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.
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.
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.
Agnosticism is the state of believing *knowledge* of gods is impossible, atheism is a lack of belief (not a belief of lack). Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
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!...