I won't continue to argue here, just one last thing to say:- I am not saying there is a correlation between having a "punishment based" system and crime rates. What I took exception to was GGGPs implication that a "punishment based" system having a higher crime rate was true. Joburg is legendary for its crime, and by all accounts (unless I have been mislead) prison is (compared to how criminals live) a paid resort. Thus, I am casting doubt on his assertion. That is back on OP's topic and relevant.
Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?
I'll give you that it may be legal to fight back in certain circumstances, but how practical is it to do so?
This is my main point. We do not have a "punishment based" system here. And it shows. Or do you deny crime is high in Joburg?
Please then, enlighten us as to why countries with punishment-centered 'justice' systems like the US have substantially higher crime and repeat crime than countries with "all-expense-paid resorts". I'm waiting.
I'm calling BS on this one. I live in Joburg, one of the worst places for violent crime, and here we have no death penalty. The penalty for shooting someone is about the same as that for not paying your taxes: A vacation in a fairly nice prison. Here is your counter-example. Especially now that the world cup is over. Plus if you're getting robbed you're not legally allowed to fight back unless you actually get shot.
With that statement, I have no problems. It boils down to what I said above, your working assumptions are the last thing tested if your results are "impossible", but they must be tested and kept in mind..
Of course assumptions can not be avoided. We assume causality. We assume reason and logic are valid, within describing "our experiences". We make all sorts of base fundamental assumptions you can not possibly avoid. Naturalism itself is a fairly massive assumption. Most of these are only provable if we allow circular reasoning. If you do not allow assumptions, you end up with all sorts of statements like "logic is valid because logic is valid." Do not forget Godel or his incompleteness theorem.
While Einstein does question that position, even he realises that some are necessary. "The only justication for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy". This is why things like the demarcation problem are important. It is necessary to draw the line in the correct place.
What you're saying reminds me of an Escher picture; you appear to be hiding the inconsistency as well as you can, but it remains there whether you like it or not.
Which is exactly the point. If we forget our assumptions(in this case the nature of time and space), we are doing bad science. A PhD is not a "Doctorate of Philosophy" for nothing. Otherwise, if there was an incorrect assumption holding back science it would never be questioned or discovered. Neither can you escape philosophy if you can acknowledge your assumptions.
Basically what Einstein is saying as far as I can see, is acknowledge the assumption, and then proceed. Otherwise you get stuck in philosophy and never proceed to any of the interesting stuff. But if you find a way to test the assumption, do so.
Put it this way, when in the lab you start getting "impossible" results, question your equipment, method and math before you question your philosophical assumptions. But don't stop until you have an answer.
But this is not the point. Empirical evidence like everything in human experience is subject to interpretation. All human beings pass all the data through their assumptions whether acknowledged or not. Understanding this is critical in a completely different area of life to physics: Understanding and interacting with people. This is slashdot I know, so theoretically noone has any social skills, but if we understood that people starting from different assumptions reach different conclusions and are not necessarily irrational fools, we all might get along better and perhaps be happier people. We might get over our base need to win an argument no matter what - because the personified force of Reason is on our side. Maybe sometimes we can agree(with respect) to disagree. Or maybe I am that naive?
Well, actually, this is kind of obvious. When you realise that all our petty little philosophical differences arise from the fact that we start with different assumptions which we have little or no proof for, you generally come to the conclusion that "reason" is just a tool for us to beat each other over the head with and ignore the fundamental issues in favour of a feeling of elitist superiority.
But to realise this and agree to disagree is contrary to our evolutionary programming... So, let the games begin:
[troll] (Not 'fundamentalist')Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions. [/troll]:D
Add that a million times. I ended up going through the whole Update, exit, reboot cycle 10 times and still it wouldn't bloody work. Until I figured out that if you told it to update and kept playing it would work. Games For Windows Live must die. Now. Please.
In general as far as I've seen, yes. And by engineering standards here, I'm entry level. But then, there is an excess of low skilled labour that factories train up to become operators. Supply and demand I guess.
The reverse is true here in South Africa. I'm quite happy as an engineer here, earning far more than most plant operators. We have a healthy respect for engineers over here. Triple - no wait, its America - quadruple my salary and I'll emigrate and help ease your shortage...:D
As stupid as that would be, yes - i makes sense. The people get the government they deserve. You can always become a politician and try and change people's minds or leave. Your choice.
The whole industry is riddled with massive holes because we're all tied to legacy OPC which relies on that massive dogs breakfast called DCOM. The slow adoption of OPC UA and even OPC WCF keeps the whole industry in a situation where it is easier to disable all security than deal with DCOM. Which makes the siemens issue too easy to exploit. Every single bloody version of windows has a different way of being configured, so no one bothers to do it right...
Siemens needs to fix their issues. So does everyone else. The siemens issues are however bigger than most. This is not one obscure little hole, this is a bloody great big massive one with more huge holes next to it that anybody who has worked 5 minutes in the industrial automation industry is constantly and painfully aware of.
For those who missed this one, look up the Turbo Encabulator on youtube. Too many to link to any specific one. A very long running and hilarious joke..
Yet I do not agree with you. Faith does not need to be irrational. Fine, you defend Christianity, I have no problem with that. The point is you have made an assertion with no reasoning given, references, citations, etc. My viewpoint is, if you can't back up your statement why make it? I think it is very rational to trust testimony under certain conditions. Judges and juries do it all the time. Sure they aren't always correct, but they often are. I see no one has disproved that "we die we continue to live forever with our dead family members" as you put it - not that I am asking you to do that. The only evidence either way in this situation is testimony. So I have to ask why you consider it irrational?
That depends. I do think get a lot of knee jerk reaction from atheists, "it is just testimony" which they seem to think gives them the right to simply dismiss it - their problem no mine. The point is, the Bible was not written to explain the "how" so much as the "why." No, it isn't science(or at least physical science) unless you count it as mental science, and I have and will never claim it is. "The rational conclusion" you have come to I feel is rather incomplete. It like most conclusions is based on a set of assumptions (which may even be good), but are never-the-less assumptions.. We rationally conclude a lot of historical things based on less evidence. For example, is our picture of Hannibal correct? Did he exist at all? Yet any rational historian will probably conclude "yes and yes." It is certainly not as clear cut as you portray. Are you prepared to throw out of your history books Hannibal in order to throw out Jesus?
The rational conclusion here is a lot of research deeper than you think. And those people back then understood much more than you give them credit for.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be American.
I won't continue to argue here, just one last thing to say :- I am not saying there is a correlation between having a "punishment based" system and crime rates. What I took exception to was GGGPs implication that a "punishment based" system having a higher crime rate was true. Joburg is legendary for its crime, and by all accounts (unless I have been mislead) prison is (compared to how criminals live) a paid resort. Thus, I am casting doubt on his assertion. That is back on OP's topic and relevant.
Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?
I'll give you that it may be legal to fight back in certain circumstances, but how practical is it to do so?
This is my main point. We do not have a "punishment based" system here. And it shows. Or do you deny crime is high in Joburg?
Please then, enlighten us as to why countries with punishment-centered 'justice' systems like the US have substantially higher crime and repeat crime than countries with "all-expense-paid resorts". I'm waiting.
I'm calling BS on this one. I live in Joburg, one of the worst places for violent crime, and here we have no death penalty. The penalty for shooting someone is about the same as that for not paying your taxes: A vacation in a fairly nice prison. Here is your counter-example. Especially now that the world cup is over. Plus if you're getting robbed you're not legally allowed to fight back unless you actually get shot.
As I recall windows 3(? maybe I'm thinking of 3.11, but I think I'm thinking of 3) was damn hard to crash...
With that statement, I have no problems. It boils down to what I said above, your working assumptions are the last thing tested if your results are "impossible", but they must be tested and kept in mind..
.... It's also a good troll, due to Poe's law.
Ah... Except because I put in a smiley,":D" it's not? Or is this the paradox?
Hmmm... If you can't see your own assumptions, does that mean they're not there? With all respect to Einstein, I must disagree.
Of course assumptions can not be avoided. We assume causality. We assume reason and logic are valid, within describing "our experiences". We make all sorts of base fundamental assumptions you can not possibly avoid. Naturalism itself is a fairly massive assumption. Most of these are only provable if we allow circular reasoning. If you do not allow assumptions, you end up with all sorts of statements like "logic is valid because logic is valid." Do not forget Godel or his incompleteness theorem.
While Einstein does question that position, even he realises that some are necessary. "The only justication for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy". This is why things like the demarcation problem are important. It is necessary to draw the line in the correct place.
What you're saying reminds me of an Escher picture; you appear to be hiding the inconsistency as well as you can, but it remains there whether you like it or not.
Which is exactly the point. If we forget our assumptions(in this case the nature of time and space), we are doing bad science. A PhD is not a "Doctorate of Philosophy" for nothing. Otherwise, if there was an incorrect assumption holding back science it would never be questioned or discovered. Neither can you escape philosophy if you can acknowledge your assumptions.
Basically what Einstein is saying as far as I can see, is acknowledge the assumption, and then proceed. Otherwise you get stuck in philosophy and never proceed to any of the interesting stuff. But if you find a way to test the assumption, do so.
Put it this way, when in the lab you start getting "impossible" results, question your equipment, method and math before you question your philosophical assumptions. But don't stop until you have an answer.
But this is not the point. Empirical evidence like everything in human experience is subject to interpretation. All human beings pass all the data through their assumptions whether acknowledged or not. Understanding this is critical in a completely different area of life to physics: Understanding and interacting with people. This is slashdot I know, so theoretically noone has any social skills, but if we understood that people starting from different assumptions reach different conclusions and are not necessarily irrational fools, we all might get along better and perhaps be happier people. We might get over our base need to win an argument no matter what - because the personified force of Reason is on our side. Maybe sometimes we can agree(with respect) to disagree. Or maybe I am that naive?
You're right, actually. Clearly I'm not very good at trolling.... Thus ends my brief sojourn into the art. Probably better this way anyhow.
They have the same options as you.
Well, actually, this is kind of obvious. When you realise that all our petty little philosophical differences arise from the fact that we start with different assumptions which we have little or no proof for, you generally come to the conclusion that "reason" is just a tool for us to beat each other over the head with and ignore the fundamental issues in favour of a feeling of elitist superiority.
But to realise this and agree to disagree is contrary to our evolutionary programming... So, let the games begin:
[troll] (Not 'fundamentalist')Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions. [/troll] :D
Add that a million times. I ended up going through the whole Update, exit, reboot cycle 10 times and still it wouldn't bloody work. Until I figured out that if you told it to update and kept playing it would work. Games For Windows Live must die. Now. Please.
In general as far as I've seen, yes. And by engineering standards here, I'm entry level. But then, there is an excess of low skilled labour that factories train up to become operators. Supply and demand I guess.
The reverse is true here in South Africa. I'm quite happy as an engineer here, earning far more than most plant operators. We have a healthy respect for engineers over here. Triple - no wait, its America - quadruple my salary and I'll emigrate and help ease your shortage... :D
As stupid as that would be, yes - i makes sense. The people get the government they deserve. You can always become a politician and try and change people's minds or leave. Your choice.
What about DeathSpank? What better time to introduce the kid to off-colour humour than when (s)he is still young?
Mod parent up. Mostly when you patch or upgrade your scada everything breaks causing a massive headache. So most people would really rather not.
The whole industry is riddled with massive holes because we're all tied to legacy OPC which relies on that massive dogs breakfast called DCOM. The slow adoption of OPC UA and even OPC WCF keeps the whole industry in a situation where it is easier to disable all security than deal with DCOM. Which makes the siemens issue too easy to exploit. Every single bloody version of windows has a different way of being configured, so no one bothers to do it right...
Siemens needs to fix their issues. So does everyone else. The siemens issues are however bigger than most. This is not one obscure little hole, this is a bloody great big massive one with more huge holes next to it that anybody who has worked 5 minutes in the industrial automation industry is constantly and painfully aware of.
For those who missed this one, look up the Turbo Encabulator on youtube. Too many to link to any specific one. A very long running and hilarious joke..
In other words, what you have is an assumption. Ok. Don't bother.
Yet I do not agree with you. Faith does not need to be irrational. Fine, you defend Christianity, I have no problem with that. The point is you have made an assertion with no reasoning given, references, citations, etc. My viewpoint is, if you can't back up your statement why make it? I think it is very rational to trust testimony under certain conditions. Judges and juries do it all the time. Sure they aren't always correct, but they often are. I see no one has disproved that "we die we continue to live forever with our dead family members" as you put it - not that I am asking you to do that. The only evidence either way in this situation is testimony. So I have to ask why you consider it irrational?
You make a lot of statements but you offer little reasoning.
That depends. I do think get a lot of knee jerk reaction from atheists, "it is just testimony" which they seem to think gives them the right to simply dismiss it - their problem no mine. The point is, the Bible was not written to explain the "how" so much as the "why." No, it isn't science(or at least physical science) unless you count it as mental science, and I have and will never claim it is. "The rational conclusion" you have come to I feel is rather incomplete. It like most conclusions is based on a set of assumptions (which may even be good), but are never-the-less assumptions.. We rationally conclude a lot of historical things based on less evidence. For example, is our picture of Hannibal correct? Did he exist at all? Yet any rational historian will probably conclude "yes and yes." It is certainly not as clear cut as you portray. Are you prepared to throw out of your history books Hannibal in order to throw out Jesus?
The rational conclusion here is a lot of research deeper than you think. And those people back then understood much more than you give them credit for.