Then it does indeed sound like you are referring to tabloid "translations" of scientific research. You can't blame scientists for their work being misrepresented by others.
Not at all. Scientists aren't 100% perfect robots. Scientists are human beings, and are equally exposed to compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.
I admire scientists and all, but even I realize that they are not perfect! You must consider scientists to be super-humans or something:)
The point of science and religion isn't to say "something is", it's to explain why. Until you can explain why, then it might as well be magic.
IDUNNO, therefore GUDDONNIT. God of the Gaps. Blind faith. As opposed to the scientific method, where you don't make claims until you have actually verified them. In science, you are allowed to say "I don't know". In fact, that we don't know is why science exists. Science exists because we want to explain what we don't know.
What on earth are you talking about? There are no underlying assumptions. There was a hypothesis, and all observed data matched that hypothesis. It was not falsified, and the more they tested the hypothesis, the more data turned out to support it. Eventually, the amount of data supporting the Big Bang hypothesis was so great that it was promoted to a scientific theory.
The Big Bang theory is based on actual data. The six day creation claim is based on blind faith.
There are psychologists that have tried it, and have written vague attempts to "explain" why people 80% of the planet believe in God, but they always come across as a bit iffy because they always have to start from the assumption that their subjects are wrong.
Huh? No they don't. They form a hypothesis and test it. No assumptions needed. They say "this could be the way it is, let's see whether it is verified or falsified".
The (psychologically) simpler explanation "they believe it because they have deduced it to be true" gets rejected out of hand
So your claim is that anyone who is religions has deduced it to be true themselves? Each and every one of them? Then how come people generally keep the religion their parents had? Clearly, you are being somewhat dishonest here. Your "simpler explanation" is nothing but a groundless assertion based on ignoring the facts at han.
I think that a great deal of people here have just replaced "religion" with "science"
Not at all. I know that religious people who desperately wish they could cure their cognitive dissonance and actually marry religion and science claims that anyone who rejects religion has science as their "religion", but that doesn't make it so.
Science is a magnificent idea but as with any theory once humans get involved it becomes a gigantic clusterfuck of human nature.
Science is a method, not an idea. Religious nuts like you are making science out to be an ideology, not those who actually accept the scientific method.
Then show us your replication of the big bang. - Repeatedly. You certainly didn't observe it, you can't repeat it.
So you are saying that you are completely ignorant of all the evidence that supports the "Big Bang" theory? It would have taken you a couple of seconds to use Google in order to educate yourself. Since you didn't, and instead assumed that there was no evidence, one can only conclude that you wish to remain willfully ignorant. This is confirmed by your next outburst:
Science is just yet another form of religion. You believe in the educated guess of someone else.
Actually, you don't. I accept scientific consensus because, in my experience, it has worked very well indeed. So it is not blind faith in scientific findings. In fact, science is constantly refining itself and correcting errors. However, scientific consensus has shown to be very reliable, and has given us many concrete benefits in the form of new technology and such. Humans make errors, but the scientific method has shown itself to be extremely good at being used to correct those.
Sorry, but your irrational anti-science FUD failes.
Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory
No wonder you are getting all your claims wrong. You don't even understand how science works. In science, a theory is the highest order. It's the goal of science. It's what makes science useful. There is no higher level than a scientific theory. You need to educate yourself.
Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level in science. It's also one of the most solid scientific theories we have.
(Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)
What is the "monkey fish frog aspect"? We have observed everything from new genes appearing to new species evolving.
It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.
Facts in science are data used to support theories. Theories never become facts.
However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do.
Your side says "I believe". The other side says "the facts clearly contradict your beliefs".
It doesn't take faith to accept scientific consensus.
most science regarding the Universe and creation is still THEORY.
Nothing ever becomes more than a theory. Electricity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theory is the highest level in science. So "just a theory" is another dishonest way creationists try to undermine science. You may want to educate yourself.
Science used to tell us the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around us.
No it didn't. Religious zealots tried to force everyone to believe that, but scientists already knew better. They were just slaughtered if they spoke up about it.
Actually, many were stopped by their religion. Newton was working on a problem he just couldn't crack, and gave up, exclaiming that it was God's work and only God could know. A few years later, someone else solved the problem instead...
Twenty years ago I'd have said something similar. My pendulum had swung to solid science side, but I kept wondering about the "unexplainable".. nah, not the little green men and Area 51 or whatever. Sorta like the unanswered questions of science. Fine, science will eventually explain everything.. until then we can still wonder about things.
Yes, and "wonder about things" is what you use science for. Religion, on the other hand, puts and end to "wonder about things" because it simply asserts how things are supposed to be, and that's that. Science is what happens when you keep wondering. Religion is what happens when you stop wondering.
Not exactly the most reliable statistics. How can a browser have a higher market share than another browser with 3x as many users? Yeah, Net Applications reported that.
So it is the responsibility of the defendant to expose dirty judges? No. It was the judge's responsibility to disclose his own possible bias. He did not. This is not the defendant's fault.
The obvious problem here is that the TPB guys didn't upload anything (at least that wasn't shown to be the case), and they clearly explained that it was the user's responsibility. If you want something taken off TPB, you should contact the person who put it there.
And before you say that TPB should comply with any and all takedown requests, that sounds kind of crazy to me. If they were to do that, then anyone could make any claim about any content on TPB and have it taken down, even if the content was completely legal in every way.
No, the only proper and scalable way to get things off TPB is to either contact the user directly, or failing that, report it to the police so that the police can investigate, and then get a court order to take the content down.
I'm sorry, but who the fuck thinks its wrong for a company to say "Hey, you need a browser, want ours?" IN THEIR OWN FUCKING PRODUCT?
People who understand the law, and realize that when you break the law it has consequences, and freedoms are taken away from you (prisons, anyone?).
If the competition wants their product to succeed, it damn well better be better than mine, and they have to go to the effort to market it. I sure as fuck ain't going to market it for them.
If the competitors of the runner using illegal performance-enhancing drugs want to do better than him, they have to go to the effort to exercise more. He sure as fuck ain't going to stop taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs that give him an unfair and illegal edge over those who actually play by the rules.
How, exactly? How is reporting a crime being a crybaby? And isn't it interesting that you accuse Opera of being a crybaby, while at the same time are crying over Microsoft being taken to task for their illegal actions? Hypocrite, are we?:)
Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
That remains to be determined, now doesn't it? There are many criteria that can be used. In practice, everyone knows that the likely browsers to be bundled are IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and possibly Safari. It really isn't that difficult.
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.
Microsoft knows that removing IE was not an acceptable remedy, but they tried to game the process. They failed. Microsoft knew that the EC wasn't going to accept it because of the EC's well known position, and they did it anyway. And now you and other Microsoft shills are whining when Microsoft's bluff was called.
Actually, the EC signaled several months ago that a browser ballot was the most likely result.
They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.
Except it doesn't. It's pure manipulation by Microsoft because they know that given two evils, removing IE7 will give them the best chance to keep abusing their Windows monopoly.
But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern.
You say there aren't. Those who have actually paid attention say there are.
On the other hand, the PC browser market for Opera is essentially an afterthought - their paying customers are in embedded systems.
Actually, Opera started out as a PC browser, and the PC version is still about 30% of their total revenue (and growing ever since it became free of charge).
how is it EVER logical to suggest that it's up to a for-profit company to provide "consumer choice" by touting its competitors' products?
If that's what it takes to restore the market, that's what they must do. It has been done before this case, and will be done again.
Are the "rights" of a company more important than a free market?
A company only exists and does business because of laws created by the government. When the company violates those laws, it loses the right to do business like everyone else. Basically, you should have thought about it before you broke the law!
Slashdot Mirror
Then it does indeed sound like you are referring to tabloid "translations" of scientific research. You can't blame scientists for their work being misrepresented by others.
I admire scientists and all, but even I realize that they are not perfect! You must consider scientists to be super-humans or something :)
IDUNNO, therefore GUDDONNIT. God of the Gaps. Blind faith. As opposed to the scientific method, where you don't make claims until you have actually verified them. In science, you are allowed to say "I don't know". In fact, that we don't know is why science exists. Science exists because we want to explain what we don't know.
The Big Bang theory is based on actual data. The six day creation claim is based on blind faith.
Huh? No they don't. They form a hypothesis and test it. No assumptions needed. They say "this could be the way it is, let's see whether it is verified or falsified".
So your claim is that anyone who is religions has deduced it to be true themselves? Each and every one of them? Then how come people generally keep the religion their parents had? Clearly, you are being somewhat dishonest here. Your "simpler explanation" is nothing but a groundless assertion based on ignoring the facts at han.
Not at all. I know that religious people who desperately wish they could cure their cognitive dissonance and actually marry religion and science claims that anyone who rejects religion has science as their "religion", but that doesn't make it so.
Science is a method, not an idea. Religious nuts like you are making science out to be an ideology, not those who actually accept the scientific method.
So you are saying that you are completely ignorant of all the evidence that supports the "Big Bang" theory? It would have taken you a couple of seconds to use Google in order to educate yourself. Since you didn't, and instead assumed that there was no evidence, one can only conclude that you wish to remain willfully ignorant. This is confirmed by your next outburst:
Actually, you don't. I accept scientific consensus because, in my experience, it has worked very well indeed. So it is not blind faith in scientific findings. In fact, science is constantly refining itself and correcting errors. However, scientific consensus has shown to be very reliable, and has given us many concrete benefits in the form of new technology and such. Humans make errors, but the scientific method has shown itself to be extremely good at being used to correct those.
Sorry, but your irrational anti-science FUD failes.
How does someone who compartmentalizes his mind and engages in cognitive dissonance debunk anything?
No wonder you are getting all your claims wrong. You don't even understand how science works. In science, a theory is the highest order. It's the goal of science. It's what makes science useful. There is no higher level than a scientific theory. You need to educate yourself.
Evolution is not a belief. It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level in science. It's also one of the most solid scientific theories we have.
What is the "monkey fish frog aspect"? We have observed everything from new genes appearing to new species evolving.
Facts in science are data used to support theories. Theories never become facts.
Your side says "I believe". The other side says "the facts clearly contradict your beliefs".
It doesn't take faith to accept scientific consensus.
Nothing ever becomes more than a theory. Electricity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theory is the highest level in science. So "just a theory" is another dishonest way creationists try to undermine science. You may want to educate yourself.
No it didn't. Religious zealots tried to force everyone to believe that, but scientists already knew better. They were just slaughtered if they spoke up about it.
Actually, many were stopped by their religion. Newton was working on a problem he just couldn't crack, and gave up, exclaiming that it was God's work and only God could know. A few years later, someone else solved the problem instead...
Yes, and "wonder about things" is what you use science for. Religion, on the other hand, puts and end to "wonder about things" because it simply asserts how things are supposed to be, and that's that. Science is what happens when you keep wondering. Religion is what happens when you stop wondering.
What is the difference between "how" and "why"? "Why do things fall to the ground" sounds like a 100% scientific question to me.
So a lot of people are compartmentalizing, and "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind. Your point being?
Are you sure you aren't referring to tabloid representation of scientific reports rather than claims from scientists themselves?
Not exactly the most reliable statistics. How can a browser have a higher market share than another browser with 3x as many users? Yeah, Net Applications reported that.
So it is the responsibility of the defendant to expose dirty judges? No. It was the judge's responsibility to disclose his own possible bias. He did not. This is not the defendant's fault.
And before you say that TPB should comply with any and all takedown requests, that sounds kind of crazy to me. If they were to do that, then anyone could make any claim about any content on TPB and have it taken down, even if the content was completely legal in every way.
No, the only proper and scalable way to get things off TPB is to either contact the user directly, or failing that, report it to the police so that the police can investigate, and then get a court order to take the content down.
People who understand the law, and realize that when you break the law it has consequences, and freedoms are taken away from you (prisons, anyone?).
If the competitors of the runner using illegal performance-enhancing drugs want to do better than him, they have to go to the effort to exercise more. He sure as fuck ain't going to stop taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs that give him an unfair and illegal edge over those who actually play by the rules.
It wasn't the EU which first got the case started, so yet another insane and idiotic conspiracy theory falls apart.
How, exactly? How is reporting a crime being a crybaby? And isn't it interesting that you accuse Opera of being a crybaby, while at the same time are crying over Microsoft being taken to task for their illegal actions? Hypocrite, are we? :)
That remains to be determined, now doesn't it? There are many criteria that can be used. In practice, everyone knows that the likely browsers to be bundled are IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and possibly Safari. It really isn't that difficult.
No, removing IE was not the sane option at all. In fact, the EC signaled months ago that a browser ballot was the most likely outcome.
Microsoft knows that removing IE was not an acceptable remedy, but they tried to game the process. They failed. Microsoft knew that the EC wasn't going to accept it because of the EC's well known position, and they did it anyway. And now you and other Microsoft shills are whining when Microsoft's bluff was called.
Actually, the EC signaled several months ago that a browser ballot was the most likely result.
Except it doesn't. It's pure manipulation by Microsoft because they know that given two evils, removing IE7 will give them the best chance to keep abusing their Windows monopoly.
You say there aren't. Those who have actually paid attention say there are.
Do you work for Microsoft? A Microsoft partner?
Actually, Opera started out as a PC browser, and the PC version is still about 30% of their total revenue (and growing ever since it became free of charge).
If that's what it takes to restore the market, that's what they must do. It has been done before this case, and will be done again.
Are the "rights" of a company more important than a free market?
A company only exists and does business because of laws created by the government. When the company violates those laws, it loses the right to do business like everyone else. Basically, you should have thought about it before you broke the law!