Furthermore, the parallels you draw with Galileo's circumstances are flawed. Galileo backed up his heliocentric theory with an appeal to empirical data (such as observations of the satellites of Jupiter). In contrast, those who said "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..." made no effort to offer a similar level of corroborating evidence, relying instead on religious dogma.
Looking now at the Big Bang theory, which camp does it fall into? Is it backed up by empirical data, or is it merely dogma? Well, a Google search for Cosmic Microwave Background, COBE and/or BOOMERANG provides quite a few links indicating that the former scenario is closer to the truth.
I usually find that those claiming the Big Bang to be a transient fad are often of the same ilk as those who called Galileo crazy: adherents to dogma, who are unable to accept empirical evidence when it backs theories which contradict their religious beliefs. While you have made no mention of religion, I find your (unsubstantiaed) criticism of the theory of Evolution to be rather telling.
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right.
Ah, but the wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. When a theory doesn't properly describe the world around us, it is discarded or modified accordingly. Contrast this with, e.g., the Catholic Church: only in the past decade have they agreed that Galileo's heliocentric theory is correct, and that their dogma of an Earth-centred universe has been incorrect (and in disagreement with observations) for around four centuries.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
My, my, what an excellent representation of a pop-scientist, rather than an actual one. An actual scientist uses evidence to prove or disprove theories, and doesn't hold on to a theory just because he wants to, even though the evidence is against it.
Just because someone doesn't believe in the completely unproven Big Band Theory or the ridiculous Theory of Evolution does not make them a Creationist.
Seriously though, it would have been so much easier if you had just said "I'm an idiot" right at the beginning. Then we could have laughed and pointed that much sooner.
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
One clue as to the reliability of any claim is whether the person has any record of expertise in the matter.
A TV actor dressed in a white smock, for example, may not be a reliable source of medical advice.
The Earth and Moon (and Sun, etc) are perfectly spherical because beyond a certain "critical mass" an object's gravity is strong enough to ensure that all points of its surface are equidistant from the center. In other words, beyond a certain mass an object's gravity forces it into the most gravitationally stable shape, a sphere.
Falsifiable: [adj] capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
Creationism is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It's a faith-based story.
Someone find me an oil or coil reservoir outside of a sedimentary basin, and I'll swallow this B.S. That some methane may have abiogenic origin is conceivable, but the natural gas we collect now is clearly primarly biological in origin. Petroleum geologists are not so dumb that they could so seriously wrong about the origins of petroleum.
I understand it, Perhaps it is you who does not understand the argument of reductio ad absurdam.
and since you weren't there, and I wasn't there, and it isn't possible to duplicate the proposed conditions without intelligence.... Or even with intelligence for that matter...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The data on gun ownership alone is not particularly correlated with crime deterrent, but that's conveniently ignoring the data on concealed carry licenses published by John Lott, not-coincidentally in a book called "More Guns Less Crime"
His data showed a consistent and predictable decline in violent crime after the passage of concealed carry laws. Furthermore his data shows that violent crime was exchanged for crimes where there was less risk of meeting a person during commision (car theft, etc). Both of these are consistent with basic economic hypotheses (ie. greater risk costs means less people participate)
Of course when it comes to criminals evaluating their risks, it doesn't matter how many people have guns locked in cabinets at home, it matters how many people MIGHT have them hidden under their jacket.
John Lott: More Guns Less Crime
Kleck and Kates: Armed, new perspectives on gun control.
are the two most important available books that use logic and statistics to examine how firearms affect crime.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
And what of those who STILL believe the Earth is the center?
Science isn't perfect -- in fact, it is often ugly. Ideas are often given weights out of proportion to their relative merits. Eventually, however, most good theories get a good hearing. In fact, part of the process is precisely what you find most unsettling -- that the process takes a long time. That "liimitation" keeps us from flailing out of control at the first whiff of a sexy idea with as much scientific merit as the latest Creed CD (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Cold Fusion!)
Given the two choices, I'd rather muddle through with the scientific method than blindly follow millenia-old scratchings found in a desert. Especially when those demanding that following add an OR ELSE to the equation.
P.S. Most of us in astronomy are quite happy with the Big Bang Theory, especially as it explains almost all of the observations. Occam's Razor and all that.
Bemopolis
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Hmm, nows the time to plug an upcoming book from James P. Hogan. It WAS going to be called Truth Under Tyranny
Major headings from the Table of Contents: .
ONE
HUMANISTIC RELIGION
The Rush To Embrace Darwinism
SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND LOGIC
DARWINISM AND THE NEW ORDER
A CULTURAL MONOPOLY
ROCKS OF AGES -- THE FOSSIL RECORD
ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, AND ITS OPPOSITE: NATURAL
SELECTION
THE ORIGIN OF ORIGINALITY? GENETICS AND MUTATION
LIFE AS INFORMATION PROCESSING
INTELLIGENCE AT WORK? THE CRUX OF IT ALL
TWO
OF BANGS AND BRAIDS
Cosmology's Mathematical Abstractions
MATHEMATICAL WORLDS -- AND THIS OTHER ONE
COSMOLOGIES AS MIRRORS
MATTERS OF GRAVITY: RELATIVITY'S UNIVERSES
AFTER THE BOMB: THE BIRTH OF THE BANG
THE PLASMA UNIVERSE
OTHER WAYS OF MAKING LIGHT ELEMENTS . .
AND OF PRODUCING EXPANSION
REDSHIFT WITHOUT EXPANSION AT ALL
THE ULTIMATE HERESY: QUESTIONING THE HUBBLE LAW
THE GOD OF THE MODERN CREATION MYTH
THREE
DRIFTING IN THE ETHER
Did Relativity Take A Wrong Turn?
SOME BASICS
EXTENDING CLASSICAL RELATIVITY
THE NEW RELATIVITY
DISSIDENT VIEWPOINTS
THE FAMOUS FASTER-THAN-LIGHT QUESTION
FOUR
CATASTROPHE OF ETHICS
The Case For Taking Velikovsky Seriously
EARLY WORK: THE MAKINGS OF AN ICONOCLAST
WORLDS IN COLLISION
SCIENCE IN CONVULSION: THE REACTIONS
TESTIMONY FROM THE ROCKS: EARTH IN UPHEAVAL
ORTHODOXY IN CONFUSION
SLAYING THE MONSTER. THE AAAS VELIKOVSKY
SYMPOSIUM, 1974 AFTER THE INQUISITION: THE PARALLEL UNIVERSE
FIVE
ENVIRONMENTALIST FANTASIES
Politics And Ideology Masquerading As Science
GARBAGE IN, GOSPEL OUT: Computer Games and
Global Warming
HOLES IN THE OZONE LOGIC. But Timely For Some
SAVING THE MOSQUITOES: The War On DDT
"VITAMIN R": RADIATION GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH
RIP-OUT RIP-OFF: THE ASBESTOS RACKET
SIX
CLOSING RANKS
AIDS Heresy In The Viricentric Universe
AN INDUSTRY OUT OF WORK
SCIENCE BY PRESS CONFERENCE
AN EPIDEMIC OF AIDS TESTING
"SIDE EFFECTS" JUST LIKE AIDS: THE MIRACLE DRUGS
A VIRUS FIXATION
The correct link is http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4855/bs.htm
;
the page is titled "A BullSh-- detection Guide"
so I hadn't found it in a google search, either
(usually my first line of defense for bad
URLs)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Surely he could have found one or two to fit the high end of the scale.
How about crop circles by electromagnetic fields?
Trust me, you can't reason with the pro crop circle camp, I've debated with them over at Space.com
Some other over looked -- way out ideas.
No Anti-Gravity Speculation?
The Anti-Gravity by Spinning Super-Conductor: Seems to be clocking in at 3 cuckoos by my estimate
However
Gravity Wave Detection and coupling to Electromagnetic Fields: a 1 cuckoo currently, but could go higher or lower in the
near future with new experiments.
Multiple Universes: I'd give this a zero, but experimental confirmation is going to be a real bitch.
Dark Mater: a zero cuckoo for sure, but we haven't really seen the damn stuff yet.
Brane Collision origin of the universe: 1 to 2 cuckoos, but could gain respectability. Less violent than Big Bang, less
inflation, but still an abrupt origin in the 10-20 Billion Year range.
String Theory: a zero cuckoo. It's hard to bet against a theory that just keeps changing, refining, and redefining itself.
In the end String Theory will probably be the GUT, but by then will probably have no strings
Underlining process to Universe are computational: Main premis to Stephen Wolfram's "New Kind of Science." I like Stephen, and even use to work for him, but he has a long way to go before being able to claim a truly "New Kind of Science." I'd say 1 cuckoo.
Cold Fusion: I'd give it 2 cuckoos (these guys just won't go away)
Homeopathic Medicine: I'd give this one a 5 on the 4 cuckoo scale.
MOND Modified Newtonian Dynamics: 1 cuckoo probably, but could really upset the apple cart in physics. Has even had write ups in Scientific American
see
Where's the Dark Matter?
These are just a few off the top of my head, I look forward to seeing some other Slashdotters lists.
Letter To Iran
This shouldn't have been modded down to -1 Flamebait.
I disagree with Intelliegent Design, but this person brought up something that he considers interesting, and I think the discussion about it is also interesting.
Slashdot has no moderation for ideas that are wrong, or those that you don't agree with. And this certainly wasn't a flamebait.
Will someone please mod this UP with the interesting mod? It may be wrong, but IMHO, it should be at about a +3 Interesting.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Do you? Because "singularity" =/= "nothing." If anything, it's more like "everything." Oh, and while you're reading up on cosmology and evolutionary theory, you may as well grab a book on Latin as well. It'll point out the wonderful uses of the accusative case, such as accusative of place to which, as in "reductio as absurdum."
Dogged resistance to Copernican theory was cultural, based as it was on religious ideas about our central role in the universe. To suggest that the earth-centered universe lasted for 2,000 years despite the scientific method, to use it as an example of the flaws of the scientific method... that's darned rich foolishness, friend. You use the example of Galileo, but you don't seem to know how the story goes -- or even how it turns out. Or are you willing to say the Heliocentric solar system, too, may go by the wayside in 500 years?
Fast forward to Darwin. You may recognize yourself on one side of the old Copernicus story this time, clinging to an ideology rather than trying to understand the world as clearly as people can make it out. You're also engaged in a truly sloppy, relativistic argument -- seemingly in the service of an absolute truth you'd prefer not to admit to, for fear of scaring people off. Pretty murky territory. Does it worry you to lie in service of that higher truth, at all? It'd make my stomach a little queasy.
As far as your specific objections to evolution go, you don't make any, so I'll just leave you to your Michael Behe, Watch-Watchmaker reading. Might want to try something in a peer review journal sometime. Just a suggestion. (That's assuming you're not a Richard Milton sort of a dork; I wouldn't dream of insulting someone that way...)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This thread seems purposely designed to generate a flamewar. Of that much, I am certain.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wow, you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science," too?
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
scientific community has been wrong more often than right
(followed by)
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
The "scientific community" as we know it didn't even exist 2000 years ago. Blaming science for the mistakes of it's predicessors makes as much sense as blaming Christians for feeding Socrates Hemlock for daring to question the established order of things. It happened before they were even around yet.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I read this tomorrow.. erm yesterday..
Time flies like an arrow...
(with a stopwatch? With tomato ketchup?)
Actually, no theory can ever be proved to be true. Theories can only be proven false. There always may (repeat, may) be conditions that prove the theory false.
I know my latin... I also know my english, and Reductio ad absurdum is correct...
singularity is a theory, and is not scientific because it is not falsifiable...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
or nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
A far more precise synopsis of the situation would sound something like:
"After the Protestant Reformation, a dramatic increast in dogma and religious orthodoxy in the Catholic church prevented scientists from openly discussing, advocating, or debating a heliocentric model. An "immobile" sun contradicted several passages in the Bible (most notably in Joshua). Many scientists, dating back to antiquity, understood the likelyhood of a heliocentric cosmology, but during the early part of the 17th century the Catholic church attempted to supress the theory. The effects on science in Catholic countries lingered for some time."
To throw out:
When Galileo originally proposed a heliocentric model of the Universe, he was criticized for his ideas, because "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..."
is a bit naive. Stillman Drake wrote an excellent piece on Galileo that I recommend. What happened to Galileo hinges more on renaissance politics than the merits of his theory.
He really did get the shaft, but you'd think that somone as intelligent as Galileo, once he -started- going blind that maybe he'd back off staring at the sun? Nope.
-dameron
You're absolutely right, "ad absurdum" is correct latin. Which is unfortunate, because your first post referenced something I've never heard of called a "reductio ad absurdam."
Fossils are also regularly found in other things such as sandstone and volcanic ash. But that doesn't mean the sandstone or volcanic ash are of bilogical origin.
------ "Darn floor. Big bite." (Koko the gorilla's best attempt at explaining the experience of an earthquake.)
Science is always right. It corrects itself when found wrong, thus any "wrong-ness" is merely passing as it gets to the more correct description. First, with regards to "theories". Theories are not insubstantial entities. The term "it's just a theory" is a total misunderstanding about what a theory really is. A total misunderstanding about how strong the evidence must be to support something being termed a "theory" rather than just a hypothesis. Saying something is "just a theory" is not faint praise by any stretch. It is akin to saying something is all but absolutely correct - something (a theory) is just short of a Law.
In any case, you lost any credibility when you lumped "evolution" in with the "Big Bang" as being things that might be found in the future to be myths. Evolution is fact. The ONLY aspect about evolution that falls into "theory" territory is the HOW of evolution, not whether or not it occurs. There is zero, none, nunca question at all in the scientific community about whether evolution occurs. There is no scientific debate on this fact. Evolution simply occurs. There IS legitimate debate and study on HOW it occurs.
The Big Bang is a different kettle of fish. It is supported by a great deal of observational data but...the observational perspective that we are stuck with for a view (for observation) is also compatible with certain non-Big Bang theories. In fact, it will be hard (if not impossible) for the Big Bang to ever be more than a seemingly reasonable theory. Evolutionary theories (the how, not the if) is more in line with something that can take the next step from theory to Law.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Proponents of intelligent design (read: God made it) argue that evolution is "just a theory". What they conveniently forget is that gravity, is also "just a theory" as are many ideas of science. It does not refute the fact of gravity that scientists have proposed a theory of its operation.
Similarly, the theory of evolution does not refute the fact that life on this planet has emerged, evolved and then disappeared leaving other life forms in its place. Confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of its mechanism is a common device among adherents to intelligent design.
Unfortunately, the colloqial use of the word "theory" has diluted its scientific standing. A scientific theory is one that has passed the intense scrutiny of the scientific process, has been accepted by peers in that field, and can be modified and improved through further science.
For a good read on an advocate of HIV != AIDS, go here.
She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
This, of course, is beside the point that we know that singularities exist.
Argue argue argue...but what I want to know is how this utter tripe gets modded up as "insightful."
LOL. Yeah, they'd eventually be able to rip through a lead block. But it's their own damn fault if they get radiation poisoning. Did you know that batteries make a nice BOOM when exposed to a flame? There's GOT to be a good redneck story out there of some idiot who killed himself attempting THAT. Radioactive materials are not that much more dangerous. If they were, the naturally occurring Plutonium, Uranium, Radium, etc. would have killed us all years ago.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
A quick search on Google reveals much:
Tomas Gold has quite a bit of interesting information, including reference to an oil deposit sans sediments.
As an off-topic side note, if this is true then there would possibly be oil on Mars and other planets - a nice kick in the pants for space exploration once we tell George Bush...
If I was worried about Karma, I'd eat tofu.
This isn't so much a comment about the book as about the person who reviewed it here on slashdot and posted the article. The reviewer makes the same mistake repeatedly, of assuming that if an idea hasn't been proven wrong, than it's proponents don't deserve a cukoo rating at all - it should be zero.
No. That's not how it works. When positing the existence of things, or putting forth an explanative theory to describe why things that are there got that way, the burden of proof is always on the positor. Therefore someone who is willing to believe a theory purely because it hasn't been proven wrong DOES deserve at least a little cukoo rating for that.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
and your post referenced something I've never heard of.. reductio as absurdum... So neither of us can type straight...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past. Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
His doubts about the Big Bang theory are a result of his creationist beliefs. Are yours?
It seems to me /. is reporting more and more book reviews lately. Book reviews are merely another means of advertising.
I wonder...does slashdot get paid for reporting book reviews?
The author seems to be a bit cukoo himself... if you look at some of his publications on tachyons (I looked at the one about the electron neutrino being a tachyon), you see that he is more than a little crazy, not to mention has a rather weak grasp on physics. I'm amazed he managed to get it published in Physical Review. For one thing, making the rest mass of a field imaginary does NOT make the corresponding particle travel faster than light; rather, it indicates an instability in the theory, and it means that there are no particle excitations at all. If you want FTL particles, you have to change the sign of the kinetic term, which introduces all sorts of major problems and makes the theory non-unitary.
Sheesh.
For example, (your points 1 and 2) the error margin on the age of the universe is down to 1%, at 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years. That there are objects that appeared to be older than that is due to another recently discovered phenomena, that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. That nowscape.com page you point to is obsolete.
(3) I have heard of the galactic rotation problem, I don't know what (if anything) the concordance model says about it.
(4) The large scale structure depends a lot on the nature of fluctuations in the early universe. Not enough is known about them to say anything, but there is no reason why a structure should take a long time to form just because it is large.
See here for a more recent article on the age of the universe.
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
If so, please explain how you intend to point out the flaw in logic of burgburgburg assuming someone who calls into question the validity of the Big Bang is a creationist.
All great truths begin as blashpemies.
Sure hope that this Robert Ehrlich isn't that shithead rightwing republican suck my ass governor of ours ... If so, he can take his writing and shove it right up his tuition-cutting ass.
Of course, if it's a true science guy, kudo's!
terpmotors.com
"As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..." made no effort to offer a similar level of corroborating evidence, relying instead on religious dogma.
And the fact that the sun appears to rise in the morning and set in the evening. You have to admit that at the time and with out more indepth study the mere path of the sun each day was a pretty strong basis to believe it was rotating the earth. IE. it was more than mere religous dogma.
While you have made no mention of religion, I find your (unsubstantiaed) criticism of the theory of Evolution to be rather telling.
Contrast this with, e.g., the Catholic Church: only in the past decade have they agreed that Galileo's heliocentric theory is correct, and that their dogma of an Earth-centred universe has been incorrect (and in disagreement with observations) for around four centuries.
Speaking of unsubstantiated claims about stuff we have no idea about...
The Catholic Church only recognized that the Earth revolves around the sun since 1993? Now I'll admit I don't know which date they officially recognized it, but I think it was much before 1963, let alone 93. I think your statements are more telling than the original poster.
If they were Aibogenic, wouldn't that mean the origins just looked like robotic dogs?
"Ad infinitem et ultra!" - Buzz Lightyear
I hope that this correction demonstrates the cluelessness of the sender of the parent comment sufficiently to disregard the rest of his|her|its rant. And whosoever moderated it as "insightful" should get into detox.
Surely then, the anti position should be considered the least plausible, since the status quo is to recgonize the basic human right to keep and bear arms.
Why is the ownership of a gun somehow special as a basic human right?
Is owning a dog a basic human right?
Is owning a house a basic human right?
Is owning a car a basic human right?
Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Is owning a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic human right?
Are any of these basic human rights distinct from the basic human right to own property? How?
Is maintaining the status quo always the least insane policy?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
A while back as an exercise for a logic class, we went over the "AIDS is not caused by HIV" controversy.
To be fair, at the time it the controversy first arose the case was far from closed and many of the objections brought up by the anti-HIV community were valid e.g. why haven't we seen any nurses fall sick from accidental exposure. Of course, since then nurses _have_ fell ill to accidental exposure to HIV. In all, sometime in the early 90's we had gathered enough evidence to fairly conclude that HIV causes AIDS.
The only remaining gap, at the time I followed this, was the possibility that a small number of chronic syphilis cases might possibly currently be misconstrued as AIDS.
I won't argue with either statement, but the search&replace seemed interesting to me.
Negative.
A cuckoo is a small bird that makes a distinct, repetitive call that sounds like its name. When used to refer to a person or idea, it means that the target is insane. The tie between calling something/someone insane "cuckoo" goes back for centuries, and the reason for the slang is lost to time.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re: Evolution. Since evolution is a family of theories, I'll choose one - abiogenesis. IIRC, the smallest practically useful DNA chain is about 4,000 bases. Given that there are 4 bases, the odds of a single DNA molecule forming the smallest useful chain are about 1 in 4^4000. Since it's been a long time since I've heard this argument, my numbers may be wrong. But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Michael Behe has covered similar problems in his writings.
I don't take issue with the theories that scientists propose (except when they lack logical consistency. The statistical problems inherent with most current theories of abiogenesis seem to indicate that the proponents didn't think through their ideas before they published them). My main objection is the unwavering credibility that the masses give to scientific theories. If a scientist says so, it must be true! If I had a dollar for every time someone said "Modern science proves..." in an argument, I'd be rich by now. Science doesn't prove anything!. It explains.
But since so few laymen are able to articulate the difference between explanation and proof, scientific theories are often used as the basis for supporting belief systems. Witness the manner in which evolution has been used by atheists to justify their lack of belief in God. When science becomes entangled with religious beliefs, objectivity disappears; those wanting to question the status quo find themselves fighting not only a battle of proof, but of politics as well. Today, the idea of evolution is as firmly entrenched in the common mind as a geocentric universe was in Galileo's time.*
And of course, the real problem is that because science has become so credible, it is often sought as an authority for legislative or social changes. Thus, the otherwise objective nature of science becomes soured when funding becomes contingent on the political ramifications of the results. Again, if you want examples, Google the Exxon Valdez disaster - after 5 years, one set of scientists said the environment had healed, and another said that it would never recover.
* - Incidentally, Galileo's publishing problems were political, not religious. In his work, he advocated a Heliocentric model for prediction purposes only, and went so far as to suggest that nothing in his model should be construed as a definitive statement regarding the Heavens.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Over a dozen years ago, one of my friends (a geologist) went into a near-frothing rage at me when I mentioned the idea that an asteroid hitting the Earth might have killed the dinosaurs, and he spent a half hour telling me in no uncertain terms that anyone who suggested it was going against everything known about the science.
Meanwhile, you can get many of the major petroleum products by putting a bunch of methane under high pressure and heat for a few million years.
Geology is one of the most conservative sciences, and it takes a generation or so for startling new ideas to even be read, much less accepted.
I agree - I develop computer mapping programs for energy companies, and couldn't have said it better myself. The in-ground reserves always correlate to sedimentary deposits.
I am not an organic chemist, but I am sure there is also a linkage between the carbon chains found in petroleum and those found in biological matter.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
There Was No Big Bang
...) then I'll buy it.
Clocks in at 3 cuckoos, as you might expect.
Actually, while there is tons of evidence in favour of this one, we should be a lot more leery about accepting it, given our historical record with any idea that places us in a privileged position.
For example our self-perception of our role in the universe has progressed from the center of creation to center of the universe down to center of the solar system -> well, ok at least most advanced animal -> a monkey that thinks down to a monkey that talks.
The big bang in its most accepted form places us in a unique universe that didn't exist before, which brings us back to the problems mentioned before. However if we could reconcile the big bang with non-uniqueness (say finite size universe, or multiple universes or
"Great Mind" "Good Person". For example, consider Daniel Carlton Gajdusek, who won the Nobel in 1976. In 1997, he plead guilty for child abuse. Turns out he was also a long-time pedophile.
Totally different school of science. And Sassy!
Flaw in the logic? That implies logic existed. You know, there are more theories about the origins of the universe than merely the Big Bang and Creationism. Intelligent Design for one, which shares commonalities with, but does not necessarily jive exactly with Creationism.
And yeah, I know what a T-H-E-O-R-Y is. Sheesh.
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
The Catholic Church only recognized that the Earth revolves around the sun since 1993? Now I'll admit I don't know which date they officially recognized it, but I think it was much before 1963, let alone 93. I think your statements are more telling than the original poster.
Do a Google search on "Galileo Pope John Paul", and you will find many links discussing the official admission, in 1992, that Galileo had been wrongly treated, and that his ideas were correct.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
It was special enough to recognize in our bill of rights. The highest law of the land recognizes it as a right, that's what makes it special.
Property is never recognized explicitely as a basic human right in the consitution, but several parts of the constitution imply property as a basic human right.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You are a couple of years behind the times.
There is a lot of truth to that as I'm a professional software developer, and only a hobbyist when it comes to other sciences anymore.
There is now a consistent model of cosmology (the 'Concorance Model') which, although it has obvious gaps, explains basically every known observation.
Something that has obvious gaps couldn't possibly explain anything, it can merely suggest it. There are many more holes in blg bang theory than I posted earlier (if everything is moving away from the center, how can galaxies collide.. etc....) but they are still holes in the theory.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Look: you haven't thought about it, so you're assuming that your "common sense" position is *obviously* true, but trust me on one simple, point: it just isn't obvious. Try watching the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" sometime... Michael Moore set out to do a pro-gun control movie and quickly came to the conclusion that gun control is just besides the point. He points the finger at the "culture of fear" we've got here in the states.
In any case, you lost any credibility when you lumped "evolution" in with the "Big Bang" as being things that might be found in the future to be myths. Evolution is fact. The ONLY aspect about evolution that falls into "theory" territory is the HOW of evolution, not whether or not it occurs. There is zero, none, nunca question at all in the scientific community about whether evolution occurs. There is no scientific debate on this fact. Evolution simply occurs. There IS legitimate debate and study on HOW it occurs.
It looks like the poster is reffering to common descent, not just evolutionary change. Lumping common descent in with the Big Bang isn't really much of a stretch. In particular, both theories are impossible to fully test as they are historical in nature. With out time travel we can only prove the mechanisms the proposed theories worked upon, and search for tell tale traces said mechanisms might leave behind. And as you noted, the mechanisms behind common descent are still being heavily debated. To suggest that a few hundred years from now we may have come up with new theories that fit the same evidences better and look radically different isn't that crazy and doesn't deserve the rabid anti-creationist assaults too many replies here seem to be stuck on.
Didn't Einstein prove that forward time travel is possible, if only on a potentially miniscule scale? The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time, so if you were to accelerate yourself close to the speed of light, you could theoretically slow back down and be in the future? I am of the belief that travelling back in time is theoretically improbable but not into the future.
They officially removed the verdict of heresy against Galilei at the end of 1992.
I don't think any church offical disputed that Galilei was right for a century or two so you're both right =)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have already graduated from being scientific hypotheses by surviving experimental testing. Hence both are now considered to be Theories. Your post indicates either a lack of understanding of the term or a desire (like creationists) to confuse the lay public into thinking that a theory is a wild guess.
So, are you a creationist? You never answered.
A gun is a tool. If an argument is going to happen and a gun is around, it will most likely get very serious.
But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Assuming, of course, that all of these hypothetical DNA molecules had to exist simultaneously. Mutagenesis is the key behind all evolution, even at the very small scales.
Beyond that, the argument is using the current standard. You can't simply argue that now we need 4000 base pairs, and 4000 base pairs can't be made randomly, therefore we couldn't have happened randomly. The first precursors to life were probably RNA-based, something along the lines of self-replicating ribozymes. The catalytic sites of these enzymes is all that is really required; we're moving down in to the tens of bases, rather than thousands. This moved into proteins and DNA (or vice versa), which required a code and expanded the necessary length of sequence.
The person behind a proposal is an good heuristic predictor when you review an idea in most areas (probably including science) -- without doing a full research paper on the idea.
For most subjects there are many more ways to be totally wrong than there are ways to be (close to) correct. So, e.g., any randomly choosen answer to a problem (how to stop crime, etc, etc) is almost certainly non-working (or even detrimental).
People of fixed ideas (and of any ideological political (etc) opinions) have pink colored glasses that distort their world view and they base their decisions on how to e.g. solve problems (relevant to their fixed ideas) because of that. This results in an (at least) partly randomly choosen solution -- which probably is bad because randomly choosen solutions don't work (or are incorrect) -- see previous paragraph.
So it is a good heuristic to assume that cranks and people with agendas seldom are correct.
(Of course, the ideology or preconceived opinion might be correct... But it will be accepted if the cranks turn out to do correct predictions. Most to all ideologies are wrong, of course -- see argument above.)
Disclaimer: I'm playing a bit of the devil's advocate here -- at least in the way I've formulated this comment.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Entirely theoretical. Little or no emperical data either way. 3 Theoretical cuckoos to more guns - less gun crime for ignoring the singularity in their argument (There will be more gun crime with 1 gun than with 0).
This statement is wrong if just one instance of an HIV infection caused AIDS. The empirical data for this is extremely large. - 4 Cuckoos
Non excessive sun exposure is healthy. - 0 Cuckoos.
With one cavaet, when it is known to benefit the condition being treated. - 0 Cuckoos.
Look up. - 4 Cuckoos
Possibly, but I doubt it greatly. The ability of RNA as a catalyst to its own replication and that of and other biological materials makes it very likely that there were small ammounts of many organic chemicals, including some functioning RNA, and that the first time frame in which we see huge ammounts of organic chemicals should be the RNA catalysts putting the formation of organic chemicals into exponential growth (until restrained by the resources available). The largest producer of hydrocarbons is photosynthesis. So if lots of this stuff was formed before photosynthesis, we should find even more formed afterwards. 1 Theoretical Cuckoo for overcorrecting.
According to quantum mechanics, to a limited degree, yes. However to move a person back in time about one second you need a negative energy of about the mass of jupiter. We havn't found any negative energy, so don't hold your breath. - 3 Thoeretical Cuckoos.
Not enough research - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first.
Lots of theory here - As an idea 0 Theoretical Cuckoos, be creative. As a statement of fact - 2 Cuckoos - do more research first. (There was a big bang has the same ratings.)
Why is it often stated that Galileo came up with the heliocentric model? It was Copernicus in De Revolutionibus (published in 1543, 21 years before Mr. Galilei was born) who first proposed it, and Keplar who figured out the orbits were elliptical. Nearest I can tell is that Galileo just promoted the idea.
-no broken link
Robin Hanson, professor of Economics at George Mason, who has also done some work with physics, has a page that might be of interest to anyone who likes this sort of thing, called "Fourteen Wild Idea." See http://hanson.gmu.edu/wildideas.html
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
Obligatory Douglas Adams quote:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in--an interesting hole I find myself in--fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
-W
All unfair meta-mods are now being meta-meta-modded as retarded.
And you reply: "Good argument!! There are lots of irresponsible idiots so don't let anyone have guns."
So, you have never seen an 18 wheeler in your life, have you?
Who, the HELL, is modding that crap up? Seriously, what is wrong with you. I say "restrict", I get trolled with semi-litterate idiots who say that I said "ban".
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
Why is it not possible to have a fucking rational discussion about guns when people from the U.S. are around? Its not that hard people: read what the other person actually wrote, not what you are expecting to read!
On to the rest:
So it's OK to let irresponsible idiots drive 3000 pound cars.
No, its not.
And it's OK to let irresponsible idiots buy chainsaws.
Please, PLEASE look up murder statistics. Compare numbers of homicide with firearms to homicide with chainsaws.
Please.
You can't take the sky from me...
I would agree that Time Travel probably is possible. However the conditions would probably prevent the average human from ever negotiating the wormholes or whatever.
Sudden violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Er, I mean, "God did it".
Often I wonder, if that's the case, then what did God?
-no broken link
I clearly said:
I therefore think that guns should be regulated in much the same way that we don't allow any idiot to drive around with an 18 wheeler.
Regulation leads to confiscation. I'd give examples but you would invoke Goodwins Law.
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
This statement could be made about everything.
should not be freely available to everyone.
should be available only to those who can prove that they are capable of handling them responsibly.
Do the same with the vote, and then perhaps we can talk.
This is my sig.
So, if we assume for the moment that this theory is true, and that new oil, etcetera is being made all the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that we aren't going to run out.
Would new petrochemicals be formed faster than we can use them up? Certainly the levels in proven reserves drop as they're being pumped up, so any regeneration is on a slower scale than our current consumption.
My video compression blog
I guess we should board up the DMV, Driving schools, get rid of VIN's, abolish all traffic infractions etc.
I mean after all, when you read the constitution all you see is, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course, the reasonable people recognize "A well regulated millitia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
They of course pick up two cuckoos for using statistics for what Samual Clemens invented them for, as do the gun ownership advocates. But for such blatat self delusion, the gun-clubers deserve that extra bird.
Cars are VERY regulated to the point that you might need to by time on a supercomputer to virtually crash one to prove it's safe to drive. Every aspect of the operation, use, ownership and appearence is well regulated.
By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again:
Do you accept the biblical account of the creation as written in the bible as being an accurate (or if you prefer, "more accurate than mainstream scientific explanations") description of the manner that the universe and animal life came about?
Few atheists, if any, will claim that proof of evolution is somehow proof *against* the existence of God. (Most atheists are aware of the fact that you can't prove or disprove the existence of supernatural entities like God, for whom there cannot, by definition, be any evidence.)
This is a problem with people, not with the scientific method. If you can suggest a better method for accurately determining the nature of the universe, I'm sure everyone would be glad to hear it -- but right now, science is the best method we have."Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Later Tycho Brahe, Galileo and Johannes Kepler did the footwork that was needed to fix the problems of the Copernican system. In particular Galileo gathered data was really necessitated the sun centered theory, which got him into trouble with the church. The church then proceeded to waste vast amounts of resource prosecuting him, money that would better have been spent helping plague stickmen victims. All in all, by this time there was 150 years of evidence supporting the sun centered philosophy, and pretty much anyone who mattered accepted it as reality.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. I believe in evolution.
...". Then again, perhaps the problem has been more successfully addressed elsewhere.
2. Despite what the following may suggest, I don't know much about "Intelligent Design." But from the context I think I get a pretty good idea of what it means.
3. I don't care much about either side of the debate. In other words, emotionally, I don't have a dog in this fight. And I don't think emotion helps solve these questions anyway.
4. Even I can see that there are some problems that Evolutionary Theory hasn't adequately explained, the nonreducible complexity problem perhaps foremost among these. And that's a pretty fundamental problem. I'm not saying Evolutionary Theory won't come up with a convincing way to explain this. But it hasn't yet.*
5. You may indeed have "superior counter-argument[s]." But your analogy to a lottery winner is silly. A lottery, after all, is the product of *sound of slap on the forehead* intelligent design. There is a foreordained conclusion created by the people that run the lottery: The fact that there will be one winner. Sure, they don't know exactly who that will be, but so what? In the context of the analogy, that's like saying you don't know exactly what individuals evolution will produce. So?
The relevant alternative is not for someone other than Bob to win the lottery -- the alternative is for there to *be no lottery at all*. And yet once an intelligently designed lottery is established, it becomes inevitable that someone/(some planet) will will win/(evolve life), because that is the whole point of the scheme.
I look forward to reading your superior counter-argument.
- Alaska Jack
* A few years back I read a whole book -- it's name and author (Gould, maybe?), of course, completely escape me -- purporting to address the nonreducible complexity problem. It was monumentally unconvincing. It sort of gave the reader the feeling "Geez, if this is the best they could do
It seems to me that this particular argument is incomplete -- it treats every single unlikely event as equally significant, but this is not the case.
Take for example, a poker game. Suppose you were in a poker game and lost a hand because your opponent drew a royal flush in spades. At that point, would you be justified in interpreting this evidence as "cheating" (i.e. intelligent design) or as simply chance? Is it fair for you to be surprised at this turn of events?
It seems to me that a very good hypothesis in that case, is that the game was fixed. But, we would not make a similar hypothesis if our opponent's hand something more prosaic.
If the universe really does have the fine tuning properties that it appears to have based on our current understanding, then inferring from that some kind of Creator makes sense as a metaphysical construct.
Your argument makes better sense given a many worlds or universes interpretation. That would provide all the other entrants in your lottery that would make the unlikely outcome a certainty.
The existence of universes other than our own, however, does not appear to be a scientifically testable idea. In fact, it appears to be entirely unfalsifiable. The many worlds idea creates a condition whereby no amount of evidence, no matter how intricate, could ever serve as evidence of intelligent design, since in a set of all possible worlds, every possible state of affairs will be actualized somewhere, no matter how improbable, intricate or complex. There is no evidence that would ever count against the muliple worlds idea.
My view is that all of these ideas are types of metaphysics, not science. Intelligent Design is not really a scientific theory, it is meta-physics, but so too are the alternatives. Science proceeds best working with naturalistic assumptions, but if science cannot make a determination based on naturalistic assumptions and observation, it is better to remain silent. I don't believe that it can be used to disprove intelligent design or to prove that it is irrational to believe that the universe is the product of intelligent design.
For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
It's not really that the "best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe." They just believed in the common dogma that Aristotle and Plato had observed the absolute truth in their writings. It wasn't until Kepler and Galileo that the geocentric universe was seriously challenged.
Don't blame science for those 2000 years of dogmatic thinking, blame everyone for trusting absolutely the writing of two really old greek guys.
Actually I feel I should apologise. Quite ashamed of the shitness of that posting. I'd expected my post to be modded down immediately so didn't take as much care over it as perhaps it deserved.
Firstly it isn't the worst review ever by a long way but slightly less than I've come to expect from Slashdot.
Secondly the whole Sterling to Dollar thing confused me hence the five cents, two cents thing.. never hear anyone say my two pence.
Third, the complete lack of chart, fact or figure of any description does as you point out completely rubbish my opinions.
Fourth. Bowling For Columbine is a superb movie one I've watched many times and agree with totally on the 'culture of fear' however I fear Moore's slight pro-gun approach was simply a means to make it stomachable to the America populace. As for guns being tools, what civilised person needs a tool capable of taking another's life? Having been bought up with christian values (n.b. I'm now a devote atheist) I can honestly say I'd rather risk my own life than take another. Last time I checked you guys were predominatly christian (hell, some of you even denounce evolution theory.) Also my American history might not be as good yours (this comment not directed to you personally) I do seem to recall that firearms are legal due to an amendmant muttering about right to protect one's self and protecting America. I also seem to remember that this was drafted in order to be able to quickly rally an army against the British. As we aren't likely to invade anytime soon and small-arms really don't cut it in international disputes anymore, surely this is now defunct?
Oh and quickly the Switzerland thing; sure guns aren't the cause of crime but the difference in Switzerland is the culture, the reverent respect rather than sexing of guns and the fact that guns aren't seen as a form of crime control. I think Micheal makes this point best.
Again, apologies for my first post's shitness but at least it got the whole ball rolling on the gun debate.
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
You should check out U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Sec. 311. for the definition of militia. For your convenience I will post it here:
So, if you are male and choose to live in the U.S. as a citizen and are between 17 and 45 you are almost certainly in the unorganized "militia" whether you know it or not. In support of that militia you, and everyone else, has the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, a militia familiar with firearms (i.e., well regulated) is available at any moment. Perhaps you have heard of the "Minute Men"?
It should be noted that serious questions have been raised about Lott's statistical methods in this book. I don't know enough about statistics to know if the criticisms are valid or not, but I do know they have caused other highly regarded second amendment scholars to suggest caution, and distance themselves from him (in the academic sense, not the "Ok now, back away slowwllyyy" sense).
HOWEVER: There is another important factor here. When Lott's critics adjust his findings in ways they say are more statistically valid, they show (or so they claim) that crime rates don't drop with increasing gun ownership. *But they also show that rates don't show a statistically significant INCREASE, either.*
This in itself is a very important finding, since the central claim of gun control proponents has been that if you make it easier for people to own guns, the crime rate will go UP. Lott's research suggests that isn't the case.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an explanation of how life evolved, not how it started.
But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
No. The number of combinations (4^4000) is more than the number of atoms in the universe, but you would only need 4000 of each base to try them all.
Science doesn't prove anything!. It explains.
Correct.
Witness the manner in which evolution has been used by atheists to justify their lack of belief in God.
They may use it as an argument against Christianity, but atheists generally don't believe in Christianity because of Evolution specifically. It's just one more conflict in a long line of conflicts between Science and Christianity. And historically, Christianity always seems to come up on the losing side.
Today, the idea of evolution is as firmly entrenched in the common mind as a geocentric universe was in Galileo's time.
Case in point. The Earth as the center of God's universe was the only acceptable viewpoint as far as the Church was concerned. Only very recently has the Church even admitted to being wrong for Galileo's persecution.
Incidentally, Galileo's publishing problems were political, not religious. In his work, he advocated a Heliocentric model for prediction purposes only, and went so far as to suggest that nothing in his model should be construed as a definitive statement regarding the Heavens.
No. He argued that there was nothing in the Bible that was at odds with the Copernican model. From this site:
In 1632 he published a book advocating it, under the impression that the religious climate had changed. He was brought before in Inquisition, and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.
What you are missing is the fact that our universe *did* come into being. It's all well and good to say that the odds against it are 100:1 or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that we are part of the universe that beat the house, so to speak. Maybe we are but one of 100 parallel universes - we'll never know if the other possible universes exist or not.
Using the low probability of our universe coming into being as an argument either in favour or against any scientific theory is like telling the guy who won $10,000,00 on lotto that his $2 investment in a ticket was stupid because the odds were so bad.
You're right about slightly outdated data, and I posted in another thread that I'm relegated to a hobbyist when it comes to other sciences (than computer) these days. There are other holes in big bang, and I didn't want to post something that would drag on... no big deal really. All I was trying to point out was that guy who immediately flashed the "creationist" card when someone questioned big bang was off his rocker.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
So the Bloods and Crips are really displaying their attitudes towards Big Bang theory?
the nonreducible complexity problem
Nonreducible complexity is a concept put forward by the Intellegent Design advocates. So far, all the examples of irreducible complexity (the exact term they use) aren't really irreducible.
If you have a specific example of irreducible complexity, I'll give it a shot. The famous example given is the eye, which has been shown to be a) useful in all intermediate stages and b) existant in nature in all intermediate stages.
But your analogy to a lottery winner is silly.
The analogy is a tool meant to illustrate, not to argue. When one takes the metaphor too far, it breaks. Specifically, when I used the lottery metaphor, I was making the point that it would not be logical to assume that the lottery maker intended Bob XXX to win when he designed the lottery. There was no further implications of my lottery example, and none should be drawn. I am aware that the lottery is indeed an intelligently designed thing, but to say that my example supports intelligent design is to stretch the metaphor past the breaking point.
I repeat, the analogy was only to illustrate my point. The argument is not the same thing as the analogy.
Let me rephrase the argument without the lottery in it:
We are here 12 billion years after the event at the start of the universe. There are many things that have happened in that time, and all of them have so far led to us on this little planet. The probability of this exact chain occurring is very small. So small, that some of us think that it wasn't an accident. Some of us think that an intelligent being MUST have started the universe in such a way that it resulted in people on this little planet.
This particular outcome is a result of a chain of unlikely events, and each of those events is just as likely as any other. When we look back, it's not proper to say that there's a 99.99% chance that we weren't here, but a 0.01% chance that we are here. You have to remember that the liklihood of all the small events is exactly the same, and that one of those events must happen.
(Here I interject the analogy again, in a different form. Note that it's not an argument, just an example of the argument given in the paragraph above. I do not argue by analogy, therefore it is not logical to make suppositions about my analogy to disprove my argument. This is why you can't point out the fact that a lottery need not occur and expect that it refutes my argument. It does not.)
When I roll the percentage dice in D&D (if you never played, it's two 10 sided dice, read off and interpreted as a two digit percentile number), and I get a '37', the odds of that happening are very remote. Only 1 in 100. What are the chances of that happening? Is it logical to assume that an intelligence ordained that the '37' should be rolled? No, because we realise that all numbers are equally likely to be rolled, and that no matter how unlikely, once the dice are rolled a percentage must come up.
(end of the analogy, used for illustration only)
Finally, if some other sequence of events resulted in a lifeless universe, then we wouldn't be around to ask about the intelligent designer. Nevertheless, the universe would still be here.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I am not an astronomer, but I am a physisist and I have been at recent talks given by cosmologists who are ecstatic about the recent developments, namely the concordance model. It gets the name 'concordance' precisely because it brings all of the previously seemingly paradoxical observations into 'concordance' in one single unified model.
Now it doesn't actually explain much (it is a model, not a theory), for example it says that almost all of the energy in the universe is in the form of 'dark' matter or 'dark' energy, and it gives rather precise figures for exactly how much dark matter and energy there is, doesn't say what dark matter actually is. Nor does it say anything about inflation theories (except that space is flat, and inflation is a plausible reason for this).
A link for large-scale structure is here. As for why galaxies collide, well, they attract each other gravitationally! If they are too close together, they collide. Where is the deep mystery? The link has more info on galaxy formation too.
Some logical flaws here:
First, you're arguing by analogy. First you say that my argument is incomplete, and then you start talking about poker. It's a bit confusing, because I didn't get the argument before the analogy. Please see my other message where I talk more about this.
Second, you seem to be assuming that there is some intrinsic meaning in the universe, hence your statement that not all events are equally significant. Significance is something that can only be understood in the context of an observer. (Significant to whom?)
Third, the argument is completely independent of many worlds or one world. Don't confuse the lottery example with the argument. They are separate because I do not argue by analogy (which is a logical fallacy.)
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
So, by your own reasoning, why did the USA invade Iraq? Saddam Hussain was exercising his right to bear arms. Where do you draw the line on arms? Is it firearms? Is it knives? Is it biological weapons? Is it a baseball bat? Is it cruise missiles with nuclear warheads? Is it automatic weapons? All of these are "arms", where is your line drawn on what you are allowed by your constitution to bear?
I love when people start their arguments with 'I'm not a scientist but who cares, obviously I'm right anyway'. Here's a hint, you didn't spend your life studying rock formations and chemical compositions etc. in excrutiating detail, SCIENTISTS DO.
Your statements that: "When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much, then someone noticed plant leaves and bark patterns in some lumps of coal and everyone said "Oh, that must have been it." (HINT: Petrified forests weren't grown by stone trees)" (care to explain this incomprehensible non-sequitur?)
and:
"...the "fossil" explanation becomes pretty unlikely. When you look back at the history of that explanation, it becomes pretty clear that nobody cared much.." borders on the idiotic. Like I said before, people devote thier lives to the study of coal fossils, there are whole museums centered around the fact. Oh silly me though, I forgot, it's you the non-scientist who's the expert on these things.
What really irritates me about posts like yours is not the fact that you support a "crazy idea" in science as a pet theory; there's no problem with that. It's that you're so blinded by your own ignorance on the basic science underlying the theories you wish to supplant and simultaneously so laughably self confident despite that ignorance, that you end up making yourself look like an ass and making your theory look well...crazy.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Because that nonsense costs innocent lives.
"Time Travel is Possible" is fun to speculate about, but that's about it.
You could have another indicator, for importance, a scale on which "Time travel" gets a 0, "Guns and crime" gets a 3, Bush and co's denial of global warming gets a 4, and that "AIDS is not a problem" gets a 5.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Petrified forests (and other fossils) are formed by a steady substitution of silicates for the organics under the proper conditions (the organics must have been included intact in sediments fairly quickly, then immersed in a mineral-rick water flow, among other things).
A similar process could easily be at work with the coal that shows the forms and textures of organic forms. In fact, when you consider how much the original organic material would have to have been compacted to form coal, it beggars the imagination that a recognizeable, never mind nearly exact, copy of the original plant appears. In fact, you have to conclude that the percursor to the coal bed formed, was compacted, exposed, took on inclusions of organic material, and then covered *again*.
I repeat, when you look at the tortuous logic used to explain the traditional model, and the inconsistencies between various elements of the explanations, Gold's theory doesn't look so far out anymore. I didn't like the bit about the coal fossils and the clathrates *before* I ever heard of Gold.
--Dave
Time travel is possible. Didn't a bunch of scientists move a particle of matter a wee bit in time? Haven't scientists measured that if you travel on an airplane, you move in time a wee bit too (since you've traveled at a high speed)?
Pelé!
You make a dangerous assumption that I am a Republican. I'm not. I don't really agree with the whole Iraq thing.
The supporters of the right to bear arms do usually draw an arbitrary line.
I personally believe that the mere ownership (and by extension, the action of aquisition) of any particular thing should never be illegal. Crimes should be limited to criminal actions. When someone uses a thing to coerce, threaten, or kill someone, that's a crime.
Sure, it makes things a lot simpler to regulate and control obvious things that have very little non-destructive use, but then you are the one drawing the arbitrary line.
What's obviously something only used for destruction? There's not much. Carmack trying to get pure hydrogen peroxide is one example. It's obviously a potentially dangerous substance, but he plans to only use it for launching his rockets.
Should we ban his rocket research too, since he might fashion an ICBM of some sort?
I say it's the authoritarians who draw the real arbitrary line, and it's of a much wider scope than just guns.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The right to own a gun is not a basic human right. It is a right derived from the right to protect your own life, which is the basic human right.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
A scientist who proposes a "theory" has done a whole pile of work before even getting to this point.
It's called the scientific method. The scientific method is a tool.
If you are not familiar with the scientific method, google for it. It involves a whole lot of disinterested parties investigating an idea. And all of them getting consistent results. And all of them refining and trying to disprove that idea.
The scientific method is not a universally useful tool. I cannot explain, through scientific means, why my wife loves me. There's no question that she does. It's not the job of science to explain this. And claw hammers are not very good at installing #10 wood screws. That's not their job.
What it is is a universally objective tool. Science has to be testable. Science has to be disprovable. Science has to work for the same for everyone every time. Science can explain why a hammer moves rapidly towards the floor when I place it in the air above the floor. Science can explain why and how rapidly and how far such a hammer moves for everybody who performs the experiment. Science can predict what will happen when you repeat the experiment. That's its job. And if there's a dead guy on the floor with the hammer buried in his head, science can explain how he got that way. Well, not just for hammers and dead guys, but generally for objectively observable and measureble events.
These rigorous requirements earn statements made by scientists a certain amount of weight.
To many people, science is a religion. By this, I don't mean that those people are fanatically devoted to science. I mean that many people see statements made by the scientific establishment as dogma. They see such statements as beliefs --something which can be argued via debating techniques, and understood by merely reciting the correct words of power. They see such statements as accepted unquestioningly by the general public and by the legal system.
And they want the same respect for their own statements as the general public shows for statements made by the scientific establishment.
A fair expectation unless examined critically. After all, aren't we all guaranteed "equal protection under the law".
Critical examination, however, reveals that the statements made by scientists and those made by crackpots are fundamentally different in nature. Neither statement is more or less "valid" than any other.
"Valid" only has meaning in a given context. "My wife loves me" is not a scientifically valid statement. It's absolutely true for me. But it's not science. And it may not be a true statement for you. Such a statement is not objectively observable .
A scientific statement, however, is objective. Everyone can test it.
To the layperson, "theory" means "This is how I think the world is". Could have come from divine revalation. Maybe through psychotic rationalization. Maybe from many years of hard work at self-delusion. Maybe it's just a guess.
And if you don't believe such a statement, it's because you're a heretic. Or a blasphemer. Or unsaved. Or you're "the man". It's because your beliefs are wrong. For such statements, you don't get to say "Here is a method that would disprove the theory, were it not true." and then exercise that method (experiment) to get the same result as the person who proposed the theory.
That is a difference between science and not-science.
So, your ideas about creation, free energy, the illumaniti, black helicopters, and God's love for all men could be called "theories".
Just not scientific ones.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I believe that the "26" comes from the fact that there are certain physical constants which have (as far as we know so far) arbitrary values, and (as far as we can calculate) the existence of a universe favorable to life is very sensitive to the value of these constants (like c, the rate of decay of various forces, the mass of elementary particles, etc. etc.)
Now, there are a series of scientific respones, including the following:
1) They aren't arbitrary, we just haven't figured out the science yet.
2) The existence of life is not actually sensitive to these variables, we just can't calculate/imagine what the universe would have been like with a different constant for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
3) Anthropomorphic principle: There are many, many universes with different values of these constants. In order to observe the universe, we had to exist, therefore the constants must be favorable to life.
4) My favorite wacky idea: The universe "evolved" these constants. Mechanism: every black hole singularity is a new universe. These new universes have sets of constants similar to but slightly different than their parent universe. Now we have reproduction and mutation. In the long term: universes will evolve to optimize black hole production. Testable hypothesis: The observable constants will be optimized for black hole production. Coincidentally, also being relatively optimal for life.
5) Intelligent Design.
So, of the 5 possibilities above, the non-interesting ones (ie, non-provable, that give us no real insights), are 3 and 5. If those are true, then we just throw up our hands and stop thinking.
-Marcus
Right. By virtue of being alive, the bacteria do not become instantly carbonized by the heat and pressure. And what do they die of, old age? Bacteria divide, remember?
This is ridiculous.
Question:
Are the reserves located irrespective of sediments and then the correlation found, or is the presence of sediment a criteria in locating the reserves? You will only find what you are looking for.
One of the arguments for abiotic oil is that it percolates up - so most of it is deeper than we can find currently. There is also an attempt to correlate oil deposits with geothermal 'cracks' such as the middle eastern something trench I don't recall the name of. Does anyone know of studies (or even ancedotal evidence) of such linkage?
To address your second point (and no, I am not an organic chemist either), Gold posits that biological matter in oil is from microbes living in the crust - feeding on the chemical energy in the oil. Hence The Deep, Hot Biosphere.
If I was worried about Karma, I'd eat tofu.
This guy seems to just post this diatribe whenever he gets a chance. I am of the mind to say: moderate this guy down ALWAYS. All he does is use his karma to post this at +2 at his earliest convience.
(Yes, I was at one time the slashdot user "YOU ARE SUCH A FAG!")
Burn in hell.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Check his posting history, in particular w.r.t. science.slashdot.org. This is the third time in recent memory he has posted the EXACT same 2 paragraph explanation as to why ID should be considered.
He posts relatively normally the rest of the time, gaining karma to continue posting this at +2 whenever possible. Slashbot Manipulation at it's finest (for fun, agenda, or profit).
Mod down. Mod down HARD.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Quite clearly, you have successfully argued that "gun rights" are not derivative of property rights and that it makes no sense to argue that particular derivation. It may be time to try alternative theories as to why so many people are so vehement about the issue.
.50-cal on either end of your boat to allow you to defend yourself against pirates that run rampant in that part of the world. But few countries are amenable to a private citizen owning such firepower. And then, .50-cal will only deter the 90% in unarmored speedboats. You'll need greater firepower to keep the more serious entrants at bay.
Perhaps a self-defense argument? Is the right to defend yourself against an attacker a basic human right?
I believe it to be, though I don't have space or time to satisfy all who might question that assertion.
If you do have a right to defend yourself, then having legal access to the most useful means for that defense (a handgun or short-barreled shotgun for defending yourself in a home) should become a great deal more plausible. IMHO, compellingly so.
The right to own a gun as stated in the 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of the larger right to self-defense, which is a consequent of our right to life, affirmed in the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" list of basic human rights.
As a completely different example, if you have an ocean-going boat and you live in Southeast Asia, I personally believe that you ought to be able to pintle mount a tri-barrel
If a government passes laws which prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining equivalence of force with plausible attackers (the tools for defending themselves), that government has overstepped its bounds. IMHO, of course.
Regards,
Ross
In the words of Dennis Leary: "I want a Patriot missile! I pay my taxes! Why can't I have one!?!"
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that the Intellegent Design movement is the same as the old bible-thumping Creationist movement. It is not. For information see http://www.discovery.org/csc/ See particularly the articles by William Dembsky at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=view&id=32&isFellow=true
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
According to Stephen Hawking in one of his books, the theory was not popular because it showed strong evidence against there being "absolutes" in the Universe, which implied that not only were things like absolute location and absolute speed nonsensical, it also implies that absolute time, and thus absolute existance are merely constructs for us to better wrap our minds around our Universe.
Hawking argues that the theory of Relativity itself does in fact fly in the face of the existance of "God" because it refutes even other absolutes like "all powerful" and "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" and other such constructs of religion.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
There are a number of predictions made by Darwin in TOoS. In essence, these are what make it science at all - testable pedictions.
1. The mechanism of heredity does not allow for unlimited blending. This is largely demonstrated by the work of Mendel and successors, but better confirmed by Crick and Watson and theirs, as DNA's structure explains well why genes can best be treated as a full on/off encoding scheme.
2. Better copying fidelity (fewer mutations), actually makes natural selection work faster, even though that seems counter-intuitive to many. (Really bad copying fidelity means mutations get overwritten with new mutations before they have time to be selected for or against).
Smaller mutations are more likely to be favorable than larger ones, and again make natural selection work faster. (While Darwin briefly sketched these two principles, they have been most developed more recently, up to Gould and Dawkins.). This also is at least partially proved by the extremely accurate copying of DNA in modern organisms.
# 2 is less solidly proven than # 1. It makes a great deal of sense when applying it to the origin of species question, as Darwin did, but raises some logical inconsistencies, or makes disprovable predictions, when applied to the origin of life itself. (Maybe that's why Darwin didn't call his book "The Origin of Life"). So, depending on just what you claim is included in the theory of Natural Selection, the poster claiming that there are substantial problems just may be right, at least if substantial means bigger than can be fixed with the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.
Who is John Cabal?
The number of constants in the Standard Model of Particles varies depending on what you count as a constant, but is around 20+, so that may be where our friend got his number. That's the closest I can think about where he got that number. We also know that the SM is not the complete theory so there. So yes, you are right that he may be alluding to that.
66 is something I have no idea where he got that from...
One can argue about where those "constants" come from. Remember that "constants" of nature are very model-dependent things : change the model, you change the number/value of the constants etc.
Roughly speaking, science is the pursue of trying to explain the universe with as few constants as possible. The ultimate goal is to only have *one* constant in your theory. Then you can claim that the we can always rescale this number,by choosing different reference points for example, and thus the universe can be explained without any use of "arbitrary" constants.This is the so-called "bottoms up" approach to science, and is the path pursued by string theorists etc.
Of course, one can imagine that the ultimate theory of the universe really have more than one constant : there is no guarantee that the ultimate "single-constant" theory of everything exist. Or one could subscribe to Hawking's "Top down" approach....(too long to say here...)
With that preamble : here are the responses to your points.
(1) yes, that's right
(2) This is a fine point in the so-called Anthropic Principle. The AP, is as its name implies, a Principle which must *predict* results. TO say that things are they way they are because if not we won't be here to see it is not applying the AP correctly. ONe must say, ok, what are the conditions that are required for life as we know it to exist, and then use them to derive quantities that then can be measured. Now, the usual argument against the AP (similar to the one you stated) : one cannot imagine what are the "conditions for life" due to lack of experience, is *not* correct. Not knowing the conditions for life does not mean those conditions don't exist. The AP must ultimately pass or fail, as a theory, when one knows all the conditions, and then apply it to predict measurable quantities that can be tested against experiment.
Sadly, a lot of people, even in the science community, often mistook this point. (One particularly galling example is a recent paper by M.Rees, the astronomer Royal no less....)
(3) This argument is often used as an attempt to "quantify" the statistics of why we live in the universe with such constants. Recently, it has received a lot of attention, thanks to some half-hand wavy arguments from string theory. (The old form is the many-world intepretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that's a bit out of date though never disprove : you can't prove or disprove things you can't observe.) It's fine, but there is always the caveat that statistics can only tell you so much...
(4) This is new physics, since we still have no complete, testatble theory that can resolve singularities. So to make the claim that each singularity is a new universe is a matter of conjecture. Having said that, yes, people do have models that do things like that...T.Jacobson is one of those proponent who use such "birth of universes" in BH to bypass the information paradox...
(5) ID. Like I said, ID is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Here's how it failed the slippery slope argument : You can always ask who design the designer...for starters.
So, for me, (3) is actually a meaningful question to ask. It won't be satisfying as an answer, like you said, it won't be completely testable. But a lot of things are described statistically (thermodynamics), so what is wrong to say that the universe is just a realization from an ensemble of possibilities? You can "test", statistically speaking, by doing a bayesian analysis and have some sort of answer (like "The probability of us living in this universe, given the model is such as such, is 70% etc..."). (5) is just baloney. (2) is not giving up, but often cast as such, though I still think it is hokey and its results often overstated.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
No, this cleary is the regular, non-bizarro slashdot.
2E: Blizzard of Numbers - the Creation "scientist" to whom I'm responding is the case in point: "26 variables? 66 variables? Does he really know enough about physics, cosmology, and biology to be sure it's not 27, or 65? Does anyone?!?!
I know! The number of variables is clearly 42.
Ok, I apologize for not being clear on my allegation of incompleteness. I believe I have read into your argument a bit so I will grant you r point #3 withdraw my claim that it was incomplete.
I guess your argument boils down to a belief that we cannot make any inference to intelligence or some similar alternative based on the remote odds of life occurring by chance.
The alternate to your view is this: Given that there is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants, it is surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. It is therefore perfectly rational to suspect something deeper at work than merely chance, and to infer possible significance and meaning from it.
The poker analogy was intended to show how surprising this is, and why there are justifiable grounds for suspecting something deeper at work. The surprise is not that we observe a universe, but the universe that gave rise to us is the one which exists.
However, I will grant that "meaning" is not a scientific question as such. I don't regard intelligent design as scientific either because it does not yield anything really testable. I regard it as metaphysics.
My analogies by the way are no different than yours. They are no more or less an argument than your analogies.
But I grant, that from you use of the lottery analogy, and given that lotteries typically have millions of entrants, I misconstrued each entrant as analogous to an alternate universe, and misconstrued what you were saying. However, I do think that your lottery analogy used this way works well in explaining some arguments in favor of the many worlds hypothesis.
If you call that intelligent design, then the engeneers must have seriously screwed up. Or we're a prototype of some kind.
I think the rating on this post is odd. 0, Insightful
hmmmmmmmm
Personally, I wish people wouldn't rate this 'overrated" simply because they disagree with the post. That's childish.
While I can't say I agree, I think it should be moderated higher.
Actually, the concept of "fate" has been shown fairly convincingly by a number of theoretical physicists to be merely a function of what you are.
uhm...
To say... Every action that has had the possiblity of taking place HAS taken place. If we consider the String theory or the Brane theory as reasonable (which they are on the surface) then this assertion is not just a theory but a logical follow-on to those theories.
The argument goes like this: When the Universe was born, it was born in a nearly infinite number of different configurations. Only a very small number of these Universes ever did much other than collapse on themselves. In String theory, there are 10 or 11 dimensions. The existance of the higher order dimensions on any macro-atomic scale causes the matter/energy "matrix" of these dimensions to implode almost instantaneously.
As a consequence, only the Universes where some of the dimensions are sufficiently "curled up" to quantum sizes are suitable for the expansion of energy away from "implosion". Much fewer of these are suitable so that energy ever condenses to matter and even fewer so that they coalesce into "atoms" as we know it.
Even then, there are a very large number of these, in "human terms".
The great irony is that people ask "then what makes our Universe so special that it happened JUST right so that it supports Intelligent life?"
I think the simple answer is... There are likely many many many that support intelligent life. We are in one of them. (Perhaps in some other Universe, I'm a creationist. Maybe I'm insane in another).
The only reason we admire this Universe and question it (and not some other Universe where Intelligent life is not possible) is simply because this Universe has Intelligent life (if it did not, there would be nobody questioning it).
In fact, these overlapping "multi-dimensional" theories explain results of previously unexplained physical experiments reasonably well. They cannot be explained by any current theory beyond this. However, nobody has been able to measure them exactly enough to be sure if they explain it EXACTLY.
The tide of science is moving toward String theory and other multi-dimensional theories. This bodes poorly for "Intelligent Design" to be meaningful beyond the assertion that god poked the Universe with his finger and said "Bang" and thus was born all of the dimensions and realities at once...
But since time is not absolute (it is Relative) and nor is Space, the concept of a big bang itself implies that time (that we measure it) HAS a beginning.
Of course, if you wish to believe "on faith" that there is some force that can exist outside of all of our known and observable physical laws of time and space, I can't stop you. It's hardly scientific though.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
I'll make no claims when it comes to oil and gas. I've no real experience there and only know what I read from textbooks that are now old enough to be fossils themselves. But the idea that coal is abiotic is lunacy. I've been a coal geologist for more than 20 years. I've thin sectioned enough of the stuff to fuel a small city through a bitter winter. I've cored and logged coal from America to Australia. And I can tell you what is in every sample of coal I ever examined: plant material. Spores. Leaves. Resins. Even the portions that are nearly pure carbon often preserve the details of floral microstructures. Coal is not only made from plants, I can, from deposit to deposit, tell you exactly what kind of environment and mixture of flora was involved. Further, we well understand the stages of coal deposition and development. We have models for most every ancient coal bed in current depositional environments (go to Indonesia if you want to see really spiffy examples). The chemical makeup of coal can be used to "reverse engineer" the pressures, depths, and time involved in it's production. There is no fricking mystery here. Abiotic coal. Jesus. When it comes to the cuckoo meter, turn this one up to eleven.
Part of the problem her is that the word "wrong" is used instead of "innacurate". Newton was NOT wrong - just innnacurate at very high speeds (speeds he really had no concept of at the time). Likewise, the "Gradualistic" description of the fact of evolution was corrected through the Punctuated Equilibrium assertion. The initial offset error of radio-carbon dating was found and corrected - and then enhanced even more through the use of other radio-isotopes. I understand that the law of gravitational attraction is being modified for very small (sub-nuclear) and very large (pan-galactic) distances. Examples abound - science is self-accuratizing (sp?). The statement that "science has often been wrong is a compliment and glorification of science.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
Intelligent Design is a "scientific" front for creationists to advance their anti-evolution agenda.
to summarize the skepdic's analysis:
Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.
The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection.
(by the way, the quote in the subject line is taken from Leonard Krishtalka, the director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum.)
"why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself."
Because measuring two things in relative terms to each other and measuring two things in an absolute scale are two very different things. Being 50% more "wrong" than the other group doesn't say anything about how far away from "correct" you are. In mathematical terms, you get a direction with no magnitude.
At any rate, is this guy related to the new Maryland governor?
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Some of the history of mainstream Christianity is the foundation of most of Science, and some of it is the systematic creation of superstitions and illogical dogma.
Neither refutes the other. My point is that you shouldn't have to. The whole discussion, however, has created an atmosphere that ostracizes someone who believes this from both sides.
I am neither welcome as a Scientist nor accepted in Christianity because I dare to believe that the two are not, by their nature, in conflict. Because I believe that the conflict leads to the stupidification (is that a word?) of both sides, as each side digs in their heels and insists that their point of view is the only legitimate one. Both points of view are wrong because of the hatred each engenders for the other. It doesn't matter who "wins" at this point; nobody's "winning." You win by learning and growing. You don't learn and grow when you're trying to shout down someone else.
"I do seem to recall that firearms are legal due to an amendmant muttering about right to protect one's self and protecting America"
It wasn't just AN amendment, it was the second one, right after freedom of speech. The founders of our country felt it was so important that they made it the second issue they addressed.
" As we aren't likely to invade anytime soon and small-arms really don't cut it in international disputes anymore, surely this is now defunct?"
An important point here is not only that guns are kept for protection against foreign invaders, but also as protection against the government itself. Rightly or wrongly, many people feel that the government may at some time attempt to restrict their freedoms unfairly. Some people believe that guns help keep that possibility in check, by keeping revolution a viable option.
Why don't nine-foot seams of Ordovician or Silurian coal exist below Carboniferous strata then? Also, why does Pennsylvanian coal contain carbonized Lycopodium stumps a yard wide? There are brown coal seams from the Cretaceous, and pre-coal deposits from relatively Recent peat bogs. The four cuckoos this one deserves will outlast the funerals of Western Civ.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Some people believe that guns help keep that possibility in check, by keeping revolution a viable option.
Well now might be a good time to do just that! Land of the free.. my arse!
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
Well said
Bad news, Bozo. You have no inherent rights. Not one. The rights you have are those we all agree you have. Nothing more. If we want to act like a bunch of petty psychotic storm troopers, your rights will be set accordingly. If enough of us agree to treat each other as equals, and decide that we should cooperate and make earthly life an enriching experience, that would also affect the list of rights you have.
By believing in the wacky concept of "inherent rights," you are in effect ratifying the next lunatic's wacky concepts. Include me out, Dude. I'd rather we all be rational and democratic about it.
It presupposes that life was tuned to support life and that life can only exist if the universe was tuned exactly so, and misses the point that even if there is the slimest chance of life with any given parameters and the universe is big enough, then life will evolve.
I would suggest it is the other way round: life via natural section tuned itself to exist in whatever few tiny pockets of the universe it can.
That we can observe life on our own planet is no coincidence. Only a planet that is capable of supporting life is capable of evolving intelligent beings that can observe and appreciate life. Likewise, only a universe that is capable of supporting life is capable of evolving intelligent beings that can observe and appreciate life.
For all we know, there could be many universes with different parameters that are capable of supporting life among many many more that couldn't. What "Intellegent Design" proponents see as coincidence may not actually be.
I'm a fascinating guy all right, but if you ask me the really interesting thing here is the questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "how can we check what we think we know?" and things like that.
Oh undoubtably. Just like you never think beyond "Guns bad, guns hurt people, guns must die".
On the other hand, it could that I was mislead by a passing familiarity with the gun control debate over the last few decades, and the kind of stats that people cite when they argue about it.
What is? Hormesis? Hormesis is an observed pheonmena in a wide variety of contexts. Do you mean Radiation Hormeis? Try doing a web search on it. It's a respectable scientific idea. Here, let me quote Ehrlich on the subject:
Part of the trouble is that Ehrlich's scale is perhaps lacking in nuance... 1 cuckoo means "probably not true, but who knows?" and 0 cuckoo is the "why not?" level. Where do you file radiation hormesis? On the one hand there are the clues Ehrlich mentions above that make it seem plausible, on the other hand the population studies statistics (read the chapter, I ain't summarizing that stuff) are messy and hard to interpret, but don't seem to show the effect.
But, homeopathy is completely ridiculous. The evidence for homeopathy isn't just ambiguous (as it is with radiation hormeisis), it's completely absent. It also doesn't have anything like a theoretical foundation going for it, either.
Your point is that the burden of proof needs to rest on the person making the assertion, that occam's razor demands we avoid multiplying entities unnecessarily, and so on. The trouble with these kind of principles is that it isn't always obvious *which* side is making the positive assertion. The old, conventional opinion (enshrined into law) is linear extrapolation backwards to low doses, the LNT model. Competing theories would be that there's some sort of threshold down there somewhere below the levels tha
> Why is the ownership of a gun somehow
> special as a basic human right?
I can see two tenable bases:
Because you have a right to live, and to
defend your life as necessary.
Because you have a right to liberty and
property. Consequently you have the right
to own what you can produce. Since any
reasonably intelligent person can produce
a firearm from naturally occuring materials
in a reasonably small fraction of their
lifetime, such persons have a natural right
to own and possess a firearm.
> Is owning a dog a basic human right?
I can't produce a dog from raw materials.
However, under some circumstances, a dog
might be an essential survival tool.
I would say that it is a conditional right.
> Is owning a house a basic human right?
I can produce one. Without one, I'm likely
to die of exposure. Thus, the obvious yes.
> Is owning a car a basic human right?
While I might conceivably be able to produce
one, I can't produce a fuel and road infrastructure
to operate it, so in this way the right to
own a car is a right to own a piece of sculpture.
Only under very contrived circumstances
would owning a car be crucial to life.
Definitely a social-contract right, or a
conditional one.
> Is owning a tank a basic human right?
Define "tank".
> Is owning a cruise missle a basic human right?
Definitely not as a result of the two proposed bases used above.
> Is owning a chemical, biological,
> radiological, or nuclear weapon a basic
> human right?
The right to self-preservation says
the contrary. You have a compelling
self-preservation interest in preventing
me from owning most WMDs.
However, the natural capacity basis argues
in favor.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Yes, but what would be the point?
I'm joking, of course -- mostly. Anyway, thank you for a lucid response. I'm not entirely convinced, but you make a good case.
It's kind of a funny test of Occam's Razor, isn't it? Which is the "simpler" explanation? A) To say we simply evolved by chance, rather than as the result of manipulation by some unseen but all-powerful deity, or B) It's simpler to suggest that someone was controlling the process as opposed to a preposterously unlikely combination of events. It strikes me that the case can be made that each of these are "simpler" than the other, and that what one chooses to believe probably says more about the chooser than it does about the actual likelihood of either.
Also, the sequence of events resulting in the lifeless universe you mentioned: Isn't that the ultimate example of the old "If a tree fell in the forest" question? I mean, if the universe exists as a bunch of cold rocks floating in space, with no one there to acknowledge its existence, can it really be said to exist in any practical way?
But enough of that. I'd like to read up on the 'irreducible complexity' problem WRT the eye. Can you point me in the right direction?
- Alaska Jack
In practice, obviously, its what you can get
away with. In order to make a principled
argument, you would first need to establish
the acceptable premises and modes of reasoning.
Since that's not feasible in a political
discourse, as opposed to a personal or
academic one, the issue is hopeless and
will devolve to a matter of power and preference.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
For instance, we are now beginning to accept that an organism inherits more than its genotype (ie. genetic makeup). In the same way humans inherit knowledge and property created by their parents, organisms too can inherit changes their ancestors made to their environment or behaviour - changes that are capable of modifying the selective pressures that determine which traits perish or survive.
See The extended phenotype and Aspects of behavioural inheritance
Regulation leads to confiscation. I'd give examples but you would invoke Goodwins Law.
I would do no such thing because I don't know nor care to know what that is.
I do know, however, that another type of deadly device is regulated and millions of people enjoy them without that confiscation you speak of. They are known as horeless carriages, or "automobiles" to some.
You can't take the sky from me...
Actually, these are worthy considerations and I'm surprised that you think some logical fallacy is taking place here. The source does need to be considered. It is logical. The "ad hominem" argument is one in which irrelevant and distasteful (distasteful dependent on the target audience) information about the source is given. Eg, a typical 50's ad hominem attack might portray so-and-so as flaming gay, red communist, atheist, etc. so that public opinion would turn against the target and their ideas become hidden.
Any information particularly on the Internet needs to be connected with it's source. That includes consideration of how reliable the source is, it's likelihood of knowing the information, and the benefits of releasing the information and the agenda furthered by the source. Sources don't normally release information by accident. Usually there's a reason for it.
Is this bizarro slashdot or something?
No, this cleary is the regular, non-bizarro slashdot.
lol!
Aww...its funny because its true.
You can't take the sky from me...
can it really be said to exist in any practical way?
"Practical way" subtly implies an observer, so it can't exist in a practical way. It can't exist in a non-practical way either, because that implies that there is a practical way, which implies an observer. It would have to exist in a way that is completely independent of practical. I have no idea what that means, but it's logical.
'irreducible complexity' problem WRT the eye. Can you point me in the right direction?
First the ID side, which I think is wrong, but probably not maliciously so:
Home page of Michael J. Behe. For more info, pick up books or writings on the web by Behe, and William A. Dembski. Google is your friend, there's a huge amount of stuff out there.
Now, for the skeptical side:
The talkorigins website
When someone puts forward the idea of irreducible complexity, remember two things: first, it's up to the person saying that the eye is irreducible to prove that it is. The argument must satisfy the skeptic. Second, irreducible complexity sounds a lot like the fallacy of argument from lack of imagination. Just because one cannot imagine how something could happen is not a reason to believe that it did.
The talk origins website has a lot of information on there, hope you enjoy reading some of it.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
PERCENTAGE OF VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED BY:
PERSONS USING A GUN: 8%
There are 45 million to 90 million gun owners in the United States (15% to 30% of the U.S. Population), with over 200 million privately owned firearms.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS: 25%
There are 35 million African-Americans in the United States (12% of the U.S. population).
source for crime statistics:
U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 Statistical Tables).
Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"
Available on the internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
Violent crime figures exclude homicide. The NCVS does not measure homicide (because homicide victims don't answer survey questions). While homicide figures are different (65% gun : 50% African-American), their relatively small number ( 17,000 total homicides compared to 7 million total violent crimes per year) does not change the overall violent crime rate figures.
Some activists compare crime in the United States (290 million people) to countries such as Canada (30 million people) and Great Britain (60 million people), but they ignore the demographic differences. Only 2% of Canada's population and 4% of Britain's population are black.
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo41.htm and http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib/viewerChart305.h
So by the "bar chart" logic of the more sophisticated non-Americans, one must conclude that black people cause crime. If so, what is the public policy solution?
The grandparent also might want to visit the sites pointed to by this post to read the debunking of the apocryphal cases he alludes to.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
*Rolls up newspaper*
NO! Bad logic, BAD!
the gist of the argument is that random selection of base pairs won't result in life, except under the most exceptionally lucky circumstances.
OK, so we could be lucky. Of course, the timeframe allows for a lot of chances, and maybe lucky starts to approach inevitable. That doesn't argue for any divine intervention.
there's a mechanism by which complex strings may be built from simpler ones,
Evolution, natural process which involves absolutely no divine intervention...
it suggests that the origin of life was not merely a fortunate accident. Rather, it was the result of design
This is where the logic jumps a ridiculous distance. Because simple can become complex, it may, nay... It MUST be designed that way. There's not even a word to describe the magnitude of that leap.
whether or not that design was instrumented by a higher power may be left for debate.
Oh, come on. This is just absurd. The argument "we're not saying it's necessarily God..." is just trying to be cutesy.
But it does much damage to the atheistic worldview if it can be shown that no life can result from purely random events.
Only if you can actually show it.
was Demographics of Crime in the United States
i d=7601602, not http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87689&ci d=7601686
1. Learnt is a correct past-tense form of learn. I implied that it was not.
2. I should have linked to the parent post at http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87689&c
My apologies for those errors.
If you restrict the guns the stats for chainsaw murders will go up. Here in Russia most murders are commited with kitchen knives.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
You forget the purpose of the US 2nd ammendment. Its there to allow people to stage an armed revolt against the government in case it goers bad. Its a built in safety mechanism. Now your are proposing to le the government regualte it. The same government that alredy has the right to check your library records. Read communist or anarchist literature- no gun for you.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Ah, but that is the problem itself - the poster I was replying to did not state 'there are problems with Darwins theory of natural selection' - he stated that there are challenges to evolution - which, although described by Darwin's theories, is not exclusively Darwin's. I know, I know, it comes down to semantics and what did the poster actually mean, but thats why I commented in the first place: because his phrasing would imply to the casual reader that evolution itself was in question - when in fact, it is only theories about how evolution works that are being questioned. Am I making sense? Maybe I was seeing a mountain where there was a molehill...
man is machine
In fact sunlight is not only known to be beneficial but also absolutely necessary for your body to produce Vitamin D. It the source of almost all of your vitamin D so... Also note the fact that exposure to below normal amounts of sunlight (such as people from northern countries) is directly linked to high percentages for depression and suicide attempts. The other ideas too are not very well thought. Guns possesion does not appear to have influence on crime rates, which makes the question redundant. In my opinion it is one of the million of those scientific books produced in the States that are not worth reading (not to mention buying). Please avoid. STOP.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
Well that's about 65 points right there. You could have had 70 if not for hyphenating REVERSE-EVOLUTION.
> Every so often, we've got to reevaluate where we are and where we're going in science (even computer science!) It's important to keep in mind that none of this is gospel, and that we're continuing to learn and revise our pool of knowledge.
Yep, and that makes an interesting comparison to creationism, doesn't it.
> Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges, explains that to even reach the stage at which we exist there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life and a further sixty-six within our galaxy and Earth itself that allowed the multitude of living beings not only to come into being but to flourish (this whitepaper that was in My Favorites breaks these criteria into probabilities -- great read if you prefer to see the evidence of this hypothesis); in a nutshell, this concept is summed up in Asimov's fantastic quote "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
First, observe that although some ID advocates make that kind of appeal, it's really just a restatement of the anthropic principle, which has been around much longer than ID has.
But let's get back to this:
> Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges
ID has no status whatsoever in the scientific community. The only academics you will find pushing it are those pushing a religious agenda (or neocons pushing a political agenda disguised as a religious agenda).
> I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for...
Free will is "unaccounted for" in the sense that no one has even made a convincing argument that it actually exists.
> One has to start somewhere to reconcile observation with history in order to get closer to the truth.
You won't get any closer to the truth by following bunkum like ID.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How does it follow from "hydrocarbons pre-existed the formation of the earth" that "we're probably not going to run out of them"? I'd think you could draw the opposite conclusion - if we use up the accessible stuff and it's not a renewable resource... how far are we going to have to dig or go out in space to get more? It becomes rather impractical doesn't it? Or is there some mechanism by which they are supposed to get replenished right here on earth?
> If the universe really does have the fine tuning properties that it appears to have based on our current understanding, then inferring from that some kind of Creator makes sense as a metaphysical construct.
No, not at all. It may be that there is some underlying reason for the universe to have the properties that it does. It may be that there are or have been many universes, and for obvious reasons we can only notice the one we arose in. It may even be a simple matter of luck.
Appeals to ignorance do not motivate any Creator hypothesis. If you want to convince us that there is a Creator, give us some evidence or appeal to special revelation and hope we go along with it. Don't waste our time with bad arguments.
> I don't believe that it can be used to disprove intelligent design
ID hasn't been disproved. Nor has Last Thursdayism, for that matter.
What ID sorely lacks is any motivation for anyone to believe any of it.
> or to prove that it is irrational to believe that the universe is the product of intelligent design.
It should be treated like any other unsupportable claim, such as Last Thursdayism or IPU Theory (IPU = "Invisible Pink Unicorn). I don't have any opinion on whether such views should be designated as irrational. But what is irrational is to try to justify them with bad arguments. And that's the piper's tune when it comes to ID.
I have vastly more respect for people who simply say "goddidit" than for people who invent pseudoscience to convince themselves and others that "goddidit".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Even I can see that there are some problems that Evolutionary Theory hasn't adequately explained, the nonreducible complexity problem perhaps foremost among these. And that's a pretty fundamental problem.
No, it's utter bullshit. Behe claims that a certain step in biological history could not be the result of evolution and follows with the conclusion that some Intelligent Designer must have intervened at that step.
The problems with Behe's claim are manifold. First off he uses a strawman caricature of evolution rather than the theory that real scientists use. (I.e., he thinks that evolution can only procede along a direct path to some goal, with a fitness advantage at every step along the way.)[*] Second, scientists have since pointed out that there really are evolutionary precursors to the system he claims to be irreducibly complex. Third, his inference of an intelligent intervention is a non sequitur. (The correct conclusion - if not for his other errors - would be a simple "I don't know how we got from point A to point B.")
Intelligent Design, as it is currently being offered, is just a renaming of Ignorance Theory.
* Notice that stone masonry arches are irreducibly complex, but we build them one stone at a time all the same.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The problem with ID arguments is the people researching it are not competing to come up with the better theory but are trying to come up with some standard that "believers" can pile behind and feel that their belief in a creator is still valid or more precisely it is that the theory of evolution makes them feel like their religious beliefs may now be invalid unless they come up with another theory that keeps the door open for God in this universe.
[Emphasis mine.]
Right. The best possible illustration that ID is not science is the fact that it does not suggest a research program. The proponents came up with their ideas and rushed straight off to state school board meetings demanding that they be given equal time with the theory of evolution.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Actually "Intelligent Design" is another in the series of attempts by creationists and atheistic anti-evolutionists, to attempt to return science to schools...
Actually its an attempt to make an end run around the Establishment Clause.
Also to replace Creation Science with a "theory" that does not make any predictions that might come back to embarrass it later. (The proponents of ID go out of their way to defuse questions about who or what the Designer is and exactly what "design" entails.)
> the mantra from the evolutionists that "you propose a god and therefore cannot be scientific" has been answered...
ID hasn't answered anything except the creationist demand for an end run around the Establishment Clause and a pretense that their religious beliefs are supported by science.
As for the "mantra", it is exactly correct. When you invoke a hypothetical being that has unlimited powers and unknowable motives, you have provided a wildcard rather than an explanation. There is no conceivable observation - nor even any inconceivable one - that is not compatible with the HBthUPaUM. It makes no predictions, isn't falsifiable even in principle, and holds no explanatory value. You might as well offer "*" as a scientific answer to some question.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations.
It is also a branch of what was formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, a neocon activist organization. Many think the leaders of the ID movement are interested in religion primarily as an opiate for the masses.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, better raped than dead still..
Frightening other criminals is not going to make them non-criminal as long as they can't survive by other means. It'll just make them carry a shotgun and be really nervous whenever they have to commit crime. Anyone who can't afford food and living will go criminal or die, and even I myself would choose the first option if I only had those two. THAT's the point in welfare.
Also.. Get real. After a shotgun hit, good pistol hit or even a good hit from a baseball bat you're not going to be functional enough to avoid the other hit that's coming right after the first. I'd suggest you try it but I don't. Sometimes people die from a single punch in the face.
In Finland where I live, a criminal who'd rob you on the street will have nothing or a knife. Because he'd be in real trouble for having a gun, and he's fine with a knife. Still, some are killed with a knife every now and then (some ppl are shot also, but that's more often criminals fighting other criminals).
Another point; you seem to suggest that criminals are evil from hell, and they'll do whatever evil they can because they enjoy it. I do not think that's true. A criminal is a human being and has reasons for being criminal. It's those reasons we'd have to change.
Now my ideas are very humane and all, but I must agree that I'm afraid of violent narcomaniacs because they've fucked up their brain so bad. That's a real problem. Still, better to not force them to go criminal.
Well the guns or the lack thereof don't create violence or crime. But guns make it deadlier. You might live in a place where a criminal might want to break into your house and rape your wife, but I just fail to take it seriously where I live. So you americans, do whatever you will. I actually don't know what would work there, because our good solution is probably not good for you (anymore) or would at least take some 100 years of social growth. The sad thing is nobody seems to know what to do about crime.
Have you ever seen Bertrand Russell's autobiography? It's 2 volumes. Talk about pompus. There's more detail in there than I ever wanted to know.
Incidently, Mr. Wolfram has preserved his life story for us on the web as well. With PDF files and everything.
Frankly, "A New Kind Of Science" reminds me of the "Principia Mathematica". Both have good ideas, are notoriously long, invented their own notation for no good reason, and try to solve the existing problems of the foundations of math with pure hubris.
Incidently, I actually have some respect for both of these men. They just got a little carried away.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Now shut up.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People have replied to most things you said, I'll just add a note. You seem to talk about only half of the evolution theory. It states there is variability and then selection of the fittest organisms. That's why you don't need the 4^4000 combinations to get a useful molecule with 4000 bases. The molecule is sequentially improved, not by design and not at random, but by natural selection.
Incidentally, 4000 nucleotides is rather excessive for a useful DNA chain. There are useful chains that are less than 100 nucleotides long (reference here) and even a single aminoacid can work as an enzyme (reference here, even if I'm not sure The Hindu is a credible resource for this...). Naturally, one would think that the first forms of life had very small RNA/DNA molecules, that started replicating and got selected based on their ability to do so.
Then what will you do with all the reputable institutions that teach it, The National Politechnic Institute in Mexico, a fully official, goverment funded, high education college, is one of them.
Heck, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of the country, studied there (not homeopathic medicine though), so there are serious acadmic institutions that beg to disagree with your Cuckoometer on this one.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Something tells me you won't get the point, but I'll try again.
Remember the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" quip? Well, to make the claim that the complex biological systems we have today arose from purely random interactions of molecules is quite an extraordinary claim. If one could show even a plausible mechanism by which this would happen, it would be an improvement.
But unlike the rest of science, evolutionary biologists seem to think they're exempt from the requirement that a hypothesis be demonstrable by experiment. When challenged, their response is that they can't reproduce the process because it would take too long. Which is ridiculous given that a modern computer could simulate millions of years of history in a few hours (for the purposes concerned).
Basically, what it boils down to is that their "proof" of abiogenesis doesn't even make sense statistically. This is what Behe and others have debunked; the hypothesis can't be true, because it isn't logically consistent - i.e. it requires faith in the ability of random events building complex structures. I've yet to see a deterministic model for the origin of life. I don't doubt that it is possible, but I haven't seen it shown.
Again, since it is the scientists who propose abiogenesis happened, I would expect that they would be able to produce something that was at least 1.)logically consistent, and 2.) demonstrable through experiment, or possibly, simulation. But they have done neither. No self-respecting physicist could get away with claiming that star formation was the result of "a lucky series of unlikely, though possible events in which all the molecules in a large space collapsed toward a central location." Such a physicist would get laughed out of the profession. All we ask is that the field of evolutionary biology hold itself to the same standards as the other sciences.
But biology is different. The first law of evolutionary biology states that a long enough series of random events will produce complex and ordered biological systems. For some reason, we are supposed to just accept this premise, without any proof or evidence whatsoever.
That is the problem. Evolution is a faith, not a science. Which is why I won't be surprised if future generations view our current understanding of evolution as a bit naive. I would expect (hopefully) that in the future, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs could be shown through experiment and reason, rather than just blind faith in the creative ability of random events.
Really, when I think about it, abiogenesis is an embarassment to science.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Thanks for the link... I haven't read it yet, but I will today, and I appreciate the information.
The only point I was trying to make was that there is still some doubt about big bang. And point out that doubt does not make a person a creationist.
I do have a question regarding galaxy collision, as you're a physicist and I'm not. If galaxies were to collide given big bang as a truth, wouldn't that happen much earlier? It would seem to me (layman) that since directly after the big bang, all objects were much closer together. As time goes by and they continue to spread apart from the source, they all get further apart from each other.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Here in Russia most murders are commited with kitchen knives.
Here in Canada there was a copycat incident soon after the infamous Columbine shooting.
But since this is Canada, the kid did not have easy access to an arsenal, so he used a knife. 6 people were injured, included the idiot, none were killed.
Killing someone with a knife is much harder than killing someone with a gun.
You can't take the sky from me...
That's actually a pretty good question - spoken like a true geographer. They create the maps of petro reserves by drilling wells until they find oil. Then, they progress outwards radially until the production becomes economically unviable.
At first, I'm sure they found oil/gas by accident, or through random drilling. As the correlations developed between geologic formations and "black gold", they were able to find clues that led to improvements in exploration efficiency.
This is a big deal, economically. If you can find a major reserve before anyone else, you can acquire mineral rights, right of way, infrastructure, and property much cheaper than your competitors. Your cost of operating is much lower if you can beat the rush. Big companies spend thousands every month to get data on where new wells are being drilled. (http://www.rigdata.com/)
* * *
When I say chemical structure, I mean the actual hydrocarbons making up the fuel. For example, methane is CH4. It is my understanding that similar types of carbon chains are found in living organisms.
For a more mainstream view, check out the American Petroleum Institute's website.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Thought I would reply to this one, too. Gold is referring to an 80 barrel find, which is not a statistically significant amount from a commercial perspective.
80 barrels is a rounding error for most companies, and could potentially be explained through some other means. A real reserve is in the millions or billions of barrels.
FYI:
1 barrel (bbl) = 42 gallons
Many 8" pipelines have a flowrate of > 2000 barrels per hour (bph), 24 hours a day
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
The early universe was a like a very hot soup. The temperature was initially so hot that even nucleons (protons & neotrons) couldn't form, and it was some kind of quark plasma, which would be uniform in consistency, except for fluctutations (sound waves, essentially).
As the universe expands, the temperature reduces and evenually quarks can consense into nucleons. At this stage, you have a plasma (not unlike a flourescent tube) consisting of bound atomic nuclei, and very hot electrons which are not bound (just flying around everywhere).
The next significant moment is when the temperature gets low enough that the electrons get captured by the atomic nuclei and you get bound, neutral atoms forming.
Note that until time, the universe is opaque - fire a photon and it will simply scatter off a free electron. Once the temperature is small enough that the electrons are captured into atoms, it takes a finite energy photon (the ionization energy) to interact with an electron so the universe is largely transparent (as it is today). The 3K microwave background radiation we see comes from this event. The fluctuations in the early universe (sound waves in the plasma) can be seen in the fine structure of the 3K background.
The point is, that the early universe is mostly uniform, but with fluctuations which lead to clumping at all length scales, from planets to stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, clusters of galactic clusters, etc etc etc. Although the universe as a whole is expanding (and accelerating, in fact) the fluctuations that we see now as clumping of matter occur on arbitrarily large length scales, which in turn means that it takes arbitrarily long time for the clumping to occur.
Or more succintly, the expansion isn't fast enough to completely override gravity effects on local scales (and by the scale of the universe, galaxies count as 'local').
Hopefully some nice astrophysicist will come and rescue me now, and explain it properly ;)
Honestly, anti-creationists arguments probably deserve every bit of vitriol that comes their way.
But that's the problem, the post being flamed never made a single mention of creationism or religion, period. What does creationism have to do with questioning the veracity of our current views on the Big Bang and evolution? The only mention of creationism has been from the rabid anti-creationists bent on the idea that questioning evolution = creationism. At least save the anti-creationist flaming for creationist posts.
That makes my point. Both of your alternatives, many universes, or luck, are just as much metaphysical constructs as is the idea of a creator. In fact, these two embody the other alternatives to the idea of a Creator. Any of the alternatives constitute just as much as a appeal to ignorance (or reason) as the other.
Note: I am not defending ID as a scientific theory -- I say so in the post to which you are responding. It is too unspecific and lacks testable claims to work as a research program. ID is natural theology, not science. In this respect I agree with the comparison to last Thursdayism.
"IPU" theory is a straw man argument embodying a number of fallacies. Flesh out the arguments and I will show you the errors.
I am glad you agree with me that science cannot be used to prove that theistic belief is irrational or that it can disprove ID. I grant that by making that claim, that I may have read too much into the original post. I admitted as much in my reply to his reply.
You're making sense. I gathered from his own posts that the poster you were replying to had theological issues with "Darwinism", and, while I'm not going to pick your post apart for possible minor errors, on the whole it looked quite rational. (Since we're using natural language, it is always possible to nitpick - English itself isn't built to be rigorously logical). In fact, I responded to your post because it looked to be unlikely to descend to name calling and irrational "arguements" as fast as some threads.
Evolution reduced to the simplest senses, i.e. "survival of the fittest", is tautalogical (that one survived, so it must be the fittest). Properly elaborated from those bases, it becomes scientific, that is it makes testable predictions. In fact, it makes quite a few of them that have passed such tests, and so has come to be well regarded among scientists and rationalists in general.
Unfortunately, the theory has also been elaborated in other directions by many supporters. Old errors of that sort became "Social Darwinism". Looking at this thread, I noticed several posters who write as though the word Evolution included dogmatic atheism, others who think it implies something called de-evolution and that some of their fellow slashdotters are suffering from it, at least one who lumps meme-theory in with it, and so on. I'm not sure just what the original poster thought was included in the core concept.
I don't think he was necessarily picking a definition that was a deliberate straw man explanation however. He may well have been referring to some of the same definitions some "supporters of evolution" were offering.
Who is John Cabal?
It's quite simple. Recall the mental state and muscle memory used to hang up on a telemarketer (especially the pre-recorded variety).
Replace the requisite eyeroll with the swift SELECT drop-down drag to "-1: Troll". Then replace the handset slam with the furious, repeated left-click on the Moderate button at the bottom of the thread.
You showed them!
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
No need to get hostile. I really don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. The other responder posted a link where I can read more about Evolutionary Theorists' responses to Intelligent Design, and I am going to do so.
Let me just make two quick points, and again, these are not offered in a hostile spirit. First, the irrreducible complexity problem is obviously not "utter bullshit." Whether one believes in ID or not, IC is a serious critique of evol. theory, serious enough to send evol. theorists scrambling to find evolutinary precursors and the like. The IC hypothesis may be *wrong*, but that doesn't mean it's "utter bullshit" in the sense of being foolish or insincere.
Second, I would just note that stone masonry arches are indeed irreducibly complex, and we do indeed build them one stone at a time. On the other hand, "we" are intelligent designers.
Oh undoubtably. Just like you never think beyond "Guns bad, guns hurt people, guns must die".
You may be surprised, but I am not anti-gun in the sense of believing all guns must disappear. I have no use for them, and I think we would all be better off without them, but it can't be done. Like illicit drugs, prostitution, and many, many other things, full prohibition is a mirage. Making things illegal is not the same as making them go away. And of course, there are firearm sports such as hunting, marksmanship, etc.
As to personal defense, I think there is a gray area. I know of cases where people have successfully fended off attackers, sometimes with nothing more than the sound of chambering a round in the dark. I also know of many people who have died confronting a more skillful or more desperate armed assailant. There is really nothing that can be robustly claimed either way about owning firearms for self-defense. Frankly, the perceived need for owning them represents a failure of law and order, and the guaranteed existence of people who simply can't live peacefully and without attacking others.
My position is that firearms should be available more or less as they are now, with robust licensing and traceability in case they are used in crimes. Military-style weapons really don't have a place in civil society, in my opinion.
There's an old Libertarian saw that this reminds me of that I've always had issues with: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face." The implicit meaning of this statement is that you should be able to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. A good idea, but ultimately one that's just as short-sighted and limited in its scope as its catch phrase is. Your right to swing your fist doesn't just end at my face. It also ends with waving it around threateningly at me even if you never actually impact me with it. Similarly, your right to own an item ends when your ownership presents a not-insignificant risk to me.
Gun ownership is a responsibility, not just a "basic human right." Treating it as such is part of the entitlement mentality that is choking America and is inherently an obstacle to training people in proper firearm safety. Our Constitution gives us this right for one explicit purpose -- to maintain a militia. In other words, owning a firearm is part of every man's civic duty to protect his country and resist oppresion and is not an inherent right to go waving about like you automatically deserve to handle a dangerous weapon simply for breathing.
I personally believe that people should be allowed to own firearms for personal protection, but I don't see it as an inherent human right. That sort of speech should be reserved for things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now it's time for me to digress from the topic at hand.
The line is not arbitrary most of the time. It just often seems that way. Civilization requires the careful analysis of cost/benefit ratios. What is the cost of allowing extremely powerful oxidants into the hands of average citizens versus the benefit of it? I deliberately drew out the examples of tanks, cruise missles, and CBNR weapons as increasing levels of hazard and risk to the public to see if you'd draw on the fact that a line absolutely has to be drawn somewhere for civilization to hold together. Imagine how much trouble the DC sinpers could've caused if they could've gotten their hands on a cheap radiological or chemical weapon instead of a firearm. Imagine how much worse the Oklahoma City Bombing could've been with access to better bomb-making supplies than fertilizer.
The origins of the 2nd Amendment are in a time when the most terrible weapons that men had available to them were cannons and muskets. In that time, it was perfectly feasable for average citizens to own weapons technology on par with an invading foreign army or an oppressive domestic one.
Following the trends of history, one can note the effectiveness of weapons technology and its impact on a society by looking at how much damage a small team of well-funded malicious individuals can do before being taken down. The number hadn't changed that much from the era of rocks and bronze swords to the era of muskets and cannons. However, from the time of fast-reloading rifles, cannons, and gatling guns to the age of fully automatic riles, mustard gas, and napa
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I like your argument, though I'd disagree on the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't a broad affirmation of owning weapons for any sort of self-defense. It's clearly worded with the intention of equipping Americans with the tools they need to resist enemy governments, both foreign and domestic. It's a minor distinction but an important one. I wrote a reply here to later post by the person who I originally replied to, and I'd like your input on it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Since most European and American scientists before the twentieth century (and quite a few after) would have called themselves "Christian," this statement seems more than a bit silly; it is certainly demonstrative of a abysmal ignorance of history, science, and Christianity.
Not at all. Any scientist calling himself other than a Christian would have had no career in Galileo's lifetime (in Europe, that is). Such was the nature of the times.
Though probably founded more on political than religious grounds,
It was the Church that sentenced Galileo to house arrest, because the Church considered his ideas heresy. Call it Politics if you want, but the fact is that the Church opposed the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun on religious grounds, and persecuted Galileo for publishing the idea. This despite the fact that the Pope and Galileo were on very good terms.
However, this attitude was not typical of the Church as a whole for all of its history. At other times, the Church acted to safeguard, compile and disseminate scientific knowledge and to subsidize scholarship and scientific research.
I agree. But I was speaking only of the conflicts between Science and Christianity, i.e. when the Church officially disagreed with scientific conclusions for religious reasons. Denial, and occasionally even persecution, were its response, and Science usually proved to be correct. Not a great record, and the main reason many of us roll our eyes when the Church denies Evolution, claims the Earth is 6000 years old, etc.
> No need to get hostile. I really don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. The other responder posted a link where I can read more about Evolutionary Theorists' responses to Intelligent Design, and I am going to do so.
Good. Also, no need to interpret my bluntness as hostility. I simply see no reason to call bullshit by any other name.
> Let me just make two quick points, and again, these are not offered in a hostile spirit. First, the irrreducible complexity problem is obviously not "utter bullshit." Whether one believes in ID or not, IC is a serious critique of evol. theory, serious enough to send evol. theorists scrambling to find evolutinary precursors and the like. The IC hypothesis may be *wrong*, but that doesn't mean it's "utter bullshit" in the sense of being foolish or insincere.
Sorry, but it is utter bullshit, and the only threat it offers to real science is the one proffered by Johnson, "when we control the legislatures we'll cut off the funding of anyone who doesn't get in line".
The definition of IC is "if you remove any component, it breaks". That's fine as far as it goes, but it does not in itself pose any problem to the theory of evolution. What aggravates scientists about ID is the way its proponents spin really lame arguments to try to make it look like the definition of the concept somehow poses a problem for regular science. Behe, who should know better, spins his argument against a strawman version of the theory of evolution, and then bypasses peer review and peddles his claims straight to a nation full of creationists desperately looking for a scientific validation of their beliefs. That's either foolish or insincere. He would never have gotten the idea published if he hadn't bypassed the peer review process.
> Second, I would just note that stone masonry arches are indeed irreducibly complex, and we do indeed build them one stone at a time. On the other hand, "we" are intelligent designers.
You missed my point, which was that the way we do it is by erecting a scaffold, building the arch, and then removing the scaffold. The stones do not have to play their final role during this process. Behe's mistake is assuming that evolution cannot use scaffolding (figuratively speaking) and cannot produce any structure that is not rewarded for its ultimate role immediately upon introduction. But that's a strawman version of the theory of evolution. What biologists not blinded by religion actually believe about evolution is that it "tinkers" with existing stuff to form new stuff, very often changing the function of that stuff in the process. The bones in your middle ear didn't poof into existence to serve their current function; they are derived from bones that served a function in the jaws of your ancestors. Nor did the jawbones of those ancestors poof into existence to serve their jawish functions; they were derived from bones that served a function in the gills of their own ancestors. Anyone with so much as a semester of college-level biology should understand that Behe's strawman is a strawman. The only possible conclusion is that Behe himself is either mendacious or incompetent.
And when you start noticing how strongly that syndrome correlates with an evangelical agenda, you start feeling a temptation to conclude the former.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> > > If the universe really does have the fine tuning properties that it appears to have based on our current understanding, then inferring from that some kind of Creator makes sense as a metaphysical construct.
> > No, not at all. It may be that there is some underlying reason for the universe to have the properties that it does. It may be that there are or have been many universes, and for obvious reasons we can only notice the one we arose in. It may even be a simple matter of luck.
> That makes my point. Both of your alternatives, many universes, or luck, are just as much metaphysical constructs as is the idea of a creator.
The question isn't what qualifies as metaphysics according to your definition; the question is whether the quote at top is correct about a motivation for infering the existence of a Creator. You can believe in a Creator if you wish, and you can call that belief metaphysics if you wish, but you can't claim that an a posteriori perception of fine tuning is a reason to infer a Creator.
At least, that's what I thought this conversation was about.
> "IPU" theory is a straw man argument embodying a number of fallacies. Flesh out the arguments and I will show you the errors.
The whole point is that there isn't any argument for IPU theory. That's what the "theory" was invented to illustrate. It covers its own ass by offering a big lie and then carefully avoiding any further statements that are subject to actual investigation.
> I am glad you agree with me that science cannot be used to prove that theistic belief is irrational or that it can disprove ID.
Right. My grudge with ID isn't a dogmatic belief that no designers exist; my grudge is that ID is being passed off as science when it transparently isn't, and that it is being pushed as a fix for a social agenda rather than as a serious attempt to understand why the universe is the way it is.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Gun ownership is a responsibility, not just a "basic human right."
Rights always require responsibility. Liberty requres plenty of responsibility, and yet you consider it a basic human right.
Our Constitution gives us this right
The Consistiution doesn't give rights. It merely enumerates what the founders thought were the most important inherent rights to form a long lasting stable state that offers freedom.
Note that later in the bill of rights they mention "rights retained by the people". This should be clear enough evidence that the bill of rights should not be construed to be granting rights, only to enumerate rights that already exist.
for one explicit purpose -- to maintain a militia
This is a dead horse debate over wording, but the way the 2nd is written, it's clearly not meant to be the sole purpose. If I say "Money is good, I should go get a job", that doesn't mean I want to get a job solely because "money is good", it's simply one reason that I found compelling.
In other words, owning a firearm is part of every man's civic duty to protect his country and resist oppresion and is not an inherent right to go waving about like you automatically deserve to handle a dangerous weapon simply for breathing.
I think you misunderstand the term "right". I think you've internalized the liberal definition of "human rights", which is definitely streched from what the founders intended. They made it clear that rights require a certain level of responsibility in exercising of the rights. They didn't have a problem with punishing people who abused thier rights.
The supreme court has been generally been very careful to avoid "prior restraint" in 1st amendment issues. The idea is that everyone should have the ability to exercise their rights, and they shouldn't be punished until and unless they abuse their rights.
As far as whether the line is arbitrary or not, you mention cost/benefit ratios. That's not how constitutional law has ever been interpreted. There's obviously a high cost in social stability in allowing the KKK to march, and very little social benefit. Cost/benefit has never been a factor when it comes to fundamental rights. If it ever becomes a major factor, we are in serious trouble.
In essence, the 2nd Amendment is unfortunately obsolete.
Well, the founders couldn't have possibly forseen the Internet, so the 1st amendment must be obselete too. Hell, why don't we repeal all 10 amendments in the bill of rights, they are pretty much all "obselete" under your argument.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say "as long as it's easy", or "until better weapons are invented". Your argument flies in the face of the Bill of Rights as a whole.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Who is Johnson? - AJ
> Who is Johnson?
Phillip (sp?) Johnson, a retired lawyer often considered one of the "big three" of the ID movement. He never even pretends to make a scientific argument, AFAIK.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To respond a bit out of order, the most powerful weapons that men had available to them at the time of the Constitution was an armed merchant ship, which would have been quite devastating against a shoreline town (and may have been, I simply don't know of any examples offhand). I do know that the wealthier smugglers were often as well armed as the naval vessels tasked with finding them. Apparently, full equality with the navy was not something that fazed the founders, since they included no exception in the 2nd Amendment for multiple big guns mounted on a big ship.
/. instead of the usual pissing match that these things usually dissolve into...
I do agree, however, with your characterization that firearms ownership is a responsibility as much as it is a right.
As for Timothy McVeigh and 9/11 being the example as to why arms need regulating, that strikes me as a non-sequiter. I think that those are lessons that we should learn as electors: you can't go around destroying other people's lives for your own monetary gain and not expect some of those people to come after you some day. The US manufactures terrorists through some of the worst foreign policy on record. Are we really so suprised that some of our friends and neighbors got killed? How many hundreds or thousands of deaths for each 9/11 death has the US been behind when supporting the Shah?, Pinochet?, Hussein?
In your response to my posting you stated that the justification for the 2nd Amendment is not self-defense, but is clearly laid out so that the people have the power to handle an oppressive government. But what is a revolution against an oppressor, if not simply a somewhat extraordinary (in modern times) example of acting in self-defense? This may be a matter of semantics, and that's okay, but I see the right of self-defense being the support for the stated "security of a free state".
BTW, nice to have an actual discussion on
Regards,
Ross