As apposed to today's age where people think the physical universe just created itself from thin air one day.
That would be stupid. Good thing that's not even close to what the Big Bang theory states.
Also, physics (so far) can only describe the events a very small time after the initial singularity and thenceforth. Our analytical tools are insufficiently advanced at the moment to model the singularity itself. As a stopgap, what we do is simplicity itself. Metaphorically speaking, extrapolate backward (in time? well, some time-like parameter that is only vaguely what we call time today) to see what the singularity might have looked like. In reality, there may never have been 'a moment of creation' as is popularly believed (we just don't know how gravity and the quantum nature of matter/energy work together at those scales to say anything definite - check back in a decade - we might know more). The Big bang picture in the popular consciousness is a sadly out of date caricature of a very active (and evolving) field of research.
While 3rd grade science textbooks are no doubt good places to finally begin a secular education (one must start somewhere), they do not address such things as zero point energy or energy-time uncertainty, or pair production - all examples of 'something out of nothing'. Your problem (and it's a legitimate one and understandable one) is an inability to see the distinction between technical terms that have precise meanings and the same terms used in wishy-washy popsci-babble fashion.
Finally, thank you for getting the action verb right - "... people think the physical...". It is so much superior to its deformed cousin 'believe'.
I'm surprised there was an opt-out button to click. The vast majority of online or software agreements have merely a "accept" or "reject". If you reject, you can not use the service or product. I have never seen a traditional contract negotiation where the two parties can agree to remove certain clauses because there's no human on the other end to negotiate with. All or nothing.
At least with a website you don't lose anything by rejecting. With purchased software you are compelled to agree because you've already spent money and it is impossible to get that money back (all sales final, can't return opened boxes, etc).
From TFA, the point of the stunt was to highlight the fact that most buyers never read the EULA. People who did opt out (showing they ready it or were tipped off by friends or online fora in advance) were given gift certificates. Part publicity stunt and part public awareness campaign I'd say.
Totally offtopic, but why would a user with a four-digit id want the user id from a five-digit user?
(If I understood what another poster was saying about souls -) maybe because he's ceiling cat and all/. uids are 'special' and 'unique'? Wonder if the hierarchy up there works the same way and uid # 00001 is Zeus?
The major point is that this time is long past, and these days (and for hundreds of years now), religion has been more of a burden than a help. It's time to get rid of it.
Agree with you for the most part. A minor quibble though. It may be time to get rid of religion, but it is wise to recognize that in the case of a lot of people, it serves the same function as a grenade pin. Let us by all means prevent new minds from being lost to the darkness. But for the older minds, be very very careful which ones you try to save. I have had people tell me that "we" (they meant to use the pronoun in the usual vague manner but betrayed their own insecurity in doing so) have morals only because of a fear of god's wrath. I would leave these grenades with their pins securely in place.
You did read the part where they say 'even when the attacker's identity is unknown', or?
They don't know who it is, but they want to drop bombs on them.
No office pranks in that department, eh?
Lou to his cubicle-neighbor Jimmy, "I just ordered a strafing run on that sonovabitch who had me kicked from the TF2 server".
Jimmy: Uh. I'm gonna take off early today.
Why do we believe that aliens will be preoccupied with themselves and ignore the cosmic plot, just like we humans do? perhaps aliens evolved from a kind of ants, for example, where the 'we' is above the 'I'.
Instead of "I'm going to play Half Life" the ants would be saying "let's play Half Life." Same end state.
Except that in their version these guys would be the heroes:). Swarm LAN party FTW?
Pardon me. I should have been more specific. Obviously, it is impossible for me to judge the entire rank and file membership of either party. It is the leadership (with a few exceptions) that should have been the target of my ire. Perhaps I'm wrong and the near-universal theocratic ass-kissing is merely a political stratagem for holding on to a sometimes embarrassing coalition partner.
Your other point is well taken of course. Conventional religion is only one form of irrationality (as applied to politics - I have no problem with it as a private belief system as long as it stays out of the law making process). There are many more.
However, the excuse about the more rational leaders not getting more air time is not very convincing in politics. Yeah, you could use it in religion to say that only the fundies are vocal enough but it just doesn't fly in politics. These leaders (senators, reps, govs, etc.) are elected - and that itself assumes a certain level of media savvy. But that's only a minor point. The more important thing is that you're talking about a political party - with its own overall leadership, long-term agenda (one hopes) and internal decision making mechanisms. It is difficult to believe that a relative outsider (like Glenn Beck or any other talking head) could simply hijack the overall character of the GOP merely by virtue of hosting a talk show. At some level, there is an endorsement of these extreme opinions, if only by silent assent, on the part of the overall leadership of the party. This is the major difference between this situation and say, the case with religious fundamentalism. Put simply, where are the moderate Republicans? Aside from John McCain (who literally embodies the inverse relationship between calm sensibility and influence within the GOP), where are the voices of reason and the people who DON'T dumb themselves down to "identify with the people". Our political leaders should be the elite, the best of us. I've seen (and lived in) places that think otherwise or that have been hijacked by the mediocre. Not pretty places lemme tell ya.
So what it boils down to (and you're probably right on that) is a choice between inaccurate and ineffective. Meh. Now, I'm really depressed:p
I can only hope that the accurate language will, over time, also be seen as strong. More than anything, I want us to avoid these semantic traps because that's just forcing us to play the game the old way. A simple way of beginning the process might be for prestigious scientists to actually use the accurate versions and (perhaps by arrangement) be called on it by interviewers - a good way to explain that distinction (and it can be done without offending religion - why stir up a hornets' nest when you can don't have to?)
More than anything though, the goal should be to avoid falling into the old science vs. religion crap. The idea is not that religion is the enemy - just that it is irrelevant and the drama arises from it trying to keep itself relevant and important by picking the right kind of fights.
There has always been a thread of religious nutjobery in the Republican Party, look at Abe Lincoln.
Interesting. Never heard about that aspect of Lincoln before - gonna have to read more. But yeah, a 'thread' is one thing. Today, it's the entire frakking spool. Besides, while I'm not a big fan of religion, I'm not bigoted enough to think that it automatically equates to stupidity. That is the redeeming factor missing from the GOP - the intelligence to keep it from being a liability.
Meh. Republicans were great once. It was actually the party of elite (and elitist) leaders - powerful, intelligent and fiscally conservative. Read up on Nixon's first term. I wouldn't be surprised if he was cast to the lions by his own party (Noam Chomsky[!] called him the last liberal president).
I just became a citizen and under different circumstances, I might have become a Rep. But today, for whatever reason, it has allied itself with religious nutjobs and (even worse) populist hacks. A Republican VP-candidate condemning the "elitists"? Every Repub. prexy before Reagan must be spinning in his grave at dental drill speeds.
Ironically, in many ways (not all), the dems and the reps have flipped poles (sorta like the periodic geomagnetic flips). All I know is, if Ayn Rand was alive, she would NOT be voting Republican (but then again, she might have already created a third party by now:p)
The first thing I noticed about this was that the questions are indeed imprecise: it would have been more appropriate, if the questionnaire is indeed meant to test knowledge to say something like "The biological theory for the origin of man most supported by the evidence is that [earlier question]." Testing belief separately is not a bad idea, though: otherwise we really are trying to ignore reality.
That wouldn't change the poll results. Think about it. If you had 2 questions, one for knowledge and one for belief, and the respondent said that the evidence was in favor of evolution, how could he then say that he still did not believe in it? That would be facing the uncomfortable truth that evidence does not matter to him. Now, consider the result of this: if he wants to say that he does not believe in evolution, he would logically lay the foundation for this belief by refusing to believe (see how that creeps in yet again automatically?) that the evidence supports evolution. The very problems that such polls seek to pinpoint get in the way of accurate responses.
And yet, if you asked the guy if we should therefore switch from an evidence-based court system to a faith-based one in the event that he was arrested for murder, well... I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader;). It is a fundamental problem - the ability of human beings to hold contradictory pictures of reality in their minds. It is a wonderful tool for creative thinking, if only one remembers in the end to collapse the different pictures down into a single one and call it reality.
Which, ironically, they can afford to indulge in because other people (the ones that actually make the world work) don't. (Fitting that some guy's sig down the thread exhorts us to read Atlas Shrugged - tells us exactly where this foolish attitude leads).
I agree in principle. I really do. It's just that the word 'belief', as useful as it is, is so misunderstood that scientists simply have to be careful about this. No one would criticize a speaker at a conference for saying that he believes something works a certain way - his peers understand the context of his usage of that word. But the same scientist speaking to a science reporter will be quoted (or most likely paraphrased) as 'believing' something and may be interpreted in a quite different way from the readers (with no attempted misdirection on anyone's part). To the general public, 'belief' is equivalent to 'hard faith' at one extreme or merely 'opinion' on the weaker side - neither of which accurately describes a scientific fact, argument or conclusion (well, except for string theorists, but I jest). So, it is not a semantic argument just for the sake it - there is a very practical problem there. The dictionary is not as sacrosanct as you might... heh... believe.
But yes, if there were a poll, I would do the same as you - be counted - because a poll is automatically an opinion poll so I'm not losing any clarity there.
To summarize, sensible people would not argue with your meaning of 'believe'. But it has a bad connotation because it has been almost entirely hijacked by the 'faith-based' crowd. That's the problem with deciding, as you say, "to adopt the terminology of my opponent so that we can move forward". In this particular case, it's already a minor victory for your opponent because you have now placed your reasoned arguments and his arguments from faith on an even keel. I feel that we should acknowledge the loss of this once respected word and come up with something else to refer to psychological certainty.
I read it perfectly, thank you very much, and when I need the benefit of the doubt from somebody who can't add up I'll ask for it.
Obviously not (for the reasons below). And there's clearly no point in me doing so a second time when I'm faced with a case of selective comprehension. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I can acknowledge my mistakes:p.
1. (Boldface from original).
In fact, for most of history, the idea of marriage (for common folk - not the aristocratic freeloaders) has been rather more pragmatic and as a consequence, more stable than it is today. Mind you, try not to follow your first instinct and take all this as a value judgment. It is merely historical fact and it is also a fact that such practical marriages were statistically more successful in the sense of providing stability to children. Whether that's enough or the only thing desirable in child-rearing is a different matter altogether [new italics for improved readability](for instance, what use is stability if that's all you get and if parents that can barely stand the sight of each other but tolerate it for the sake of their kids then take it out in subtle, passive-aggressive ways on the kids; as you were probably hinting at? - as a practical matter though, not putting a child through the idiotic 'problems' of grownups when he/she has enough to worry about might just be a good idea - call me crazy:p).
2.
But it certainly isn't proven, by you or anybody else, that staying together "just for the sake of the children" is necessarily a good (or better, or even less bad) thing for any of the parties concerned.
And yet it is casually assumed (without equally robust standards of proof) that separating in a bad marriage is automatically good for the children. Huh. I must have missed that memo. The unspoken reasoning seems more like - the kid is screwed anyway. The parents might as well make their lives better. And yet, for cultures that speak of dying for their children, living together is clearly too odious a burden. *gasp* I cannot believe how barbaric I was in hinting that maybe, just maybe, parents could get their heads out of their asses and try to make things work 'for the sake of their children'.
This is one of those few clear cases where you can't say, "Well, it's no one's fault. Just the way things go". There is a clear responsibility here - one or both of the parents fucked up, plain and simple. Of course, I don't know what you're so upset about. So what if I invoked the dreaded "for the sake of the children" phrase? If the idiots can't listen to the needs of their own children, it's not like they're gonna listen to anyone else. What we say here is pretty irrelevant.
I'm pretty surprised to find somebody even claiming that in the 21st century.
Clearly, no one would claim that for something like domestic abuse cases (I hope that's been obvious from what I've written - if not, I apologize for wasting your time). The point is that that sort of thing has been declining dramatically. In the 21st century, spousal abuse is hardly the most common reason for divorce (link1 , link2). In the absence of such extreme reasons as abuse, it is not unreasonable to expect BOTH parents to be the grownups. What amazes me is that people believe they have free will and yet when it is convenient, spout horrible cliches about 'people falling out of love' or 'sometimes things just don't work out' to their children as 'explanations' for the divorce, as if they were no more than mindless automatons powerless in the grips of their unknowable ids and uncontrollable passions. How's that for something out of t
And sometimes, if it's logically the correct thing to do to get divorced, the illogical thing might be the best thing for the child.
You think it's better for kids to be with two parents who clearly can't stand the sight of each other than to be with one?
Unless you're using a different definition of logical to me.
Read the quoted bit again (you probably misread it the first time so I'll give you the benefit of doubt) and you'll find that our definitions of 'logic' match perfectly. What I was getting at is that the logical thing for the parents might not be the best thing for the kids (split custody has its own attendant problems as you well know - not least of all, the tendency (not universal but hardly rare) of the kids to become manipulative, spoiled brats).
The modern idea of love in marriage is extremely pleasant and I quite approve of it, but it is relatively new. In fact, for most of history, the idea of marriage (for common folk - not the aristocratic freeloaders) has been rather more pragmatic and as a consequence, more stable than it is today. Mind you, try not to follow your first instinct and take all this as a value judgment. It is merely historical fact and it is also a fact that such practical marriages were statistically more successful in the sense of providing stability to children. Whether that's enough or the only thing desirable in child-rearing is a different matter altogether (for instance, what use is stability if that's all you get and if parents that can barely stand the sight of each other but tolerate it for the sake of their kids then take it out in subtle, passive-aggressive ways on the kids; as you were probably hinting at? - as a practical matter though, not putting a child through the idiotic 'problems' of grownups when he/she has enough to worry about might just be a good idea - call me crazy:p).
For that matter, I'm glad I wasn't born back then (pretty much anytime before the 50s - hell not even then; and for many reasons) but I still know that as far as the single aspect of stability goes; yes, parents sacrificing their own desires for happiness over that of their children certainly goes a long way. And really, how many divorces today are really unavoidable in the sense that they probably have more in common with the senseless and petty 17th century European wars than with a real matter of irreconcilable differences. I think modern couples rarely procreate right after marriage*. If they could get along fine with each other for what, 1-2 years before popping one out, perhaps the divorce thing wasn't all that inevitable eh?
______________
*though I'm not entirely sure what the numbers are on this. In the case of early childbirth, I do see how things can go sour since there might well be fundamental disagreements in, for instance, how to raise the child (religion, school, sports, house rules, whatever).
I played way too much Excite Bike. Unfortunately I don't own a motorcycle. Also, the DOT frowns on placing large ramps on the road.
Ha! At least you didn't play Road Rash. Can you imagine backhanding a couple of Hell's Angels while trying not to run over the cardboard cutout of the bewildered hot chick that some doofus placed in the middle of the road?
I think pretending to be religious would more likely backfire, as it's missing the components of the religion that would make for a strong family, and the kids will likely see through any hypocrisy and will only lead them to further rebellion.
The strong family you mentioned has little to do with religion and more to do with the character of the parents. As for the kids, a little religion (feigned of otherwise) would be good - as a vaccine. I wouldn't want them to go to college too protected from it and fall prey to the numerous irrationalities that infest the supposed centers of learning (that includes secular irrationality, which is even more dangerous, since it disguises itself as reason). Of course, it would be a... rather unethical trick to play on one's own spawn so I wouldn't consider it seriously. Besides, given my choice of profession, it would be difficult to pull it off *snicker*.
Besides, I'm not of the opinion that religion, as a social construct is necessarily all that bad. For instance, while capable parents don't need it, it can sometimes spur not-so-capable parents into at least providing a stable environment for children to flourish. Given the alternative, that's a rather important thing.
Oh, it has its uses, if done right. It's like a grain of sand in an oyster. Irritating, but because of the wonder that is humanity, leads to that fascinating covering pearl we call culture and tradition. I quite enjoy that part. I do lament the number of bright, inquiring minds lost to it daily, but I think I've come to terms with it (it was either that or get bleeding ulcers:p). Besides, in the civilized parts of the world, moderate religion has ceased to be much of an impediment to learning so that's not something that troubles me anymore.
I should mention though that I wasn't talking about Christianity in particular (seeing as my religion isn't even on that list - in point of fact, the rate of divorce for Hindus is probably quite small compared to these numbers). Of course, it would be foolish for me to take any pride in it - I had nothing to do with it. Nor should a happily married Christian feel shame about the numbers above. This group pride/shame mystifies me a lot. *shrug*
My original point had more to do with atheists probably being just being unable to be stentorian enough. Sometimes, a parent just needs to be unfair in the sense of not treating a kid as if he/she was a full-grown adult. Rationality and irrationality are not value judgments, just labels of fact. Both are required in various degrees in a parent. And sometimes, if it's logically the correct thing to do to get divorced, the illogical thing might be the best thing for the child. In that sense, yes, a more traditional approach to marriage might be more conducive to a healthy childhood for the kids. Religion comes into it solely because it is (unfortunately) the only remaining source of tradition we seem to have today - and it's one way - an important way to form a community.
You're probably right. For that matter, I think it is actually more correct to think that reasonably religious (i.e. not the ones bound for the loony bin) people probably have more stable families than atheists. In fact, I wonder sometimes if I should act a bit religious if I ever had kids. It's a nice safe sandbox for the kids to rebel in. I guess I was more involved in critiquing the counter-argument to it (the one that I directly replied to) than in strongly supporting the one before that. And ah, if you caught the aftermath, not very effectively critiquing it at that:p.
Slashdot Mirror
As apposed to today's age where people think the physical universe just created itself from thin air one day.
That would be stupid. Good thing that's not even close to what the Big Bang theory states.
... people think the physical ...". It is so much superior to its deformed cousin 'believe'.
Also, physics (so far) can only describe the events a very small time after the initial singularity and thenceforth. Our analytical tools are insufficiently advanced at the moment to model the singularity itself. As a stopgap, what we do is simplicity itself. Metaphorically speaking, extrapolate backward (in time? well, some time-like parameter that is only vaguely what we call time today) to see what the singularity might have looked like. In reality, there may never have been 'a moment of creation' as is popularly believed (we just don't know how gravity and the quantum nature of matter/energy work together at those scales to say anything definite - check back in a decade - we might know more). The Big bang picture in the popular consciousness is a sadly out of date caricature of a very active (and evolving) field of research.
While 3rd grade science textbooks are no doubt good places to finally begin a secular education (one must start somewhere), they do not address such things as zero point energy or energy-time uncertainty, or pair production - all examples of 'something out of nothing'. Your problem (and it's a legitimate one and understandable one) is an inability to see the distinction between technical terms that have precise meanings and the same terms used in wishy-washy popsci-babble fashion.
Finally, thank you for getting the action verb right - "
"Bless you" when someone sneezes (maybe that's reaching)...
You are sooo good looking.
/obscure?
I'm surprised there was an opt-out button to click. The vast majority of online or software agreements have merely a "accept" or "reject". If you reject, you can not use the service or product. I have never seen a traditional contract negotiation where the two parties can agree to remove certain clauses because there's no human on the other end to negotiate with. All or nothing. At least with a website you don't lose anything by rejecting. With purchased software you are compelled to agree because you've already spent money and it is impossible to get that money back (all sales final, can't return opened boxes, etc).
From TFA, the point of the stunt was to highlight the fact that most buyers never read the EULA. People who did opt out (showing they ready it or were tipped off by friends or online fora in advance) were given gift certificates. Part publicity stunt and part public awareness campaign I'd say.
ACME strikes again. Beep beep!
Totally offtopic, but why would a user with a four-digit id want the user id from a five-digit user?
(If I understood what another poster was saying about souls -) maybe because he's ceiling cat and all /. uids are 'special' and 'unique'? Wonder if the hierarchy up there works the same way and uid # 00001 is Zeus?
The major point is that this time is long past, and these days (and for hundreds of years now), religion has been more of a burden than a help. It's time to get rid of it.
Agree with you for the most part. A minor quibble though. It may be time to get rid of religion, but it is wise to recognize that in the case of a lot of people, it serves the same function as a grenade pin. Let us by all means prevent new minds from being lost to the darkness. But for the older minds, be very very careful which ones you try to save. I have had people tell me that "we" (they meant to use the pronoun in the usual vague manner but betrayed their own insecurity in doing so) have morals only because of a fear of god's wrath. I would leave these grenades with their pins securely in place.
Maybe souls, like a fine wine, get better with age (and possibly some toiling)?
So, the Earth is just God's wine cellar? So much for humanity being special.
That's the whole point of the foot washing story in the bible... when your soul is dirty, come to Jesus, and he'll wash it.
Could it be that the whole concept of an immortal soul was born out of a typo and a really durable pair of shoes?
Shoemakers never have good shoes themselves, their best work and materials always goes to others.
Ouch. God doesn't have a good sole? I mean ... soul? Burnnnnn
You did read the part where they say 'even when the attacker's identity is unknown', or? They don't know who it is, but they want to drop bombs on them.
No office pranks in that department, eh?
Lou to his cubicle-neighbor Jimmy, "I just ordered a strafing run on that sonovabitch who had me kicked from the TF2 server".
Jimmy: Uh. I'm gonna take off early today.
USA is pretty much the only country on earth that lets its citizens yell disgusting hate speech at each other ...
You're just a no-good, f ..... [lost carrier]
Why do we believe that aliens will be preoccupied with themselves and ignore the cosmic plot, just like we humans do? perhaps aliens evolved from a kind of ants, for example, where the 'we' is above the 'I'.
Instead of "I'm going to play Half Life" the ants would be saying "let's play Half Life." Same end state.
Except that in their version these guys would be the heroes :). Swarm LAN party FTW?
Pardon me. I should have been more specific. Obviously, it is impossible for me to judge the entire rank and file membership of either party. It is the leadership (with a few exceptions) that should have been the target of my ire. Perhaps I'm wrong and the near-universal theocratic ass-kissing is merely a political stratagem for holding on to a sometimes embarrassing coalition partner.
Your other point is well taken of course. Conventional religion is only one form of irrationality (as applied to politics - I have no problem with it as a private belief system as long as it stays out of the law making process). There are many more.
However, the excuse about the more rational leaders not getting more air time is not very convincing in politics. Yeah, you could use it in religion to say that only the fundies are vocal enough but it just doesn't fly in politics. These leaders (senators, reps, govs, etc.) are elected - and that itself assumes a certain level of media savvy. But that's only a minor point. The more important thing is that you're talking about a political party - with its own overall leadership, long-term agenda (one hopes) and internal decision making mechanisms. It is difficult to believe that a relative outsider (like Glenn Beck or any other talking head) could simply hijack the overall character of the GOP merely by virtue of hosting a talk show. At some level, there is an endorsement of these extreme opinions, if only by silent assent, on the part of the overall leadership of the party. This is the major difference between this situation and say, the case with religious fundamentalism. Put simply, where are the moderate Republicans? Aside from John McCain (who literally embodies the inverse relationship between calm sensibility and influence within the GOP), where are the voices of reason and the people who DON'T dumb themselves down to "identify with the people". Our political leaders should be the elite, the best of us. I've seen (and lived in) places that think otherwise or that have been hijacked by the mediocre. Not pretty places lemme tell ya.
So what it boils down to (and you're probably right on that) is a choice between inaccurate and ineffective. Meh. Now, I'm really depressed :p
I can only hope that the accurate language will, over time, also be seen as strong. More than anything, I want us to avoid these semantic traps because that's just forcing us to play the game the old way. A simple way of beginning the process might be for prestigious scientists to actually use the accurate versions and (perhaps by arrangement) be called on it by interviewers - a good way to explain that distinction (and it can be done without offending religion - why stir up a hornets' nest when you can don't have to?)
More than anything though, the goal should be to avoid falling into the old science vs. religion crap. The idea is not that religion is the enemy - just that it is irrelevant and the drama arises from it trying to keep itself relevant and important by picking the right kind of fights.
There has always been a thread of religious nutjobery in the Republican Party, look at Abe Lincoln.
Interesting. Never heard about that aspect of Lincoln before - gonna have to read more. But yeah, a 'thread' is one thing. Today, it's the entire frakking spool. Besides, while I'm not a big fan of religion, I'm not bigoted enough to think that it automatically equates to stupidity. That is the redeeming factor missing from the GOP - the intelligence to keep it from being a liability.
Meh. Republicans were great once. It was actually the party of elite (and elitist) leaders - powerful, intelligent and fiscally conservative. Read up on Nixon's first term. I wouldn't be surprised if he was cast to the lions by his own party (Noam Chomsky[!] called him the last liberal president).
:p)
I just became a citizen and under different circumstances, I might have become a Rep. But today, for whatever reason, it has allied itself with religious nutjobs and (even worse) populist hacks. A Republican VP-candidate condemning the "elitists"? Every Repub. prexy before Reagan must be spinning in his grave at dental drill speeds.
Ironically, in many ways (not all), the dems and the reps have flipped poles (sorta like the periodic geomagnetic flips). All I know is, if Ayn Rand was alive, she would NOT be voting Republican (but then again, she might have already created a third party by now
The first thing I noticed about this was that the questions are indeed imprecise: it would have been more appropriate, if the questionnaire is indeed meant to test knowledge to say something like "The biological theory for the origin of man most supported by the evidence is that [earlier question]." Testing belief separately is not a bad idea, though: otherwise we really are trying to ignore reality.
That wouldn't change the poll results. Think about it. If you had 2 questions, one for knowledge and one for belief, and the respondent said that the evidence was in favor of evolution, how could he then say that he still did not believe in it? That would be facing the uncomfortable truth that evidence does not matter to him. Now, consider the result of this: if he wants to say that he does not believe in evolution, he would logically lay the foundation for this belief by refusing to believe (see how that creeps in yet again automatically?) that the evidence supports evolution. The very problems that such polls seek to pinpoint get in the way of accurate responses.
... I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader ;). It is a fundamental problem - the ability of human beings to hold contradictory pictures of reality in their minds. It is a wonderful tool for creative thinking, if only one remembers in the end to collapse the different pictures down into a single one and call it reality.
And yet, if you asked the guy if we should therefore switch from an evidence-based court system to a faith-based one in the event that he was arrested for murder, well
It amounts to a pride in ignorance.
Which, ironically, they can afford to indulge in because other people (the ones that actually make the world work) don't. (Fitting that some guy's sig down the thread exhorts us to read Atlas Shrugged - tells us exactly where this foolish attitude leads).
I agree in principle. I really do. It's just that the word 'belief', as useful as it is, is so misunderstood that scientists simply have to be careful about this. No one would criticize a speaker at a conference for saying that he believes something works a certain way - his peers understand the context of his usage of that word. But the same scientist speaking to a science reporter will be quoted (or most likely paraphrased) as 'believing' something and may be interpreted in a quite different way from the readers (with no attempted misdirection on anyone's part). To the general public, 'belief' is equivalent to 'hard faith' at one extreme or merely 'opinion' on the weaker side - neither of which accurately describes a scientific fact, argument or conclusion (well, except for string theorists, but I jest). So, it is not a semantic argument just for the sake it - there is a very practical problem there. The dictionary is not as sacrosanct as you might ... heh ... believe.
But yes, if there were a poll, I would do the same as you - be counted - because a poll is automatically an opinion poll so I'm not losing any clarity there.
To summarize, sensible people would not argue with your meaning of 'believe'. But it has a bad connotation because it has been almost entirely hijacked by the 'faith-based' crowd. That's the problem with deciding, as you say, "to adopt the terminology of my opponent so that we can move forward". In this particular case, it's already a minor victory for your opponent because you have now placed your reasoned arguments and his arguments from faith on an even keel. I feel that we should acknowledge the loss of this once respected word and come up with something else to refer to psychological certainty.
I read it perfectly, thank you very much, and when I need the benefit of the doubt from somebody who can't add up I'll ask for it.
Obviously not (for the reasons below). And there's clearly no point in me doing so a second time when I'm faced with a case of selective comprehension. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I can acknowledge my mistakes :p.
1. (Boldface from original).
In fact, for most of history, the idea of marriage (for common folk - not the aristocratic freeloaders) has been rather more pragmatic and as a consequence, more stable than it is today. Mind you, try not to follow your first instinct and take all this as a value judgment. It is merely historical fact and it is also a fact that such practical marriages were statistically more successful in the sense of providing stability to children. Whether that's enough or the only thing desirable in child-rearing is a different matter altogether [new italics for improved readability](for instance, what use is stability if that's all you get and if parents that can barely stand the sight of each other but tolerate it for the sake of their kids then take it out in subtle, passive-aggressive ways on the kids; as you were probably hinting at? - as a practical matter though, not putting a child through the idiotic 'problems' of grownups when he/she has enough to worry about might just be a good idea - call me crazy :p).
2.
But it certainly isn't proven, by you or anybody else, that staying together "just for the sake of the children" is necessarily a good (or better, or even less bad) thing for any of the parties concerned.
And yet it is casually assumed (without equally robust standards of proof) that separating in a bad marriage is automatically good for the children. Huh. I must have missed that memo. The unspoken reasoning seems more like - the kid is screwed anyway. The parents might as well make their lives better. And yet, for cultures that speak of dying for their children, living together is clearly too odious a burden. *gasp* I cannot believe how barbaric I was in hinting that maybe, just maybe, parents could get their heads out of their asses and try to make things work 'for the sake of their children'.
This is one of those few clear cases where you can't say, "Well, it's no one's fault. Just the way things go". There is a clear responsibility here - one or both of the parents fucked up, plain and simple. Of course, I don't know what you're so upset about. So what if I invoked the dreaded "for the sake of the children" phrase? If the idiots can't listen to the needs of their own children, it's not like they're gonna listen to anyone else. What we say here is pretty irrelevant.
I'm pretty surprised to find somebody even claiming that in the 21st century.
Clearly, no one would claim that for something like domestic abuse cases (I hope that's been obvious from what I've written - if not, I apologize for wasting your time). The point is that that sort of thing has been declining dramatically. In the 21st century, spousal abuse is hardly the most common reason for divorce (link1 , link2). In the absence of such extreme reasons as abuse, it is not unreasonable to expect BOTH parents to be the grownups. What amazes me is that people believe they have free will and yet when it is convenient, spout horrible cliches about 'people falling out of love' or 'sometimes things just don't work out' to their children as 'explanations' for the divorce, as if they were no more than mindless automatons powerless in the grips of their unknowable ids and uncontrollable passions. How's that for something out of t
You think it's better for kids to be with two parents who clearly can't stand the sight of each other than to be with one?
Unless you're using a different definition of logical to me.
Read the quoted bit again (you probably misread it the first time so I'll give you the benefit of doubt) and you'll find that our definitions of 'logic' match perfectly. What I was getting at is that the logical thing for the parents might not be the best thing for the kids (split custody has its own attendant problems as you well know - not least of all, the tendency (not universal but hardly rare) of the kids to become manipulative, spoiled brats).
:p).
The modern idea of love in marriage is extremely pleasant and I quite approve of it, but it is relatively new. In fact, for most of history, the idea of marriage (for common folk - not the aristocratic freeloaders) has been rather more pragmatic and as a consequence, more stable than it is today. Mind you, try not to follow your first instinct and take all this as a value judgment. It is merely historical fact and it is also a fact that such practical marriages were statistically more successful in the sense of providing stability to children. Whether that's enough or the only thing desirable in child-rearing is a different matter altogether (for instance, what use is stability if that's all you get and if parents that can barely stand the sight of each other but tolerate it for the sake of their kids then take it out in subtle, passive-aggressive ways on the kids; as you were probably hinting at? - as a practical matter though, not putting a child through the idiotic 'problems' of grownups when he/she has enough to worry about might just be a good idea - call me crazy
For that matter, I'm glad I wasn't born back then (pretty much anytime before the 50s - hell not even then; and for many reasons) but I still know that as far as the single aspect of stability goes; yes, parents sacrificing their own desires for happiness over that of their children certainly goes a long way. And really, how many divorces today are really unavoidable in the sense that they probably have more in common with the senseless and petty 17th century European wars than with a real matter of irreconcilable differences. I think modern couples rarely procreate right after marriage*. If they could get along fine with each other for what, 1-2 years before popping one out, perhaps the divorce thing wasn't all that inevitable eh?
______________
*though I'm not entirely sure what the numbers are on this. In the case of early childbirth, I do see how things can go sour since there might well be fundamental disagreements in, for instance, how to raise the child (religion, school, sports, house rules, whatever).
- Teach kids about creationism (or any theories of origin other than Darwinism) and they'll become radical fundamentalists.
FTFY. You're welcome
I used to play a lot of Rad Racer as a kid.
I played way too much Excite Bike. Unfortunately I don't own a motorcycle. Also, the DOT frowns on placing large ramps on the road.
Ha! At least you didn't play Road Rash. Can you imagine backhanding a couple of Hell's Angels while trying not to run over the cardboard cutout of the bewildered hot chick that some doofus placed in the middle of the road?
I think pretending to be religious would more likely backfire, as it's missing the components of the religion that would make for a strong family, and the kids will likely see through any hypocrisy and will only lead them to further rebellion.
The strong family you mentioned has little to do with religion and more to do with the character of the parents. As for the kids, a little religion (feigned of otherwise) would be good - as a vaccine. I wouldn't want them to go to college too protected from it and fall prey to the numerous irrationalities that infest the supposed centers of learning (that includes secular irrationality, which is even more dangerous, since it disguises itself as reason). Of course, it would be a ... rather unethical trick to play on one's own spawn so I wouldn't consider it seriously. Besides, given my choice of profession, it would be difficult to pull it off *snicker*.
:p). Besides, in the civilized parts of the world, moderate religion has ceased to be much of an impediment to learning so that's not something that troubles me anymore.
Besides, I'm not of the opinion that religion, as a social construct is necessarily all that bad. For instance, while capable parents don't need it, it can sometimes spur not-so-capable parents into at least providing a stable environment for children to flourish. Given the alternative, that's a rather important thing.
Oh, it has its uses, if done right. It's like a grain of sand in an oyster. Irritating, but because of the wonder that is humanity, leads to that fascinating covering pearl we call culture and tradition. I quite enjoy that part. I do lament the number of bright, inquiring minds lost to it daily, but I think I've come to terms with it (it was either that or get bleeding ulcers
I should mention though that I wasn't talking about Christianity in particular (seeing as my religion isn't even on that list - in point of fact, the rate of divorce for Hindus is probably quite small compared to these numbers). Of course, it would be foolish for me to take any pride in it - I had nothing to do with it. Nor should a happily married Christian feel shame about the numbers above. This group pride/shame mystifies me a lot. *shrug*
My original point had more to do with atheists probably being just being unable to be stentorian enough. Sometimes, a parent just needs to be unfair in the sense of not treating a kid as if he/she was a full-grown adult. Rationality and irrationality are not value judgments, just labels of fact. Both are required in various degrees in a parent. And sometimes, if it's logically the correct thing to do to get divorced, the illogical thing might be the best thing for the child. In that sense, yes, a more traditional approach to marriage might be more conducive to a healthy childhood for the kids. Religion comes into it solely because it is (unfortunately) the only remaining source of tradition we seem to have today - and it's one way - an important way to form a community.
You're probably right. For that matter, I think it is actually more correct to think that reasonably religious (i.e. not the ones bound for the loony bin) people probably have more stable families than atheists. In fact, I wonder sometimes if I should act a bit religious if I ever had kids. It's a nice safe sandbox for the kids to rebel in. I guess I was more involved in critiquing the counter-argument to it (the one that I directly replied to) than in strongly supporting the one before that. And ah, if you caught the aftermath, not very effectively critiquing it at that :p.