I think that they are both equally flawed, but for different reasons, and in different ways. I also think that being geeks, our natural bias is to believe that science is the least flawed system.
I can't say for sure because I am biased as well, but I would wager that our belief in science's superiority has more to do with our preconceptions than anything else.
I think that both make a lot of assumptions about the universe. I think that 50/50 gives each too much credit.
My views may be difficult ot fathom, but I've seen enough in my life to know that both systems are flawed. I'm a geek just like you, and I can understand your amazement at what I'm saying, but I do have good reson for saying it.
I'm pretty sure that tools were invented many, many years before science was. Science is a fairly new invention.
I think that you should look back at natural philosophy (the roots of science) to get a better perspective.
BTW, Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method) and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. Wikipedia
Fair enough, but I don't think that merely stating that something is defined as the pursuit of truth makes it so. I'm sure that religious people, when asked, would say that they are pursuing truth. What makes you right and them wrong?
How can you be so sure that your pursuit is any more truthful than theirs?
Are you saying that we can't observe the Earth revolving around the Sun. This is just a theory to you? What other well-known, and observed things do you consider to theory.
BTW, please explain gravity to me. I thought that we had only been able to calculate its observable effects. Didn't realize that we had so much as a theory to describe what it is and how it works.
You really aren't the best person to be defending science, because to don't seem to have a firm grasp on the subject.
How does that make you any better than them? Seems like you both have the same idea...wonder why?. Maybe because that is the intended reaction, and you are just playing right into it.
Instead of focusing your energy on destroying those whom you have been conditioned to believe are wrong, maybe you should step back and re-evaluate your own preconceptions. It is always easier to believe that the other 'side' is wrong because we naturally don't want to believe that we could possibly be wrong about something.
The fact is that both science and religion are lacking. Take human consciousness for example:
Religion explains it as being created by God, and it is therefore unexplainable, and if somebody tries to explain it they are labled as a heretic.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
The reality is that neither system can accurately explain consciousness (even though they may both uncover some facts about it) because the rules by which the systems are defined will never allow them to uncover the truth because they were never equipped to do so.
Since when is evolution a fact? Last I heard, it was still just a theory.
I'm not Christian, let alone a fundamentalist, but I recognize that there are definitely some problems with evolution. If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.
The fact is that neither religon or science is capable of describing the way in which everything in the universe works. There is a great deal of belief inherent in both systems.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation. This whole debate between the two is really only a tool to divide and conquer (polarize) people. (That is an obvious deducement because that is the obvious product of the two sysems)
Most of the dangers of smoking come from smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigatettes (like Marlboro, Camel, etc). The chemical process used to make light cigs are the origin of the huge lists of chemicals contained in cigarettes.
Also, smoking too much (more than a pack a day) is bad for you. I believe that over-smoking is directly related to 'light' cigarettes. You'll find that most two-pack-a-day smokers are smoking lights. Constant nicotine craving because the dose is too low.
I only smoke high-quality tobacco, with no gunpowder in the papers, with no filters (what do they have to put in cotton to make it not burn?), and I roll my own. I believe that this practice is much safer than smoking mass-produced cigarettes. In fact, if I have to smoke commercial cigs, I find that I begin to feel ill after about two packs (4 days).
I always tell other smokers to take some tobacco out of their cigarette, and eat it. They are usually disgusted by the nasty chemical taste. Then, I give them some of my tobacco to eat, and they always respond with something like "This tastes good enough to put on top of a salad". Then I tell them that this good-enough-to-eat tobacco costs an order of magnitude less than what they are paying for their nasty cigs.
So, in my belief, it is not the act of smoking that is dangerous, it is the act of smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigarettes. Kind of like eating McDonalds vs. a nice buffalo burger. It always pays to go with the highest quality option. And, in this case, the highest quality option is also the cheapest (much like Open Source).
My motto is: If you wouldn't want to eat it, why would you want to smoke it!
Actually, smoking has never been proven to kill anybody (through 1st or 2nd hand smoke). Scientists have been trying to prove it for years, but they have only been able to prove the opposite.
Look up the many UN resolutions against Israel -- which normally only the US vetoes.
Look up the UN Secretary General's comments about the illegal US invasion of Iraq.
Look back through history at the many atrocities the US, UK, Israel, etc have committed against the peoples of this world.
domc
BTW, '...If China were to invade the U.S. it would have been up to the U.S. to make sure it had a strong army with which to protect its "right" to survive.'
Your logic says that people don't have a right to survive if they don't have an army to protect them. By that logic, we would have the right to invade any country that doesn't have an army that can stand up to ours? You must be a Bush supporter...
Why does Israel have a 'right to survive and defend' itself? An illegal occupying force does not have any right to continue their illegal activities.
Palestine has a 'right to survive and defend' itself against an illegal occupation.
Same thing goes for the current illegal occupation of Iraq. Do US soldiers have a 'right to survive and defend' themselves, when it is they whom are breaking international law?
It is Iraq which has the 'right to survive and defend' itself.
If tomorrow China invaded the US, would anybody beside the Chinese be talking about a 'right to survive and defend' themselves as they slaughtered the US population?
Would you, as a US citizen feel that China had rights, or would you be rightfully defending yourself against an illegal occupation by any means that you had available to you?
Liquid cooling won't reduce the noise as much as you may think. You still need a couple fans and a water pump. Water cooling is for more efficient cooling, not for sound reduction.
What I did was to get a 6-channel fan controller and larger-sized (or low-RPM 80mm) fans. Larger fans move more air at lower RPMs, and you can use the fan controller to crank them up at times of high heat (e.g. gaming).
Costs much less than water cooling, and you can crank the fans all the way down when the computer is not in use. Makes it possible to have a PC with six fans which is very quiet when doing low-power stuff, and very noisy when extreme cooling is needed.
You're right though; the Homeland Security Advisory System is really only a two-level system:
- green and blue will never be used because of the CYA principle
- red will never be used unless a terrorist attack has already occurred because it will cause mass panic
So, we are left with just yellow and orange. All future terrorist attacks will occurr during a yellow period for the the simple reason being 'why would a terrorist attack during an orange period when they only have to wait for a yellow period when security is looser?'
Yes, they are. They have a monopoly on Apple computers, which is a legal monopoly.
www.m-w.com
monopoly:
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly
Slashdot Mirror
I think that they are both equally flawed, but for different reasons, and in different ways. I also think that being geeks, our natural bias is to believe that science is the least flawed system.
I can't say for sure because I am biased as well, but I would wager that our belief in science's superiority has more to do with our preconceptions than anything else.
Dom
BTW, nothing like a good evolution vs. creation flamewar to stir /. up. I haven't seen this site be so busy on a Sunday night for a long-ass time. ;-)
Dom
I think that both make a lot of assumptions about the universe. I think that 50/50 gives each too much credit.
My views may be difficult ot fathom, but I've seen enough in my life to know that both systems are flawed. I'm a geek just like you, and I can understand your amazement at what I'm saying, but I do have good reson for saying it.
Dom
I'm pretty sure that tools were invented many, many years before science was. Science is a fairly new invention.
I think that you should look back at natural philosophy (the roots of science) to get a better perspective.
BTW, Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method) and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. Wikipedia
How exactly does that translate to truth?
Dom
Fair enough, but I don't think that merely stating that something is defined as the pursuit of truth makes it so. I'm sure that religious people, when asked, would say that they are pursuing truth. What makes you right and them wrong?
How can you be so sure that your pursuit is any more truthful than theirs?
Dom
Are you saying that we can't observe the Earth revolving around the Sun. This is just a theory to you? What other well-known, and observed things do you consider to theory.
BTW, please explain gravity to me. I thought that we had only been able to calculate its observable effects. Didn't realize that we had so much as a theory to describe what it is and how it works.
You really aren't the best person to be defending science, because to don't seem to have a firm grasp on the subject.
Dom
How does that make you any better than them? Seems like you both have the same idea...wonder why?. Maybe because that is the intended reaction, and you are just playing right into it.
Instead of focusing your energy on destroying those whom you have been conditioned to believe are wrong, maybe you should step back and re-evaluate your own preconceptions. It is always easier to believe that the other 'side' is wrong because we naturally don't want to believe that we could possibly be wrong about something.
The fact is that both science and religion are lacking. Take human consciousness for example:
Religion explains it as being created by God, and it is therefore unexplainable, and if somebody tries to explain it they are labled as a heretic.
Science tries to fit it into its mechanical view of the world, and it believes that it will someday unlock its secrets through employing scientific method, and if you don't believe in its belief, you are some kind of fundamentalist nut.
The reality is that neither system can accurately explain consciousness (even though they may both uncover some facts about it) because the rules by which the systems are defined will never allow them to uncover the truth because they were never equipped to do so.
Dom
Since when is evolution a fact? Last I heard, it was still just a theory.
I'm not Christian, let alone a fundamentalist, but I recognize that there are definitely some problems with evolution. If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.
The fact is that neither religon or science is capable of describing the way in which everything in the universe works. There is a great deal of belief inherent in both systems.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation. This whole debate between the two is really only a tool to divide and conquer (polarize) people. (That is an obvious deducement because that is the obvious product of the two sysems)
Neither system is really concerned with truth.
Dom
Because science is the new religion, and some of the oldschool fire & brimstone types out there haven't quite adjusted to the idea yet...
Most of the dangers of smoking come from smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigatettes (like Marlboro, Camel, etc). The chemical process used to make light cigs are the origin of the huge lists of chemicals contained in cigarettes.
Also, smoking too much (more than a pack a day) is bad for you. I believe that over-smoking is directly related to 'light' cigarettes. You'll find that most two-pack-a-day smokers are smoking lights. Constant nicotine craving because the dose is too low.
I only smoke high-quality tobacco, with no gunpowder in the papers, with no filters (what do they have to put in cotton to make it not burn?), and I roll my own. I believe that this practice is much safer than smoking mass-produced cigarettes. In fact, if I have to smoke commercial cigs, I find that I begin to feel ill after about two packs (4 days).
I always tell other smokers to take some tobacco out of their cigarette, and eat it. They are usually disgusted by the nasty chemical taste. Then, I give them some of my tobacco to eat, and they always respond with something like "This tastes good enough to put on top of a salad". Then I tell them that this good-enough-to-eat tobacco costs an order of magnitude less than what they are paying for their nasty cigs.
So, in my belief, it is not the act of smoking that is dangerous, it is the act of smoking low-quality, chemical-laden cigarettes. Kind of like eating McDonalds vs. a nice buffalo burger. It always pays to go with the highest quality option. And, in this case, the highest quality option is also the cheapest (much like Open Source).
My motto is: If you wouldn't want to eat it, why would you want to smoke it!
Dom
Actually, smoking has never been proven to kill anybody (through 1st or 2nd hand smoke). Scientists have been trying to prove it for years, but they have only been able to prove the opposite.
Here is some interesting info on smoking:
Aliens Don't Like to Eat People That Smoke!
Dom
Look up the many UN resolutions against Israel -- which normally only the US vetoes.
Look up the UN Secretary General's comments about the illegal US invasion of Iraq.
Look back through history at the many atrocities the US, UK, Israel, etc have committed against the peoples of this world.
domc
BTW, '...If China were to invade the U.S. it would have been up to the U.S. to make sure it had a strong army with which to protect its "right" to survive.'
Your logic says that people don't have a right to survive if they don't have an army to protect them. By that logic, we would have the right to invade any country that doesn't have an army that can stand up to ours? You must be a Bush supporter...
Why does Israel have a 'right to survive and defend' itself? An illegal occupying force does not have any right to continue their illegal activities.
Palestine has a 'right to survive and defend' itself against an illegal occupation.
Same thing goes for the current illegal occupation of Iraq. Do US soldiers have a 'right to survive and defend' themselves, when it is they whom are breaking international law?
It is Iraq which has the 'right to survive and defend' itself.
If tomorrow China invaded the US, would anybody beside the Chinese be talking about a 'right to survive and defend' themselves as they slaughtered the US population?
Would you, as a US citizen feel that China had rights, or would you be rightfully defending yourself against an illegal occupation by any means that you had available to you?
domc
You forgot duct tape...
Dom
They do in Las Vegas. Hundred dollar bills too.
domc
Slasdot jokes are funny...in Japan!
Liquid cooling won't reduce the noise as much as you may think. You still need a couple fans and a water pump. Water cooling is for more efficient cooling, not for sound reduction.
What I did was to get a 6-channel fan controller and larger-sized (or low-RPM 80mm) fans. Larger fans move more air at lower RPMs, and you can use the fan controller to crank them up at times of high heat (e.g. gaming).
Costs much less than water cooling, and you can crank the fans all the way down when the computer is not in use. Makes it possible to have a PC with six fans which is very quiet when doing low-power stuff, and very noisy when extreme cooling is needed.
Dom
You mean sarcasm.
Yes
You're right though; the Homeland Security Advisory System is really only a two-level system:
- green and blue will never be used because of the CYA principle
- red will never be used unless a terrorist attack has already occurred because it will cause mass panic
So, we are left with just yellow and orange. All future terrorist attacks will occurr during a yellow period for the the simple reason being 'why would a terrorist attack during an orange period when they only have to wait for a yellow period when security is looser?'
Dom
Not bigger overall, but a bigger concentration of geeks.
domc
Yes, they are. They have a monopoly on Apple computers, which is a legal monopoly.
www.m-w.com
monopoly:
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
domc
Microsoft was convicted of being an illegal monopoly, and for using that power to do bad things.
Apple in this case is a *legal* monopoly. Controlling their own product is entirely within their rights.
domc
You could probably go either way, but Solaris will be a safe bet for a looong time.
domc
No, please, not the The Silmarillion -- he already ruined LotR for me; he can't have my precious Silmarillion.
OTOH, he would probably do a good job with The Hobbit. It has much more potential for a successful big-screen transfer.
domc