Dude, you are way off. The web did not exist back then, and what the hell is a "finger site" anyway?
On the other hand there was gopher!
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
Unlike other Dogmas, science doesn't provide the answers- it only provides the means to find the answers.
Black magic does not provide answers, it only provides the means to fide aswers. I suggest experimenting with newt's eye and crow's feather.
An interesting observation is that the theorem "the scientific method is an effective way of understanding the universe" is, itself, a falsifiable theorem, and thus can be investigated scientifically.
In a limited way (i.e., improving the quality of life) it is extremely successful. As far as the large picture is concerned, science still only explains very simple phenomena.
Even modelling a silly little worm is beyond our reach.
Philosophically, I think the main shortcoming of science is that it tells one how the world operates but cannot say anything about how to operate in the world. In that sense science is not a complete worldview.
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
What does god have to do with any of the things we are discussing?
My point is that science is also built on dogma, which may not now be obvious to us any longer.
We universally believe in it now because it turns out to be very effective in solving many problems as long as they are in some sense simple.
But remember, people lived for many thousands of years without scientific thinking and the scientific method and falsifiability were not at all obvious to them although they were just as smart (if not smarter) as we are now.
To reiterate,
what makes science possible is a particular philosophical belief, which turns out (unlike, say, black magic) to be effective for curing disease and doing other interesting things.
But surely AMD's HyperTransport technology with 3DNow! is a worthy contender.
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
"Human rights" is predictive and postdictive, it predicts that if you treat people in certain ways they will suffer, and if you treat them in other ways they will not.
Ah, civil rights are not about suffering at all. You missed the boat on that one.
I agree, falsifiability is an interesting concept.
One can argue that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable.
As far as dogma is concerned, isn't the belief in falsifiability a dogma?
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
I find this kindergarten level of discourse objectionable.
You might consider not putting words in
my mouth and not creating strawmen but actually thinking about what is being said.
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
There is a long list of data that doesn't fit a 6000 year old universe.
Depends on your point of view. The theory that Earth was created like that 6000 years ago is perfectly self-consistent.
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
Because we have observed that the Earth appears to be 3-4 Billion years old and have found evidence of many events more than 6000 years ago.
Incorrect. We did not observe Earth to be more than 6000 years old. We just observed evidence that according to most scienific theories indicates that Earth is over 6000 years old.
Creationism is a dogma with no predictive or postdictive power, therefore it is FALSE!
Human rights are a dogma with no predictive or postdictive power, therefore they are FALSE!
Re:It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 1
Science never proves anything- it works to find the hypothesis that best fits all the observed data.
Um... God creating the Universe 6 thousand years ago is a hypothesis which fits all the observed data.
Is it science?
In fact, it is not even clear what we can learn from failure like that, which we could not learn otherwise.
Flashy things like this race do not necessarily tell us anything more about deep problems of AI. One can spend millions and millions and not get any closer to the goal.
Your "research merit" is driven at least as much by Congress as by your personal belief in the quality of the work.
Research merit is a social concept and is not decided on the basis of your own beliefs. Otherwise any crackpot working on perpetuum mobile would have plenty of research merit.
However it is sad to observe, when scientists get their credibility from Slashdot and Wired.
On the other hand, one might argue that getting it from Science is only slightly better. Your call.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand there was gopher!
An interesting observation is that the theorem "the scientific method is an effective way of understanding the universe" is, itself, a falsifiable theorem, and thus can be investigated scientifically.
In a limited way (i.e., improving the quality of life) it is extremely successful. As far as the large picture is concerned, science still only explains very simple phenomena. Even modelling a silly little worm is beyond our reach.
Philosophically, I think the main shortcoming of science is that it tells one how the world operates but cannot say anything about how to operate in the world. In that sense science is not a complete worldview.
My point is that science is also built on dogma, which may not now be obvious to us any longer. We universally believe in it now because it turns out to be very effective in solving many problems as long as they are in some sense simple.
But remember, people lived for many thousands of years without scientific thinking and the scientific method and falsifiability were not at all obvious to them although they were just as smart (if not smarter) as we are now.
To reiterate, what makes science possible is a particular philosophical belief, which turns out (unlike, say, black magic) to be effective for curing disease and doing other interesting things.
But surely AMD's HyperTransport technology with 3DNow! is a worthy contender.
Ah, civil rights are not about suffering at all. You missed the boat on that one.
I agree, falsifiability is an interesting concept. One can argue that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable.
As far as dogma is concerned, isn't the belief in falsifiability a dogma?
You might consider not putting words in my mouth and not creating strawmen but actually thinking about what is being said.
Depends on your point of view. The theory that Earth was created like that 6000 years ago is perfectly self-consistent.
Incorrect. We did not observe Earth to be more than 6000 years old. We just observed evidence that according to most scienific theories indicates that Earth is over 6000 years old.
Creationism is a dogma with no predictive or postdictive power, therefore it is FALSE!
Human rights are a dogma with no predictive or postdictive power, therefore they are FALSE!
Um... God creating the Universe 6 thousand years ago is a hypothesis which fits all the observed data.
Is it science?
It seems very unikely that the humanity would be completely destroyed even if a disaster on the planetary scale occurs.
Clarification: I did not say it was a bad thing, it is just an inefficient use of money.
In fact, it is not even clear what we can learn from failure like that, which we could not learn otherwise.
Flashy things like this race do not necessarily tell us anything more about deep problems of AI. One can spend millions and millions and not get any closer to the goal.
The article is clearly stupid. There is nothing to argue about. Just look at the revenues of large game companies.
Can you provide a reputable reference for this? I've heard the story many times but I am not sure I believe it.
What a disaster!
I also prefer candles as it it decreases the chance of being electrocuted.
His computer had already been infected, I bet.
Give me a break.
What, you have not heard about the recent groundbreaking discoveries in calculus?
It is amazing how these textbooks manage to keep up.
Can you explain how it is acceptable?
Right, and of course 25x20=400.
Research merit is a social concept and is not decided on the basis of your own beliefs. Otherwise any crackpot working on perpetuum mobile would have plenty of research merit. However it is sad to observe, when scientists get their credibility from Slashdot and Wired. On the other hand, one might argue that getting it from Science is only slightly better. Your call.
After all, why bother with research merit when you can have your interactive kitchen counter
featured on Slashdot.
"Gravity fuelled", yeah, sure.
They have to drink from a spittoon?