Mysticism and religion will change details of their belief to evade the places where they've clashed with reality and lost, but will always strive to maintain the core elements and leave the belief as much unchanged as possible.
You mean they adjust their beliefs to accommodate new data? How terrible!:-) How completely unlike string theorists, cosmologists, particle physicists, etc.
Buddhism has - even though I am quite fond of it - quite a number of beliefs that clash with fact-based knowledge, such as the whole reincarnation cycle (world population numbers alone are enough argument ad absurdum on that topic).
An increasing population leaves plenty of room for reincarnation. Where's the problem?
I maintain that science should not yield to religion just because it doesn't have an answer to a specific question, yet. Because the track record of science is quite good, and if we don't have an answer today, chances are good that we will have one in the future.
It seems you are now disregarding fact in order to maintain your worldview. For example, there is the Bahá'í faith:
Bahá'u'lláh has declared that religion must be in accord with science and reason. If it does not correspond with scientific principles and the processes of reason, it is superstition. For God has endowed us with faculties by which we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and science, faith is impossible; and when faith and confidence in the divine religion are not manifest in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.
I have never heard of a Buddhist denying a fact. That would run counter to their philosophy.
Further, by declaring that science need not yield where it has no answer, you are effectively suggesting that scientists make stuff up if necessary.
The thing is, a lot of those things 'outside' the U.S. also affect U.S. citizens in unreasonable ways. They damage the credibility of U.S. businesses. They intercept our communications with people outside the U.S. who have no ties to terrorism. They damage our relations with allies. All on our dime.
Actually, nicotine alone has been shown to relieve some of the negative symptome of schizophrenia (it's one of the few things that will). There may well be other helpful components in tobacco.
Naturally, that discovery left psychiatrists scratching their heads. If only they had a drug like nicotine, but what? Hmm, what to give these patients to help their negative symptoms....
So now, there are a couple very expensive, less effective drugs with worse side effects that were developed that they can use.
SOME religion disregards the evidence. That misunderstanding may be part of the issue. In particular, American fundamentalism ignores the evidence to maintain even unimportant parts of their worldview.
Other faiths do not, they evolve their understanding so that it no longer conflicts with established fact. Like science must yield to religion where it cannot answer, so must religion yield to science where it can.
Actually, I do know how science works. I also know that for decades people with uncers got a lot of bad advice and no investigation was done in spite of the repeated failures of that advice. It wasn't until, in desperation, a researcher actually gave himself ulcers and cured them that his theory was even provisionally accepted.
What would really happen is someone would comment that red heads seem to win more and would be told "confirmation bias" or reminders that it is unlikely but hardly impossible to make the observation by chance. He would then either agree, drop the subject anyway, or have people whistling the X-Files theme behind his back.
The minute planetary motions lead to discovering a planet because planetary motion isn't statistical in nature. Any anomaly outside the well known error bars of measurement has to be a real effect.
You are not describing an autonomous vehicle, by definition. You are describing an automated driver assist. If it is actually autonomous, it will be able to operate without driver supervision with a safety level we find acceptable. In practice, that will mean safer than a typical human operator.
I do not suggest we let children drive an automated driver assist car.
I would imagine the kid's input would need to be limited much as it is on a public bus. They can ask it to stop safely at a bus stop, but cannot get it to attempt to drift or do doughnuts.
Not really, since the non-true Scotsmen will likely never be allowed on the roads without an adult driver in charge (if even then) in the first place. That would render the question moot.
Because of that, by the time we might actually have a car that you could load the kids into and tell it school or soccer practice, it will be a 'true Scotsman'.
You threw out at least half of my scenario. You have no idea what the manager's agenda is, nor even that the manager exists (but there are some religious types who claim he does. Perhaps he wants people to drink more. Or less. He bends the odds to reward and punish as needed.
But even if he does favor people with red hair, no matter how high he stacks the odds, you will refuse to believe he exists. Since his stacked odds are not actually impossible, you will declare it just a fluke. If you test again while the manager is on vacation, you'll declare victory and tell the religeous you are quite sure they are stupid and wrong. They and the manager will laugh at you behind your back. Perhaps you'll be put down for slightly worse odds in the casino (but not enough so to convince you it isn't random.
In japan, mental illness carries a high stigma, so it is not talked about. Note in the article you pointed to, the reported figure is implausibly low, but the use of benzos (used to treat anxiety disorder) are the highest in the world. They also have 700,000 reported Hikikomori with estimated actual numbers of about 1% of the population. Meanwhile, suicide is the leading cause of death in males 20-44 years old. Yeah, it's just peachy there.
I agree immediately that sciecne has practical, temporary limits. I'm much less sure about the principal limits, because so far, much more "science will never..." barriers have been broken through than have survived.
Surely you're not claiming faith in science?:-)
Note that there are enough 50/50 events happening that even a statistically insignificant number influenced can have quite a pronounced effect but could never be proven. It won't even be suspected by someone who feels certain there is nothing to do the influencing.
This kind of interference can be measured, because if you influence 50/50 events into one direction many times, you are disturbing the probability distribution.
Given enough "don't care" events, I could push enough of them the other way to maintain the distribution (or perhaps there's a natural mechanism that takes care of that). Since you don't know my goal or even believe that I exist, you can't do the deeper analysis necessary to catch me rigging the game.
Granted, it's odd and it certainly is not science. It can't be because it cannot be proven or falsified. It's fair to call it unproven. It's fair to exclude it from science. It cannot be said to have no effect on reality because we can't say either way. It is fair to disregard it in science but it is not correct to claim it doesn't exist.
Note as well that prayer need not be to a deity in any conventional sense. It can as easily be directed from one person to another.
This is/., not your bank. There is no army of Chinese hackers anxiously waiting for your password so they can assume your identity and become internet superstars. You didn't re-use an important password for/. did you? Just check the IP address for plausibility and accept the expired cert.
Part of the problem is the complete and utter failure to enforce any sort of truth in advertising. If the liar gets away with it a few times, the rest have to either start lying or start dying due to loss of sales.
The same crap happened in broadband. Everyone promises unlimited use at a bazillion Mbps. Nobody will actually deliver that to you. As a result, even where there is more than one choice, you can't do a proper comparison of price vs. what is actually provided.
Of course, God forbid that the customers might exaggerate about how much they'll be paying and how reliably!
Slashdot Mirror
Mysticism and religion will change details of their belief to evade the places where they've clashed with reality and lost, but will always strive to maintain the core elements and leave the belief as much unchanged as possible.
You mean they adjust their beliefs to accommodate new data? How terrible! :-) How completely unlike string theorists, cosmologists, particle physicists, etc.
Buddhism has - even though I am quite fond of it - quite a number of beliefs that clash with fact-based knowledge, such as the whole reincarnation cycle (world population numbers alone are enough argument ad absurdum on that topic).
An increasing population leaves plenty of room for reincarnation. Where's the problem?
I maintain that science should not yield to religion just because it doesn't have an answer to a specific question, yet. Because the track record of science is quite good, and if we don't have an answer today, chances are good that we will have one in the future.
And there's that faith thing again.
It seems you are now disregarding fact in order to maintain your worldview. For example, there is the Bahá'í faith:
Bahá'u'lláh has declared that religion must be in accord with science and reason. If it does not correspond with scientific principles and the processes of reason, it is superstition. For God has endowed us with faculties by which we may comprehend the realities of things, contemplate reality itself. If religion is opposed to reason and science, faith is impossible; and when faith and confidence in the divine religion are not manifest in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.
I have never heard of a Buddhist denying a fact. That would run counter to their philosophy.
Further, by declaring that science need not yield where it has no answer, you are effectively suggesting that scientists make stuff up if necessary.
The thing is, a lot of those things 'outside' the U.S. also affect U.S. citizens in unreasonable ways. They damage the credibility of U.S. businesses. They intercept our communications with people outside the U.S. who have no ties to terrorism. They damage our relations with allies. All on our dime.
The domain in both cases is larger than the range. Because of that, both may be subject to collisions.
Note that only a secure hash need look random. The first three letters is a valid hash for words, but it is not a secure hash.
But the correlation he saw is that both hashes and NNets will necessarily return the same value for more than one input.
Actually, nicotine alone has been shown to relieve some of the negative symptome of schizophrenia (it's one of the few things that will). There may well be other helpful components in tobacco.
Naturally, that discovery left psychiatrists scratching their heads. If only they had a drug like nicotine, but what? Hmm, what to give these patients to help their negative symptoms....
So now, there are a couple very expensive, less effective drugs with worse side effects that were developed that they can use.
SOME religion disregards the evidence. That misunderstanding may be part of the issue. In particular, American fundamentalism ignores the evidence to maintain even unimportant parts of their worldview.
Other faiths do not, they evolve their understanding so that it no longer conflicts with established fact. Like science must yield to religion where it cannot answer, so must religion yield to science where it can.
That's what the GNUplot module is for.
That's not the problem. The real issue is that spreadsheets are effectively a big ball of goto with multiple entry points.
I vote we send him over Angry Birds style.
What's your favorite flavor of cool aid?
The NSA is the one that has betrayed the country. Snowden called them out.
Actually, I do know how science works. I also know that for decades people with uncers got a lot of bad advice and no investigation was done in spite of the repeated failures of that advice. It wasn't until, in desperation, a researcher actually gave himself ulcers and cured them that his theory was even provisionally accepted.
What would really happen is someone would comment that red heads seem to win more and would be told "confirmation bias" or reminders that it is unlikely but hardly impossible to make the observation by chance. He would then either agree, drop the subject anyway, or have people whistling the X-Files theme behind his back.
The minute planetary motions lead to discovering a planet because planetary motion isn't statistical in nature. Any anomaly outside the well known error bars of measurement has to be a real effect.
Depending on the context, all of those might only get in the way. For example, a voting machine :-)
You are not describing an autonomous vehicle, by definition. You are describing an automated driver assist. If it is actually autonomous, it will be able to operate without driver supervision with a safety level we find acceptable. In practice, that will mean safer than a typical human operator.
I do not suggest we let children drive an automated driver assist car.
I would imagine the kid's input would need to be limited much as it is on a public bus. They can ask it to stop safely at a bus stop, but cannot get it to attempt to drift or do doughnuts.
Not really, since the non-true Scotsmen will likely never be allowed on the roads without an adult driver in charge (if even then) in the first place. That would render the question moot.
Because of that, by the time we might actually have a car that you could load the kids into and tell it school or soccer practice, it will be a 'true Scotsman'.
You threw out at least half of my scenario. You have no idea what the manager's agenda is, nor even that the manager exists (but there are some religious types who claim he does. Perhaps he wants people to drink more. Or less. He bends the odds to reward and punish as needed.
But even if he does favor people with red hair, no matter how high he stacks the odds, you will refuse to believe he exists. Since his stacked odds are not actually impossible, you will declare it just a fluke. If you test again while the manager is on vacation, you'll declare victory and tell the religeous you are quite sure they are stupid and wrong. They and the manager will laugh at you behind your back. Perhaps you'll be put down for slightly worse odds in the casino (but not enough so to convince you it isn't random.
Yes LITERALLY. Look up the origin of the phrase and you'll see what I mean.
In japan, mental illness carries a high stigma, so it is not talked about. Note in the article you pointed to, the reported figure is implausibly low, but the use of benzos (used to treat anxiety disorder) are the highest in the world. They also have 700,000 reported Hikikomori with estimated actual numbers of about 1% of the population. Meanwhile, suicide is the leading cause of death in males 20-44 years old. Yeah, it's just peachy there.
Yeah, but I didn't even get a lousy tee shirt :-)
I agree immediately that sciecne has practical, temporary limits. I'm much less sure about the principal limits, because so far, much more "science will never..." barriers have been broken through than have survived.
Surely you're not claiming faith in science? :-)
Note that there are enough 50/50 events happening that even a statistically insignificant number influenced can have quite a pronounced effect but could never be proven. It won't even be suspected by someone who feels certain there is nothing to do the influencing.
This kind of interference can be measured, because if you influence 50/50 events into one direction many times, you are disturbing the probability distribution.
Given enough "don't care" events, I could push enough of them the other way to maintain the distribution (or perhaps there's a natural mechanism that takes care of that). Since you don't know my goal or even believe that I exist, you can't do the deeper analysis necessary to catch me rigging the game.
Granted, it's odd and it certainly is not science. It can't be because it cannot be proven or falsified. It's fair to call it unproven. It's fair to exclude it from science. It cannot be said to have no effect on reality because we can't say either way. It is fair to disregard it in science but it is not correct to claim it doesn't exist.
Note as well that prayer need not be to a deity in any conventional sense. It can as easily be directed from one person to another.
This is /., not your bank. There is no army of Chinese hackers anxiously waiting for your password so they can assume your identity and become internet superstars. You didn't re-use an important password for /. did you? Just check the IP address for plausibility and accept the expired cert.
Part of the problem is the complete and utter failure to enforce any sort of truth in advertising. If the liar gets away with it a few times, the rest have to either start lying or start dying due to loss of sales.
The same crap happened in broadband. Everyone promises unlimited use at a bazillion Mbps. Nobody will actually deliver that to you. As a result, even where there is more than one choice, you can't do a proper comparison of price vs. what is actually provided.
Of course, God forbid that the customers might exaggerate about how much they'll be paying and how reliably!
He said duty.
That someone thought making a cash register run WindowsXP was a good idea scares me, though.
And justifies the dual meaning of POS :-)