I've worn workshop safety goggles. And flip up sunglasses. Both are pretty uncomfortable. That's why I use prescription sunglasses and avoid workshops.
if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
No, that power exists only so long as the media, large corporations and the rich grant it to them. As you'll discover if you try to take it away from them.
Remember, whoever you vote for, the government gets in.
And it's not clear whether the biases really are biases. Do the majority of economists say the economy would be best under the democrats because they're democrats, or are they democrats because they believe the economy would be best under the democrats?
Interestingly, users who have problems with the cupholders never seem to report trouble with CD/DVD drives. Maybe problems with CD/DVD drives could be eliminated entirely by fitting all computers with cupholders?
... I've never had and IT incident involving a moving part...
So you've never had a hard disk failure, or a problem with a CD/DVD drive?
Or sticky keys on a keyboard? Or broken pin on a laptop power connector (the pin isn't supposed to be a moving part, but it's a moving part that usually causes it to break).
The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.
The trick is to make sure you keep her mouth full.
What? Yes, of course I meant with waffles and syrup, what did you think I meant? Naughty slashdotters, stop thinking that immediately!
Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask.
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework.
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!
Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person.
There's a bullying sort of scientism around at the moment that insists that everybody takes everything on their terms but is absolutely unwilling to examine those terms or have anybody question them (the problem of induction, the question of solipsism). I agree that anybody with a "Revd" in front of their name is disqualified as a completely rational person, but I have yet to encounter a completely rational person, only some who deny their non-rational side and get upset (and start modding people down;-) when confronted with it. Certainly science isn't a completely rational position, which is why so many scientists hate philosophers -- we point it out to them!
My kids were taught about holocaust denial; they were not taught holocaust denial. They were taught about alchemical theories, they were not taught alchemical theories. They were taught about flat-earth theories, they were not taught that the earth was flat. Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is/., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Why? If it's urgent then they'll phone. An advantage of email is that I deal with it at my convenience. Having the client pop up with "You've got mail" is an unnecessary distraction.
Quite. I usually check my email at the start of work, before and after lunch and at the end of the day. I used to get phone calls asking why I didn't respond to an email 10 minutes earlier, although I seem to have managed to train my co-workers that email is not an immediate means of communication (and that the "high priority" flag is their priority, not mine).
did those courses involve logic and critical thinking?
they aren't even required curricula in the broader based "liberal arts" institutions.
Logic was a mandatory part of hy humanities foundation. Interestingly, most students struggled badly with it. As a geek I found it a cinch and got full marks throughout (it was nice to have a part of the humanities course on which full marks were possible because there was a right answer!)
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
Although if you had read the RA (I know, I know) you would have found out that the wikipedia editor is Olaf Schaper and the scientology person is Oliver Schaper. Wikinews seems to find it suspicious that somebody called O. Schaper should be able to get the user name oschaper, and seems confused between wikipedia handles and email addresses (where I would agree that the chances of anybody getting an initial-surname address nowadays is slim unless they own the domain!)
Slashdot Mirror
I've worn workshop safety goggles. And flip up sunglasses. Both are pretty uncomfortable. That's why I use prescription sunglasses and avoid workshops.
Which is fine if you don't need glasses for normal vision. One pair of glasses over another is never good.
if I loan somebody my car and they run down their cheating GF, I'm probably safe unless they told me their intention ahead of time. But Internet laws are still so nebulous that the analogy may not carry over.
But it must! It's a car analogy!
I mean, it's not like Asus is a barely-scraping-by company that is unable to afford even simple tools.
Yet.
That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.
No, that power exists only so long as the media, large corporations and the rich grant it to them. As you'll discover if you try to take it away from them.
Remember, whoever you vote for, the government gets in.
And it's not clear whether the biases really are biases. Do the majority of economists say the economy would be best under the democrats because they're democrats, or are they democrats because they believe the economy would be best under the democrats?
Interestingly, users who have problems with the cupholders never seem to report trouble with CD/DVD drives. Maybe problems with CD/DVD drives could be eliminated entirely by fitting all computers with cupholders?
Most of our hardware problems are caused by the moving part more commonly referred to as the user.
And who said that computers were the most complex things we have to deal with?
So you've never had a hard disk failure, or a problem with a CD/DVD drive?
Or sticky keys on a keyboard? Or broken pin on a laptop power connector (the pin isn't supposed to be a moving part, but it's a moving part that usually causes it to break).
The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.
The trick is to make sure you keep her mouth full.
What? Yes, of course I meant with waffles and syrup, what did you think I meant? Naughty slashdotters, stop thinking that immediately!
Death penalty for thought crime, eh? Welcome to the brave new totalitarian world. If you want to kill anybody who disagrees with your beliefs, in my book that makes your beliefs a religion. Hope you remember to add yourself to your own list.
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask .
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework .
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
"Crush religious expression", eh? So you don't have the confidence in your own viewpoint to let it stand up to intelligent debate; other viewpoints need to be "crushed"? If you "crush" religious expression in the classroom, religious parents will just take their kids out of the state system and the kids will get exposure to no alternative viewpoint. Way to defuse religious/secular tensions!
Who has suggested giving equal time to Creationism? Anyone can knock down straw men, but reading the discussion and responding to the points made needs a bit of thought something too many folks here seem to struggle with whenever anybody mentions religion.
As a software engineer, as part of my education we often examined code that was faulty. That doesn't mean defect-ridden code should be taught in schools, just that it was seen, discussed, dissected and its flaws revealed to the world.
It's good teaching practice. And what's more, once you learn to spot flaws in the bad code you might start finding flaws in the stuff that's supposed to be good. I think that applies to the scientific method, too. If you understand the how and why the scientific method works you can get an understanding of its limitations (as I mentioned earlier, it's based on the assumptions that there really is a world that we're observing and that rules that have applied in the past will continue to apply for instance. Both very good assumptions for getting on with life, but it's important to understand that they're pragmatic rather than strictly rational -- that way you get people who believe in science, not in scientism).
Anyone with a "Revd" in front of his name is automatically disqualified as a rational person.
There's a bullying sort of scientism around at the moment that insists that everybody takes everything on their terms but is absolutely unwilling to examine those terms or have anybody question them (the problem of induction, the question of solipsism). I agree that anybody with a "Revd" in front of their name is disqualified as a completely rational person, but I have yet to encounter a completely rational person, only some who deny their non-rational side and get upset (and start modding people down ;-) when confronted with it. Certainly science isn't a completely rational position, which is why so many scientists hate philosophers -- we point it out to them!
My kids were taught about holocaust denial; they were not taught holocaust denial. They were taught about alchemical theories, they were not taught alchemical theories. They were taught about flat-earth theories, they were not taught that the earth was flat. Reiss says that he wants kids to be taught about creationism, not that he wants them to be taught creationism. But then, this is /., so nobody reads the RA and everybody assumes that anybody with "Revd." in front of their name is automatically wrong about everything -- and then have the chutzpah to complain about a lack of critical thinking!
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Whoosh!
Furry! Er, sorry, "Funny". Why did I type "Furry"?
Why? If it's urgent then they'll phone. An advantage of email is that I deal with it at my convenience. Having the client pop up with "You've got mail" is an unnecessary distraction.
Quite. I usually check my email at the start of work, before and after lunch and at the end of the day. I used to get phone calls asking why I didn't respond to an email 10 minutes earlier, although I seem to have managed to train my co-workers that email is not an immediate means of communication (and that the "high priority" flag is their priority, not mine).
did those courses involve logic and critical thinking?
they aren't even required curricula in the broader based "liberal arts" institutions.
Logic was a mandatory part of hy humanities foundation. Interestingly, most students struggled badly with it. As a geek I found it a cinch and got full marks throughout (it was nice to have a part of the humanities course on which full marks were possible because there was a right answer!)
Of course, Wikipedia's completely bombarded by pro-$cientology stooges who try to whitewash whatever they can from articles on the cult. I'm not surprised one of their stooges popped up trying this on Youtube to remove videos by people who expose the cult for what it is.
Although if you had read the RA (I know, I know) you would have found out that the wikipedia editor is Olaf Schaper and the scientology person is Oliver Schaper. Wikinews seems to find it suspicious that somebody called O. Schaper should be able to get the user name oschaper, and seems confused between wikipedia handles and email addresses (where I would agree that the chances of anybody getting an initial-surname address nowadays is slim unless they own the domain!)