If you vote for a representative, you are effectively saying, "I have given up my right to make decisions for myself. Please make them for me."
Perhaps you are saying that, but that just relects on you, not the political system. Direct democracy would not work in a country of this size, and would only result in the trampling of minority rights if it could. Voting intelligently at the lower levels of government gets you better options at the high end, and being a voter gives you the power to withdraw that vote at a later time.
Why do you think politicians get nervous when there is a low voter turn-out? -- because they're unable to con people that their position is legitimate.
Oh, yeah. That must be why the senate majority leader in my state ran unopposed. His standing is just so badly influenced by the lack of voter turnout.... Do you know anything about your actuall local politics?
If you want to make change, you have to engage in direct action and civil disobendience. For you to sit and beg those in power to be considerate of your needs is just pathetic. If you want to empower yourself, you engage yourself in a contradiction by attempting to bring it about through begging and pleading.
Oh goody, now political apathy isn't just normal, its empowering! I hate to flame, but you are the one being pathetic. Making grassroots change in a political process is hard, sometimes frustrating work. A lot harder than saying "I'll just ignore the rules being made cause I can break them and empower myself." But it also works. People can talk about the importance of civil disobedience until the cows come home, but they have to remember that it has only worked in combination with grassroots political action and education.
Political action is probably too hard for you. Thats ok, it just makes you average or a tiny bit below. But don't imagine it somehow makes you better than the people fighting to change things.
"direct action" sheesh... What the hell do you think a constituent meeting with your rep is?
Definitly. Social action may not be making up a big percentage of actual sites, but I think its a growing subset of the kinds of sites. And its not just a part of the information. More and more groups are putting the work in so that you can actually do things from the web page, like sent comments to a government agency or legislater or sign up for email action alerts.
And the.edu reminds me of another segment I'm not sure fits into Katz's suggested heirarchy - Personal expression. Just those silly "hey there, this is me!" sites that all the college students used to have (maybe they still do). Sometimes they have a fan site attached that would fit into media, or some info, but I think the phenomenon of people just wanting to show themselves to the world (hey, this is our new kitten!) or to a set of friends and family, is worthy of seperate note.
I would reply that the fall of man by no means implies a corruption of the material world. The material world is not corrupt, according to Christianity. It is the human soul that was corrupted in the Fall and it is because of this that men pervert their use of the material world. Gold, for example, is not evil in any way. It is a creation of God. However men pervert its use by coveting it, stealing it, etc.
Well, I don't want to project another's argument onto you, but I have generally heard "the fall" blamed not just for people's "evil" actions towards each other, but for the "evil" (suffering) of disease, natural disasters, SIDS, etc. If that is an acceptable xtain view, it seems to me to follow that the entire world was corrupted by the fall, given the destructive power of the earth, and since animals as well as people die in natural disasters, get cancer, etc.
Now clearly there is a difference between "good" and "benevolent" but it would seem that to be consistant with the world around us that Adam must have taken not only all humanity down with him, but all life on earth for the ride.
I grant you that "Mere Christianity" doesn't prove Christianity to be true. That wasn't, however, Lewis' intent in writing it.
I cannot speak to the gentleman's overall intent, but some of the earlier chapters go into what can only be described as attempted proofs of god and that god's neccessity to resemble the xtain diety. These proofs are IMHO meant to form a foundation of his descriptions of xtainity as truth rather than mere opinion, and they are failures.
I will let someone who is buddist fight with you on that, but for someone who emphasises the many rooms within xtianity, you seem quite willing to build only one room for a religion not your own. Whatever your or my understanding of buddism may be, it is extremely poor form to challenge someone's religion rather than inquiring as to your perception of incongruity. (When for instance you had stated that you thought the world was intrinsicly good, I would be in poor form to say "then you aren't a xtian" rather than asking "isn't the fall of man and thus essential corruption of the material world a central point of xtianity? How do you reconcile that, and define your faith as xtian?")
My (cursory) readings in buddism seemed very open to a materialistic interpretation, so I see no problem at taking a Buddist at his word. But if you cannot, then question, rather than assert.
I disagree.. I think Katz has a right to say what he wants, freely and unedited.
But why? who is Katz? He didn't found the group, he came to it. He certainly has no more "right" to say anything and get it published on/. than I or you do. That the editors choose to give him this open forum is their decsion, but it is by no means the only one or the automatic right one.
"serve" insinuates a paid relationship
How long have you had this mercenary view of the world?;-) we are the comsumers of a service which is/. The fact that they benifit from our time and attention (hint, banner ads) rather than us forking over cash personally certainly doesn't change that.
Im more than happy to skip articles I dont want to read, and dont feel the need to read them, knowing I dont like the subject matter, then post stating the obvious, that I dont like the subject matter.
Personlly I've never understood people who make a point of pride in just "dealing with it" instead of making an attempt to be heard, but if you really think this way, then why respond to these complaints. You can skip them as easily as we can skip Katz, and if someone ever listens to us, is that editor decision somehow worse than all the ones you feel I have no right to complain about?
Personally, I think that you have an odd veiw of the relationship between the readers of any forum and its producers, but you could say the same about me, I'm sure.
I "trot out Lewis" because he is an extremely clear and rigorous writer who stands on the shoulders of great theologians like Augustine and Aquinas and is, perhaps, more accessible to the modern reader. Have you read any Lewis besides his children's fiction?
Don't know about the other poster, but I've read mere christianity, and to be blunt, it sucks. I'm sure its all well and good for bolstering the intellectual egos of those who agree with him already, but as an atheist, I can tell you that it fails miserably in "proving" xtianity to those who don't believe already. Lewis tends to give a woefully lacking proof and then move on to another topic resting on it. Makes it quite frustrating if you are honestly trying to follow his logic.
As for spirituality vs materialism, some would define spirituality as believing in an idea beyond the material, not neccessarily a reality beyond the material. And I wouldn't tell other people if they're buddists or not. It tends to irritate them.
A healthy day-to-day world view cannot have an absence of free will as a cornerstone. One can live within the illusion of accountablity for 99% of their lives and still philosophically believe in the absence of free-will during an entertaining debate.
The problem is when people tries to take ideas from entertaining debates and apply them to the real world. The "free will" thing is only one of the results.
Look, theres a really fun, scientific/spiritual/philosophical discussion about the true nature of free will tm. But it doesn't even spill over into my thoughts on accountability. My view of real life accountability is simple :
I sometimes find myself waiting a long period of time before taking an action. I, and most other people refer to this time as "making a decision". After an action I often find myself thinking about what might have happened, had I acted differently. This is called "regretting a decision." Now totally outside of the idea of "true free will", in a real life discussion of accountability, the presence of agonized decisions and regret is enough evidence of our ability (indeed there isn't much way arond it) to make decisions. The presence of a decision equals accountability at some level for that decision.
Not to stop anyone from enjoying their late night bull session, just don't think it has any effect on how a just society will run. And on the same subject, anyone who really finds themselves unmotivated because there isn't any "true" purpose to our existance needs to get out more. I have known all my life that there is nothing more in this world than the world, and it has never stopped me from caring about others, working for a better future or seeing a subjective "point" to it all.
I agree with Q*bert, and I see nothing but annectodal evidence in Jon's reply that his or her premise is wrong. Am I part of this vocal minority which feels that Jon's articles are lengthy, simplistic and completely lack hard references?
The "vocal minority" is simply the flip side of the "silent majority". Its another way of claiming the apathetic by saying that every single person who doesn't actively denounce you is strongly favoring you. Orignal use : who knows? Most famous use : denigrating opposition to the vietnam war. (recently admited to be based on flat out lies). Dishonest uses : pretty much all of them.
And, yes, Katz should be allowed to post on Slashdot. You shouldn't have to be able to define a macro or create recursive functions to be in this commnity (although most of us can:)
ARGHHH... Why do people insist of talking about this in terms of censorship, or being "allowed to post"?
Look, I'm "Allowed" to post on/. That is to say I can submit stories. One even got chosen, while another didn't. Katz, however, it not merely allowed to submit, he is allowed to approve his own stories, no matter how long or (IMHO) useless. It is this ability which I think drives most of the anger (rather than simple contempt) that Katz is subjected to.
I've said it before, and I'll most likely say it again (thats the way memes are spread after all.) If/. needs editorials, have an editor assigned to them and let everyone compete for publication equally. Unless Katz is (unknown to us) the publisher or founder of/. his privileged status without any other "collumists" is a speech aberation, not a normal freedom of speech which must be defended against censorship.
I have often enjoyed his works on freedomforum.org, which I also read regularly, so I was disappointed to read in his interview that he will be doing more writing for/. and less for other venues in the future. I don't recall ever seeing Katz talk about himself in his freedomforum.org writings.
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, do you know if Katz's writings on that forum are automaticly posted as they are here or are they chosen by the moderators of the group? Or, a third option I suppose, it it a full open forum where everyone has the same posting privileges? Just Curious.
What strikes me as funny is the number of people who WANT the editors to censor Katz, to the point of removing him entirely, yet complain bitterly when their post gets moderated down, or when an article they submit does not make it on the page. *tsk tsk* Guess it depends on whose bull is getting gored.
Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. This is also completely natural. To imply any hypocrisy is rediculous. Of course a person who had worked on a submission and had it rejected would be more annoyed that a writer of doubious merit isn't simply being picked ahead of them, but given carte blanch to pick his own pieces, no matter how useless.
Katz does not serve the same purpose as the other editors. He just posts his own opinions and does not contribute to the group otherwise. My suggestion would be that if/. needs editorials, they should have an editor to review those subbmissions same as any other. Then Katz, or anyone else could submitt his opinions to be considered in the mix and sometimes chosen, sometimes not. Actually let him prove his worth instead of being given an un-edited podium.
And, yes, the/. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it.
Katz deserves to defend him in a less than civil tone. There has been a vocal minority of arrogant 13-year olds viciously attacking him from day one. Q*bert doesn't speak for me; this is a chaotic group that has no spokesman. It is best that way, and I think that is What katz it getting at.
Oh, come on, his answer wasn't just "less than civil", it was childish. The guy made a point that I have seen voiced multiple times, and Katz goes on the personal attack on him. "You weren't elected Mayor of/." ???? Thats just imature. (its also not an exact quote, sorry. Flames on the exact wording will be laughed at.)
And this brings up an issue others have mentioned. An interview is not what we needed. Katz responded in a completely predictable fashion (to me). We need Katz to be the subject of a/. poll and get rid of the neo-silent majority fall back (ie, the lurkers love me in private email and the complaints are from a tiny but vocal minority that could just ignor me if they really didn't like me.)
Suggested poll:
Should Katz be...
Left alone by these jealous whiners,
Asked to submit posts through an editor to weed out some and teach him to re-write,
Removed from his privileged/. position entirely,
Run out of town on a rail, or
God damn you all, I had almost forgotten he existed before this flurry of mentions that got around my preferences filter started!!!!!!
Any other suggestions?
PS, I'm certainly not 13, and you need to grow up if you still believe in the Silent Majority as a default.
3) Screw continuity. There's no way to reconcile many of the events that have already occurred anyway. Off-hand comments in previous books are putting more and more absurd requirements on new books (cf trolls thinking better in cold air).
huh? you mean like the offhand comment that carrot is the true king or agnus is a werewolf? The cold air thing is a part of Detrius's charecter and has been played out consistently and well, IMHO. The "requirement" that he use trolls as trolls is no more stifling then that he continue to portray vampires as having a sun allergy.
You seemingly never fail to rail upon religion (more often than not, Christianity) in each of your posts here.
I have to admit to amazement. Here we have this post moderated up, responded to, etc and no one has asked the obvious question : where exactly does Katz make these defamatory statements? While I am not an avid Kazt reader, I read them fairly often, and I can't think of a single example of Katz insulting any religion or xtianity specificly. The closest I can think of is when he lists groups that have shown an interest in "controlling" the net, religions as a broad group are mentioned. Is this what you're talking about? Is this "railing" on religion?
If you could direct me to one of Katz's articles that you feel is a good example of this rampant xtain abuse, it would help. If he "never fails" then one solid example shouldn't be hard to point out.
Why is it that whenever people ask why I'm an atheist they alway come out with:
Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child?
Probably the same reason people ask lesbians if they were sexually abused to "turn them off men." Some people assume that their opinions or tastes are not merely in the majority, but so natural and unshakable that only a traumatic event could change it. *snort*
Given that you seem to have the ability to aprove your own articles for/. publication, do you devote less time to editing and "tightening" your pieces than you would if you were submitting to an editor?
To perhaps rephrase the question, if you were to submit any of your previous editorals (the best I can see to describe them) to, say, the New York Times op ed page, how much additional time and effort would you put into trimming and re-writing, and do you think the article would be improved by this process?
That's what the book said the current school of thought about evolution is - that information only flows outward from DNA, and positive changes from random variations are kept.
Well, IANA Evolutionary theorist, but my amature but interested observation of the field would indicate that this might be an assumption, but not a tenet or neccessity. I imagine that neo-darwinists would be interested, but not challenged by this additional source of variation.
However, it does play into a (fairly annoying) trend I have noticed in popularized science. It seems that some people feel that to be interesting, an idea cannot merely add to what we know, but must oppose a previously held idea. Like to hold the public interest, science has to be turned into a WFW cage match with the bold new challenger promising the utter defeat of the old order. Not only does this (IMHO) reduce the amount of respect the public holds for science (Darwinian Evolution Challenged! Maybe its all wrong and Goddidit!) It seems to be turning the practice of strawman construction into a fine art.
So, while the book you read sounds interesting, I suspect that the writer fell into the trap of fearing he would not be interesting enough if his work couldn't be billed as "a challenge to years of evolutionary thinking!"
Interesting though... Did the author indicate what size of DNA code could be implanted by your average retrovirus? One protein worth? one amino acid into a protein? My initial assumption would be that the smaller a change they made, the more likely they would be to have a real impact of evolution.
Er, this is a little silly. The ways in which DNA can be mutated are not a tenant of Darwinian evolution, Darwin expressed his theories before DNA, RNA or any of that was understood. These retroviruses don't seem to be anything but aditional sources of variation. They certainly aren't Lamarkian as it is commonly understood. (you can argue that my understanding of larmark's theories are wrong, but it will only make larmarkian evolution basically the same as natural selection.)
Lamark said, essentially, that when animals try to adapt to their environment the positive adaptations are passed down to their offspring. When wolves move into a colder area, they grow in more warm undercoat. Their offspring, when born, naturally have thicker undercoats than their parents had to start with. Giraffs stretch their necks to get at high leaves, and the babies have longer default necks to start the stretching with.
So you can't call it lamarkian just because DNA changes for a reason other than mutation, because neither theory is (at its base) about DNA. The question is: Are changes in species due to random variation which is then selected in certain directions by the environment (Darwin) or do those changes come about because small physical adaptation throughout animals lives can be passed on to their offspring (Lamark). I honestly don't see where retroviruses can play into the discussion, except for your (IMHO flawed) assertion that natural selection in bound to a strict model of the possible ways DNA can be altered. So I guess the real question is, why do you think darwinian theory requires that?
Ugh, what is with the "evolution takes faith" kick. Look, evolution is demonstrably possible, it demonstrably happens, and it best decribes the data at hand. Comparative anatomy shows "designs" for aniaml bodies that are at best, jerryrigged. The best way to explain vertabrate anatomy is to look at it evolutionarily. The design argument just doesn't try to explain. The best design can do is say "god wanted it to look that way" or "those disadvantages wouldn't be there if we hadn't fallen into a world of sin" or just deny the funny little things outright. Bad eye design? No it's good! Leftover apendix? Nope, serves an important purpose! Panda's thumb? Just an example of God doing something different for the fun of it!
Another fun argument for neo-darwinism is that it would have to happen. (this is a wacky/cool Dawkins arguement.) Basically, given that we have bodies built according to the specifications of a genetic code, given that the process for copying that code to build the next generation is not perfect, given that a small change that code which does not kill the offspring outright will be carried on to it's offspring as a matter of course and given that some offspring will live to reproduce while others will not, with predictable pressures determining which, evolution by natural selection is not just probably but unavoidable!
If you are good programmer, you should be able to test this with a program emulating spider webs. Or flying sticks going through obstacles. You don't have to program it to "evolve", just to copy the design for itself with occasional imperfections and exist in a environment that weeds some out and lets others reproduce. Dawkins has examples of such programs in his books, or I could give you some pointers if you don't know what I'm suggesting.
So anyway, we've got possibility, reality, explaining power and just maybe inevitability. Don't really see much need for faith here. -Kahuna Burger
I think it's performance art meant to stylisticly lampoon xtian fundementalists with an over-the-top rendition of the worst of their excesses. The bit about the faithful relishing the screams is the kicker.
You seem of have a lust for objectionist thinking like Sagan. However, didn't Sagan eventually change his mind and finally renounce his atheistic beliefs? i could be wrong.
As a brief side note, I have no idea why you are accusing the gentleman of "lusting for objectionist thought", how one could lust for a thought, and why you classify Sagan as an objectionist (whatever that is.) but more to the point....
no, you sheep minded bleater, Sagan did not have a death bed conversion!!!!!
OK kahuna, breath... breath.....
I appoligize for the bleater reference. Nonetheless, you have proved yourself to be largely contemptible in any discussion of this nature for swallowing and perpetuating the BIG LIE of evangelical xtians : The deathbed conversion of X. Darwin didn't do it, Einstien didn't do it, and no, Sagan wrote a book at the end of his life and a moving afterword from his wife carried the narritive up to his deathbed, and there was no conversion of any type.
And don't think that a little "I could be wrong" gets you off the hook. If you didn't read it or see it referenced to one of his books or an interview you could at least quote, you are just spreading the most irresponsible and unethical type of rumor - the kind that is purposely falsified to change perception of a person's charecter after their death.
Let me give you a quick hint. Anytime you see someone say "well didn't [person who was a proponent of X and is now dead] actually come out and condemn [X] just before his/her death?" Take the default state that the answer is a resounding "No". And do not even file the information as tenitive unless they can point to at least a claim of where this info was from. Then file it as tenative and don't spread it in any form until you have checked the reference yourself. It will prevent you from being flamed then killfiled by people who have respect for that person and for the truth.
PS, where do you meet your atheists? I have met atheists who liked Rand only over email, most people I know rate her between "interesting to read, but wouldn't take her advice on how to run my life" and "what a stupid little git!" And in fact the only case I have ever seen of someone changing their mind on a topic due to email discussion was on an atheist only newsgroup where one poster came around to a change of heart on capital punishment after a long discussion of the philosophical, legal, practical and ethical issues involved. (religion was of course left out of the debate entirely, which was a nice change from the newspaper countershots on the subject in Boston.)
I (partly) appologise. He did say non-grata reading list, but he also said "chief theological advisor". Which looks like the best you could hope for is for him to not be a tool of the catholic church in particular, and no real hope for an evenhanded treatment of belief vs non.
It simply answers those skepics that answer "Why are things here?" with "They just popped into existence from Nothing."
Except it gives no better explaination itself, since it will answer the question "why is God here" with the same empty wording. And the more commen skeptic answer to "why are things here" is "I don't know and I'm comfortable with that. I know a god only adds more questions than it answers and thus makes no sense to assume."
Actually, the only theism this could really give rise to (as opposed to shore up) is the Spinozan god - the universe is god, no extra consiouness. Because adding intellegence to this first cause only makes it too complicated to be causeless. You're down to worshipping the quantum irregularity or what have you. It cannot simply argue for an attribute, because adding almost any other attribute would make this argument nonsensical, as discussed earlier.
PS, I never assume that a person is arguing for any particular god unless stated. The only assumption I made is that you would want some consiousness in your god rather than spinozan (sp?)In fact, in my long expereince with theological arguments, it is par for the course to start out with a very vauge god and suddenly find yourself assuming that all that had gone before now can be applied to Jesus (or rarely, someone else) as described in the inerrant new testamate.
Yes, the vatican is very largly made up of old men clinging to their power base, as the new rules on Catholic Universities in the US readily attests. More to the point however, the poster introduced the author as a openminded source then identified him only as an advisor to and writer for the vatican. Methinks you are jumping at the wrong person. And a bit sensitive about attacks on the most heirarchical institution given nigh universal deference to boot. Think they can take care of themselves without little ol' you saving them from the bad thoughts and *gasp* words of a bored/.er in Cambridge.
The real challenge would be walking from New York to London
No problem. All you have to do is start long enough ago that the continents hadn't broken apart yet.
Flippant, but with a point. Until you understand the time scales involved and the possible gradiation of changes (not to mention quite a bit about both genetics and embryotic development) this is all just a drawn out version of the argument from incredulity. Read some of the books recomended or some of the FAQs and then we can at least start a conversation about what is and isn't concievable. Until then, what is the point?
When you say that evolution is only reactive, you are not quite right. Evolution works with what is there and small gradients thereof. A lungfish's protolung became a swim bladder for fish who went the other way (oddly not the other way around, but thats a longer story). Something that was selected for before (or simply not selected against in some complex cases) becomes useful in another context and is now heavily selected. Try the Gould essay "The Panda's Thumb" for an example of how jerryrigging can give the illusion of proactive selection.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you are saying that, but that just relects on you, not the political system. Direct democracy would not work in a country of this size, and would only result in the trampling of minority rights if it could. Voting intelligently at the lower levels of government gets you better options at the high end, and being a voter gives you the power to withdraw that vote at a later time.
Why do you think politicians get nervous when there is a low voter turn-out? -- because they're unable to con people that their position is legitimate.
Oh, yeah. That must be why the senate majority leader in my state ran unopposed. His standing is just so badly influenced by the lack of voter turnout.... Do you know anything about your actuall local politics?
If you want to make change, you have to engage in direct action and civil disobendience. For you to sit and beg those in power to be considerate of your needs is just pathetic. If you want to empower yourself, you engage yourself in a contradiction by attempting to bring it about through begging and pleading.
Oh goody, now political apathy isn't just normal, its empowering! I hate to flame, but you are the one being pathetic. Making grassroots change in a political process is hard, sometimes frustrating work. A lot harder than saying "I'll just ignore the rules being made cause I can break them and empower myself." But it also works. People can talk about the importance of civil disobedience until the cows come home, but they have to remember that it has only worked in combination with grassroots political action and education.
Political action is probably too hard for you. Thats ok, it just makes you average or a tiny bit below. But don't imagine it somehow makes you better than the people fighting to change things.
"direct action" sheesh... What the hell do you think a constituent meeting with your rep is?
-Kahuna Burger
And the .edu reminds me of another segment I'm not sure fits into Katz's suggested heirarchy - Personal expression. Just those silly "hey there, this is me!" sites that all the college students used to have (maybe they still do). Sometimes they have a fan site attached that would fit into media, or some info, but I think the phenomenon of people just wanting to show themselves to the world (hey, this is our new kitten!) or to a set of friends and family, is worthy of seperate note.
-Kahuna Burger
Well, I don't want to project another's argument onto you, but I have generally heard "the fall" blamed not just for people's "evil" actions towards each other, but for the "evil" (suffering) of disease, natural disasters, SIDS, etc. If that is an acceptable xtain view, it seems to me to follow that the entire world was corrupted by the fall, given the destructive power of the earth, and since animals as well as people die in natural disasters, get cancer, etc.
Now clearly there is a difference between "good" and "benevolent" but it would seem that to be consistant with the world around us that Adam must have taken not only all humanity down with him, but all life on earth for the ride.
Just a thought.
-Kahuna Burger
I cannot speak to the gentleman's overall intent, but some of the earlier chapters go into what can only be described as attempted proofs of god and that god's neccessity to resemble the xtain diety. These proofs are IMHO meant to form a foundation of his descriptions of xtainity as truth rather than mere opinion, and they are failures.
I will let someone who is buddist fight with you on that, but for someone who emphasises the many rooms within xtianity, you seem quite willing to build only one room for a religion not your own. Whatever your or my understanding of buddism may be, it is extremely poor form to challenge someone's religion rather than inquiring as to your perception of incongruity. (When for instance you had stated that you thought the world was intrinsicly good, I would be in poor form to say "then you aren't a xtian" rather than asking "isn't the fall of man and thus essential corruption of the material world a central point of xtianity? How do you reconcile that, and define your faith as xtian?")
My (cursory) readings in buddism seemed very open to a materialistic interpretation, so I see no problem at taking a Buddist at his word. But if you cannot, then question, rather than assert.
-Kahuna Burger
But why? who is Katz? He didn't found the group, he came to it. He certainly has no more "right" to say anything and get it published on /. than I or you do. That the editors choose to give him this open forum is their decsion, but it is by no means the only one or the automatic right one.
"serve" insinuates a paid relationship
How long have you had this mercenary view of the world? ;-) we are the comsumers of a service which is /. The fact that they benifit from our time and attention (hint, banner ads) rather than us forking over cash personally certainly doesn't change that.
Im more than happy to skip articles I dont want to read, and dont feel the need to read them, knowing I dont like the subject matter, then post stating the obvious, that I dont like the subject matter.
Personlly I've never understood people who make a point of pride in just "dealing with it" instead of making an attempt to be heard, but if you really think this way, then why respond to these complaints. You can skip them as easily as we can skip Katz, and if someone ever listens to us, is that editor decision somehow worse than all the ones you feel I have no right to complain about?
Personally, I think that you have an odd veiw of the relationship between the readers of any forum and its producers, but you could say the same about me, I'm sure.
-Kahuna Burger
Don't know about the other poster, but I've read mere christianity, and to be blunt, it sucks. I'm sure its all well and good for bolstering the intellectual egos of those who agree with him already, but as an atheist, I can tell you that it fails miserably in "proving" xtianity to those who don't believe already. Lewis tends to give a woefully lacking proof and then move on to another topic resting on it. Makes it quite frustrating if you are honestly trying to follow his logic.
As for spirituality vs materialism, some would define spirituality as believing in an idea beyond the material, not neccessarily a reality beyond the material. And I wouldn't tell other people if they're buddists or not. It tends to irritate them.
-Kahuna Burger
A healthy day-to-day world view cannot have an absence of free will as a cornerstone. One can live within the illusion of accountablity for 99% of their lives and still philosophically believe in the absence of free-will during an entertaining debate.
The problem is when people tries to take ideas from entertaining debates and apply them to the real world. The "free will" thing is only one of the results.
Look, theres a really fun, scientific/spiritual/philosophical discussion about the true nature of free will tm. But it doesn't even spill over into my thoughts on accountability. My view of real life accountability is simple :
I sometimes find myself waiting a long period of time before taking an action. I, and most other people refer to this time as "making a decision". After an action I often find myself thinking about what might have happened, had I acted differently. This is called "regretting a decision." Now totally outside of the idea of "true free will", in a real life discussion of accountability, the presence of agonized decisions and regret is enough evidence of our ability (indeed there isn't much way arond it) to make decisions. The presence of a decision equals accountability at some level for that decision.
Not to stop anyone from enjoying their late night bull session, just don't think it has any effect on how a just society will run. And on the same subject, anyone who really finds themselves unmotivated because there isn't any "true" purpose to our existance needs to get out more. I have known all my life that there is nothing more in this world than the world, and it has never stopped me from caring about others, working for a better future or seeing a subjective "point" to it all.
-Kahuna Burger
The "vocal minority" is simply the flip side of the "silent majority". Its another way of claiming the apathetic by saying that every single person who doesn't actively denounce you is strongly favoring you. Orignal use : who knows? Most famous use : denigrating opposition to the vietnam war. (recently admited to be based on flat out lies). Dishonest uses : pretty much all of them.
-Kahuna Burger
ARGHHH... Why do people insist of talking about this in terms of censorship, or being "allowed to post"?
Look, I'm "Allowed" to post on /. That is to say I can submit stories. One even got chosen, while another didn't. Katz, however, it not merely allowed to submit, he is allowed to approve his own stories, no matter how long or (IMHO) useless. It is this ability which I think drives most of the anger (rather than simple contempt) that Katz is subjected to.
I've said it before, and I'll most likely say it again (thats the way memes are spread after all.) If /. needs editorials, have an editor assigned to them and let everyone compete for publication equally. Unless Katz is (unknown to us) the publisher or founder of /. his privileged status without any other "collumists" is a speech aberation, not a normal freedom of speech which must be defended against censorship.
-Kahuna Burger
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, do you know if Katz's writings on that forum are automaticly posted as they are here or are they chosen by the moderators of the group? Or, a third option I suppose, it it a full open forum where everyone has the same posting privileges? Just Curious.
-Kahuna Burger
Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. This is also completely natural. To imply any hypocrisy is rediculous. Of course a person who had worked on a submission and had it rejected would be more annoyed that a writer of doubious merit isn't simply being picked ahead of them, but given carte blanch to pick his own pieces, no matter how useless.
Katz does not serve the same purpose as the other editors. He just posts his own opinions and does not contribute to the group otherwise. My suggestion would be that if /. needs editorials, they should have an editor to review those subbmissions same as any other. Then Katz, or anyone else could submitt his opinions to be considered in the mix and sometimes chosen, sometimes not. Actually let him prove his worth instead of being given an un-edited podium.
And, yes, the /. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it.
-Kahuna Burger
Oh, come on, his answer wasn't just "less than civil", it was childish. The guy made a point that I have seen voiced multiple times, and Katz goes on the personal attack on him. "You weren't elected Mayor of /." ???? Thats just imature. (its also not an exact quote, sorry. Flames on the exact wording will be laughed at.)
And this brings up an issue others have mentioned. An interview is not what we needed. Katz responded in a completely predictable fashion (to me). We need Katz to be the subject of a /. poll and get rid of the neo-silent majority fall back (ie, the lurkers love me in private email and the complaints are from a tiny but vocal minority that could just ignor me if they really didn't like me.)
Suggested poll:
Should Katz be...
Left alone by these jealous whiners,
Asked to submit posts through an editor to weed out some and teach him to re-write,
Removed from his privileged /. position entirely,
Run out of town on a rail, or
God damn you all, I had almost forgotten he existed before this flurry of mentions that got around my preferences filter started!!!!!!
Any other suggestions?
PS, I'm certainly not 13, and you need to grow up if you still believe in the Silent Majority as a default.
-Kahuna Burger
huh? you mean like the offhand comment that carrot is the true king or agnus is a werewolf? The cold air thing is a part of Detrius's charecter and has been played out consistently and well, IMHO. The "requirement" that he use trolls as trolls is no more stifling then that he continue to portray vampires as having a sun allergy.
Kahuna Burger
I have to admit to amazement. Here we have this post moderated up, responded to, etc and no one has asked the obvious question : where exactly does Katz make these defamatory statements? While I am not an avid Kazt reader, I read them fairly often, and I can't think of a single example of Katz insulting any religion or xtianity specificly. The closest I can think of is when he lists groups that have shown an interest in "controlling" the net, religions as a broad group are mentioned. Is this what you're talking about? Is this "railing" on religion?
If you could direct me to one of Katz's articles that you feel is a good example of this rampant xtain abuse, it would help. If he "never fails" then one solid example shouldn't be hard to point out.
-Kahuna Burger
Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child?
Probably the same reason people ask lesbians if they were sexually abused to "turn them off men." Some people assume that their opinions or tastes are not merely in the majority, but so natural and unshakable that only a traumatic event could change it. *snort*
-Kahuna Burger
To perhaps rephrase the question, if you were to submit any of your previous editorals (the best I can see to describe them) to, say, the New York Times op ed page, how much additional time and effort would you put into trimming and re-writing, and do you think the article would be improved by this process?
-Kahuna Burger
Well, IANA Evolutionary theorist, but my amature but interested observation of the field would indicate that this might be an assumption, but not a tenet or neccessity. I imagine that neo-darwinists would be interested, but not challenged by this additional source of variation.
However, it does play into a (fairly annoying) trend I have noticed in popularized science. It seems that some people feel that to be interesting, an idea cannot merely add to what we know, but must oppose a previously held idea. Like to hold the public interest, science has to be turned into a WFW cage match with the bold new challenger promising the utter defeat of the old order. Not only does this (IMHO) reduce the amount of respect the public holds for science (Darwinian Evolution Challenged! Maybe its all wrong and Goddidit!) It seems to be turning the practice of strawman construction into a fine art.
So, while the book you read sounds interesting, I suspect that the writer fell into the trap of fearing he would not be interesting enough if his work couldn't be billed as "a challenge to years of evolutionary thinking!"
Interesting though... Did the author indicate what size of DNA code could be implanted by your average retrovirus? One protein worth? one amino acid into a protein? My initial assumption would be that the smaller a change they made, the more likely they would be to have a real impact of evolution.
-Kahuna Burger
Lamark said, essentially, that when animals try to adapt to their environment the positive adaptations are passed down to their offspring. When wolves move into a colder area, they grow in more warm undercoat. Their offspring, when born, naturally have thicker undercoats than their parents had to start with. Giraffs stretch their necks to get at high leaves, and the babies have longer default necks to start the stretching with.
So you can't call it lamarkian just because DNA changes for a reason other than mutation, because neither theory is (at its base) about DNA. The question is: Are changes in species due to random variation which is then selected in certain directions by the environment (Darwin) or do those changes come about because small physical adaptation throughout animals lives can be passed on to their offspring (Lamark). I honestly don't see where retroviruses can play into the discussion, except for your (IMHO flawed) assertion that natural selection in bound to a strict model of the possible ways DNA can be altered. So I guess the real question is, why do you think darwinian theory requires that?
Another fun argument for neo-darwinism is that it would have to happen. (this is a wacky/cool Dawkins arguement.) Basically, given that we have bodies built according to the specifications of a genetic code, given that the process for copying that code to build the next generation is not perfect, given that a small change that code which does not kill the offspring outright will be carried on to it's offspring as a matter of course and given that some offspring will live to reproduce while others will not, with predictable pressures determining which, evolution by natural selection is not just probably but unavoidable!
If you are good programmer, you should be able to test this with a program emulating spider webs. Or flying sticks going through obstacles. You don't have to program it to "evolve", just to copy the design for itself with occasional imperfections and exist in a environment that weeds some out and lets others reproduce. Dawkins has examples of such programs in his books, or I could give you some pointers if you don't know what I'm suggesting.
So anyway, we've got possibility, reality, explaining power and just maybe inevitability. Don't really see much need for faith here. -Kahuna Burger
Either that or Fred Phelps posts to /. as AC.
As a brief side note, I have no idea why you are accusing the gentleman of "lusting for objectionist thought", how one could lust for a thought, and why you classify Sagan as an objectionist (whatever that is.) but more to the point....
no, you sheep minded bleater, Sagan did not have a death bed conversion!!!!!
OK kahuna, breath... breath.....
I appoligize for the bleater reference. Nonetheless, you have proved yourself to be largely contemptible in any discussion of this nature for swallowing and perpetuating the BIG LIE of evangelical xtians : The deathbed conversion of X. Darwin didn't do it, Einstien didn't do it, and no, Sagan wrote a book at the end of his life and a moving afterword from his wife carried the narritive up to his deathbed, and there was no conversion of any type.
And don't think that a little "I could be wrong" gets you off the hook. If you didn't read it or see it referenced to one of his books or an interview you could at least quote, you are just spreading the most irresponsible and unethical type of rumor - the kind that is purposely falsified to change perception of a person's charecter after their death.
Let me give you a quick hint. Anytime you see someone say "well didn't [person who was a proponent of X and is now dead] actually come out and condemn [X] just before his/her death?" Take the default state that the answer is a resounding "No". And do not even file the information as tenitive unless they can point to at least a claim of where this info was from. Then file it as tenative and don't spread it in any form until you have checked the reference yourself. It will prevent you from being flamed then killfiled by people who have respect for that person and for the truth.
PS, where do you meet your atheists? I have met atheists who liked Rand only over email, most people I know rate her between "interesting to read, but wouldn't take her advice on how to run my life" and "what a stupid little git!" And in fact the only case I have ever seen of someone changing their mind on a topic due to email discussion was on an atheist only newsgroup where one poster came around to a change of heart on capital punishment after a long discussion of the philosophical, legal, practical and ethical issues involved. (religion was of course left out of the debate entirely, which was a nice change from the newspaper countershots on the subject in Boston.)
-Kahuna Burger
I (partly) appologise. He did say non-grata reading list, but he also said "chief theological advisor". Which looks like the best you could hope for is for him to not be a tool of the catholic church in particular, and no real hope for an evenhanded treatment of belief vs non.
Except it gives no better explaination itself, since it will answer the question "why is God here" with the same empty wording. And the more commen skeptic answer to "why are things here" is "I don't know and I'm comfortable with that. I know a god only adds more questions than it answers and thus makes no sense to assume."
Actually, the only theism this could really give rise to (as opposed to shore up) is the Spinozan god - the universe is god, no extra consiouness. Because adding intellegence to this first cause only makes it too complicated to be causeless. You're down to worshipping the quantum irregularity or what have you. It cannot simply argue for an attribute, because adding almost any other attribute would make this argument nonsensical, as discussed earlier.
PS, I never assume that a person is arguing for any particular god unless stated. The only assumption I made is that you would want some consiousness in your god rather than spinozan (sp?)In fact, in my long expereince with theological arguments, it is par for the course to start out with a very vauge god and suddenly find yourself assuming that all that had gone before now can be applied to Jesus (or rarely, someone else) as described in the inerrant new testamate.
-Kahuna Burger
Yes, the vatican is very largly made up of old men clinging to their power base, as the new rules on Catholic Universities in the US readily attests. More to the point however, the poster introduced the author as a openminded source then identified him only as an advisor to and writer for the vatican. Methinks you are jumping at the wrong person. And a bit sensitive about attacks on the most heirarchical institution given nigh universal deference to boot. Think they can take care of themselves without little ol' you saving them from the bad thoughts and *gasp* words of a bored /.er in Cambridge.
No problem. All you have to do is start long enough ago that the continents hadn't broken apart yet.
Flippant, but with a point. Until you understand the time scales involved and the possible gradiation of changes (not to mention quite a bit about both genetics and embryotic development) this is all just a drawn out version of the argument from incredulity. Read some of the books recomended or some of the FAQs and then we can at least start a conversation about what is and isn't concievable. Until then, what is the point?
When you say that evolution is only reactive, you are not quite right. Evolution works with what is there and small gradients thereof. A lungfish's protolung became a swim bladder for fish who went the other way (oddly not the other way around, but thats a longer story). Something that was selected for before (or simply not selected against in some complex cases) becomes useful in another context and is now heavily selected. Try the Gould essay "The Panda's Thumb" for an example of how jerryrigging can give the illusion of proactive selection.
-Kahuna Burger