Slashdot Mirror
Share Your Most Dangerous Idea
GabrielF writes "Every year The Edge asks over 100 top scientists and thinkers a question, and the responses are fascinating and widely quoted. This year, psychologist Steven Pinker suggested they ask "What is your most dangerous idea?" The 117 respondents include Richard Dawkins, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond -- and that's just the D's! As you might expect, the submissions are brilliant and very controversial."
This has to be the biggest "article" submitted to Slashdot ever.
Here's my idea: If you have a Bose-Einstein condensate of heavy atoms, why happens when they radioactively decay? Does every atom decay simultaniously? Wouldn't that be kinda like a bomb?
How we know is more important than what we know.
My most dangerous idea:
Teach people to think for themselves.
Someone hates these cans.
I've had the privilege of having Gilbert as a lecturer, and I've got to agree that he's one of the best speakers you'll ever hear. For a good overview of his work, check out this New Yorker article: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/The%20New%20Yorker %20Fact.htm
It's called "fluoride," and not only does it make your tooth enamel nice and firm, but it is also a neurotoxin. It helps people become docile and consentful.
People say that fluoride is "not lethal in small doses" - of course it isn't lethal in 1 or 4 ppm, but that's not the point: it still effects you, especially as the fluoride builds up in your body over time.
Unfortunately, fluoride in drinking water (common in the United States) is only one tiny part of your daily exposure - almost any product processed with water probably contains fluoride, as well as tea.
So, because it is so pervasive, I have given up on trying to avoid fluoride... or is that the fluoride talking?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Buss, and his not-excellently-supported-by-empirical-evidence rhetoric are discussed on Mixing Memory, along with the answers of the major cognitive sciencists. Worth a read if you are interested in the study of the mind, and how many of these answers relate to that.
"Those who attacked Huxley and agnosticism tended to ignore the careful distinctions which he made, lumping agnostics in with atheists, materialists, and other "infidels." Taken in addition to the very traditional and conservative morals of the first Agnostics, who were careful to comport themselves like model middle-class Victorians, the distinctions are important to an explanation of the movement's influence. Where the atheist says that God does not exist, the agnostic says that reason can never be used to prove the existence of a being who transcends reason, and whether or not He exists, He does not intervene in human affairs, making speculation about His existence moot. We are on our own."
Oh well, what the hell...
You know very well that's not what parent is saying. He's merely pointing out a fact of history: that more people were killed in the 20th Century by atheist regimes than by any religion. Possibly more than all deaths for religious reasons in all of history, but that would be difficult to calculate for lack of data. At least 60M died under the Maoist and Stalinist regimes alone. (40M and 20M respectively, although that last in particular is a low estimate. See this. Stalin's victims may number as high as 50M.)
And the brethren went away edified.
Sorry, HG Wells beat you to this invention by about 110 years. Yes, back in the 1890s he postulated a Babble Machine in When The Sleeper Wakesk _files=37759&pageno=86
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?f
However, I'm certain that this would not prove sufficient prior art in today's patent climate.
I highly recommend this book, as an amazing glimpse into the prescience of this man's predictions about the kinds of technologies and conveniences we would have in his future, and our today, and how they would be (mis)used.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
*Agnosticism* is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods; *Atheism* is the state of believing in godlessness.
It takes more BTUs to distill corn into ethanol than you get out of the resulting ethanol.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
BTW, it is no use arguing with me. Rather read what Prof. Huxley said about the matter - he invented the term: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html
Unfortunately, he is long gone...
Oh well, what the hell...
If a create a worm, then I'm responsible for the damage it causes.
God created the devil, therefore he's responsible for the damage he causes.
Therefore God is evil. QED
That's clever reasoning, but the dictionary disagrees with you:
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
Did you know that a cubic kilometer of seawater would provide enough heavy hydrogen to power the US for a thousand years via nuclear fusion, and the waste products from fusion become safe after a few decades? Nuclear power is much, much safer than that "three-eyed fish" propaganda would have you believe.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
How about these variations. Strong Agnosticism The view that the existence (or not) of a supernatural God (or gods) is not something that can be classified as knowledge. By this definition, a person can simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a theist (or atheist) if he believes that no kind of evidence justifies belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, but chooses believe that God exists (or not) anyhow as a matter of faith or principle. Weak Agnosticism The weak agnostic does not take a position on whether the existence of God is a possible subject of knowledge, but merely asserts that he is not aware of any evidence that justifies belief one way or the other. A weak agnostic could also be a theist or atheist, but will typically hold the position only tentatively on the basis that a proof one way or the other may show up eventually. Non-Agnostic ("Gnostic" not used because it is associated with an early quasi-Christian sect.) Someone who is not agnostic takes the position that there exists an acceptable proof either for or against the existence of God or gods. We might further categorise this as "weak" (the belief that such proof is possible in principle) or "strong" (the assertion that a specific argument constitutes valid proof). Strong Atheism A strict denial of all god-like entities. A bold assertion that no such thing exists. Weak Atheism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that there exists a God or god-like entities in general. Weak atheists feel that the non-existence of godlike beings is more likely to be true than the alternative, but aren't certain about it. Weak Theism Scepticism with regard to the proposition that no godlike beings exist. Symmetric opposite of weak atheism. Weak theists suspect that there is some kind of supernatural God, but lack assurance as to detail. Strong Theism A bold assertion that a specific God or gods exist. Also covers "deism", which is the position that God exists, but is disinterested and/or impersonal. If there is a genuinely neutral position between the weak forms of theism and atheism, I'm neither familiar with its name, nor sure how such a person would behave (although "erratically" springs to mind).
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
You really don't understand the meaning of that passage, do you? Shakespeare wrote it before sarcasm tags were around, but anyone with passing familiarity with the subtext of that scene would never toss that quote up to support this particular point. The preceeding lines (from memory, so forgive misquotes...)
I have of late, but wherefore I know not lost all my mirth. This goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory. This most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with gold and fire, why it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestulant congregation of vapors. What a piece of work is man!...
As a former religion major, I've got to jump in here. I have yet to see a good definition of an agnostic on Slashdot, so I'll clarify.
Agnostics believe that it is logically impossible to understand God (or the Divine, or Reality, or whatever you want to call it). The argument goes like this:
GIVEN:
1. God is inifite.
Stop right there. As soon you assert that anything has infinite being, that is the last thing you can say about it. Anything else you say about it becomes a limiting factor on the infinite. ("God is male", "God has will", "God wants"...all have counters based on our first assertion.) This is actually the first thing they teach you in Philosophy of Religion, which is why I ultimately decided the entire field was mental masturabtion. (Really. They assert God is infinite, and then refuse to discuss it. The pointlessness of it is staggering.)