I'm kind of on the fence about my country's censorship (The UK, that is). As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored
The trouble is with that "as far as I know". Even the government doesn't actually know what's being censored. It's been completely handed over to a self-appointed body, with no oversight, no accountability and no appeal process. And why do you think it's only child porn being censored? Because the censors say so. What's wrong with this picture?
Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that.
I think you'll find that ID would have triouble with that, too. If two humans have a lizard offspring it's not evolution that would be falsified but much more basic reproductive biology.
Another possibility if you have good skills in math and logic (and don't mind working with folks with crew-cuts) is to learn about formal methods and go for Ada. Mission-critical software (at the level of criticality where you have to use formal methods) is a small niche, but not many can do it so if you turn out to be one of the few that can then it may be worth a look.
How so? It disproves a theory that depends on evolutionary theory, but doesn't touch the theory itself, any more than the absence of a moon around a specific planet falsifies gravitational theory.
Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified.
Actually no; evolution would not be falsified. Some elements within evolution would need revision: family trees would need to be redrawn. But evolution would be unchallenged.
This would be my argument against making changes to the Eddas. If you want to change passages in Newton's writings, you will destroy the historical value of those writings. It might not have a big impact on how science is done, but it would have a big impact on the history of ideas, and thus every one of us should object strenuously to a revisionist attempt to do this outside of, say, footnoting a translation.
Yes, that was my thinking. Changing the Principa as scientific views change wouldn't be scientifically wrong but it would be historically unhelpful. Changing the Bible or the Eddas as beliefs change would not be theologically wrong but would be historically (and in some cases artistically) unhelpful.
Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.
[snip]
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.
Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on/. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.
What do you think science is? What do think religion is?
Science is the systematic empirical inquiry into the nature of the universe. The hypotheses, theories and laws of science are characteristically falsifiable. They are also subject to alteration upon the introduction of new evidence. A scientific conjecture can never be proven, only disproven.
Religion is characterized by steadfast belief in a set of cultural myths in spite of the presence of contravening evidence. Given an ever-present choice between myth and incontrovertible fact, the religious practitioner chooses myth. Religion is therefore inherently irrational.
Ok, you have chosen a definition of religion that excludes all of the Christians that I know personally. On that definition, religion is irrational. Also on that definition Christianity as I have personally encountered it is not a religion, so that definition seems more than a little problematic. Yes, if you define "religion" as something opposed to reason then at least it is antithetical to what science aspires to be. But be careful not to apply that conclusion to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever, without checking that the particular people you are applying it to actually fit the definition.
I have stressed the "Christians that I know personally" because I have heard reports of Christians who fit your definion but have never actually met any, so I can't deny their existence but I only have hearsay evidence.
Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
Unsubstantiated and preposterous.
Why preposterous? Go to an evagelistic rally and there will be lots of people recounting actual experiences that lead them to conclude that a god exists and has acted in a particular way. None of it meeting the usual criteria of science, but that doesn't change the fact that it's experience-based, not pure dogma.
It's the antithesis because the one thing most religions agree on is that being "religious" requires "faith". Science is indeed the opposite. It requires that all "faith" based assumptions be removed, and that only the evidence is considered.
Careful, though. The religious people I have respect for also work from evidence where evidence is available -- heck, some of them are even leading scientists. Their religion isn't the opposite of science, it entirely includes science. The question is, what do you do when you don't have scientific evidence (and you're not going to have access to it in a useful timeframe)? As a scientist you (and science) just leave the question unresolved, which is fine. But as a person, what do you do if you have to make decisions in the absence of scientific evidence (eg, Spock in almost any episode of the original Star Trek)? Do you find yourself paralysed, unable to act? Or do you fall back to evidence that doesn't meet science's strict criteria (eg, subjective evidence)? Might you even fall back on stuff that isn't even evidence at all (hope, gut feeling?)
Well, we're talking (amongst others) of somebody who got to be chair of an international technical standards committee. I'd like to think that meant they weren't totally clueless...
The law (surely a "practical purpose") finds it valuable to make a similar distinction. Criminal cases have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
Doesn't work as an argument against solipsism. The solipsist simply experiences what appears to be someone firing a gun at them immediately before they die. No change in the experience, no change in the outcome, just a change in the interpretation.
If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up
Few religions are just made up (I won't say,em>no religions because at least one seems to have been invented by a science fiction writer -- shh, you know who I mean). They mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations.
There are two things there, falsifiability and predictive power. Neither evolution nor creationism/ID is falsifiable, so falsifibility doesn't give us a useful distinction in this case. Evolution makes predictions, whereas creationism/ID doesn't, so that's more promising -- except that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes. So neither falsifiability nor predictive power is enough to distinguish what is acceptable as science and what is not.
No I'm not. People often believe in religion because they have experienced something that leads them to believe it. It's subjective, but it's still empirical.
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Well, the (Christian) Bible is claimed to be an update of the Torah, and the Koran is claimed to be an update of the Torah and a correction to the Bible. And a handful of books were kicked out of the Protestant Bible (and a few more were abridged) at the reformation. It does happen. Rather more significantly, within Christianity at least it's probably only a small (but vocal!) minority who believe the Bible to be literarily true, so changing or deleting verses just wouldn't be significant to the belief of many -- I suggest most -- Christians. It would be equivalent to changing passages in Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica -- irrelevant to how things are done now.
That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict (after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science). What do you think science is? What do think religion is? Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other? Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?
But then, defining science is problematic, and is at best a convention. What definition of science do you propose that would allow continued teaching within science of evolution, the Big Bang and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, but that would exclude creationism/ID? The only one I can think of is that "science" is what scientists do, which is a bit circular.
It looks to me as if it would straddle theology, philosophy of religion and sociology. But hey, it's the USA, so presumably it should go to a vote. (I was once in a standardisation meeting in which the US contingent forced a vote on whether pure Poisson processes are time-stationary. They didn't think they were, and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.)
Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.
No it can't. Ask a solipsist. Those who haven't looled into it too closely just think that science can do that. Now, had you claimed that science can demonstrate sufficiently for all practical purposes that pottery and baskets are in fact very real then you might have had a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm kind of on the fence about my country's censorship (The UK, that is). As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored
The trouble is with that "as far as I know". Even the government doesn't actually know what's being censored. It's been completely handed over to a self-appointed body, with no oversight, no accountability and no appeal process. And why do you think it's only child porn being censored? Because the censors say so. What's wrong with this picture?
Except that in real life the world isn't binary, my friends.
Maybe it is all binary -- just a lot of bits.
Let's go basic evolutionary theory (back to Darwin). This states that traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Therefore (and we'll remove random mutation from this for now as we're dealing with the basics), if two human parents give birth to a lizard, evolution needs to find a way to reconcile that.
I think you'll find that ID would have triouble with that, too. If two humans have a lizard offspring it's not evolution that would be falsified but much more basic reproductive biology.
Another possibility if you have good skills in math and logic (and don't mind working with folks with crew-cuts) is to learn about formal methods and go for Ada. Mission-critical software (at the level of criticality where you have to use formal methods) is a small niche, but not many can do it so if you turn out to be one of the few that can then it may be worth a look.
That proves that a part of it can be falsified.
How so? It disproves a theory that depends on evolutionary theory, but doesn't touch the theory itself, any more than the absence of a moon around a specific planet falsifies gravitational theory.
Actually, if something makes predictions, it is by definition falsifiable. Those predictions can be falsified. Which is why evolution is so strong. Consider the issue that great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. Evolution makes a prediction about why that would occur if we did have a common ancestor with great apes. If that prediction was wrong, evolution would be in trouble and falsified.
Actually no; evolution would not be falsified. Some elements within evolution would need revision: family trees would need to be redrawn. But evolution would be unchallenged.
This would be my argument against making changes to the Eddas. If you want to change passages in Newton's writings, you will destroy the historical value of those writings. It might not have a big impact on how science is done, but it would have a big impact on the history of ideas, and thus every one of us should object strenuously to a revisionist attempt to do this outside of, say, footnoting a translation.
Yes, that was my thinking. Changing the Principa as scientific views change wouldn't be scientifically wrong but it would be historically unhelpful. Changing the Bible or the Eddas as beliefs change would not be theologically wrong but would be historically (and in some cases artistically) unhelpful.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.
[snip]
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.
Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.
What do you think science is? What do think religion is?
Science is the systematic empirical inquiry into the nature of the universe. The hypotheses, theories and laws of science are characteristically falsifiable. They are also subject to alteration upon the introduction of new evidence. A scientific conjecture can never be proven, only disproven.
Religion is characterized by steadfast belief in a set of cultural myths in spite of the presence of contravening evidence. Given an ever-present choice between myth and incontrovertible fact, the religious practitioner chooses myth. Religion is therefore inherently irrational.
Ok, you have chosen a definition of religion that excludes all of the Christians that I know personally. On that definition, religion is irrational. Also on that definition Christianity as I have personally encountered it is not a religion, so that definition seems more than a little problematic. Yes, if you define "religion" as something opposed to reason then at least it is antithetical to what science aspires to be. But be careful not to apply that conclusion to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or whatever, without checking that the particular people you are applying it to actually fit the definition.
I have stressed the "Christians that I know personally" because I have heard reports of Christians who fit your definion but have never actually met any, so I can't deny their existence but I only have hearsay evidence.
Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
Unsubstantiated and preposterous.
Why preposterous? Go to an evagelistic rally and there will be lots of people recounting actual experiences that lead them to conclude that a god exists and has acted in a particular way. None of it meeting the usual criteria of science, but that doesn't change the fact that it's experience-based, not pure dogma.
It's the antithesis because the one thing most religions agree on is that being "religious" requires "faith". Science is indeed the opposite. It requires that all "faith" based assumptions be removed, and that only the evidence is considered.
Careful, though. The religious people I have respect for also work from evidence where evidence is available -- heck, some of them are even leading scientists. Their religion isn't the opposite of science, it entirely includes science. The question is, what do you do when you don't have scientific evidence (and you're not going to have access to it in a useful timeframe)? As a scientist you (and science) just leave the question unresolved, which is fine. But as a person, what do you do if you have to make decisions in the absence of scientific evidence (eg, Spock in almost any episode of the original Star Trek)? Do you find yourself paralysed, unable to act? Or do you fall back to evidence that doesn't meet science's strict criteria (eg, subjective evidence)? Might you even fall back on stuff that isn't even evidence at all (hope, gut feeling?)
Well, we're talking (amongst others) of somebody who got to be chair of an international technical standards committee. I'd like to think that meant they weren't totally clueless...
The law (surely a "practical purpose") finds it valuable to make a similar distinction. Criminal cases have to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".
Prove "beyond any doubt" or prove "sufficiently for all practical purposes"?
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
Doesn't work as an argument against solipsism. The solipsist simply experiences what appears to be someone firing a gun at them immediately before they die. No change in the experience, no change in the outcome, just a change in the interpretation.
If religion is satisfying our desire for understanding by making explanations up
Few religions are just made up (I won't say ,em>no religions because at least one seems to have been invented by a science fiction writer -- shh, you know who I mean). They mainly seem to have been attempts at rational explanation of observations.
There are two things there, falsifiability and predictive power. Neither evolution nor creationism/ID is falsifiable, so falsifibility doesn't give us a useful distinction in this case. Evolution makes predictions, whereas creationism/ID doesn't, so that's more promising -- except that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes. So neither falsifiability nor predictive power is enough to distinguish what is acceptable as science and what is not.
No I'm not. People often believe in religion because they have experienced something that leads them to believe it. It's subjective, but it's still empirical.
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Well, the (Christian) Bible is claimed to be an update of the Torah, and the Koran is claimed to be an update of the Torah and a correction to the Bible. And a handful of books were kicked out of the Protestant Bible (and a few more were abridged) at the reformation. It does happen. Rather more significantly, within Christianity at least it's probably only a small (but vocal!) minority who believe the Bible to be literarily true, so changing or deleting verses just wouldn't be significant to the belief of many -- I suggest most -- Christians. It would be equivalent to changing passages in Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica -- irrelevant to how things are done now.
Religion is the antithesis of science, logically.
That's a myth put about by the scientists and religionists who want a conflict (after all, it sells books), that I believe can only be sustained by taking an unusual definition of religion (or science). What do you think science is? What do think religion is? Why do you think one is the antithesis of the other? Hint: religion is far more empirical than most of its critics realise.
By the way, slightly tongue in Hegelian cheek: if religion (being older than science) is the thesis, and science is the antithesis, what do you thing should be the synthesis?
But then, defining science is problematic, and is at best a convention. What definition of science do you propose that would allow continued teaching within science of evolution, the Big Bang and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, but that would exclude creationism/ID? The only one I can think of is that "science" is what scientists do, which is a bit circular.
That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.
It looks to me as if it would straddle theology, philosophy of religion and sociology. But hey, it's the USA, so presumably it should go to a vote. (I was once in a standardisation meeting in which the US contingent forced a vote on whether pure Poisson processes are time-stationary. They didn't think they were, and decided that the correct way to resolve the issue was not to do analysis, not to consult the textbooks, but to vote on it. That taught me a lot about how science functions in a culture obsessed by democracy.)
Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.
No it can't. Ask a solipsist. Those who haven't looled into it too closely just think that science can do that. Now, had you claimed that science can demonstrate sufficiently for all practical purposes that pottery and baskets are in fact very real then you might have had a point.
Really? Has the first amendment been further amended then, so it only applies to those who vote?
In Korea, you are 1 year old the minute you are born.
China too, but it might be better to translate it as "in your 1st year".
What's so special about the 0xFth anniversary anyway? Shouldn't we be waiting for next year and celebrating the 0x10th anniversary?