My point about teleology is that there is an affirmation and a denial. The affirmation is treated as some religious-based irrational non-scientific position. The denial is treated as rational and scientific. In other words, critiques of all or part of neo-Darwinism are treated as a priori non-scientific. But it is just the other side of the coin.
That's a stacked deck and an inconsistent standard.
" Pointing out plausible paths for that feature to have evolved defeats that particular argument."
What Darwinists do at this point is to make us prove a universal negative, which is impossible, as opposed to coming up with an actual plausible pathway. That's Darwin of the Gaps. "I know we can't figure a way, but Darwinism has to be true."
Fine, if that's your position, the mechanism of universal common descent is unfalsifiable. Your comments show what I was mentioning. There is nothing I could point out where you would say "that is outside the reach of blind natural processes."
I need to leave aside common descent for a moment.
The problem with Darwinism, defined as descent from a universal ancestor by natural selection working on random mutations, is that there is no way to falsify the random aspect of it.
Any Darwinist I've spoken to cannot tell me what type of structure you could find in living organisms which would falsify the random claims. They get around any structure which isn't agreeable to a step-by-step random mutation explanation by appealing to "Darwin of the Gaps" explanations.
Now, this is interesting because Intelligent Design affirms teleology. And Darwinism essentially is a denial of teleology. But the affirmation is not scientific but the denial is scientific.
This leads me to conclude that Darwinists are motivated by other concerns, perhaps subconsciously, and are poor philosophers.
If papers start reporting on our efforts to do surveillance of al Qaeda agents in this country communicating outside and their flow of money, I would start tapping all of the calls going in and out of the NY Times.
FDR, Lincoln, and any serious President would do the same thing.
Germans didn't believe they lost, they believed they were betrayed. After WWII, they had a pretty good idea that they lost and lost badly and lost the will to fight any further.
I'll see your "Contempt of Court" and raise you "Separation of Powers".
And I'm sure in the final days of a lame duck administration where everyone is trying to transition things to the next administration and a lot of people this was applicable to have moved on...I'm sure they have plenty of time in the remaining 6 or so days (1 being a holiday) to do this.
So many business decisions come from CYA decisions. What you are describing is just doing some sort of analysis for CYA. "Hey, our analysis said everything was fine."
Real data-driven companies do analysis differently.
I'm not in favor universal health care, but getting standardized and electronic records should, if done right, drive a lot of costs out of the health care system. And that is needed in general. And that's a good thing.
No, Christianity has eyewitness testimony which trumps computer models which may or may not be true.
What I'm alluding to is that man is inherently religious and religious impulses will find their home in non-religious realms if people aren't that religious. You just can't change human nature.
That doesn't mean that the underlying belief is true or false. But those impulses remain.
Instead of complicated analysis based on people taking on too much debt and asset bubbles and government regulation or lack thereof, just blame everything on George Bush. It is easier than thinking and a bunch of people will think you are insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't meme mean some sort of belief? Not a type of post on Facebook.
No, the problem is that you can't describe what a hypothetical biological structure which would falsify naturalism in this realm.
My point about teleology is that there is an affirmation and a denial. The affirmation is treated as some religious-based irrational non-scientific position. The denial is treated as rational and scientific. In other words, critiques of all or part of neo-Darwinism are treated as a priori non-scientific. But it is just the other side of the coin.
That's a stacked deck and an inconsistent standard.
" Pointing out plausible paths for that feature to have evolved defeats that particular argument."
What Darwinists do at this point is to make us prove a universal negative, which is impossible, as opposed to coming up with an actual plausible pathway. That's Darwin of the Gaps. "I know we can't figure a way, but Darwinism has to be true."
Fine, if that's your position, the mechanism of universal common descent is unfalsifiable. Your comments show what I was mentioning. There is nothing I could point out where you would say "that is outside the reach of blind natural processes."
I need to leave aside common descent for a moment.
The problem with Darwinism, defined as descent from a universal ancestor by natural selection working on random mutations, is that there is no way to falsify the random aspect of it.
Any Darwinist I've spoken to cannot tell me what type of structure you could find in living organisms which would falsify the random claims. They get around any structure which isn't agreeable to a step-by-step random mutation explanation by appealing to "Darwin of the Gaps" explanations.
Now, this is interesting because Intelligent Design affirms teleology. And Darwinism essentially is a denial of teleology. But the affirmation is not scientific but the denial is scientific.
This leads me to conclude that Darwinists are motivated by other concerns, perhaps subconsciously, and are poor philosophers.
The very thought of them selling a variant of Unix, let alone Linux, hurts my head.
Of course the Linux guy will say Linux. And the Apple guy Apple. So on and so forth. And there is probably a mixture of truth to all that.
But it would be interesting to get that internal memo.
If papers start reporting on our efforts to do surveillance of al Qaeda agents in this country communicating outside and their flow of money, I would start tapping all of the calls going in and out of the NY Times.
FDR, Lincoln, and any serious President would do the same thing.
Germans didn't believe they lost, they believed they were betrayed. After WWII, they had a pretty good idea that they lost and lost badly and lost the will to fight any further.
Maybe I'm a brain in a vat.
A cow could die upstream and wipe out a village.
Seriously, people drank beer and wine for a very good reason. It was sanitary and wouldn't kill you like the water would.
Whether or not Obama wants this occur, there is a full-fledged cult of personality developing around the guy.
He is the cult of, he is the cult of, he is the cult of...per-son-al-ity-y.
I'll see your "Contempt of Court" and raise you "Separation of Powers".
And I'm sure in the final days of a lame duck administration where everyone is trying to transition things to the next administration and a lot of people this was applicable to have moved on...I'm sure they have plenty of time in the remaining 6 or so days (1 being a holiday) to do this.
Didn't help them in the 90s.
Is Keynesian economics like XML and violence? If spending doesn't work, just use more?
There would be several to argue that the current crisis has a lot to do with government action and meddling.
Socialism is forced and about coercion. There is a big difference between a concept and adding an "ism" to the end of that word.
Working together towards a goal isn't socialism, esp. since you can use open source towards capitalist ends.
Outside of people following the industry, I don't think most people give open source much consideration one way or the other.
And Limbaugh uses Macs. Go figure.
So many business decisions come from CYA decisions. What you are describing is just doing some sort of analysis for CYA. "Hey, our analysis said everything was fine."
Real data-driven companies do analysis differently.
I've read some racist comments on Slashdot before, but you get points (figurative points) for sheer animus.
I'm not in favor universal health care, but getting standardized and electronic records should, if done right, drive a lot of costs out of the health care system. And that is needed in general. And that's a good thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621
For starters.
No, Christianity has eyewitness testimony which trumps computer models which may or may not be true.
What I'm alluding to is that man is inherently religious and religious impulses will find their home in non-religious realms if people aren't that religious. You just can't change human nature.
That doesn't mean that the underlying belief is true or false. But those impulses remain.
Global Warming has all the elements of caricatures of religion.
Sin? Carbon.
Original Sin? Capitalism/Industry.
Which leads us to carbon offset. Yes, just like Roman Catholic indulgences. Except they produced something useful. The Sistine Chapel.
Instead of complicated analysis based on people taking on too much debt and asset bubbles and government regulation or lack thereof, just blame everything on George Bush. It is easier than thinking and a bunch of people will think you are insightful.
culminating in a thread on slashdot.
Can't keep my phones apart without a scorecard.