Theism is the ground of the scientific method. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same and have stayed the same is a theistic assumption. A non-theist has no reason for assuming that the laws of physics won't change.
A theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an omnipotent God do. So continue using the scientific method. It will work tomorrow just as well as it worked yesterday.
Objectivists are borrowing from theism.
If my memory of history serves, this is why the scientific method flourished in the monotheistic West.
And great timing for the American auto industry btw. Maybe left-leaning interest groups (unions and environmental groups) could coordinate with each other.
It never ceases to amaze me that people think that the U.S. government, which can't get out of its own way, can manipulate world-wide oil prices which are subject to markets with active buyers and sellers. With oh-so-friendly-to-the-US countries like Venezuela and Iran producing large amounts of oil.
But if you believe that I guess you are probably the type to chalk up failings of government (which happens all the time) to the President intentionally having it out for the people of New Orleans or some other type of theory.
So if you are that type just keep the following in mind: 1) Supply & Demand 2) Government is very inefficient and beaurecratic.
I don't mean the following to be snide or flamebait, etc.
The Constitution relies on natural rights (human rights), etc. And there are major philosophical and epistemological problems regarding human rights.
It is really hard to resolve controversies over rights not enumerated by the Constitution because
a) they are assumed to be there b) there is no mutually agreed upon way within jurisprudence or society to figure out what rights are there or how rights may be limited between competing rights
Most controversial Supreme Court decisions revolve around this philosophical problem which is buried right into the Constitution.
So rights which are obvious to some people aren't to others. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But that's why we get to argue about this kind of stuff.
Do you think those donations are bribes or extortion payments?
I think they are extortion payments. "Donate or else!"
Corporations want to be left alone as much as possible. But the government can snuff them out with a simple stroke of the pen. A corporation would be foolish not to make donations across the political spectrum to all sorts of politicians.
There is a difference between complexity and intelligence.
Simple solutions are sometimes the most elegant, beautiful, and intelligent.
Also, complexity in and of itself does not mean it is a sign of intelligence. A big pile of rocks could be arranged in a complex way. A smaller pile of rocks which say "Welcome to Hollywood" may be less complex but conform to a pattern which we recognize as being caused by an intelligent agent.
I would also add that if you are theist, simplicity, beauty and intelligence going together (and the fact they are all immaterial concepts) should come as no surprise.
The point of contention is whether a blind, error-reliant process can do it.
If you consider the genetic information as a big cark deck, then I would consider each organism to get a different hand based on the shuffle. More shuffles may produce better results. Maybe not.
I'm just not going to expect a net increase in information based on new cards appearing.
The Darwinian mechanism, which *produces everything*, has become a just-so story with no consideration to whether the everything in the narrative is consistent with it. It produces new things by random errors. It prevents errors by random errors.
It has no predictive value either. Anything that is is consistent with the Darwinian mechanims otherwise we wouldn't see it.
It is consistent with gazelle populations. It isn't consistent with producing an error-control mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Theism is the ground of the scientific method. The assumption that the laws of physics will stay the same and have stayed the same is a theistic assumption. A non-theist has no reason for assuming that the laws of physics won't change.
A theist who believes that the laws of physics are set by an omnipotent God do. So continue using the scientific method. It will work tomorrow just as well as it worked yesterday.
Objectivists are borrowing from theism.
If my memory of history serves, this is why the scientific method flourished in the monotheistic West.
I believe that quote is from Picasso.
What you are really saying is that fuel was priced below its value until recently.
I know people need to get to work, etc. But if alternative modes don't pop up or less consumption doesn't result, fuel was most likely under-priced.
Cars don't pollute by themselves.
And great timing for the American auto industry btw. Maybe left-leaning interest groups (unions and environmental groups) could coordinate with each other.
I agree with your comments about the futures market. But I put that under the supply & demand umbrella, but I agree with your point.
It never ceases to amaze me that people think that the U.S. government, which can't get out of its own way, can manipulate world-wide oil prices which are subject to markets with active buyers and sellers. With oh-so-friendly-to-the-US countries like Venezuela and Iran producing large amounts of oil.
But if you believe that I guess you are probably the type to chalk up failings of government (which happens all the time) to the President intentionally having it out for the people of New Orleans or some other type of theory.
So if you are that type just keep the following in mind:
1) Supply & Demand
2) Government is very inefficient and beaurecratic.
with facts.
I don't mean the following to be snide or flamebait, etc.
The Constitution relies on natural rights (human rights), etc. And there are major philosophical and epistemological problems regarding human rights.
It is really hard to resolve controversies over rights not enumerated by the Constitution because
a) they are assumed to be there
b) there is no mutually agreed upon way within jurisprudence or society to figure out what rights are there or how rights may be limited between competing rights
Most controversial Supreme Court decisions revolve around this philosophical problem which is buried right into the Constitution.
So rights which are obvious to some people aren't to others. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But that's why we get to argue about this kind of stuff.
Cut a computer a little slack.
sending something back to the past has been done to death.
I had the opportunity to have a somewhat long conversation with the author on a local radio show. Consider me unimpressed.
The author really hasn't thought everything through.
A strong case can be made that these designations are arbitrary. There's plenty of stuff that revolve around the Sun.
You can place any set of criteria you want. At some point, there will be an arbitrary cut off.
Is something one mile around a planet? No.
25,000? Yes.
Any cutoff point could have something that is just under the cutoff point. So the Fox News guy has a point.
Do you think those donations are bribes or extortion payments?
I think they are extortion payments. "Donate or else!"
Corporations want to be left alone as much as possible. But the government can snuff them out with a simple stroke of the pen. A corporation would be foolish not to make donations across the political spectrum to all sorts of politicians.
I think you are onto something in your analysis. If fees come down, I would assume their revenues would go higher.
Not to mention the Paypal fees that go on top of this.
Bad business model.
I'm having a hard time figuring out if you believe what you wrote or if this is satire.
Isn't that the main problem? What's easier? Take what someone gives you or do a bunch of work?
Striving for no wars is different than the refusal to ever use force.
But even pacifists aren't that consistent. I asked once what would you do as a pacifist if you saw someone getting raped.
"Call the police."
Yes, call a non-pacifist to fix the situation.
So the parent poster is correct. Pacifism is silly and dangerous if taken seriously. Striving for peace is not.
So why does it matter? If it makes people feel good, let Pluto be classified as a planet.
Worry about Iran being on U.N. Human Rights council or what's going to happen on the third season of Lost. Something important.
Inclination doesn't mean lack of talent. That only follows if you think the only talented people do IT.
If someone doesn't generally desire to do something, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily bad at it.
Now, apptitude and enjoyment often go hand in hand. But not always.
There is a difference between complexity and intelligence.
Simple solutions are sometimes the most elegant, beautiful, and intelligent.
Also, complexity in and of itself does not mean it is a sign of intelligence. A big pile of rocks could be arranged in a complex way. A smaller pile of rocks which say "Welcome to Hollywood" may be less complex but conform to a pattern which we recognize as being caused by an intelligent agent.
I would also add that if you are theist, simplicity, beauty and intelligence going together (and the fact they are all immaterial concepts) should come as no surprise.
No. It is about entropy, not information. They are different categories.
I wasn't referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I was referring to information.
The argument those of us are making is more complex than "we don't understand it, therefore God."
The arguments are closer to "the more you understand, the better our case is."
I would agree with all that.
The point of contention is whether a blind, error-reliant process can do it.
If you consider the genetic information as a big cark deck, then I would consider each organism to get a different hand based on the shuffle. More shuffles may produce better results. Maybe not.
I'm just not going to expect a net increase in information based on new cards appearing.
The Darwinian mechanism, which *produces everything*, has become a just-so story with no consideration to whether the everything in the narrative is consistent with it. It produces new things by random errors. It prevents errors by random errors.
It has no predictive value either. Anything that is is consistent with the Darwinian mechanims otherwise we wouldn't see it.
It is consistent with gazelle populations. It isn't consistent with producing an error-control mechanism.