Google made a filesystem for exactly that purpose: storing HUGE files highly reliably. OK, so it's not publically available, but it's still perfect for you (other than that).
Both of those points are absolutely correct. The SM is not written in stone, and will continue to improve.
For example, some journals are trying to get people to register their experiments *before* starting, or they won't publish it. Why? Because that way you can't only publish the one experiment that worked.
Things like that are why science is so damn effective. It's not stuck on 2500-year old processes and procedures; it's the anti-dogma.
That's why the Scientific Method requires reproducibility. It's not just to weed out confirmation bias or experimental error, but to double check against fraud.
If you want to learn more about the creationist viewpoint on this issue,
Which creationist viewpoint? The Hopi Indian one? The African !Kung one?
Why do you assume that the Bible's mythology is more worthy of reconciliation with science? Lots of cultures made up stories to explain the origins of earth. They're all interesting, and you can learn quite a bit about their respective cultures from them, but no particular one is more deserving of reconciliation with the reality of existense as discovered by the scientific method.
Remember when the Arab world led scientific thought? They invented and led math, geometry, an alphabet, astronomy, engineering, etc. Then the fundies took over. Arab versions of Bush and Pat Robertson.
It's probably just pareidolia. They know what they are looking for, so they see it in highly ambiguous data. Sure it might be Atlantis, but I remain skeptical until they can produce much more unequivocal evidence.
Saying something is true because statistics show that something to be true most of the time is, in fact, a stereotype. What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.
I wasn't making a claim about christians from personal anecdotal data. I successfully refuted my parent post's claim that "it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old." It's actually pretty mainstream.
One more thing, you seem to be trying to say that noone's answers are any more real than others, so why should I listen to you?
Also, does this mean every person ever should recreate ever experiment required to *prove* something to be true, because we shouldn't believe that anyone has the credentials to tell us what's true and what's not? Thats an awful waste of time if you ask me.
Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.
What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.
If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.
Whoa! Pulling a fast one. All nickels are coins; not all coins are nickels. You can't conflate religion will philospohy, and then go on to use philosophy to support your argument.
For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do.
True, but religion tries to do that, too. Dawkins' point is that there is no cause to lend their claims an ear.
Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?
Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".
Steven Weinberg, an atheist who won the Nobel prize in physics, put it well in his book "Facing Up": "There is one limitation on the scientific world view that I am glad to acknowledge. Science may be able to tell us how to explain or to get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. Moral or aesthetic statements are simply not of the sort which it is appropriate to call true or false. I think Midgley would agree, but I am not sure whether Atkins would, and certainly many others would not. According to the British press, the Bishop of Edinburgh recently argued that, since people are genetically preconditioned toward adultery, the Church should not condemn it. Whatever you think of adultery, it is simply a non sequitur to draw moral lessons from genetics. Ronald Reagan made the same mistake when he argued that abortion should be banned because science has not yet decided whether the fetus is alive. Whatever definition of life scientists may find convenient, and at whatever point in pregnancy a fetus might start to match that definition, the question of the value we should place on (say) a newly fertilized human egg is one that is entirely open to individual moral judgment. (Not that this is the only issue in the debate over abortion, or even the one that necessarily motivates opponents of abortion.) Science can't even justify science; the decision to explore the world as it is shown to us by reason and experiment is a moral one, not a scientific one."
He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.
Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.
For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.
I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.
No, but neither do millions of unsupportable beliefs you don't have faith in. The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof. Those that claim there are deities have the burden of proof, just as if they had claimed there are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. There's no reason to believe it, even though it does not "contradict anything that science knows."
Poetry is pleasing, but is has no bearing on the veracity of his claims -- and he's wrong. Never confusing what is comforting or fulfilling with what is true. They're not mutually exclusive, but there's no connection. Otherwise, you've commited wishful thinking.
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.
That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right. Here's how Richard Dawkins put it: Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of science and religion.
Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the
why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?
But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how' questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter well:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to
explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my)
ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of
physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible.
"Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where
I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the
chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike
chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions.
But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims
seriously?
Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.
That doesn't make it an axiom, it makes it an unneccessary hypothesis!
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.
I call straw man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Slashdot Mirror
Google made a filesystem for exactly that purpose: storing HUGE files highly reliably. OK, so it's not publically available, but it's still perfect for you (other than that).
Not only is this only about the existence of the name Goliath, not the character in the famous story, but even the name is iffy.
And shreds this crap. Read and learn.
Both of those points are absolutely correct. The SM is not written in stone, and will continue to improve.
For example, some journals are trying to get people to register their experiments *before* starting, or they won't publish it. Why? Because that way you can't only publish the one experiment that worked.
Things like that are why science is so damn effective. It's not stuck on 2500-year old processes and procedures; it's the anti-dogma.
That's why the Scientific Method requires reproducibility. It's not just to weed out confirmation bias or experimental error, but to double check against fraud.
Someone buy NASA a copy of this quick!
Wendy Seltzer is amazing. She's a true asset to the EFF.
Remember when browsers could understand gopher:// ?
Konqueror still does (by default!). Behold the wondrous power of KIO plugins!
Why is that depressing? I would have said stunning -- and then done a little dance to show how undepressing I find this progress.
If you want to learn more about the creationist viewpoint on this issue,
Which creationist viewpoint? The Hopi Indian one? The African !Kung one?
Why do you assume that the Bible's mythology is more worthy of reconciliation with science? Lots of cultures made up stories to explain the origins of earth. They're all interesting, and you can learn quite a bit about their respective cultures from them, but no particular one is more deserving of reconciliation with the reality of existense as discovered by the scientific method.
Dont be so sure!:0 /normal/19.jpg 0 /normal/07.jpg 0 /normal/13.jpg
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/kutvonen/promootio200
http://www.yle.fi/linna98/photos/photo46_i.jpg
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/kutvonen/promootio200
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/kutvonen/promootio200
He did bring along a tiny Communion set and did indeed take Communion just after landing.
Unbelievable. One foot in 1969 and one in 1169. When are we going to leave our superstitions behind?
Check this out:
White House Tries to Rein In Scientists
Remember when the Arab world led scientific thought? They invented and led math, geometry, an alphabet, astronomy, engineering, etc. Then the fundies took over. Arab versions of Bush and Pat Robertson.
It's probably just pareidolia. They know what they are looking for, so they see it in highly ambiguous data. Sure it might be Atlantis, but I remain skeptical until they can produce much more unequivocal evidence.
Word up!
:-).
Ha! I had scrolled past it when I got it
Saying something is true because statistics show that something to be true most of the time is, in fact, a stereotype. What you are saying is that because a vast majority of the african-american people at my school are loud-mouthed and annoying, I have the right to say that (please noone take offense, I don't believe this at all) blacks being big-mouthed fucktards is a statistical reality.
I wasn't making a claim about christians from personal anecdotal data. I successfully refuted my parent post's claim that "it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old." It's actually pretty mainstream.
One more thing, you seem to be trying to say that noone's answers are any more real than others, so why should I listen to you?
I most definitely did not say that! Cultural relativism is bunk, and science is not just another faith.
Also, does this mean every person ever should recreate ever experiment required to *prove* something to be true, because we shouldn't believe that anyone has the credentials to tell us what's true and what's not? Thats an awful waste of time if you ask me.
No, but they should be able to!
Then agian Science can't explain how life forms(today), Science can't explain out of the billions of permutations that evolution requires why is there only one Intelligent species, Why hasn't another one exsisted? The probalities would say it should of happened.
What?! What about chimpanzees and dolphins?
Why Science does every corner of the planet have a belief about dragons of all various sizes, yet man was 62 million years to late for Dinosaures?
Many corners of the planet have a flood myth too. That does NOT mean that Noah's myth is a historical fact.
Somethings don't make sense, some need help from other points of view, and some never will. Expand your mind.
Just because science can't hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean religion can. It's called the divine fallacy.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true. It's called argument from incredulity, and it's just as wrong.
If it helps, substitute "philosophy" for "religion", because religion is really a part of philosophy.
Whoa! Pulling a fast one. All nickels are coins; not all coins are nickels. You can't conflate religion will philospohy, and then go on to use philosophy to support your argument.
For example, in the case of morality and ethics, science tries to find out what we can do, but philosophy tries to find out what we should and should not do.
True, but religion tries to do that, too. Dawkins' point is that there is no cause to lend their claims an ear.
Science, for example, has resulted in technology that can keep people alive on machines long after they would otherwise have died. Philosophy asks: Is this a good idea in all cases?
Simiarly, science gives us tools to help determine who committed a certain crime. But it cannot (and should not attempt to) answer the question of what is "justice".
Steven Weinberg, an atheist who won the Nobel prize in physics, put it well in his book "Facing Up":
"There is one limitation on the scientific world view that I am glad to acknowledge. Science may be able to tell us how to explain or to get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. Moral or aesthetic statements are simply not of the sort which it is appropriate to call true or false. I think Midgley would agree, but I am not sure whether Atkins would, and certainly many others would not. According to the British press, the Bishop of Edinburgh recently argued that, since people are genetically preconditioned toward adultery, the Church should not condemn it. Whatever you think of adultery, it is simply a non sequitur to draw moral lessons from genetics. Ronald Reagan made the same mistake when he argued that abortion should be banned because science has not yet decided whether the fetus is alive. Whatever definition of life scientists may find convenient, and at whatever point in pregnancy a fetus might start to match that definition, the question of the value we should place on (say) a newly fertilized human egg is one that is entirely open to individual moral judgment. (Not that this is the only issue in the debate over abortion, or even the one that necessarily motivates opponents of abortion.) Science can't even justify science; the decision to explore the world as it is shown to us by reason and experiment is a moral one, not a scientific one."
He may as well say that we should ask the gardener or the chef about questions of sociology rather than a faculty member of the sociology department.
Wrong, he is asking why we should give credence to what a priest says about the "whys." What reason do we have to believe that the answers they give are worth anything? There's no reason to think that priests will do any better with these question than all the hows they've gotten wrong in history. The same can not be said of your sociology example.
For example, let's start with the following axioms: God exists, God created the universe, God loves all humans.
You're begging the question. You're starting out by assuming the thing you mean to prove or support.
I should point out that none of these contradict anything that science knows.
No, but neither do millions of unsupportable beliefs you don't have faith in. The reason it doesn't work is that you are mistaking burden of proof. Those that claim there are deities have the burden of proof, just as if they had claimed there are tiny teapots orbiting our sun. There's no reason to believe it, even though it does not "contradict anything that science knows."
Poetry is pleasing, but is has no bearing on the veracity of his claims -- and he's wrong. Never confusing what is comforting or fulfilling with what is true. They're not mutually exclusive, but there's no connection. Otherwise, you've commited wishful thinking.
Lots of famous scientists were deeply religious. I never claimed otherwise. I merely expressed lack of surprise that Linus is not.
This is one of the surveys:R eligion.ht ml
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Hooveron
I can buy the second statement, but not necessarily the first. There are plenty of people with higher education who are not scientists.
That's why it's a correlation coefficient. In fact, it's not even very high; most Americans believe in God.
As for the "90% of scientists" claim, I think that's a nasty prejudice on the part of scientists, rather than something to be proud of. Think about it: science and religion explore orthogonal aspects of life, neither of which is any less real than the other. Science tells us about what we can observe and test; religion illuminates things that are by nature untestable, like morality, ethics, compassion, and love for our fellow man.
Wrong. Religion claims to answer the whys, but there's no reason to think they get it right. Here's how Richard Dawkins put it:
Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion
can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of
science and religion.
Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the
why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?
But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is
a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But
since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their
answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how'
questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter
well:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to
explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my)
ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of
physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible.
"Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where
I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the
chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike
chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions.
But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims
seriously?
Fortunately most mainline religions acknowledge this, it's just the loudmouth conservative wackos who perpetuate the stereotype that a Christian believes the world is four thousand years old.
It's not a stereotype, it's a statistical reality. A large portion of Americans believe it.
In fact my opinion is that the existence of God is an axiom. This fits because axioms are initial assumptions that cannot be tested, and as yet nobody has even developed a convincing test for the existence of God.
That doesn't make it an axiom, it makes it an unneccessary hypothesis!
Religion really isn't about heaven, or hell, or converting as many atheists as possible, or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up a cafe. Religion is about suppressing your own ego and having compassion for those around you, which is something that a lot of scientists could sorely use.
Religion is a human invention, and as such means different things to different people. To many people, it means the things you disavow.
I did not make any claim of causation.
I call straw man.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Then perhaps the list should link to that, instead of using false info.
The link did go that. I guess slashdotters are adverse to reading any link, not just the article.