Slashdot Mirror
Astrologer Sues NASA Over Comet Probe
0110011001110101 writes "NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust -- it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer. 'Bai is seeking damages totaling $300 million -- the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost -- for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope." ' "
Obviously at least one Russian citizen has wholeheartedly embraced the US style of democracy.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
If the Russian court agrees to let this case proceed, it opens the door for all kinds of inane, utterly frivolous lawsuits from astrologers, witch doctors, faith healers, and every other kind of kook out there who wants to make a quick buck by accusing actual scientists of violating some crackpot principle. I'm not an objectivist, but I have to say that Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Although I'm an east european myself, I hate "irrational beliefs", especially when they lead to ridiculous lawsuits.
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
Oh, and she didn't see this coming?
It appears the inhabitants of Tempel-1 are lawsuit-happy as well.
for the most moronic suit of the week
Mu
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
Seriously, without the huge surplus lawyer-mountain in the US, crazy shit like this wouldnt be an option. Why fire a perfectly good space probe at a comet when we could propel a bunch of lawyers instead, preferably shackled to their brain-dead clients.
I think US judges should be given encouragement to laugh in the faces of morons who bring court cases like this, and to charge them costs big time to put them off pulling such pathetic stunts.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I wish NASA would be as cynical as I am in their response. "Are you going to cry about it?" Then proceed to blow chunks out of 10 or 15 more comets, to show them who is boss.
Home of the midwest loser - www.say-10.net
dupe!!!!
I predict she will lose!
Don't claim to tell me my future when you can't even tell me what I had for breakfast. Wanna really impress me? Buy the winning lottery ticket. Over. And Over. And Over.
That settles it! I'm going ahead with my lawsuit against slashdot. I've never gotten a first post, and its fucked up my chi.
.
NASA should charge this nut for deftly moving the comet a milimeter from its original course, thus saving his love-life from complete misery.
OTOH, I'm glad to see the Russians finally learning to do things the American Way (i.e., sue the pants off everyone).
--LWM
After all, they did just alter my fate. If a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane, then who knows what consequences this change of Universal order might have!
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
At the risk of getting modded Troll, as an astrologer, shouldn't she have seen this coming anyway? Maybe it's time for her to look into other career opportunities.
Why am I on Slashdot? I'm bored. Why am I bored? I'm on Slashdot.
Is this why she's suing? Because, thanks to NASA, she doesn't have any morals, and therefore is absolutely fine with the idea of frivolous lawsuits?
Is this what happened to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey too?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
She needs to be beaten with a clue by four
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
in Soviet Russia comet sue you
In Soviet Russia, comet probe DEFORMS YOU!
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession. Her allegation is that the government (through NASA) has fundamentally shifted the course of celestial bodies with the impact and that she is entitled to monetary recompense.
This is so similar to how the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to stop people from changing the RIAA's business model.
Is someone entitled to make a living? Should the government be in the business of putting people out of work?
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
A few years ago a psychic in florida sued a MRI facility. Her claim was that the MRI had robbed her of her psychic abilities.
Attention All Comets: in Capitalist America, Astrologers predict You!
I figured someone would do something like this with the destructive nature of the project. What if we had nuked the moon?. The lawyer bill alone would have bankrupted the US government.
You infidel aggressors are simply not content to bomb afghanistan and iraq!
American aggressors are now bombing innocent comets!
What do you think you will find, WMD or oil in Tempel I? Stupid USA!
NASA should go back to doing what it does best, making fake moon landings!
Anyone know what her horoscope was?
You may be persecuted by American space agencies today, dear Libra. However, despite your "moral sufferings" you will be able to gain great fortune from friends, family, and coworkers. Embrace your lawyers, Libra, for they will save you from the unnatural entropy of the universe caused by space probe crashes!
shouldn't she have already known this was going to happened and incorporated it into future calculations?
You know, we've added mass to the planet Mars now, too, with the inclusion of those pesky rovers.
Being a Gemini, now I know why everythings been going so shitty in my life for the last few months: Mars is out of alignment!
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
Sure, out of her point of view (she probably believes in this) and her business model, such a law suit seems completely logical.
My question is though: Why haven't any other astrologer complained about this? Are their horoscopes not broken? How does that work?
All I can say is Wow. That is the most outrageous load of crap I have ever seen I think, next to the SCO suit, lol.....she should be charged with some form of crime for wasting a public officials time or something, at the very least she should be placed in a mental institution if she's serious.
LOL.......eh? Now why didn't I think of that.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I smell a sitcom.
Someone should do a "Daily Show" routine on a weekly basis using these guys for material.
As an astrologer he should believe in destiny... If the comet was blown up it was meant to be and already written in the stars. Why would he worry about that ?
\u262D = \u5350
Because even when someone does something stupid and wrong in another country, in the end it has to be the fault of the US!
If this goes through I will counter sue for one billion dollars. The damage to my karma this will cause will be HUGE. I mean it. I will be so mad at this woman that my aura will never be the same. I could end up coming back as a rat or worse fan of Ayn Rand or some other low form of life.
What amount of money would be enough to make up for this eternal setback? A billion would be a good start.
On a more reasonable note. You can sue anyone for anything. It is nothing but a stunt.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Id like to sue her for being stupid!
That's a lot of emtotional damages!
She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."
NASA: Okay - how's about this - we spend all the money required to create a new horoscope, which incorporates the changes we made to the "fabric of the universe", and has just as much predictive power as your old horoscope.
Total price: $0.
Studying astronomy instead of astrology: Priceless.
For bullshit predictions based on the position of the planets at the moment of your birth, there's Madame Marina Bai. For everything else there's NASA.
Education is the silver bullet.
I'm certainly interested in seeing such a case appear in court. Usually, charlatans such as these take care to avoid independent scrutiny and measurability. To let it appear before court would place her in the position of having to prove the had any abilities to begin with... and that's going to work against her the most. At least, I'm guessing the judge is going to be a lot more emotionally independent than her clients who probably have an emotional interest in believing in her abilities.
Besides, she has 1 million dollars waiting for her if she can prove she has paranormal abilities
see a Text Widget
Pretty soon, there are going to be a lot of lawsuits against the Martians for the pain and humiliation of all those "probes" over the years.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I'd say 2 cents.
That's my 2 cents anyways.
Whoops, I just gave it to you, guess someone else will have to pay the Russian lady.
Why didn't she file for class action status? This potentially altered everyone's horoscopes.
The whole Zodiac system was made up 2000 years ago, on the idea that your 'sign' was the one that the sun rose into on your birthday. At the present time, the Earth has precessed something like 15 degrees, so the sun actually rises 1 sign away from where it originally did. (thanks Bill Nye!)
Fuck these goddamn superstitious idiots anyway, we left the caves a long time ago.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I say that if she, while blindfolded and away from any source of news, could have told the authorities the exact instant the impact occurred, and supposedly changed all the "energy fields" and "balance of the universe", by all means, let her lawsuit be heard!
Defense Lawyer: Your honour, if you let this case proceed our court systems will be flooded with inane frivolous lawsuits, and the number of lawyers in our country will rise exponentially. As proof I would like to enter into Evident Exhibit A, the United States legal system.
Judge: Case Dismissed!
I say we turn this into a Class Action lawsuit, her's can't be the only horoscope thats been horribly altered.
The case will be thrown out of court, but she'll have thousands of new clients.
/. is of course duing its part in this promotion.
And
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
If it is this would explain a lot.
So...the cost of ruining the 'natural balance of forces in the universe' is $300 mil US. Wonder how she arrived at that figure...could we see a breakdown?
May a discount?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
For shifting the poles every 20,000 years.
Puhlease.. Don't waste our time with newswire trash. Slashdot isn't even timely on this stuff.
Take it to court and make her prove that her readings were accurate before they were "deformed."
The REAL reason they popped that comet, was to improve the Feng-shui of the local celestial neighborhood.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
In soviet russia comets sue you!
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
And who will be to blame when Pioneer 10 is shot out of the sky? I highly doubt that the Klingon High Council would allow such a preposterous lawsuit.
The lawsuit you will start this week will be lost. Also you will be the laughing stock of the world.
*sigh* damn space probe......
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
And I'm going to sue Bill Gates b/c of these. They've been haunting my dreams for a while now!
Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi
I would like to file a class-action lawsuit against NASA and the U.S. media for traumatizing my teenage years with the repeated showings of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. I'm also filing a seperate class-action lawsuit against NASA and the U.S. media for traumatizing my adult years with repeated showing of the Space Shuttle Columbia fatal re-entry. With the repeated showings of both accidents, I was discouraged from pursuing my dream as an astronaut and I now flip hamburgers for a living.
:P
I would've filed a class-action lawsuit against NASA and the U.S. media for the Apollo 1 accident but that was before my time.
"...Don't be so sentimental, things explode every day."
Can judges bitchslap plantifs?
If not, I think an amendment is in order.
Perhaps you could get class-action status with Ms. Bai. Then you'd have the Bai-Chi lawsuit.
Thanks, and remember to tip your server.
wait till you see the lawsuit that the Catholic church brings when someone finally finds the 'All characters portrayed in this book are fictional and any resemeblance....' page from the front of the bible!
Honestly, some people...
RikF
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
I bet NASA will Settle out of court as it will cost less than fighting it.
I would like her to prove that her horoscope where 100% accurate prior to the probing. I could see a case if she was 100% accurate with her astrological readings prior to the comet probe and now has significantly less than 100% accuracy.
Maybe it is time to sue NASA because I can not get first post. Or maybe sue GM because I got a speeding ticket. Or sue the manufactures of the radar gun that reported my speeding violation. Or sue the cop for hurting my feelings by issuing me a speeding ticket..... Stupid court system. The system tells us: Why work when you can sue!
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
She should have seen this turn of events coming.
--
make install -not war
Yes, once again its another dupe - why is everyone still so surprised that this happens? The 'editors' barely pay lip service to their title and I doubt very much that they read the comments either. At face value there is no real passion from the creators of the site - its just the same old shit day after day.
To explain further, Slashdot exists for one purpose: to make money for parent company OSDN. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but don't expect a high quality site the way its currently run. The Slashdot business model (if you can call it that) seems to be to provoke reaction from the loyal crowd of slashbots that frequent the site. Inflammatory / trollish stories (e.g here) and dupes cause the page hits (and therefore ad revenue) to go through the roof.
As a result, most of the comments I see on the stories are neither insightful, interesting or informative. There seems to be no real balanced discussion - something I feel is a product of the moderation system which rewards those who conform to the slashbot mindset and censors everything else. This democratic method of editing the comments is terrible - especially where technical issues are concerned, as a lot of nonsense is modded up by people who don't know otherwise.
You are probably wondering why I read Slashdot. Partly morbid curiosity and partly to laugh at both the flame wars which invevitably break out and the well crafted trolls.
To conclude, Slashdot is neither really "News for Nerds" nor is it "Stuff that matters". If you want the former, go to somewhere like arstechnica or kuroshin and if you want actual stuff that matters: Infoshop
The immense ecological damage wreaked when the Kennedy Space Centre was built. I find it really sad that people actually pretend that horoscopes are based on anything.
After all, they offered an official apology to the Navajo nation after they "defiled" the moon with the ashes of Eugene Shoemaker back in '98. And promised not to do something similar without "consultation" (aka permission).
From Susan Kitchen's excellent Comet Bash coverage on the event:
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This just in: Butterfly sued for changing the price of tea in China.
-516
for letting that butterfly flap its wings.
Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
...of one of my favorite personal jokes. Isn't this a little like Amish people complaining about porn on the internet?
You'd think if astronomy is such a large part of your life that you believe in the freaky-deaky stuff... you'd ignore television, the media and most of all NASA.
FLR
Did I miss out on the formation of July Fools Day or something?
From TFA: NASA representatives in Russia could not be reached for comment on the case.
However a loud roar of laughter could be hear for miles.
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
Get your ass in gear then, and sic a werewolf or a vampire on this lady! What good is an "irrational belief" if it does you no good!
"Sorry, her irrational belief was torn to shreds by a delusional thought!"
Poetic Justice, I say! Hell, Justice for ALL POETS!
--
My mom is only forgetful sometimes. Does that mean she has Somezheimers?
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
--
Stirring the pot since 19 mumblty mumble...
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
If she wins, this would clear the way for my lawsuits of Russia. I plan to sue them for pain & suffering from all the "duck and cover" drills I had to do in elementary school because we thought they were going to bomb us.
Her suit should be allowed to go forward as soon as she can show her calcualtions of the exact amount of orbital change due to ablation each time the core swings around the sun. Otherwise, she can pay everyone's costs and go away.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
A change in the force, I sense... A chance to get rich, it is. Use it up, I will.
Hopefully Slashdot can follow this case in as much enthralling detail as it does the IBM/SCO proceedings. Oh boy, I can't wait....
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
You know those good ol' boys in Rome are into all sorts of perversion.
I am 53 years old and I lived for almost 40 years in a Communist (well, Socialist ) East European country.
I was never a Party member and I disliked the dictatorial nature of the government. However there was one think I liked about communism: all superstitions such as believeing in miracles, astrology, fairy tales, witches, including any religions, organized or not, were discouraged; I emphasize: discouraged, not forbidden, that is nobody was sent to jail for believing in Santa Claus, astrology or Jesus Christ.
Now many East European conuntries are back in the Middle Ages, everbody goes to church, believes in all crazy ideas such as astrology, witchraft and other nonsense.
However, it is nice to see that not all East European are regressing back to religion and mysticism. For example in the Czech Republic the number of atheists increased from 39% in 1992 to 60% in 2002. Czech people is a proud and progressive people: they dont believe in imaginary beings such as God which are man's invention (Man created God in his own image).
Should this case not receive the honest critic of its validity that it should get, I can see Russian courts becoming basically ignored on the world scale. Why bother defending yourself if you can't win? You might as well lose and just let them try to collect.
I do security
People who believe in astrology don't do so because of logic.
People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic. This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based. Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
I think that to be able to claim "moral sufferings", you need to have some sense of morals to begin with...
Wait until the millions of Hindu sue you for all those cows you've been eating.
The religous wackos are present in Texas but they don't dominate as much as the media would have everyone believe.
Tell that to Al Gore.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Here's the deal. Before the trial, she has to pick whether or not she will win it. When the trial is over, if the actual result differs from her prediction, she loses regardless and pays court costs.
Where were you when the voynix came?
When did Slashdot become a tabloid? Oh wait...
It will be very easy for NASA to kill the astrologer if they are going to loose this case (which they surely will not). I think they will have to give some proof of that astrology really works! Then Mr. Randi, you'll loose your money!
It would be so much more interesting if a large organisation with resources like the scientology organisation would sue NASA.
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
chown -r us:us /home/you/base
that poor comet, you are going to get it into a world of shit, not only literally, but metaphorically speaking, when those lawyers will sue the comet for getting in on their trajectory.
You can't handle the truth.
Our support desk just called about a site I maintain... Apparently we're missing a weeks worth of horoscope feeds...
1. Wait for NASA to bomb comet
2. Sue
3. Profit!!
I have terrible alergies - and all that cosmic dust is sure to have a negative impact on my life style - so I'm suing for nasal damages - in the amount of $300 million dollars as well! Alergy sufferers - unite!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
I think its the paying customers that you should criticize for not thinking clearly, not the astrologers themselves. I confronted an "astrologer" with the same facts you mention, and she explained that's the reason she keeps up on the latst astronomy news, and why people need professionals like her, rather than try to do astrology themselves.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=as trology
It seems appropriate. Besides, suing NASA for putting a crater in a comet is like a peeping tom suing a woman for putting up blinds.
Theres no way this woman will win. If she actually thinks she can win, I'd be surprised. It may be just an attention getting stunt for her, get her name out there and noticed and with that contracts with newspapers to do their daily horoscopes etc. She'll probably drop the lawsuit saying something like she has come to an agreement with NASA.. ridiculous, not even newsworthy really, reading about all these stupid lawsuits. Sad actually that people have no self control or rational thought anymore.
That is not a comet! It's a spacesta^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sign of Zodiac!
You can't handle the truth.
I should sue my city of origin for light pollution. Just think of the moral suffering resulting from that abomination if your friendly neighborhood astrologist can't get an accurate reading. Oh the humanity! Class action anyone?
I was sued today, by my mother, for stepping on a crack on a sidewalk. The claim was for negligence and attempted assault. Damages were costs of a chiropractic visit.
Very, very funny. We all love sarcastic one-liners subtly mocking the creationist ignorance. Keep the good work.
Isn't it the shocker, though, when you drive west on I635 and cross over from Missouri? Suddenly, the forests give way to shallow trilobite-filled swamps as far as the eye can see.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Here are some of the facts involved in the famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit. That particular lawsuit was not an example of a frivolous lawsuit; there are plenty of others, but that isn't one.
Liberty in your lifetime
The other comment I've heard, from a friend who studies all kinds of space things, is that he hoped NASA picked their comet-target right, because they probably changed its trajectory in minute ways, and it could come back to haunt us if it happens to be cyclical with a very long period, and NASA didn't know about it, and it came back with something that looks like a collision course in the future.
Tell that friend who "studies all kind of space things" to study some logic and probabilities too. Since all calculations done show that the comet isn't expected to impact Earth neither with the previous nor with the new trajectory, the probability that we have made it crash Earth in a few million years is the same that we have avoided a future crash.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ROFL
If she was in America and it was for a reasonable sum. But I don't think Russia is so supportive of such idiotic things.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
In an unprecedented prank, NASA engineers sent capsule with astrologer and her lawyer towards Mercury. Her parents sued over the suffering endured by her daughter while sharing the tiny capsule with a lawyer. "Ok, I must admit that part was not nice", said a nerdy NASA engineer. Oddly enough, this "astral trip" was part of a previous settlement...
Notice something rather distinctive about that comet?
It's covered in impact craters already
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Any real astrologer knows that the courts are not the proper channel for such disputes. The correct procedure for redress of these complaints is for the astrologer to put a curse on NASA. And then, when NASA begs forgiveness, she can dictate her terms to them.
Why don't people use the established channels the way they were intended to be used anymore???
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
IANAL so could someone who is explain to me how someone from another country can sue NASA. I mean it seems to me the only athourity NASA is bound by would be the US government. It's a little like complaining about Germeny because they violate West Virginia state law by letting 16 year olds drink beer.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
[Quote] After all, they did just alter my fate.[/Quote]
:-(
You should be grateful. At least you haven't got the Dahaka chasing after you!
Like quarks ... where's the objective verification.
What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
Surrounded by atheist barbarians who want to force their children into gay marriages, perform mandatory abortions on their pregnant daughters and burn all bibles in the libraries. You can never stop watching for those barbarians, else you will wake up to find 24 hours porn programming on all TV stations. With a bare-breasted Janet Jackson doing the weather.
- During the time leading up to the suit, McDonald's sold more than 10 cups of coffee at that temperature. There were only 700 burn incidents. This is an excellent safety record, and shows that (statistically) everyone could drink this coffee safely. The coffee was safe.
- The plaintiff had purchased and consumed many cups of coffee at this same McDonalds previously with no incident. The coffee was safe, even in the plaintiff's own experience
- The plaintiff endeavored to dump the coffee into her own lap. This was her doing, not McDonalds' doing. The accident was 100% her own fault. McDonalds did not do this..
- The temperature McDonalds' sold the coffee at is the recommended optimum serving temperature.
- McDonalds, despite the phony claims in the linked article, claimed that their coffee was "hot". Precaution around hot liquids is taught at an early age. McDonald's gave sufficient warning.
4. Rescue parties are still combing through the debris as of this filing, but 1,952 formerly sentient organisms have been recovered as of this filing, and at least 4,700 remain unaccounted for.
that's worse then 9/11.
I'm dreaming about Slashdot now... I mean, there isn't really anyone that stupid, is there? Then again, the bounds some people (Like this lawsuit-happy astrologer) will go to to protect their (what, exactly?) are virtually unlimited...
NASA were bound to do it though as they couldn't alter the future. Given that the universe is predictable - NASA were forced to take that action from the original state given to the universe.
Or perhaps predicatbility and determinisim are divergent. I don't know, my brain wants to reboot just approaching thinking about that question.
you would have thought that she saw that coming.
If she'd sued the Russian space agency, she'd already be in the gulag. Going after NASA? Now, that has potential.
Coming soon: All your spacecraft are belong to us!
Unfortunately there is currently no authority to prosecute NASA for their decades of treating space as their trash can, they have now moved into the realm of vandalism.
Is there no saving us from this delinquent?
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Stop it, my co-workers are already asking what is so funny...
Before you go on, if you haven't noticed yet, humans will have evolved into space-robots and I will still fail to dignify your troll with a serious answer
Are you trolling, or do you just have your head in the clouds? This is the same old, tired, generic testimonial defense of faith healing and astrology I always see. No one doubts the power of placebo in alleviating symptoms of illness, but I've never seen any well-documented results indicating that faith healing really helps anyone. Nor have I seen anything compelling about astrology. An astrologer describing people who may come into your life--or even describing people who are known to you--well, that's pretty subjective all around and there are ways to sound specific and "dead on" without really having to be so. I mean, most normal people fluctuate in their personalities from day to day, and most of us have a few bad traits as well as good. So, if you describe someone as basically good but with the concession that there are few negative aspects to the person, you're generally right. As for YOUR comments...why don't YOU get specific in describing your so-called compelling experiences that lead you to believe in some of this faith healing/astrology BS? You sound as generic as every horoscope I've come across. And, btw, I don't really care if I'm being rude or not. I've been polite to people with dumb ass beliefs for so long and I'm tired of walking on eggshells with you people (and what do I mean by "you people"?). I'm tired of having to respect your naivete because you are so sickeningly spiritual and have such a sensitive world view that to disagree causes you such spiritual agony. I hate it when I try to talk sense with the New Age people I know and they pull that passive agressive "oh you cause me such pain and concern because you are headed down such a spiritually destructive path and I will go pray for you I hope you realize what a burden your attitude is on ME" crap...ah, hell with it, you're probably a troll anyway. Why bother?
I think it is ridiculous. I hope the court charges her a few ten thousand bucks for abusing the system.
Well, since these astronomers base their predictions on the stars, you would think that the location of spacial objects to be important...
But there's one little problem. The star charts in use by Astrologers is based on how the stars looked during the times of the ancient greeks.
The position of the stars have moved 'A LOT' since then. I think she'd be better off updating her star charts, than worrying that NASA nudged some tiny comet off course by about 2 cm.
- dj
> So...the cost of ruining the 'natural balance of forces in the universe' is $300 mil US. Wonder how she arrived at that figure...could we see a breakdown?
I don't know if she ever claimed that that's what it costs (it's just compensation for her "damages"), but if you adopt her position, it is what it did cost. Apparently, the cost of the project was around $300M. I'm sure NASA has a very detailed breakdown.
Tolerance brought 'creation science' to our schools. While everyone get's all tolerant and PC, the religous right has consolidated a tremendous amount of power. I doubt there are many religions that wouldn't legislate their beliefs into law, given a chance. They are now getting lots of chances.
Tolerance has to end somewhere. For me, we've pretty much reached that point. If people want to believe in the supernatural (astrology, gods, devils, telekinesis, etc.) fine. When they get public with it, I mean to belittle them. The definition of supernatural I'm using is Oxford sense 1.
I've tried tolerance for half a century. That's all done.
She knows the future, winning is sure. That is why she decided to sue.
Astrology is a money making machine which works many ways.
Because of course comets NEVER suffer any impacts during their existence. The craters already there that Deep Impact photographed on the way in were obviously fakes. (I'm being sarcastic. Perhaps you've noticed) I've also never heard of comets being used in astrology before. Usually, it's just the Sun. If you're lucky the Moon and the planets as well, but the asteroids, and the billions of Kuiper-Belt objects are somehow irrelevant.
In Soviet Russia the comet shoots YOU.a .html)
(http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberi
You can't apply logic to faith, because logic is a form of faith. Logic will always supercede other faiths if they're analyzed logically, just like logic will always be superceded by religion, if explored religiously.
Whether you fundamentally believe that logic means something or if you fundamentally belive that your existance means something is just as much a leap of faith.
Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
I would argue that under our (U.S.) new "faith-based" regime, it will be stupid to be rational. The final answer to all questions will be, "because We tell you so."
...read Operation Clambake
She, for one, should have known centuries in advance about the Deep Impact mission. So she is actually a bad astrologist for not having taken it into account, and also for not knowing about it.
comet impacts you!
Frankly these types of people need to be blasted into a astroid. Pathetic wasters of society. They angst me can I sue them!!!
:(
They waste time/resources and frankly shouldn;t be alowed to breath, totaly pathetic. Funny how all thsese silly lawsuits have $ values, is it gentic or something!!!!
I feel sorry for all the Americans that have to put up with people like this, must make there life hell and not helping the countries credability at all that shite like this can even get off the ground.
Whatever happened to common sence. Not like they objected before it happened noo cant do that they wait till after the event and go ew were ma lawyer paaa izzaa goona sueza theasea peeoopola cozaaa my maaa sayzaaaa that me horoiscopy goonaa alll wong.
I Hope NASA counter sues and shoots em into space coz they would get my vote.
pay her in fake currency.
"Me claiming Satan exist is just as valid as you claiming an atom exists" - 1inChrist
Among the list of "crankpots" should we include mainstream religion and their various objections to things like cloning? I fail to see how mainstream religion differs significantly from the rest of the crackpots... I mean if you overlook the organization, political power and all that.
I'm sorry, but comparing this case and abortion/organized religion is a false analogy.
In the latter case, science does agree that the thing that becomes a full human after gestation is the single-celled fertilized egg. Science does not have anything to say about the ethical, moral, social, or political issues around abortion. Scientists or scientific organizations, being people or groups of people, may have something to say, but that is different from science.
In the former case (comet impact/astrology) science specifically refutes the claim that the position of the comet has any measurable effect on any person's life (apart from physical effects like changing its course resulting in impact with the Earth!).
So you see, the analogy is not correct.
Nothing to do with faith at all. Just scientific method based on observation and reflexion on what was observed, then trying to find a model to explain it, which we know might or might not be the right one.
Moving around on the earth's surface will shift its centre of gravity. This in turn will move its gravitational field, which will subtly alter the orbits of everything in the universe. So unless you also want to be sued by this crazy babushka, I suggest that you stay very very still. come to think of it, even breathing would be a bad idea.
Now how do I translate that to Russian?
(Btw, I doubt her claim has any validity since there is an international treaty maintianing that no individual citizen or country has any claim on the rest of the universe beyond the Earth. While I don't agree with this signing away of my rights -- i.e. I'm prohibited from owning property on the Moon unless I can take it by force and defend it afterwards -- and IANAL, but this will probably shoot down her claim in the courts.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah_Centre
There is a simple solution to this:
Just bring to court several unknown witness, make them write out their love life, economic life, luck, etc. for last week (while keeping all this info secret). And then ask this astrologer to predict all this info from her undisturbed charts of the previous week.
See if they match. If all of them are accurate she has proven her claim that her predictions worked beforehand, if not case dismissed.
And if she is a well known and successful astrologer, maybe she has previously published yearly predictions, check them out and see if they match up to reality.
Christians wave gay hate signs, and athiests try to get every reference to the 10 commandments removed.
Yeah, because asking to have Christian dogma removed from (ostensibly) secular government institutions (such as ostensibly fair and balanced courts of law) is oh so similar to waving hate signs and encouraging violence against an oppressed minority.
Right.
One side is commiting significantly worse offenses than the other, and that would be the Taliban American Style religious right, whether it is trying to return women to the status of State and Church chattel for nine months if they should have the misfortune of becoming empregnated (be it via gang-rape, or simply because the local fundamentalist pharamacist refuses to sell a woman birth control--don't laugh, it is happening in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as I type this), encouraging hate crimes against gays (and encoding discrimination against those people into law), taking over our schools and turning them from secular places of education to weekday sunday school slash religious propoganda centers, or dissolving the separation of church and state entirely.
I don't approve of any misguided athiest doing any sort of vandalism, but compared to the full on assault by the American Taliban against the founding pillars of American Secular Democracy, what they have done pales by comparison so much as to be negligable.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Always wanted to do that. Someone, please kill me now. ;)
Question: If man can screw it up, what kind of god/power/higher knowledge is she serving anyway? Not too powerful, eh?
She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."
Hell, for $300 million, I'll deform more than her horoscope.
Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave. In fact, she sent me a letter from the other side. It read something to the effect of "... the cemetery in New York, at which I am buried, won't respect my property rights after 100 years. I only have 77 years to go before these irrational Communists destroy me!" Oh, Ayn ... You can be so paranoid!
I chuckled, and then decided to take advantage of the recent Supreme Court ruling by opening a Victoria Secret on Ayn's grave site. As soon as construction is complete, every objectivist can fulfill his or her dream, of pursuing their interests with utter disregard for others, and simultaneously paying homage to the heroine of the only moral rationality: free trade.
BTW, Vitoria's Secret is owned by Limited Brands Corp, a model player in the realm of free trade transnationals.
The US can just produce a paid expert (astrologist) who says that this action was written in the stars....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
--
Free Credt Report Info
What does your Credit Report look like?
FTA: "NASA representatives in Russia could not be reached for comment on the case" My guess is they were too busy laughing their asses off at this suit
- My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA, THE COMMET SMASHES-
Dear god, I can't go through with it. The one place where the stupid joke might actually belong, too.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
This lady shouldn't be able to sue NASA, because they gave the time, date, and location. If she is worth her salt, she should be able to use this info to better her career.
All that being said, this comet has about as much "push and pull" on the planets, and our lives, as seeing a bird on the side of the road deos to your driving, not much.
Logic isn't a form of faith. Whether one believes in logic or not, logical conclusions are "true" on the basis it introduces no contradictions. Do you need to "believe" in logical math to balance your checkbooks? 1+1=2 no matter what you believe, but Jesus Christ isn't God unless you believe in Christian faith.
This is great for her: if she wins she is $300 million richer and her beliefs have been publicly justified. If she loses she can claim that the probe did, in fact, "deform her horoscope" and that is the reason she lost the suit.
Isn't circular logic great?
Meanwhile, back at Cape Canaviral, NASA readies the Deep Impact backup hardware for launch, this time targeted at a slightly closer object....
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
>> Like quarks ... where's the objective verification
In the Large Hadron Collider you will find the answer. Here or here or a more wider search
>>What about the hadron boot-strap? Branes?
Not sure what you mean about boot-strap, but as for the Hadron family, look for..."Large Hadron Collider"
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
>Branes
Branes..ah! Branes...Wait for the next version of the LHC. We'll know if it's just theory or not in a few years, so hold your breath! Even more! The Higgs boson might give up to the LHC and show up at last (he's the one supposedly responsible for giving its mass to a particle - so it's somewhat a big deal). And the nice thing is that, since it's theory (again), we'll soon be fixed on wherever it exists or not. If not, other theories will try to explain mass and will be tested. Until we find out.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Except that logic exists outside of the human mind and religion is a product of the human mind.
Most living creatures exhibit logic to some extent. We're are the only one's to have a religion.
Logic is a form of faith to the same extent that an apple is a form of an orange.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Any logic one chooses (to reason about the universe) is either incomplete (i.e. there are true statements that are unprovable within the logic) or inconsistent. Let me ask two questions. One, is the Eiffel Tower objectively verifiable (such that you have evidence of its existence?) Two, did not Jesus exist (such that no evidence is obtainable?)
This includes religious belief, since it is, by definition, faith-based.
Correction: this concludes any axiomatic system since they are, by definition, faith-based.
Faith is not rational or logical- it is merely a manner in which we choose to structure our worldview.
Bertrand Russell said that mathematics is the study whereby we don't know what we are talking about, and we don't know whether anything we've said is true.
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
*Beats head against desk after reading article*
Is this another "Crash" moment?
This isn't faith, because you don't forget that it's based on an assumption. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about coming up with a usable model. Maybe Quarks "really exist," and maybe they don't. They're part of our model. No matter how much experimental evidence we have, and no matter how beautifully our model clicks together, there will never be any reason to believe that quarks exist. It may be useful to assume that they exist, but that's not belief.
Sure, you can believe in quarks if you want to, but I think that's a foolish way to create your worldview.
[javac] 100 errors
Logic does NOT exist outside of the human mind. "Logic" is a human construct based on properties of the physical universe as we know it, and as we understand them. Logic doesn't exist outside of the human mind anymore than language or the laws of nature exist outside of the human mind.
the Church of the Subgenius has a few adepts too.
:-)
As for rastafarianism, its not so much that they're just blowing smoke, its that they're inhaling. (Unlike a president I could name...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I mean, this effects all of us, so it should be Class action. The winnings should be shared among the world population. If the lawyers did this pro bono (we know better) that would mean $300,000,000/6534663907 http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop
That gives us all about 5 cents. Mail mine please.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
The coffee, as it was sold, was unfit for human consumption. if ANYONE had attempted to drink that coffee as it was served to them, they would have suffered severe burns.
Every other fast food restaurant served coffee at an average of 15-20 degrees cooler than the coffee that caused those burns.
McDonald's was at fault, they knew they were at fault, they KNEW that the coffee, as served was hot enough to cause 3rd Degree burns, and they did NOTHING to rectify the situation. That is the textbook definition of negligence.
I don't understand why Scientology isn't more popular with Slashdotters. I mean, how many religions are there where you can level up to a Level III Operating Thetan?
If astrology would work, she should have seen it coming, wouldn't she? So either she is worthless as an astrologist, what makes her claim even more unrealistic, or astrology does not work, what makes her claim totally nonsensical.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
the stars predict you! Someone had to...
HAhahahahahhahahahahah, hahahahhahahahahahahha! Horoscope, hahhahahahahah hahahahhahahahah hahahahahhahahah hahhahahhahahahah hahhahahahahahahhah ehehehehheheheheh i hihihihihihihihhihh ahahhahahahahahahha hahahahahahhahah ahhahahahah ROTFLMAO ahahahah ROTFL ROTFL.
because the Russian courts are known for their impartiality, honesty, balanced point of view and incorruptibility.
You can't handle the truth.
whether it is trying to return women to the status of State and Church chattel for nine months if they should have the misfortune of becoming empregnated (be it via gang-rape, or simply because the local fundamentalist pharamacist refuses to sell a woman birth control--don't laugh, it is happening in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as I type this)
Please don't think this is a troll, because I seriously want to know the answer to this.
How can anyone condone killing babies?
.. as if the souls of 39 Heaven's Gate Cultists were suddenly snuffed out...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
I've never gotten a first post, and its fucked up my chi.
This makes me sad, so I will help you to lose your lawsuit by telling you how to get a FP. If this doesn't work you will have to contact me for more help... but here goes...
Get a few bucks on PayPal, and get a subscription on your account. Each pageview you make will stip away one point off your account, so set the threshold to 10 pages ad-blocked per day which is the minimum. The higher the number, the faster your subscription will run out. This will keep you subscribed for over a year even if you visit Slashdot every day, and you won't lose the right to the services.
Once subscribed, read any Mysterious Future post before it comes live and put together an informative/insightful/interesting reply.
Keep refreshing until the post says "nothing to see here, please move along".
Then you have about 30-60 seconds on average to wait before you can comment. The more you refresh the greater your chance of getting a first post.
You only get about 2000 pageviews on Slashdot per day before you are banned, so don't reload that much. I am sure that there is a Greasemonkey attachment for Slashdot first post refreshing.
The admins will consider this to be abusive, but it's the only way to get a first post and since you are paying money for the service of having a subscription, they should not mind. Furthermore, if you are contributing something really interesting to the site, then you will get recognized for doing it. If you're trolling, you won't be able to post anyway after a very short while so I guess it's win-win for the editors.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Yes. I would be quite foolish to use a method to manage my finances, if I don't believe that the method gives correct results.
As a side note, I pay with cash and therefore don't have, want or need checkbooks.
It most certainly isn't. If I believe (define) that 1=2, I must conclude that 1+1=2 is false.
You know, your faith or lack of it doesn't affect reality in any way, only your interpretation of it. Math, being a purely abstract concept, has no existance beyond that interpretation, whereas any entity either exists or not and has or has not certain attributes independently of your perceptions.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Evolution does not say anything about how the first organism (from which all others are evolved -- or so the theory goes) came into being.
chornobyl, three mile island, poisoned IUDs, vioxx, lead paint, love canal, chlorofluorocarbons, etc etc. science needs to have free reign to bring valuable things like these to society, without criticism by 'morons'
Outside of math, can you come up with any statement that we can call "true"? In the artificial domain of mathematics, we can call something true because we define what is true. In the universe that we live in, that's not so easy. If there is absolute truth in the universe, then it's forever beyond our reach. All that we can do is theorize for practical purposes, using science.
Yes, science is based on assumptions. In fact, there is a surprising similarity between science and religion - they both logically follow from a certain set of assumptions. There are two differences, however:
1: The assumptions are different. Science assumes that the universe has a logical structure that can be described by an abstract model. Religions generally make much more involved assumptions about entities and events that exist beyond the physical limits of our universe.
2: Science recognizes its assumptions to be assumptions. Science makes no claim to truth, but merely creates a usable model that describes what we see around us. Religion, on the other hand, takes its assumptions to be absolute truth.
[javac] 100 errors
I think.
I personally ain't got no brane
> I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith
:-(
> too!
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when everything that is impossible has been eliminated, that which remains, no matter how improbable, is the solution.
Science works because of peer review. Every theory is published for anyone to try to disprove. Creationism has been sumarilly disproved. Specifics of evolution knowledge get disproved and refined, but the basic theory seems to stand up to all scrutiny.
A scientific theory is the best that we can do at the moment. It is not how the universe works. We are always discovering new things.
> By applying logic, I've never really got beyond the questions of other minds and the existence of
> external actual reality as an explanation for sense-data. And I don't see Occam's razor as being
> a logical method.
An existential crisis. Don't they teach basic philosophy in school any more?
Remember, Scientific Theory sprang from Natural Philospohy. You can't study one without basic knowledge of the other.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The scientific method is based on falsification. (If this new information does not tell you why your request is meaningless, then you are beyond help.)
Logic works. Lightning isn't caused by Thor. Disease isn't caused by demons. There is one reason to believe in logic above other systems: experience. If you don't believe in experience, posting to /. is pointless anyway because /. might not exist. Maybe you don't exist. Or maybe, it makes sense not to be sophomoric and believe in reality.
English is easier said than done.
> Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another, but for those who belive in both, the order
> of which supercedes which might determine whether they're agnostic or if they're religious.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down. I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Free publicity.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
1. NASA can ask her to prove that she is 100% (ok, let's be fair to her - 95%) accurate in all her horoscopes.... if not, how can she claim that this has affected her "skills"
2. NASA can ask her how she didn't see in her horoscopes that there was going to be a big change happening in the future....
3. NASA can ask why she didn't object *before* they launched.... she must have seen all the publicity....
4. If (!) she loses, can she afford to pay NASA's court costs as well as her own?
5. If she loses, can NASA counter-sue for defamation?
If God had meant us to be perfect, He wouldn't have invented the DEL key
You will lose a lawsuit and be unhappy. Think warm fuzzy thoughts and spend freely. Eat more beef.
...this to turn into a sort of Scopes Monkey Trial for astrology?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
... I'll sue her for creating a new topic that wastes my time. No court of law in the free world would allow her to win.
It's based on the sums of the ASCII values of Slashdot posts. And ALL YOU GUYS ARE MESSING ME UP!!!!! Damn it, before that last AC posted, I was set for a horde of naked virgins carrying gold bars to appoint me their god. I'll sue you all! In fact, I'll give you all warts! Watch this:
sdfhiow45yq03nbkcfg
Ha! I now predict that you'll wake up tomorrow with warts, or maybe syphilis. See how you like them apples!
God is contractually bound by the word of the Church.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
We just committed an act of war on the inhabitants of that comet. They are now perfectly entitled to retaliate against the Earth! Actually, I do pray that there were no sentient beings inside that rock, however remote that possibility may seem. Perhaps we should seek to know more about astral bodies BEFORE we go about colliding with them...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Isn't there a treaty which says no one can own any property in outspace in our solar system. Therefore since she does not own the comet she cannot claim damage to it no matter what NASA did to it. Plus since when can citizens of one country sue another country without showing actual damage. And once again since it is not her comet.
And my final point is she can go F*** herself. How come she didn't sue when the Mars rover was violating Mars' surface.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
Like quarks ... where's the objective verification.
Take the time to study nuclear physics and advanced mathematics, and you will be able to understand the experimental evididence for the existence of quarks and decide for yourself whether it is sufficient or lacking. So far, a large majority of those trained in these disciplines agree that the evidence is strong. They are, however, prepared to dump or modify the theory if evidence to the contrary comes along.
Contrast that with the religion of your neighbourhood priest or shaman.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
But I've got a massive Hadron.
...for sueing NASA and causing me stress about how this will change their budget due to lawsuits and possibly cause cancellation of missions?
if you "define" 1=2, then you will have contradictions.
...NASA was IMPROVING her horoscope!
Two deadly flaws with your idea:
"Alternative" medicine is an oxymoron. Something is biologically active or it's not, which is also why homeopathy doesn't really exist except on the labels of tiny bottles of very expensive water.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Doesn't this bloody astronomer realize that she is also changing the natural order of the universe by the mere fact that she's observing these events?
After reading the insanaty of the GP post this is the most sense I've heard. Logic is very simple and everywhere. How do animals know not to eat certain things? Because at some point one of them in a group tried, then something bad happpened to it. Logic is seeing links in things. I do not need "faith" in gravity to remain on the earth. (no matter what Ford Prefect tells you)
I don't get it.
One, is the Eiffel Tower objectively verifiable (such that you have evidence of its existence?)
No.
I have seen pictures; they might be fake.
My mother claims to have visted it; she might be lying.
I can visit it myself; I might be inside a matrix or holodeck that is showing me something that does not exist.
When I came back from visiting it, I would not know if the memory I possess of visiting it was real or implanted.
So no, if you do not assume things, you cannot objectively verify the existence of the Eiffel Tower. You cannot even objectively verify that it's possible to experience sensory input that correlates with descriptions of the Eiffel Tower, or rather, you can, it's just that every second of your life after verification, you are assuming the fidelity of your memory.
Two, did not Jesus exist (such that no evidence is obtainable?)
This is much easier to prove. I am not Jesus, I exist. Not Jesus (or, if you prefer NotJesus or !Jesus) exists.
Okay, I'm kidding. But the double negative has me confused enough to not understand your question.
There is only one thing that you can definitively say without assuming anything, and that is that such a thing as a thought exists. Even "cogito ergo sum" - "I think therefore I am" is assumptive, since it assumes that there is an entity ("I") that is experiencing the thought.
This does not mean that assumptions underpinning religious faith are the same as the assumptions underpinning science.
Science assumes the bare necessity to make sense of the world - reasonably accurate - although imperfect - fidelity of thought, senses and the laws of nature. Typically, scientists also assume that the rest of the world isn't out to deceive them, but this isn't strictly necessary for the scientific method to work if you are willing to work from base principles and verify everything you read independently.
Religious faith, on the other hand, assumes reasonably accurate - although imperfect - fidelity of thought and senses, and that what is said in some book about a magical being is also accurate.
Maybe it's just me being "corrupted by Satan", but I think that assuming that a physical phenomenon that has worked in the same way over and over since as long as I can remember will continue to do so is far saner than believing in what a book says.
Funnily enough, I'm having a similar discussion with somebody here. Apparently somebody believes that atheist assumptions are stupid but religious ones are not.
Up until the late 1800s, it was common for mutated, retarded, "freakish" children to be left in a forest, or buried alive.
So, historically, lost of people would condone killing babies.
Now, if you feel that abortion is babymurder, well, youve got some explaining to do. For most of the legal time one is allowed to have an abortion, the fetus barely differs from that of a fish, let alone be considered an entity unto itself.
Please.
What kind of person would force an unwanted child to live an existance where its parents resent them their entire lives?
I'm going to sue her for maintaining the status quo of the cosmic balance of the universe.
Hail Eris!
Karma: Non-Heinous
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
Science is mostly based on empiricism---the assumption that statements can be made about the world based on previous observations. Empiricism is in itself arbitrary, however. Believing that it works is, strictly speaking, a matter of faith.
Couldnt see it coming...
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
Logic is logic. Logic is not a faith. Logic is an applied form of mathematics.
A is True
B is True
Therefore, A And B is True.
Logic defines the meaning of the word "And" above, in a mathematical sense. It also defines many other related terms.
Logic is an exact system, much like basic math. There is no faith or mysticism required. Logic allows one to start with a given set of premises, and from those premises draw a set of conclusions. If the logic leading from the premises to the conclusion is executed flawlessly, then any argument about the truth of the conclusion can be reduced to an argument about the truth of the premises. What your premises are, and whether or not they are valid, is entirely outside the scope of Logic.
11*43+456^2
I'm going to be showing this to my grandkids on snopes...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I squirted coffee through my nose reading that link!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I managed to forget that information, but now that you've mentioned it... Oh, well. I need some condiments, my feet do not taste very good.
I only have a few words on this matter. Sad, very sad. If you are able to begin a lawsuit over seomthing so vague, where is the line between valid and invalid lawsuits?
What kind of person would force an unwanted child to live an existance where its parents resent them their entire lives?
By that argument, parents should be able to kill their kids anytime until the child moves out of the parent's house.
Math is an abstraction of concrete evidence. If Tom has 1 apple and Jane has 1 apple and Jane gives Tom her apple. Then Tom has 2 apples. Whether you write the idea of value of 1 as # or % or @ the mathematical problem would look like 1+1 or #+# or %+% or @+@. Just because you want to make a post to be contrary at least think before you do it. Math is a concrete thing we just us abstract terms to define what is already there. This is true of language also. There is no "Jesus Christ" considering there was no English Language back when he was supposedly being reborn. Language is a way of using abstract sounds in a consistent manner so that other beings with enough intelligence can understand us. So, please whether you are trying to make a joke or post somthing intelligent next time THINK about what you post.
the relevent point here is.
Is it reasonable to assume that if you spill hot coffee in your lap you will be burned. YES
Is it reasonable to assume that you will recieve 3rd degree burns and require skin grafts to recover. NO
What???? No one's going to tell me that I can't blame Hitler when I spill hot coffee!!!
Where were you when the voynix came?
Oh, ho! careful there.
...anyways, not on facts). If you must know science does not give a steaming pile of shit for truth. Science is concerned with prediction, and usefulness. Or useful predictions. If you want to know about truth, talk to a philosopher. I doubt you can prove you even exist...
You may not SEE them, but evidences are conclusive enough. When experiences match theory closely, it holds proof of existence.
No, you only assume it does. While I think Occams Razor is very good for science, it is very much not infaliable. (And yes, you are most likely using Occam's Razor if you had more than one explanation for your events, eg "God is just fucking with the LHC" and "Quarks are deflecting the particles"). Even without that, the fact that experiments match a theory closely does not at all prove that the theory is correct, as you have seen in the case of every scientific theory that has been discarded (eg Newtonian physics). And lets not forget to add that you don't actually *know* that the scientists who have done experiments with quarks are not in some conspiracy, (or the builders of the LHC, if you have used it). but rather you base your so-called knowledge on faith in the integrity of the scientists and the fact that it would be nearly impossible to create and keep secret a conspiracy so large.
>>I think we take a lot on faith without realising it. Much of that is based on someone elses faith too!
That is where your mistake is. Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
Can you say "axiom"? Last I know axioms are based on faith (or was that usefulness?
>>And I don't see Occam's razor as being a logical method.
The Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science, it is a simple thought and a guidance as to where to look at: the most simplest explanation is the first you should consider. It assumes (generally rightfully) that nature takes the shortest paths. As do humans. But again, it is not a method - at all.
Quit talking bullshit. I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed. This matches experiments exactly as if quarks actually do exist, so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Nobody likes them but since they exist, we all need one.
ah. too bad i'm the anonymous coward with no mod points, otherwise '+1 exactly what I use to try to explain to people'...
it's interesting how 'rational' people assume that what appears logical to them must be universally true, even though they can't logically prove their beliefs have anything to do with 'reality'. but of course they wouldn't call it beliefs..
You ask a simple question, but the answer is not simple at all. You also use a term that most people associate with a living, breathing, healthy infant. It is expected that the answer you wish to evoke is "you can't", a trick in debates to evoke an emotional response, rather than a rational one.
When you talk about abortion, you talk about ending the life of a fetus before it can support itself on it's own body. The biggest issue at stake is defining 'when it is alive', so it seems. To me, until it is far enough in it's development to be self-aware or its body can support itself without direct intervention, it doesn't meet this criteria. That is not to say that I would condone abortion prior to this stage, however (read: don't get pregnant until you want a child). However, even there, the situation is never clear cut.
How do you, as society, have the authority to tell someone else what they must do with (until it is born) a portion of their own body? Simply having the potential to become a functional human being is not the same as being a functional human being. Much time and effort is needed biologically to bring a fetus to the developmental stage of being able to exist on it's own without constant shelter and protection.
How about issues of pregnancy resulting from rape? What about when the goal of the rapist was to make the woman pregnant, is it proper to 'reward' the act simply because it can become a human? So I understand, rape is a brutal and violent invasion. It is likely doubly horrific if one must endure the resulting 'fallout' of that act on such a major scale.
How about if the mother's life is at risk from bringing the child to term?
Does birth control constitute abortion? Does the 'morning-after' pill constitute abortion? Sadly, due to some people's definitions, it does.
I'm sure there are a few more situations that one could find yourself asking about abortion that don't result from getting a girl knocked up after one too many beers.
You can't apply logic to faith, because logic is a form of faith.
No, it's not. Logic tells you what will be true if the assumptions made are true. The default axioms are also assumptions, and if these are changed they are stated explicitly. It is too tiresome to state all the assumptions in very proof you do, so some often used assumptions (axioms) are often not stated.
Now, if ever you try to apply logic to the real world, you will be making assumptions, and will be basing everything you say on faith.
Logic will always supercede other faiths if they're analyzed logically, just like logic will always be superceded by religion, if explored religiously.
Huh?
Religion and logic don't necessarily disclude one another,...
And in fact, they don't disclude each other at all. There are some logic systems which allow contradictions, if that is what you were talking about. Anyhow, you would not find it as easy as you might think to prove a religion self-contradictory.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Horoscopes? There still exist adult people who believe that bullshit? And how messed up are you if you sue nasa for messing them up - this person is a complete loonie.
this is all true, when i was, oh say, 22 or 23 or so, i just could not stop pooping. i would sit around all day and just poop and poop. i dont even know where it all came from. doctors were baffled, they had no idea. then i went to see a faith healer who repeatedly beat me over the head with a platinum bible and i haven't pooped since. btw im 49 now.
That's a very good argument for the solar system being a chaotic system - thanks.
Here's the kind of thing I had in mind when I wondered if a system could go from predictable to chaotic: (I now think this is flawed, but that just makes posting it here all the more fun)
Take two bodies A & B and put them in some kind of orbit about each other. Now take a third much smaller body C and put it at L1 - the Lagrange point between A & B. The positions of the three bodies should be entirely predictable for all eternity. Now have C struck by Deep Impact, or a butterflys wing, or something. Now C is destined to hit either A or B, the question is which? There's no way of knowing, because it's like a pendulum swinging between two magnets, which is one of the canonical examples of a chaotic system.
It's called tort reform (AFAIK) and nearly every nation I can think of (Australia, UK, Canada) has it, save for the United States. Being that we're a nation whose legislative processes are governed almost exclusively by the interests of lawyers, it's no wonder we'll likely never see such an animal.
He who has no
In Soviet Russia, comet sues YOU.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
My friend is one of the NASA team on that mission. His horoscope the other day?
"Today, you will help smash a small probe into a comet."
If this russian chick's horoscope was accurate, it would have accounted for this...
Heh.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Of course you could also postulate that you are the only person who really exists and everybody else is just a trick God plays on you. Occam's Razor is there to leave most stupid explainations to philosophy. Because there's an infinite number of ways to explain a given phenomenon someone needed to say "we use only the simplest explaination available that still matches the data". Simplest of course meaning most easily predictable, "God did it" sounds pretty simple but would be a nightmare to use for predicting anything. Because then you'd have to theorize about how God works.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Religion may be logical, but it is based on flawed principles. It is very easy to show the problems with the basic principles, and the rest comes crumbling down.
Care to show me? For example in Christianity, much of the bible is not literal, so first you must prove that something is literal before showing contradictions. Also, you have to assume that contradictions are always false (yes, that's an axiom). Anyhow, if you try to disprove religion here, anything useful you say will be lost in the ensuing flamewar, but I doubt you could do it. Millions have already tried and failed. I would recommend proving we exist first.
I am referring to religion having any bearing on the physical world, e.g. creationism. Leave it in the spiritual realm where it belongs and you won't have any problems.
Everything that has any bearing on the real world involves assumptions. Some, like the default logical axioms, and the scientific method, are quite useful, but they are assumptions nonetheless.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If you define 1=2 you need to define + as well because the mathematical one won't apply to your weird number system. Might need to redefine = as well.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Just pay Athena Starwoman or whoever to state that your Horoscope is determined at the time of your Birth.
Then this poor deluded Money-Grabber won't be affected, since she was born prior to the Probe.
Well, this is why multiple experiments at multiple sites are done. Are you proposing that God fudges all experiments, so that no experiment can distinguish between quarks existing and God making it "look" like they exist?
In the latter guess, guess what? Quarks exist, because the ultimate arbiter of truth in sciene is the physical Universe. If every experiment "looks like" quarks exist, then in what way is it meaningful to say that they don't? If God had little angels whipping around arranging the proper collisions, and if those angels are not otherwise detectable and leave no other signature, then there's no distinction -- the quarks do exist, in the only meaningful (scientific) sense.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
well your throwing around completely meaningless names, i should stop you and say that both hitler and bush were/are christians.
The problem is that when you have a magical belief system that pretty much only serves as a control for the masses, you have many people who exploit that control for their own gain. As there are no actual "connections with reality" in most religions, I would say they make everyone who is a part of them, part of the problem. What I mean is that when you dont have a firm base in reality, people can easily justify anything with phrases such as "it is gods will" or "this is how it SHOULD be". Religion is just one more way to establish and acclimatize people to authoritarian controls. It is pretty much what holds society back from advancing.
Since you have a whole mass of susceptible "washed" minds, who only need to be given key words to bring them under ones direction, the people in the system are ALL part of the problem. I would compare it to all good soldiers in the army being as much responsible for the war as the politicians. Once people realize they cannot hide behind organizations while they do their dirty business, much of the worlds problems will melt away.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Then to the profs of God: there are many. Since I don't know your religion/philosofi/way of thinking, I will try my favorite: The Bible.
It is full of profecis, some that occurs while we speak. The resurection of Israel is a good example: "And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:" Ezekiel 37:21
When I was in Israel, I saw Ezekiel 36,34 with my own eyes: "And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited."
Stuff that have not hapend yet, but it seems like it might happend soon
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation of John 13:16-17 And as a slashdotter, I guess you have heard this profecy, and know in what direction the development point (I'm not claiming it has happend, but stay awake when it does, that mark is a onewayticket to hell)
"It was also given to him (Aticrist) to make war with the saints (the real christians) and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him." Rev 13,7 One World Goverment, well look at the direction the world moves. Almost unthinkable in a world with slow means of transportation
I hope you will accept at least the first evidence (Israel), but if you are looking for different kind evidence, just ask...
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
The shift you describe is called the "platonic worldyear" by astrologist and is taken into account with the so-called 'ayanamsa correction'. By professional astrologers that is.
It is also utter nonsense that astrologers no nothing about astronomy. The opposite is true. In fact, every good astrologer I know (at least two) is nothing less an expert in astronomy aswell. And actually followed the temple mission with great interrest.
I'd go so far as to say it is near impossible to become a good astrologer without expert knowledge in astronomy. And - in a way - vice versa.
By the way: You can recognize professional astrologers that deserve the name in that they usually don't make prognoses.
Last but not least: One of the most impressive open source tools for astrologists - astrolog - which was designed by a professional astrologer, is used by professional astronomers aswell. So much for astrologers being 'morons'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
YOu mean lawsuits like those filed by psychic (or is it psycho?) crackpot Uri Geller?
r /Uri_Geller.htm and Nintendo http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ngeller.htm among others.
He has sued (and lost) book publishers http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/U/U
For years, one of Geller's favorite pastimes has been suing crackpot debunker the Amazing Randi http://www.randi.org/
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
You cannot define that. + only applies to sets where n+1 == succ(n) and succ(n) != n. If you want to use "+" on a set where 1==2 you need to define a new "+" operation (that would not be the add operation).
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Well, just because something is supernatural (and not a trick) does not prove it is God. Remember, there are two sides. The Bible warns about those that serve the creature more than the creator...
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
She's been saving up to open that hotel for a long time, damn you for making her pay all her life's savings for a can of soda!
You just have to turn it back on itself.
"Dear Complainant,
If the stars control what we all do then NASA's personal were destined to alter the path of the comet so that it now, more accurately, reflects your fate."
For the benefit of Fucking Morons(TM), my proposition that god is fudging the experiments to look as if quarks existed was intended to show the parent that in deciding that quarks exist, he was in fact using Occam's Razor, which he claims "Occam's razor is not a method for conducting science".
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
You should be entitled to at least a couple of dollars on account of 'pain and suffering'...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Astrologer, not astronomer. She believes the stars set her _destiny_, yo.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I follow logic based on the empirical finding that it gives more accurate predictions than anything else I've tried.
I am trolling
The parent post should NOT be marked Insightful as it is absolutely anything but Insightful. You are completely incorrect that everything we know about the universe is based on assumptions. This is not philosophy or religion class, this is reality. The universe follows structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable. Those laws are defined mathematically. There is zero evidence to the contrary. Whether you wish to believe otherwise is your progrative, but no matter how hard you try, the universe will continue to exist forever exactly as it is.
unless you are a fruitless fig tree ... man does Jesus hate those fruitless fig trees.
You speak of evidence. So tell me what, exactly speaking, does your example prove ?
Math is a system of symbol manipulation that is particularly well suited to building models about relationships of magnitudes. The relationships themselves may or may not be based on actual causal relationships (as opposed to pure chance or the famous link between ice-cream eating and drowning), but the mathemathical formulas used to describe them are purely human invention and don't reflect anything but the way human beings look at things.
I doubt there's a single word any two people in the planet would pronounce in exactly the same way (quantum randomness prevents this, if nothing else). Do we therefore have to draw the conclusion that none of the things referred by them exist ?
Don't know what you meant with "reborn" - were you perhaps talking about birth or resurrection ?
Incorrect. I didn't say a single word aloud while typing this message, and yet I'd say it contains language.
Furthermore, "sound" refers to a certain physical phenomenon (an energy-carrying wave propagating through an intermediary substance), and can't therefore be abstract.
I respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Science is not faith-based but fact-based. Faith has no room in the scientific process.
A certain degree of faith is included in the scientific process. Science and religion both share the common root of philosophy. The difference between religion and science is religion is based on blind faith, science is based on tempered faith.
When you drop a rock, you believe it will fall. This belief is based on huge amounts of historical evidence. However, science doesn't actually dictate what will happen to the rock, it merely gives a reasonable prediction based on our knowledge. One of the biggest mistakes people make in science is to say we observe X because of theory Y, because theory doesn't dictate behavior. All we can say is we observe X, which is consistant with the prediction of theory Y.
Faith also gives birth to our new ideas. Einstein's faith that the universe neither expanded nor contracted led him to create the cosmological constant. Even the idea that we somehow can explain the behavior of the universe is based in faith. Since we can't know everything, we must make assumptions. In the absence of knowledge all we have is faith.
Scientists working on string theory do so because of faith. String theory is unfalsifiable, and it explains no known phenomenon that isn't already explained by another theory. I would argue string theory right now sits in the same ballpark as creationism. The difference is that those working on string theory will reformulate if they have conflicting observations. While creationists will tend to dismiss or give alternate explainations on conflicting observations.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Once you look at the facts, the suit is baseless. The ratio of burn incidents to cups sold is a remarkably safe 1 in 25,000,000. The coffee was served at normal temperature (not anything hotter). It turns out that 24,999,999 out of 25,000,000 were able to drink the coffee with no problem. That is an extremely good safety record. The 1 in 25,000,000 got burned not because the product was defective or dangerous, but because they did something really stupid with it.
"there were already some 700 reported incidences of burns from coffee that McDonald's knew about and didn't act on"
Why act on them? These 700 cases resulted from an extremely small number of individuals abusing the product.
"They did claim negligence because they knew their product was burning people"
Should McDonald's stop giving away those little plastic knives? You can gouge your eye out with them, you know!
This hot coffee case, once you know the facts, is a textbook example of a "frivolous lawsuit". In a more just world, with tort retorm, the woman who filed it would have to pay McDonalds as a penalty for this harassment.
PS - As an aside point, you're posting on Slashdot using a computer which exists solely due to Quantum Physics. Which according to you is just an assumption, only exists because you wish to think it does, and is foolish to believe as a world view. Simply because you cannot touch, taste, smell, see, hear or mentally comprehend the Mathematics and Physics involved does not make them false or assumed. Moron.
Faith has no room in the scientific process. Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
BZZZZZ. Wrong. That is a dogmatic claim made by "true believers" in science.
First of all, the function of Faith in science begins at the earliest moment of your scientific education. Unless you validate, EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that has been made to you in your education, you are taking some things on faith. That is the way it is, that is the way it works. When a scientist builds off of other peoples work, without first verifying the results for himself(or herself, I'm masculine so I speak in the masculine), he is exercising faith in its accuracy, as well as the accuracy of the assumed review process that work underwent. There are real world examples where such faith proved disapointing.
But beyond that, and far far more fundamentally important, is the function of faith in the forumalation of new ideas. You can not effectively utilize imagination, without faith. For your imagination to work in the formulation of new ideas, you have to suspend disbelief in whatever is you are imagining, in order to effectively work within the mental construct you are imagining. You have to believe it's real, in order to give it any credence, even if that belief is only for the brief instant, in which you are imagining.
Einstein is credited with saying "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and this is why. Knowing facts by themselves don't make one a great thinker or a great scientist.
This is just absurd:
Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid.
Right, and I'm only borrowing without asking, I'm not stealing. Use a dictionary, there is no confidence without faith. It doesn't work that way.
It is one of the best examples of a baseless and frivolous lawsuit. A woman took a safe product that she and everyone else was able to consume with no problem, did something stupid with it and hurt herself. She then got greedy and tried to make those who had no role in her mistake give her riches through abuse of the court system. Greed, outrageous and false claims by plantiffs, and refusal to take responsibility for your own mistakes are quite present here. All are hallmarks of frivolous lawsuits.
Strictly speaking, you're correct. "Correct" being defined by logic.
But if somebody uses logic to test the value of a faith, then they're using logic as a faith.
The British Astronomical Journal ran a Horoscope in one of their issues years ago, quoting one from memory : "As predicted in our previous issue; Everyone born under the sign of Gemini was hit by a big truck and died."
You never catch me alive
I'm not a logician, so all i know about this is what i've read on the Internet, but there are ways that you're supposed to 'logically' conclude the existence of God. For example (i got this from Wikipedia):
Not that i necessarily believe in that, but it's not all just completely ignorant faith.
Everyone is a fucking philosopher now. Can I lick your balls, Aristotle?
The problem is that 'those religous people'(*) will use logic in everyday cases (and even defend it!) but will stop to use it if it gets even a little more complex.
----
(*)- doesn't include all religous people.
"Can you say "axiom"?"
Science doesn't have axioms. Maths do.
And its operative definition moved from the classical of "self-evident" to the modern "taken for granted".
"so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?"
You can't. But you needn't either. I'll choose the quantum-based, just because it's cheaper. You will have to manage exactly the same maths than me *and* God; I'm a rabid lazy man. I can perfectly go to bed without knowing if the "right" theory is yours or mine, I don't need it; but for the time being I'll be able to achive the same goals than you with less effort. That you can call it a "method" or pure lazyness, again, not my problem.
Either future experiments will show that your God does make a difference, and then we will be able to discern which theory preserves the experimental results and which can't, or not; in which case you will be an idiot working for nothing for the time being.
Maybe not very scientifical, but quite convinient.
I sit corrected. But still. She probably gazes at the stars, accomplishing the same thing.
You know, your faith or lack of it doesn't affect reality in any way, only your interpretation of it. Math, being a purely abstract concept, has no existance beyond that interpretation, whereas any entity either exists or not and has or has not certain attributes independently of your perceptions.
Nah. Reality bites back. You might never perceive that bullet bearing down on your skull - before or after it gets there - but it will make a terrific difference in your perception of reality when it's done.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
"In the latter guess, guess what? Quarks exist [...] If God had little angels whipping around arranging the proper collisions, and if those angels are not otherwise detectable and leave no other signature, then there's no distinction -- the quarks do exist, in the only meaningful (scientific) sense."
Quite near the mark, but no bull-eye. From any reasonable point of view, quarks exists no more no less than certain sense of humor of God which consistently makes certain high energy machines offer certain results through their bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters. No one can "see" the quarks as when one see a stone falling from a table. All you can see are bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters doing zwingggg, chrasss, and gurgle-gurgle in quite specific manners. From that, you *infere* a "concept" called "quark"*1, while Blockquoth *inferes* another concept called "God's sense of humor". I already told why I'd choose quarks, but obviously it is not because "Quarks Do Exist And The Experiments Show It". Popper already taught us experiments can only tell us when we are wrong, but not when we are right.
*1 Well, when someone is in those "esotheric" fields, it is usually the other way around: one have nasty mathematical results here and there, grows an hypothesis within his brains and looks for the experiment that will tell if he went nuts or is going to go for the next Nobel
Anyone who thinks that this lawsuit is not frivolous is too stupid for citizenship. You should not allow such persons in your house. They will make a beeline for the kitchen sink, get the Drano bottle out from under the sink and drink it, and then sue you "because you tried to poison them."
"The universe follows structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable"
...And I still waiting for your probes about the Universe "following structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable" appart from your stubborn believe on such assertion.
I challenge you to offer the slightest demonstration to that quite gasping assertion.
And no, statistics doesn't demonstrates anything.
"There is zero evidence to the contrary"
So what? It is YOU the one that makes an assertion, so it is YOU the one that must bring probes for it. I don't have to bring evidence for a shit!
"Whether you wish to believe otherwise is your progrative, but no matter how hard you try, the universe will continue to exist forever exactly as it is."
Yes, but just telling that haven't made us to be the minimal part of a milimeter from a demonstration.
I can accept that "The Universe Is The Way That It Is", but obviously that says nothing about "The Universe Being The Way You Say It Is".
He did say "minute ways," and when you figure how many seconds are in the comet's orbital period of 5.5 years, you discover the straight-line displacement is far less negligible.
h ist.html
OK, the thing flies between Mars and Jupiter, with Jupiter affecting its trajectory, and hasn't been closer than half an AU...but the matter of scale is something to check, not dismiss out of hand.
Fortunately, people have. Give your source some credit.
http://deepimpact.umd.edu/science/tempel1-orbital
I'm sure you meant "look up the math." Far from being pointless or unmeasurable, the displacement turns out not to be amplified over time, and we wipe the sweat off our foreheads.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
"Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe,""
By using this logic Marina Bai just walking on earth ruin the balance of forces in the universe??
the cost of ruining the 'natural balance of forces in the universe' is $300 mil US. Wonder how she arrived at that figure...
Teamsters. Can't have just anybody restoring natural balance of forces in the universe ya know.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
> Is it reasonable to assume that if you spill hot coffee in your lap you will be burned. YES
I think you summed it up nicely right there. After all, coffee (and tea) are made with boiling water. What more do you need to know?
McDonald's responsibility ended the moment the coffee was out of their hands.
Here. Dupes are not just for articles anymore.
I see 57005 people
Deterministic doesn't necessarily mean predictable. You have to know the original state, and nothing new can be introduced, for it to be predictable (you also have to have the computational power to calculate up to beyond the present day, otherwise it's simply a confirmation, not prediction). So something can be deterministic without being predictable. (On the other hand, we can pick out patterns without knowing the original state. This would be the methodology of any type of fortune-telling that isn't a sham by design.)
Can something be predictable without being deterministic? I'd say so. People can behave predictably. For example, if I punch you in the nose, I predict you will get angry. Now whether or not every moment led us inexorably to that exchange where I 'decided' to punch you in the nose is a point for philosophers to argue about and the rest of us to say "Huh. That's a (neat|dumb) question." and carry on with our lives.
The lesson: don't dump coffee on your lap like the frivolous-lawsuit-filer did. If you choose to do so, shut up and pay for it yourself.
...thanks for that, I didn't know that at all... I was of the opinion it was a frivolous case etc.
So thanks for showing that it did have some merit afterall.
Doesn't change the fact that the US (and now other countries like my own, Australia) have a HUGE amount of ridiculous, money grabbing cases... and many that succeed...
If every experiment returns results that indicate quarks exist, then they exist. What meaning would there be in saying they don't? What would it mean for the quarks not to exist yet for all experiments to point that way?
Now, the experiments don't prove that God's Perverse Humor doesn't exist, as well. Indeed, the two are experimentally indistinguishable and therefore the same.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Yup, that's NASA's response.
So you are saying that this woman suffered "burns [that] extend into deeper tissues. [Third degree burns] cause white or blackened, charred skin that may be numb." I'm sure the woman in the McDonald's lawsuit was burned, but I find it hard to believe that simple reflex was not enough to limit the burn to second degree in a very small area with a surrounding corona of first degree redness. Fucking molten metal doesn't burn someone that badly if contact with skin is intermittent or of very short duration.
Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
Repeatability, however, is kind of the big assumption of science. If I throw a ball in the air a billion times, and it falls back to the earth at the same accelleration each time, I'll naturally assume that, so long as conditions remain constant, the pattern will continue, and i will formulate my analyses accordingly. I cannot, however, pretend that this is in any way logical: no number of repetitions actually proves a pattern.
What I'm saying here is don't get too cocky about our sciences. The method has its weak points, just like everything else we've come up with.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Meh, your point may or may not be a good one, but i'm going to nitpick at you on technical grounds because your examples are annoyingly bad.
1)The truth (soundness) of a logical conclusion is always dependent on the truth (soundness) of the assumptions, i.e. the starting points of the logical chain. What you are citing here (lack of internal contradictions) is not soundness but validity. As any student of philosophy is conditioned to say within 5 seconds of bringing the subject up, perfectly valud arguments are sometimes (often, actually) entirely false or of undefinable truth.
2) Jesus christ is or isn't god regardless of what you think on the subject, unless you have achueved some sort of transcendance which allows you to form the universe to your will. If you have, please tell me how: I tried for a long time, but then i ran out of red bull.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The problem with logic is that you have to start with something that's not logical. The only alternative is circular logic.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I salute the first person in the thread that appears to actually know what logic is. /SALUTE!
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Nah, almost no one follows logic all the way through these days. The problem with 'those religious people' is that they seem to lack the sense of humor that the creation process imbues in most of us nowadays.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
But I don't get along intellectually with most other astrologers....
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual": find out how he feels about astrology. -- Robert A Heinlein
A.E. Wallace Budge wrote a number of very interesting paragraphs on the subject in passing in his landmark work "Amulets and Superstitions" which catalogs various supernatural beliefs of the ancient world. He didn't mention whether he believed in it (I suspect he did based on his involvement in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) but he simply states that it, like many ancient supernatural beliefs, was best understood as a part of a much larger and more complex cosmology. I don't think anyone would dare degrade the intellectual worth of the curator of the Royal Museum in London simply because he gives some credit to it.
Personally, I agree with Paracelsus's view of the subject (presumably held by Budge, WB Yeates, and other HOGD members). This view holds that there is no reason to even look for a causal force which links the planets to our lives. But instead (for those of us who are astrologers), it has the same basis of any other form of divination (tarot, omens, whatever). This is that the internal and external worlds are reflections of eachother. And that anything in the external world can be symbolic of aspects of our internal lives (emotions, thoughts, inner angels and demons, aspirations, fears, etc). In this case, astrology merely gives us a symbolic handle on our inner lives. Nothing more nor less.
Now, I say that this woman is a crackpot of the highest degree. She is like those astrologers who talk about appeasing the planets and is obviously a charlatan of the highest degree.
Evidently by filing this suit, she is validating her own beliefs, however....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Well, I don't fully agree, but let's say you are right, for arguments' sake.
;-)
Even then, it might be premature to say logic only exists within the human mind. It is quite possible that other intelligent beings (aliens or AIs or something) could and would use logic too.
In fact, logic would dictate they do.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You have precisely identified the problem with belief systems. Reality and science are hardly relevant, its all about what you believe.
Unfortunately, reality can often have a rather hard edge to it, especially when you bump your head. Without logic and mathematics its not that you can't talk to God, its that without them you haven't a chance of understanding what he is saying.
I guess what bothers me most about the religous is that they are keen to tell you all about their belief system and how superior it is to everyone else's, yet they never seem to want to talk coherently about just how it is they know it for a fact to be true. We're all suppose to take it on faith rather than do any thinking. No doubt for most primates this is a lot easier and, in any event, one can always just fool a few other primates into thinking that it is. Unfortunately, the problem with this evolutionary strategy is that in the long run, its an evolutionary dead end.
"The problem with logic is that you have to start with something that's not logical."
I don't think this is true. One could as well start from an experience or an observation, for instance.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"I would recommend proving we exist first."
;-)
Indeed!
In fact, I am god.
No, really!
But I've made the mistake to turn me into a feeble human without any godly powers or wisdom, who thinks he's God.
Please prove me wrong (or right).
In fact, can I not logical argue that, since I am a feeble human without any godly powers and wisdom, and I do think I'm god, that this is proof I am god?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I think that all she probably did was to decide how much she'd need to sue NASA for in order to get world press attention and mountains of free publicity.
Everyone who cares about astrology probably now knows who she is. It's a shame that slashdot decided to jump on the media band-wagon.
"But if somebody uses logic to test the value of a faith, then they're using logic as a faith."
That would actually depend on the premises of that faith, and whether or not it values logic (and consistency) itself.
One can never logically test the premise of the value of a faith which refutes any logic, obviously. But, luckily, while the value in those cases remain outside the scope of logic, the way in which it is expressed often (has tenets which) can be subjected to logic.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200507/df2005 0704.jpg
That's why I sounded stupid in the first paragraph. You must indeed start from a fuzzy non-logical place. However, you can pick up on simple patterns like causality and transitivity just by observing that they are always true. If, for example, we saw effects preceding causes in everyday life, our conception of logic would reflect that.
English is easier said than done.
I don't care what they are called -- there are still assumptions in science. Perfectly valid assumptions, to be sure, and the best that can be gotten for what science does (find ways to predict what/how things happen in the real vorld).
How do you know that the scientific method will arrive at the truth? You don't! When has science ever been right? Always close, and getting closer, but old theories get replaced by newer, more accurate ones all the time. Not that science is useless; it produces accurate predictions about the real world. Yet if you seek truth, perhaps you should study philosophy. Though philosophy may have gotten pretty much nowhere in 2000 years, it is at least concerned with truth. Science is concerned with predicting and explaining the real world, in the simplest way possible.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Saying that is like saying that human thoughts are defined in words. True, most of the thoughts may be adequately expressed in this way, but the lingua is not the only way of expression, albeit, arguably, is the most effective one. However, my point is that the only reason the Laws of Nature are defined mathematically is because we are using math to build a model of reality. Newton's model is/was different from Einstein's model, the modelling law has been changed but the reality always stayed the same.
There is zero evidence to the contrary.
Are you sure? Goedel Theorem states that any formal system of non-trivial complexity is either incomplete or inconsistent. The reality, OTOH, by definition is complete and also seems to be consistent (at least, there is no evidence to the contrary.) If only by this virtue of the reality the best we can hope is only building mathematical models with assimptotically better accuracy.
No theory currently known to the mankind offers complete description of reality. For example, the most precise theory known to us - Quantum Theory is incomplete, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also breaks up on quantum level. Thus, contrary to your assertion, there is zero evidence that the reality follows strictly any mathematical model.
These are two complaints about string theory that I always see repeated but never see fully explained.
1. By 'unfalsifiable', do you mean currently unfalsifiable by today's technology? This doesn't invalidate the theory. Or is it practicaly unfalsifiable given any level of technology and can never be disproven no mater what? Which makes a theory meaningless in scientific terms.
2. Why does a new theory have to explain more than current theory? Just because a human being formulated some other theory first doesn't make the first theory more or less valid than a second one. It seems that theories with equivalent predictive powers are equaly valid untill disproven. Which brings me to:
3. The two complaints contradict. Either string theory predcits something that another competing theory X does not predict, thus making it falsifiable. Or they predict exactly the same things about the universe. In which case theory X would also be unfalsifiable and equaly invalid.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
*tssssss* -- "OW!"
... 30 Minutes Later ...
*tssssss* -- "OW!"
*tssssss* -- "OW!"
*tssssss* -- "OW!"
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
> People who believe in anything that isn't objectively verifiable, do not believe because of logic.
Though that doesn't necessarily make what they believe untrue, just unverifiable.
For instance can you prove that you love your wife, that you are happy, that you aren't thinking of changing jobs, that you are an optimist? You can only provide circumstantial evidence at best, but no absolute, verifiable proof af any of these or a myriad other things you assume to be true in your life.
How true is the love that you feel for your wife or child? It's not provable in an absolute or computational manner - does that really matter? You believe it anyway.
Someone's bound to say you can measure love with enough electrodes on someone's head. Fine. Then there's even more subtle things beliefs like the sanctity of human life. Personally I don't need evidence to believe these things.
pithy comment
Good golly - this has been on Pravda over a month now. I guess I need to lower my /. bar...
My husband and I were both upset by the comet being blown up as well. It seemed like a stupid little boy thing to do.
Do we believe in astrology? YES WE DO.
I don't consider it a science, but a belief system, and it is a belief system MUCH older than Christianity and STILL pervasive in all cultures.
NASA just lost our support totally.
It is bad enough that we blow up things on the earth.
I'd never sue - and I think this astrologer was just trying to bring public attention to it.
We both felt hurt by NASA because of this.
I feel it is morally wrong.
> I'm not a logician
No kidding?
Although you, try to use circular reasoning and other rediculous ways of being contrary, are still wrong. Language was not first written then spoken. It was first spoken then written. Even sign language which has no sound was formed by people who had first learned to talk.
If you go through life being contrary saying things like well your purple isn't purple to me but red. You still have to realize that although what I see as "purple" (even though that is an abstraction for what the light is doing) still has to be called something we both agree to otherwise you are just refusing to LEARN language and personally choose to confuse the facts. On the same line no matter if we call 1 apple, 1 or if we call it zimbabwae there still has to be a consistent way in which to represent the physical world in language. If it isn't consistent it isn't math nor is it language. Even so Math is considered the Universal language because in math you don't have theories you have LAWS!!! People don't make up new laws they discover them.
Even if you still wish to try to say that math is open to interpretation you are wrong. I really can't see why that is hard to understand to you. If you continue to think that I am talking out my ass, which sometimes is the case, you should probably read a few math books and study the subject. Math is one of the few things that can be looked upon throughout history and ancient cultures that is consistent. Some cultures never developed a concept of 0 but whether or not they developed a 0 in their math does not mean that 0 is not an intregal part of advanced math.
And on a final note your belief that math also entails casual relationships shows how little you truly know about math. You are describing Statistics which is a way of using math to calculate observations. It is not math. So next time you are trying to be contrary and think it is funny at least be smart about it.
"If every experiment returns results that indicate quarks exist, then they exist. What meaning would there be in saying they don't?"
The very basic notion that Science is not there to seek The Truth, but Operational Certainties.
You just need to go backwards in Science History to see what an absurd position derives from telling "experiments say that Quarks Do Exist". Experiments did say that Ether existed too. What happens now? Did Ether exist, but just between 1895 and 1905? Absolute space did exist between 1687 and 1905 either? At most you can say, well, prior to 1687 (date of publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica Phylosphia Naturalis) absolute space and Universal Gravitation (as exposed by Newton's Laws) did exist, it's only Man hadn't had discovered them, but then what happened in 1905? Did the Universe physically changed its nature due to the publication of Einstein's works regarding Special Relativity? And then, since his works wasn't immediatly accepted by every physic, did the universe change in a moment, or did it change part by part?
And what to say about Copernico? Wow, what a drastical change! One they Sun was orbiting around Earth, the next the Sun stops and the Earth starts moving!
No: Science theories try to explain the Universe but are NOT the Universe themselves. That means that "Qarks Exist" is only an "abreviation". "Quarks exist within Quantum Theory, and Quantum Theory is the best we have to explain Reality" is the proper way to tell the fact.
"Now, the experiments don't prove that God's Perverse Humor doesn't exist, as well. Indeed, the two are experimentally indistinguishable and therefore the same."
No. They are "experimentally" the same, but obviously two theories are two theories, not one. It's only they both explain the same collection of measures. The fact they are two theories, not one, allows the expectation of finding tomorrow the refutative experiment that will make us prefer one over the other.
And that's my point: Way back the original question was, "What if God is faking the results of all the experiments?" And I very clearly said that if God fakes all experiments, then it's the same thing as quarks exist. Faking one experiment wouldn't be enough, but faking all of them would be.
By the way, I'd love to see a reference for an experiment that indicated ether existed. Ether was an example of what happens when you are forced to reason in advance of experiment.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"By the way, I'd love to see a reference for an experiment that indicated ether existed."
Michelson-Morley's for one.
What else but the "friction" against ether could press over the Earth to an extent as to make all length measures be shorter on Earth's absolute movement direction, thus making the light appear to travel at the same speed on every direction?
When I said "Clinton was correct to speak of the danger posed, and so is Bush.", you responded: "Nonsense. Neither Clinton nor Kerry had access to the same information as Bush. They had to rely upon what Bush's government."
9 8/12/16 /transcripts/clinton.html)
Since it was clear we were talking about Bill and not Hillary (I referred to Bill bombing Iraq), it might be enlightening to look at some of Bill Clinton's public statements at the time of the bombing. Here are relevant statements by Bill Clinton from a CNN transcript in December of 1998:
(http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/19
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons"
(a statement that clearly implies a present threat at the time. This is relevant especially when there is no evidence that the WMDs "went away" between 1998 and 2002.)
"I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq".
(Clinton did not say that President George W. Bush gave him the information. Considering what we know about how time works, and also considering the fact that Governor George W. Bush was never an advisor to Bill Clinton, I'm going to assume that Bill Clinton is NOT lying about this!. It is also interesting to point out that no mention is made of allies or Congress. If you think Bush was "unilateral", then Clinton was much more so.)
"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
(Does this sound like a Bush "lie"? Clinton said it.)
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."
(if anything, Bush copied Clinton. Was Clinton being hasty here? The "unconditional cooperation" part is relevant considering the details in the Blix reports of 2002 that, four years later, Saddam was still balking, and he only gave way in the face of military threats)
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people"
(OK for Clinton to say, but "insane" for Bush?)
I'm not taking anything for granted here. If you still believe that George W Bush's administration misled Bill Clinton in 1998, I can provide you some links that would show that Clinton's term actually came before the term of GWB. Or is it "sophistry" or "right-wing language abuse" to point out that there WAS no George W Bush administration in 1998?
What good are my experimental results if I can't assume that they are repeatable? Should I do an infinite number of experiments to make sure that my model always holds? Of course I can't.
I guess my point is that to study the universe using science you have to assume that the universe *can* be represented by an abstract model. The only other option is to take that same "modelability" on faith. You either assume that it's true, or believe with absolute conviction that it's true. I personally don't take anything purely on faith, so I go on the assumption. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not - for my purposes I just take it for granted.
[javac] 100 errors
Me: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Since I assume that our models (and any future, more accurate models) hold across all of time and space, I also assume that this computer would behave in the same way at any location in spacetime.
You: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Therefore, a computer exactly like this one on the other side of the universe will behave in exactly the same way. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
Believer: Hey, mind if I butt in here? I can perceive this computer, and I know that God created the universe and everything in it. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
OK, now who do you agree with? If you don't agree with my position, then you either explain how to prove that the universe is consistent (which I'm pretty sure is logically impossible for a system that you're a part of) or you admit that you are taking that consistency on faith. Which is it? Who's the moron?
[javac] 100 errors
"No, it's not. They were told to store their coffee at 80 C to maintain its flavor, and that's what it's served at."
...But we found that all plates kept coffee hot enough--about 175 degrees."
/ silver.html?id=784703574
This temperature (which is 175 degrees Fahrenheit) is the industry recommended serving temperature:
(Reviewing coffee makers)"
from http://shopping.yahoo.com/premium/consumerreports
Coffee authority William McAlpin says of the 175 temperature that it is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
The best one is from Kobrick's Coffee Company: "If coffee must be kept warm, try to hold it at 180 degrees to 190 degrees fareinheight"
"Only in the advertising sense that everyone says their coffee is hot as opposed to iced"
No, it is in the general sense, as in hot liquids. Coffee drinkers expect it to be hot and steamy. Look above for the specifics from a company that has good coffee in mind.
"While they had a reputation for hot coffee, they didn't openly state that it was dangerously hot"
They had a reputation for serving coffee at a temperature considered by coffee experts (including drinkers) to be optimum. Whether or not this is dangerous depends on if you abuse the coffee.
"If the tires on three cars blow out in a normal maneuver under special circumstances"
Bad analogy, again, because you are making the incredible leap to a "defective object", which the coffee was not. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Tires are not supposed to blow out.
"Statistics can't prove."
OK, "mr pedantic". The fact proved it.
"You're confusing greater-than-expected damage from a commonplace accident (coffee) with intentional injury (shampoo)."
There is no confusion: both are intentional dangerous behavior. The woman knew how hot the coffee was, and yet she took the lid off, set it in an unsafely-balaned place, and squeezed the cup.
"If you were to intentionally pour coffee on yourself to see if it would cause burns, you're wholly responsible"
The taking of the lid off the cup and squeezing it was quite intentional.
"Oh, there's no sign that says Wet Floor."
This makes the analogy so it has nothing to do with the coffee, which was labelled as "hot".
"(c) spilling coffee on oneself are all very normal occurences to coffee drinkers."
I rarely do this. Perhaps I am super-nimble. I've never squeezed an open and fragile cup of fresh coffee between my legs, either. That would be a pretty stupid thing to do. I know better than this. What idiot would think of doing this? Of course the consequences are my own fault if I do this. Even coffee at 160 degrees can burn badly.
"...eat burgers at McDonald's....food poisoning"
Again and again, you are comparing this to a defective product situation. The coffee is supposed to be hot. Burgers are not supposed to be rotten or have mad cow in them.
You might possibly have some sort of case that they made cups that were too easy to spill or crush. The hot coffee itself was certainly not the problem (it was supposed to be this way). However, perhaps the cups are not supposed to crush or spill so easily? You might have a leg to stand on with this angle, unlike the angle of punishing McDonald's for serving coffee at the temperature it is supposed to be served at.
Fahrenheit 175. The temperature at which justice burns.
One thing I wonder. Are you a coffee drinker?
All of the following are assumptions and if you don't believe/accept them then the whole argument falls apart:
All things in nature are caused.
Nothing in nature can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backward in time.
A friend of mine, for example, rejects that a causal chain cannot stretch infinitely backwards in time and argues that the universe is itself without end and had no beginning. He argues that this means there is no need for god. I argue that this means that to him the universe is god.
In addition some of the unstated assumptions here are:
God is not part of nature (if he/she/it was then he/she/it would have to have a cause breaking the uncaused causer)
Ultimately this whole mess boils down to one side saying prove it and the other side saying prove it isn't. Since neither side has a leg to stand on the entire argument is pointless. From my view though I prefer science over religion simply because most real scientist or logical people will readily admit that science isn't 100% correct while almost all religious people will claim they are 100% right with another small percentage willing to kill you to prove it.
... bad design decisions, etc. to explain if you waste your time entertaining such idea.
People analyzing the evidence don't need faith in a god, any god, because the evidence is telling them that there is no need for one.
Darwin understood this from the start, which is why he, a very religious man, was terribly troubled by his discoveries.
But as a good scientist (at least in this area, because he also had his blunders) he stuck to his guns in spite of not liking the implications.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are completely incorrect that everything we know about the universe is based on assumptions. This is not philosophy or religion class, this is reality. The universe follows structured rules and laws which are repeatable, predictable, and disprovable.
That looks like an assumption to me.
I argue that this means that to him the universe is god.
Only if you redefine the word "god" to mean something other than what most people mean when they say "god". Most people would reject a definition of "god" that didn't include some form of intelligence and intent.
In addition some of the unstated assumptions here are: God is not part of nature
No, the very definition of the word "god" is that it is supernatural in nature. The assumption is that supernatural things can exist.
I prefer science to religion because science is useful. You can get all of the good effects of religion (being nice to one another etc) without actually believing in fairy tales if people are willing. People (often religious people) usually aren't willing. On the other hand, you can't get the useful stuff science produces without science.
So when you push a block along the floor, at the same speed, it gets smaller if you are pushing over a rough surface than over a smooth one?
THIS is the science. You come up with a theory (friction causes shortening of measured lengths), think of what that means in an experiment, construct the experiment and see if it is true.
If you say "oh, only for ether", then why? What's special about it? That then means something should be possible. If ether is a medium, then there should be wakes behind moving bodies, which will change the effect of that medium.
Every time you have to fiddle your idea, bringing in a new "ah, but this is special" clause, you make it less likely your theory is true.
The Big Bang is currently looking shakey because of it - dark matter must exist for that theory, but the evidence it exists shows it where it cannot be. Ergo, there must be some other explanation.
"So when you push a block along the floor, at the same speed, it gets smaller if you are pushing over a rough surface than over a smooth one?"
The proper analogy would be when you move a solid in water. And of course, yes, it is compressed in the direction of the movement (how much depends on the compresibility of the object itself).
"If you say "oh, only for ether", then why? What's special about it?"
It's able to transmit electromagnetic waves, which no other support can do. In doing so it affects essentially all matter, since, as de Broglie states, every mass "possess" an equivalent associated wavelength. Since ether is what allows transmistion of electromagnetic fields, Newton's speed sum make us expect measure deviations for any mass body running through ether.
"If you say "oh, only for ether", then why?"
It's not only for ether: if you try to obtain measures about a mass body moving through a water mass using sound (think of a sonar), then your measures will be tainted by such "absolute" movement of that body within the water which sustains the sound waves (you will find doppler effects and "false" length and time measures: Doppler-Fizeau effect has been clearly demonstrated to affect ligth too, so why wouldn't we expect length measures "errors" too?), so electromagnetic (or ligth) measures are expected to give the same results about bodies moving through the ether.
Well, returning to theme, which is obviously not playing fools about an historic today forgotten Science "error": the question is that scientific theories are not Reality, but Explanations About Reality, and thus, constructs from a theory (like ether, or quarks) only make sense *within* the theory itself. It is a metaphysic act saying that those constructs from the theory have any kind of *real* existence. I do believe that there is a Universe out there, and I do believe it has an ordered nature and that our mind is able to penetrate that order to extract Laws, so I am not a relativist, but still and because of that, facts are facts, and facts show us that "objects" and "concepts" are not automagically created and destroyed when our knowledge of Universe changes.
"What if God is faking the results of all the experiments?"
You still have a distinctive element in your theory, so we could eventually separate "yours" from "mine".
As an example: God is almighty, so He could fake each and every experiment, true, but God (christian's) is Personalist too, so you maybe will be able to build a "Praying Machine" that makes God telling you "Yes, I Am the Universal Faker", or maybe your machine is able to convince God about faking the experiments on predictable distinctive ways (something like this is a "miracle": faking reality on interesting ways through praying).
So, again, even if we can accept that making use of God in a scientific theory is a bit... hummm... "strange", the general issue stands: when you have two theories you are open to find the refutative experiment that makes us reject one and use the other... eventually.
Bzzzt. But thanks for playing. Your hypothetical machine is an experiment that can distinguish whether quarks exist -- indeed, you've even specified the experiment. And this contradicts the proposition that God fakes it in all experiments. An "experiment" doesn't have to be done in a linear collider, for pete's sake.
So what can be said? That quarks existing is consistent with every experiment that has been done to detect them. Could God pop out from behind the bush tomorrow and say "Gotcha!"? Sure. But in science all truths are contingent truths. The LHC could publish results tomorrow that overthrow QCD. It's an occupational hazard of doing science and one that scientists accept happily.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
...because in "Mother Russia", Americans screw you! lol
fobowfj
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
The results from LHC are interpreted to create a picture of reality. They don't demonstrate the nature of reality itself (I guess you're a copenhagen kinda guy?).
... and do you believe in the higgs boson, it doesn't fit current experimental data, in fact IIRC the theory has had to be tweaked a few times to account for not yet having found it. Incidentally, higgs fields are a cool idea.
Incidentally the hadron bootstrap is a theory of hadrons that discounts the existence of quarks whilst, from what I recall, still account for the strong interactions that are supposed to require baryonic and mesonic (sp?) matter to be non-elemental. It's probably been falsified, but it's not very mainstream so I don't know.
So if LHC shows that brane theory is consistent. What of your "belief" in quarks?
>>> "When experiences match theory closely"
How closely? Not a very scientific statement
>>> "Science is not faith-based but fact-based"
So what of the non-logical axioms that underpin (for example) relativity and quantum mechanics. What truths were used to establish the postulates? And if truths were used, why have postulates??
>>> "Confidence in one's experiments or theory is only confidence and has to be tested to be considered valid."
Define valid. Newtonian mechanics was once believed to be valid. At best any theory is not yet falsified.
Elsewhere in this thread someone was talking quite wisely about repeatability. I take quite a Popperian view on science, that science is about showing what is not logically consistent and not about showing what is true. Someone responded by noting that repeatability over time can be used to establish a firm scientific truth. My question then is what of the view held by most physicists that the "laws of physics" break down at singularities. Singularities are thus the equivalent of that one time in a million that the sun doesn't rise in the East (the stereotypical example used in philosophy books of old); or the ball doesn't fall under gravity.
I'm so happy you punched me in the nose ... it allowed me to demonstrate that I wouldn't get angry!!
&:{}p>
Seriously, that's not predicatbility, you're prediction could be wrong. Something is predictable when it's known that A(t=now) -> B(t=now + 1 unit), so when we have A we know B will follow at the appointed time.
PS: I thought you'd say that .
I propose that God is fucking around with your Large Hadron Collider, by deflecting particles as if quarks existed.
Well, then you fall on the Occams' razor idea. There are many other reasons why the LHC may work, without God's intervention (or any other of the Fantastic 4). Since you do not NEED those guys to *fuck around*, why introduce them in the equation? It introduces unnecessary complexity to explain the same phenomenon.I think you retro-feedbacked yourself on that razor thing. Please be careful not to cut yourself!
The results from LHC are interpreted to create a picture of reality. They don't demonstrate the nature of reality itself (I guess you're a copenhagen kinda guy?).
OK, I could be classified as of the "Copenhagen kind". But here you raise the issue on "reality". Remember Einstein saying everything is relative. Can we ever talk about "absolute reality" or what we perceive as "our" reality, given the references we have."When experiences match theory closely" ... and do you believe in the higgs boson, it doesn't fit current experimental data, in fact IIRC the theory has had to be tweaked a few times to account for not yet having found it. Incidentally, higgs fields are a cool idea. ,
True that I lack details when I say "closely." - Measures of the energy of those babies for instance, which matches the theory's expectactions. To answer about the Higgs boson. I do not "believe" in it. There are more and more evidences that such a mechanism is in place. Maybe it's not a boson, maybe it's something else. But with the current knowledge, it is enough to "simplify" to one particle. Maybe science will discover that this particle is in fact...a 11-dimensions brane? I do not know, I do not speculate nor do I "want to believe". I wait for those guys to carry on their job and send us articles on their findings!.How closely? Not a very scientific statement
As for repeatability. Yes, something that happens always the same way tells us it might be worth looking at it. You are absolutely right. But the "singularities" in physics are mostly limits to the mathematical models with which we try to describe things. Like black holes: they cannot possibly end-up in one singularity in our mind? Well, on models they do, but Hawkings and others demonstrated that, more than being a math artifact, ending up as a single dot in space for our black hole really doesn't happen. There is no singularity. There is a big hole that swallow matter as if it would swallow the whole universe at the end of times, but who will evaporate eventually and disappear by lack of interstellar food...So there are no singular physical object as such - all is repeated (and thus all is well).
Thanks for your reply. You raise interesting issues and points. I hope to see more like that on /.
And I think that you should read the sentence directly after the one you quote.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways