Slight misrepresentation there. "They" just the Emperor Constantine, and any sanctions would have been for insurrection or sedition, not for paganism. After all, he's the one, along with Licinius, who signed the Edict of Milan, guaranteeing religious (though apparently not atheistic) freedom across the empire -- and anyway, the pagans were having a party then, as required.
By the way, your etymology of "sanction" seems to be back to front. It's more likely that the meaning of "decree" led to the ecclesiastical derivatives ("sanctified", "saint" etc) than the other way around.
Sort of. Christmas is based on non-Christian traditions, but it wasn't entirely Christianity's choice. Constantine (the Roman emperor, not the Hellblazer character) wanted to harmonise religious observance across the empire, and essentially gave Christians a choice: have a party at the time of Saturnalia, or be killed. The strand of Christianity that has come down to us is the strand that chose to have the party. Natural selection in action!
There would be no wars, period, if "interest groups" didn't fund them. The interesting questions are which interest groups and why they fund a particular war.
That's part of what I meant about him sacrificing his career and reputation. Those were the days when a politician might put the country before his career. Seems like another world, doesn't it?
I'm frequently amazed, however, at how little regard the average EU citizen has for recent history. Every time something like Al Quaeda comes along they try to send a diplomat to "work it out" and they come home like Chamberlain waving a piece paper and yell "Peace in our time!"
Then Al Qaueda bombs one of their train stations.
What's that about???
Maybe we have more knowledge of recent history than you give us credit for. Chamberlain came back waving his "piece of paper" -- and promptly put the UK onto a war footing. He introduced conscription (first time we'd ever had that in peacetime) and massively ramped up military production. He sacrificed his career and reputation to buy the UK the time that it desperately needed, so we didn't enter the war until we were in a position to hold off the nazis. I reckon Chamberlain should be considered one of the great heroes of WWII. Were it not for his shrewdness and self-sacrifice we would have been under Nazi occupation before Churchill got a sniff at Number 10.
"These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species."'"
Hah. Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Frequently, presumably. But not, so far as we can tell, in this case.
Read the thread again. You pointed out that confirming instances of evolution have been observed.
The presence of these confirming observations does not falsify evolution (of course!)
The absence of such confirming observations would not falsify evolution
Falsifiability means identifying observations which, if they occurred, would disprove the theory. The only relevant predictions of a theory are predictions that something could not occur.
The confirming instances are relevant to a positivist view of science; they are not (strictly) relevant to a Popperian view of science because they say nothing about falsifiability. I think you've rather made my original point for me -- deciding what science is isn't as straightforward as many advocates of science think it is.
Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration?
YES WE CAN! --
It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.
For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter, which tracks election promises kept and broken. So far it's showing that it's early days but the USA is getting pretty much what it voted for.
Not to mention that I regularly use satellite imagery to augment maps when I am going somewhere unfamiliar and want to get a better idea of what it will look like when I get there.
Why are you going to an unfamiliar area? Sounds like terrorism to me!
Prediction and falsifiability are not the same thing, although they're linked. Even if intermediates had not turned up, it wouldn't have falsified evolution.
I would, as number (0) understanding what is and what isn't science.
Obvious example: "intelligent design"
That's more difficult than most people think. Karl Popper recognised that the boundary between metaphysics and science can only ever be a convention (in his introduction to the 2nd edition of "The Logic of Science"). "Falsifiability" only works as an abstract concept; it doesn't actually reflect how science really works in practice or what counts as science in practice. That means that although there's stuff that is decidedly within science (eg, heliocentric solar system) and stuff that is decidedly outside science (eg, ID), there's a huge fuzzy area that may or not be science depending on the definitions you take. There's a discussion here about this problem in the context of evolution. (For those who can't be bothered clicking links -- this is/. after all -- it concludes that evolution is science, because science isn't all about falsifiability).
I'm thinking all sorts of great things can come from this. Uber cheap electricity, plug in hybrids to end the fuel crisis, shutting down coal/oil electricity plants, ion drives...there are lots of applications.
And the USA can stop invading oil producing nations and can start going after berrylium sources. Expect to see Utah added to the axis of evil really soon now!
How many businesses are going to say "Hmm, shall we make a profit, or shall we make a political statement"? Rather few, I think, will go for the principle; almost all will take the sale. The ones who would have sufficiently strong principles (in the appropriate direction) are probably producing open source anyway. Does the bill tax support?
No, the problem is standard of proof, at least as described. On the other hand, if there is an appeal process and the accused has to prove that they have not made any illegal downloads then you are right, the issue is with the burden of proof.
No, "fairer" is fine. Typically if the stem has fewer than three syllables it forms the comparative using the suffix "-er". Can't say fairer than that!
Germany (and Czech Republic) for lager. Belgium for krieks and lambics. Ireland for stout. England for bitter. America for soda water with alcohol and beer flavoring [1]. Denmark for?
[1] And yes, I know America has some great microbreweries. The problem is with the prefix "micro".
If the majority of the citizens of Oklahoma believed in a vast government conspiracy to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials as a result of watching one too many episodes of The X-Files, would be it okay for them to pass legislation to squash the free speech rights of someone proving that no such conspiracy exists?
C'mon, this is just completely ridiculous.
It's actually a trickier question than it seems. In a democracy, who's got the authority to say no to the majority? Well, in the case of Oklahoma, the rest of the USA has, because free speech is in the constitution. But if the majority of the USA wanted it? Yes, there are safeguards to stop the constitution being flip-flopped, but the principle remains -- who has the authority to say no to the majority?
Slashdot Mirror
For, celebration involves tasty alcoholic beverages and comfy women (well, woman really; my wife).
Wow, so good of you to offer to share her around! Are you sure she'll be up for it?
Slight misrepresentation there. "They" just the Emperor Constantine, and any sanctions would have been for insurrection or sedition, not for paganism. After all, he's the one, along with Licinius, who signed the Edict of Milan, guaranteeing religious (though apparently not atheistic) freedom across the empire -- and anyway, the pagans were having a party then, as required.
By the way, your etymology of "sanction" seems to be back to front. It's more likely that the meaning of "decree" led to the ecclesiastical derivatives ("sanctified", "saint" etc) than the other way around.
Sort of. Christmas is based on non-Christian traditions, but it wasn't entirely Christianity's choice. Constantine (the Roman emperor, not the Hellblazer character) wanted to harmonise religious observance across the empire, and essentially gave Christians a choice: have a party at the time of Saturnalia, or be killed. The strand of Christianity that has come down to us is the strand that chose to have the party. Natural selection in action!
There would be no wars, period, if "interest groups" didn't fund them. The interesting questions are which interest groups and why they fund a particular war.
That's part of what I meant about him sacrificing his career and reputation. Those were the days when a politician might put the country before his career. Seems like another world, doesn't it?
I'm frequently amazed, however, at how little regard the average EU citizen has for recent history. Every time something like Al Quaeda comes along they try to send a diplomat to "work it out" and they come home like Chamberlain waving a piece paper and yell "Peace in our time!"
Then Al Qaueda bombs one of their train stations.
What's that about???
Maybe we have more knowledge of recent history than you give us credit for. Chamberlain came back waving his "piece of paper" -- and promptly put the UK onto a war footing. He introduced conscription (first time we'd ever had that in peacetime) and massively ramped up military production. He sacrificed his career and reputation to buy the UK the time that it desperately needed, so we didn't enter the war until we were in a position to hold off the nazis. I reckon Chamberlain should be considered one of the great heroes of WWII. Were it not for his shrewdness and self-sacrifice we would have been under Nazi occupation before Churchill got a sniff at Number 10.
Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
Wow. A sensible Christian! Perhaps they're evolving....
No, both sorts seem to go back all the way to the emergence of Christianity. I sometimes wonder whether they're different species of Christian.
Both aquatic (the major part of the dragonfly's life is as a nymph).
"These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species."'"
Hah. Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong! Darwin was wrong!
Frequently, presumably. But not, so far as we can tell, in this case.
From the headline, I thought cities were going to put cameras in red-light districts in order to blackmail the punters.
Read the thread again. You pointed out that confirming instances of evolution have been observed.
The presence of these confirming observations does not falsify evolution (of course!)
The absence of such confirming observations would not falsify evolution
Falsifiability means identifying observations which, if they occurred, would disprove the theory. The only relevant predictions of a theory are predictions that something could not occur.
The confirming instances are relevant to a positivist view of science; they are not (strictly) relevant to a Popperian view of science because they say nothing about falsifiability. I think you've rather made my original point for me -- deciding what science is isn't as straightforward as many advocates of science think it is.
Can we look back in four years time and think of George Bush as a benevolent caretaker in light of the atrocities commited by the new administration? YES WE CAN! -- It's more and more obvious with each news week that all the glitzy promises and election rhetoric that came Barack Obama was a load of meaningless drivel to deceive people - please don't expect things to be better, lest you sink into complacency and don't notice the BS until it's up to your armpits.
For anyone who wants some objectivity (unlikely to include the parent poster) there's always the Obameter, which tracks election promises kept and broken. So far it's showing that it's early days but the USA is getting pretty much what it voted for.
Not to mention that I regularly use satellite imagery to augment maps when I am going somewhere unfamiliar and want to get a better idea of what it will look like when I get there.
Why are you going to an unfamiliar area? Sounds like terrorism to me!
Prediction and falsifiability are not the same thing, although they're linked. Even if intermediates had not turned up, it wouldn't have falsified evolution.
I would, as number (0) understanding what is and what isn't science.
Obvious example: "intelligent design"
That's more difficult than most people think. Karl Popper recognised that the boundary between metaphysics and science can only ever be a convention (in his introduction to the 2nd edition of "The Logic of Science"). "Falsifiability" only works as an abstract concept; it doesn't actually reflect how science really works in practice or what counts as science in practice. That means that although there's stuff that is decidedly within science (eg, heliocentric solar system) and stuff that is decidedly outside science (eg, ID), there's a huge fuzzy area that may or not be science depending on the definitions you take. There's a discussion here about this problem in the context of evolution. (For those who can't be bothered clicking links -- this is /. after all -- it concludes that evolution is science, because science isn't all about falsifiability).
Well, it's not as if there are any distinctive religious groups in the area, is it?
I'm thinking all sorts of great things can come from this. Uber cheap electricity, plug in hybrids to end the fuel crisis, shutting down coal/oil electricity plants, ion drives...there are lots of applications.
And the USA can stop invading oil producing nations and can start going after berrylium sources. Expect to see Utah added to the axis of evil really soon now!
How many businesses are going to say "Hmm, shall we make a profit, or shall we make a political statement"? Rather few, I think, will go for the principle; almost all will take the sale. The ones who would have sufficiently strong principles (in the appropriate direction) are probably producing open source anyway. Does the bill tax support?
No, the problem is standard of proof, at least as described. On the other hand, if there is an appeal process and the accused has to prove that they have not made any illegal downloads then you are right, the issue is with the burden of proof.
No, "fairer" is fine. Typically if the stem has fewer than three syllables it forms the comparative using the suffix "-er". Can't say fairer than that!
The RA doesn't seem to be accessible.
I guess it depends where you are in America. I didn't see any decent beers when I visited Busch Gardens in Florida ;-)
Germany (and Czech Republic) for lager. Belgium for krieks and lambics. Ireland for stout. England for bitter. America for soda water with alcohol and beer flavoring [1]. Denmark for?
[1] And yes, I know America has some great microbreweries. The problem is with the prefix "micro".
You think Danish beer is an improvement over English? You must be American.
If the majority of the citizens of Oklahoma believed in a vast government conspiracy to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials as a result of watching one too many episodes of The X-Files, would be it okay for them to pass legislation to squash the free speech rights of someone proving that no such conspiracy exists? C'mon, this is just completely ridiculous.
It's actually a trickier question than it seems. In a democracy, who's got the authority to say no to the majority? Well, in the case of Oklahoma, the rest of the USA has, because free speech is in the constitution. But if the majority of the USA wanted it? Yes, there are safeguards to stop the constitution being flip-flopped, but the principle remains -- who has the authority to say no to the majority?