Yes, I don't mean "Objectivist" (an adherent to a semi-philosophical system), but "objectivist" (one who bases their wold-view upon empirical proofs). "Empiricist" might be a better word, but even that word evokes the old philosophers of Natural Law, which is still somewhat different than what I have in mind. Some of the Natural Law philosophers were Deists or adherents to other theologies.
A blind man who (through wishful thinking, misunderstanding of natural phenomena, or just plain brainwashing) imagines that he has experienced colour is quite different from a man who can actually see. In your analogy, someone has yet to actually see. The world is full of blind people divided into those who use other means to find their way around, and those who claim that they can see as if by magic. Yes, I think this is a good argument that atheists make. Believers ought to experience spirituality for themselves rather than rely entirely on the statements of others and assume something that is not their own. Sensing was a big part of my original point.
Do atheists keep their own advice? There is so much empirical knowledge in the world that, for lack of time or interest, it is not possible for each individual to experience and "know" everything first-hand. Have you done primary research in physics and biology? If not, then you must choose who to trust when you commit yourself to their ideas.
How do you make such a choice? You come to terms with the methodology, perhaps check to see if the research has been vetted, if others have reproduced the results, and if it coincides with your own subjective judgment. Unless you have personally done the primary empirical research, your investment in any belief about anything amounts to what theists call "faith."
Spirituality, as with all types of subjective sensibility, is an area where the experience is critical. It is difficult to rely entirely on the experience of others.
It is true that some people are better equipped to sense certain things than others. Some have better minds for reason, some greater aptitude for experiment, some a precocious knack for mathematics, and some a keen spiritual sense.
I am a poor mathematician, but I have experienced a limited set of mathematical principals and come to understand them. I recognize intuitively that Newton, Whitehead, and Knuth have excelled in this area and I am willing to trust and follow their revelations regarding mathematics.
I am a poor scientist, but I have first-hand experience with the application of the scientific method in some limited things. I can see that Darwin and Dawkins and Einstein and Feynman have excelled my skill in this discipline. Thus, I am willing to give heed to their revelations in the scientific fields.
I am a poor theist, but I have first-hand experience with my own spiritual sense. Why can I not follow a prophet or a Pope or a mystic, whose insights I recognize as greater than my own? If objectivists adopt trusted authorities in objective things, then why can't spiritualists do likewise?
I do not criticize atheists for their many excellent arguments, only for the irony that happens when some of them exhibit the same flaws as those whom they despise. There are plenty of atheists who apparently live entirely by the non-thought of received ideas.
For instance, it is pure pretentious arrogance to claim that one can discern between sensibility and delusion in another person's experience. But this is exactly what some atheists do when they generalize about theists.
When one claims that "what can be known is only what can be experienced," then one can say nothing about delusion in another person until one has experienced that other person's senses first-hand. Isn't this the kind of fallacy that is scorned when atheists attack religion?
their world would be shattered completely if they learned that they were wrong.
"Learned" implies evidence, and if there were any evidence they would simply change their stance to the appropriate form of theism. That's the rational way to go about things. To date there has not been any single piece of credible evidence for the existence of God(s). I suppose it depends on what you accept as evidence. Theists see evidence for God everywhere, but the standard of evidence for a trained scientist is understandably quite different than what is usually accepted for religious belief.
An objectivist comprehends only empirical senses: Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. For a thing to exist, it must first be brought into our realm of experience. X-rays, gamma-rays, all other non-visible forms of radiation; we now have tools to detect them and bring them into our perspective. Who knows what other things we are missing (and may yet discover) because we don't have the tools to see them?
Humans have other, more subjective senses too. A sense of quantity, of reason, of intuition, of balance; a moral sense and a spiritual sense. We have ways of knowing and understanding abstract forms. Do you believe in Rights? In benevolence, magnificence, or beauty? There is no litmus test, no standard experiment for any of these things, yet they exist. We have sensed and experimented with them in the ways that we know how.
The empirical scientific method is useful for many things, albeit a limited and finite number of things. To deal with abstract quantities, you need mathematics. Ethics requires philosophy and reason. Spirituality will frequently demand a form of religious devotion. There are interesting combinations of these things that lead down different paths of discovery.
When an evolutionary biologist asserts that there is no evidence for God, he is correct in a very specific way. In truth, though, he is speaking of something that he knows nothing about. He is like the blind man who denies the possibility of color because he has no evidence for it. To everyone who has sensed the reality of color, such an assertion is silly. Likewise are the assertions of atheists to those who have experienced spiritual things.
I felt the same way when I was a first-time Tolkien reader.
May I suggest that literacy does not merely consist of "knowing how to read words?" Children are inexperienced with literacy even when they know the mechanics of reading, because the language often fails to convey the intended ideas and sentiments. What good are prose and eloquence when these devices result in confusion and boredom?
Some people do not understand visual art. They have not developed a sense for it. Others can't fathom fine cuisine, having never experienced the range of possibilities. Most of us can't enjoy fine prose, rhetoric, and other types of literature, because we are essentially illiterate with regard to those particular devices. We read the news and the blogs, and then we seem to think that "advanced" literature has to do with content: usually controversial content. We believe that, when our writing becomes more licentious in tone, we have made some sort of advancement in literacy. But this is not true.
In fact, when one becomes immersed in the literature of ages, literacy is the result. Neither the sentiments of entertainment, lust, titillation, nor the simple acquisition of trivia, are new or novel in any way. But the connoisseur of literature, like the linguist, often discovers completely new sentiments or ideas that he never suspected were possible before. His mind is expanded; he has a greater context, new senses for quantifying reality. He begins to read prose that can move him with compassion, or words that can paint the Forms of dignity or of poverty or of the infinite tapestry of good and ill that constitutes humanity. His peers call it over-descriptive, boring tripe. Oh yes, they can read the words too; but not the Forms that those words were meant to convey. It requires much experience just to become literate, let alone a master wordsmith like Tolkien.
Many will argue that language has changed, and that some classics have become archaic or outdated (hence boring). It is true that our language is changing, but it is important to understand that the root of all language evolution is a culturally driven illiteracy of the full scope of the language. The language has expanded, but we now only comprehend a fraction of it. We have begun to forget even the ideas and sentiments of past ages because we are no longer literate in their mode of expression.
When you become fluent in another language, you will know I mean. You will find yourself saying things that have absolutely no translation into your native tongue. You will find that you develop additional character and personality, having now the ability to feel and think feelings and thoughts that were previously incomprehensible to you.
Tolkien's stories are more than just stories. They are loaded with human passion and human understanding, and it's too bad when we spend our effort trying to get past all of that in order to get a kick out of a fine fantasy novel. Tolkien didn't write in his unique style in order to be arcane, obscure, authentic, or for any other artificial reason that modern authors sometimes use to write in a voice that isn't their own. Tolkien was completely in-character, using the only language that could capably convey the true Form of Middle Earth to his audience -- those who have the eyes to see it. No other retelling has captured the same essence.
I have yet to read another fantasy author, with the exception of T.H. White (and possibly, occasionally, Robin McKinley), whose works could qualify as true literature. All of the rest of them have entertainment value, certainly; even brilliance and mastery of many story-telling techniques. In the distant future, maybe even some of these will become literature, if those who still have eyes to read can discover the ideas and sentiments conveyed by our modern written word.
Clue: Affluence = wealth. You won't get a rich man's disease by eating only corn. You'll get common poor-man's mal-nourishment.
Clue#2: Other healthy things can grow on the land that now produces the corn that is good for livestock. Corn isn't that great for people, but that's what the market demands we grow.
My point: we don't have to feed people what we feed cows, and I never suggested that. We need the land, not the corn.
We're not morally bankrupt because we feed cows instead of people, we're morally bankrupt because we worship an economy rather than considering the needs of human beings. Sorry about the liberal politics; it's just my opinion.
Yes, corn syrup is popular. So is cattle. There is a beef lobby, too. A big one. What do farmers feed cows? Corn!
America produces enough corn to meet the calorie needs for all living humanity. We feed it mostly to cows, though, so that a relative few can eat yummy beef. The yummy beef, in turn, assists in the production of what we call "diseases of affluence" in America, that is, heart disease and cancer (I think my source for these assertions is Dr. Colin Campbell, a man who grew up in the meat and dairy biz, but then decided he was more loyal to the science he was conducting). But I admit that beef is indeed yummy.
And so we see Mr. Smith's Invisible Hand of Benevolence moving us forward to a brighter future. Sorry for getting all weepy on ya.
Well, either we need to ban smoking, or we need to legalize other substances. My reasoning follows.
If nicotine is as addictive as heroin and has few medical benefits, then it is a prime candidate for what is termed "substance abuse." No one disagrees, not even smokers.
Smoking is bad for people and quickly gets out of hand, so it should be illegal. A similar philosophy is behind all illegal substances, is it not? Control the substance so that it can't control the people. We need a big brother to look out for us and to keep us from hurting ourselves. We apply this philosophy religiously when it comes to "illegal" drugs, few of which are as addictive as nicotine, although some have more dramatic immediate effects. Somehow we make exceptions for tobacco and alcohol: a lot of people can get them legally.
Ok, all of this is obvious logic that others have beaten to death. In order to be completely consistent human beings, able to live with ourselves, etc., we can't ban some bad things and allow others based on who-knows-what arbitrary reason (logistics? Economy?). It makes no moral sense and isn't very fair.
So we should ban tobacco and alcohol and maybe caffeine too.
Of course, we already know the nature of these substances. They produce their own economies and will not be hindered, and so then must be "fought." Hence a "war" on drugs. We will expand the current logistically insane war on drugs thousands of times in order to satisfy our philosophical rectitude and eliminate substances that people can wrongly use to hurt themselves and others.
Fine. But, then we might get an inkling that other things are bad for us and must also be controlled. You can be assured that a few special interests will be carefully guiding this inkling. "Dangerous" herbalists won't be allowed to practice their craft, only pharmacies will be able to provide their healing synthetics at a nominal fee. Herb and vegetable gardens will become regulated; these provisions will need to be bought from the grocer (an outlet for the meat, dairy, and produce monopolies). You will need a permit to grow things.
Then we'll make war on the natural plants of the earth, attempting to eliminate those which cause us harm when cultivated by evildoers.
In the mean time, subversive regimes will pop up all around the world, with the purpose of serving the lucrative Forbidden Economy. Be assured that justice won't reign supreme in systems such as these.
All this will come to pass for the righteous cause of making people behave themselves. Actually, the things I am describing are merely amplifications of the problems that already exist because of our presumption in controlling individual behavior as a federal responsibility.
You can tell that I'm not in favor of all this, but I don't agree with drugs. I promise. Nobody should smoke or drink, much less abuse cocaine or heroin. It's a morally reprehensible behavior that no human has a government-protected right to.
Actually, I'd like to see a government made by people who have faith in themselves as individuals. People who believe that, when taught correct principles in families and communities, individuals behave themselves quite nicely without government intervention. Let them make local anti-drug laws according to their community consciences, if they wish, and give them power and rights to enforce them. Let the laws of the land be heavy against those crimes committed by those who act under the influence of vicious substances. But never allow the federal government to curb behaviors that may lead to vice. That is a ruinous and slippery slope that will throw humanity on the trash heap faster than any drug will.
A group of British colonists tried the liberty experiment once, but the experiment failed on the day that children were marched under militia escort to a "public" school (against the wishes of their own parents). Today's parents don't see the gun that is held to their heads, but it is still present in the word "compulsory." And
In spite of Groklaw's "diversification," SCO was and is PJ's bread and butter.
SCO is the steaming turd-covered ax that killed Santa Claus. Other companies might sow more evil in this world than SCO has, but SCO is second to none at blackening its own reputation through sheer malicious, arrogant fraud. Nothing beats disparaging and ultimately claiming the work of others, especially when those others are admired volunteers whose work is considered world-class and is given away free-of-charge. SCO's was a classic betrayal, a spectacular public back-stabbing of sorts. Other companies do this, but not to a transparent community consisting of multiple millions of enthusiasts and volunteers who have a deep sense of ownership and pride. At least normal evil companies stick to plausible-sounding and white-washed evil; SCO picked the outrageous variety of twisted evil that doesn't fool anyone.
So there is a huge attraction to the SCO case. People have a lot of interest in this legal spectacle, watching SCO languish. There is real emotion associated with SCO, and Groklaw feeds off of this.
When SCO goes away, only PJ's core disciples will remain stalwart. Groklaw will continue, but the readership will decline. Few geeks really care about the details of these other cases, no matter how important they may prove to be (or how well PJ postures them). There just isn't the same level of emotion associated with other litigation.
* Believe us or we'll crush you with our tanks -Communism * We'll throw you into concentration camps whether you believe us or not -Nazism * If you don't believe us, you're probably violating our constitutional rights (so prepare to be considered dangerous and stupid and possibly even the target of new legislation and scrutiny by the ACLU) -Militant Atheism
Coercion isn't limited to theistic religion. Anyone who feels strongly enough about something has a "holy cause" and marches about trying to change the world to better suit him.
Yes, these are the people we want our kids to emulate. If we don't learn to make thoughtless, reactionary decisions then our economy will utterly collapse. Why else do we have public schools?
If we want kids who think for themselves, we shouldn't be sending them to such schools in the first place. These people teach masses, not individuals.
Let's not be shocked about a "broken" school system that arose from a another, very similar system originally designed to produce good soldiery for the Napoleonic wars.
I agree that science may yet contribute much to the field of ethics by revealing the manner in which nature seems to recommend certain qualities to us. Science may also speculate on why this is, and perhaps even test these hypotheses to a degree (I doubt science can fully reason along these lines without philosophy).
It is also true that the notion of morality differs between cultures and eras, seemingly driven by external and potentially biological processes.
In my opinion, there are numerous moral entities that all humans sense in more or less the same way: Merit, demerit, magnanimity, generosity, benevolence, spite, cowardice, vanity, pride. Some of these appear universally recommended by nature, while others are not. The question of whether or not these entities exist prior to any awareness of them, or exist because of the awareness of them (that they are tied to humanity as you said), is a philosophical question that can't adequately be explored by science. I think your position is a valid and a reasonable belief, however I do not agree with it.
If a species is not equipped for the awareness of some or all moral principles, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of moral entities. In the same way, it may well be that humans lack certain sensibilities to measure and quantify specific aspects of mathematics, chemistry, physics, or other things. Because we are unaware of laws, choose to ignore them, or are unlikely to ever discover them with our limited senses, this does not mean they do not exist. I think it equally valid and reasonable to treat morality in this way.
Is mathematics biological or metaphysical? Is logic biological or reasonable? Is reason biological or sensible? Is fruit an apple or an orange?
My opinion is that these so-called "scientists" are pushing a moral agenda that is merely wearing biology as its latex glove. It looks to me like a media-endorsed reincarnation of the various licentious systems, this time based in the recently popular thinking that morality is subject to and arises from DNA. It is a backwards view that claims reality is subject to awareness or to a physical adaptation meant to sense it, rather than vice versa.
Humans have a reliable way of experiencing some kinds of things: Heat, light, taste, sound, viscosity, gravity, density, hardness, etc., etc. These sensations form the basis of science as well as the natural law philosophies of the empiricists.
The fact that individuals may experience the "sensations" of morality differently from one another can not logically invalidate any absolute attributes that morality might encompass. If external senses arose from primitive ancestors, this does not mean that the nature of heat has changed. Likewise, if moral senses arose from primitive ancestors, this does not mean that the nature of morality has changed or suddenly come into existence. If two individuals possess different notions of quantity, this doesn't mean that two plus two no longer equal four. There are definite laws that govern the physical and the abstract, regardless of how well our minds are designed to comprehend them.
The discipline of philosophy has always held that the metaphysical realm of logic is likewise governed by definite laws, and that from these laws are derived the realities of propriety, merit, and so forth.
I have hope that good scientists avoid the sort of dogmatic proselytizing represented in this NYTimes article. I will venture to say that morality will never be subject to the empirical sort of testing that science demands, and that scientists therefore have nothing to say about it (as scientists). At best, the scientist might claim that animals seem to have a sort of moral sense which is nicely facilitated by the wonders of genetics, and leave it at that. Science can't give us the value of such a statement. That belongs to philosophy.
Really? Know that for a fact do you? Yellowstone could blow up tomorrow, or it could blow up in 17,000 years. All we know is that it will blow up again someday.
No, we don't.
At best we suspect that it may blow up again some day.
Science never knows anything about the future because it can't empirically test the future. When speaking of the future, all science can do is make educated guesses.
Because these things aren't even theories or theoretical. A scientific theory, by definition, must be physically testable. At best, science would call Dr. Hawking's idea a "hypothesis." A theory is something that has already been tested and has been proven to the degree that all available evidence could yield no other testable explanation. The conclusions that scientists draw from theories are what the layman might understand to be "facts."
But, for some reason, the layman is very uncomfortable with the word "theory." When he disagrees with a scientific finding he will say that "It's only a theory, " as if theories were akin to guesses. What he really means by this is "it's only a hypothesis." But then, in most cases, he would be wrong. It's true that some theories have eventually been disproved once new data have come to light, but this is much less common than the ever-changing face of hypotheses.
Science and religion are really two faces of the same coin. They both begin their quest with human intuition; gut feelings, if you like. In the one case, the practitioner attempts to vet his ideas using empirical methods. In the other case, his ideas are applied to senses that are less physical in nature, but he tests them as best he can. In the scientific discipline, doubt and skepticism are useful tools. In religion, hope. Doubt and hope are likewise two faces of the same uncertain coin.
It is sometimes difficult for an individual in either camp to let go of cherished intuition. Sometimes it is difficult to see the truth revealed by an experiment, whether the experiment be empirical or spiritual in nature. In other cases, there is simply too much for one individual to directly experience in his own lifetime, and so he relies on the testimony of one who has been there, made the experiment, and discovered what seems to be the truth. When you believe what someone else tells you, even though you have not directly observed the results of the experiment for yourself, this is called faith. There are times when misguided men and women take advantage of another's faith, and times when we simply refuse to move beyond tradition or intuition and apply those principles that we hold dear to us to our mental, physical and spiritual capacities.
In such times, we fight amongst ourselves. In such times, I think we will find that we have replaced both our scientists and our prophets with businessmen, ideologues, or sophists.
Eric Hoffer put it best in the preface to his book, The True Believer: "For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image."
The true believer doesn't care much for the experiment. He needs to either follow or be followed.
This kind of thing is very subjective. While it does seem that Wolfenstein represented the birth of the genre as well as any of the early fps games, the hype surrounding Doom was enormous. I think it was a huge leap ahead of Wolf 3d, and I think this is reflected in the fact that fps today looks a whole lot more like Doom than like castle Wolfenstein. Wolfenstein was only "kinda" 3d. Doom really did bring the 3rd dimension, and that defined the genre more than anything. It was the breakout point.
I thought another good argument was for Dune II over warcraft. Dune II was very, very significant for the rts genre (and hugely popular, as I remember). Dozens of games copied that idea. Warcraft was significant because it was the first rts that allowed network play... and this was the missing link in rts. The whole idea becaomes immeasurably better when you add that one little thing.
Personally, I would have preferred to see Sierra Online representing the Adventure Genre. I think they defined the graphical adventure game. We have very few text adventures left. If they can choose Doom and Warcraft over Wolfenstein and Dune II, then surely King's Quest ought win out over Zork.
Let's see... Here are the elements required for achieving front page on Digg:
3rd-hand rumor, preferably from a newsgroup post or blog (check!) Personal gripe (check!) Conspiracy against the accuser (check!) Some sort of advocacy for or against a vendor or company (check!)
Whatever the case may be, there is no lack of software for any of these three platforms. Each camp has its own population of geeks for whom their choice OS is the most flexible and convenient software imaginable. The Linux enthusiast has been ogling translucent windows and eye candy since 1998 or earlier. The OSX geek can run any Windows or Linux applications on his iMac. The Windows fanatic has for many years enjoyed features that are now standard in Windows Vista and seem "new" to everyone else.
Linux people argue that they can run Windows software too. Unix proggies? Oh yeah, Windows has been running those forever. No one else can enjoy some of the superior Mac software, argues the OSX geek. And Mac hardware looks better. But wait, PC hardware can be endlessly customized and "modded." We dual and triple boot now. We have the best of all worlds, but we prefer this to that. Unix is more secure. Windows is sophomoric. OSX is the new geek. Steve Jobs is an arrogant fool. Bill gates is evil. Linus Torvalds is a dork. Standards... Free software ideology... Intellectual property... Software licensing... DRM... Security... Aesthetics... Economy... There is no end to the adolescent arguments that constitute platform evangelism. The only thing it all proves is how conditioned to marketing we have become. The only way we can talk to each other is through a sales pitch.
A good point. It appears to me that the consensus among nutrition experts who are not on the payroll of the dairy, food, or supplement corporations, is that there currently isn't enough scientific evidence to form good theories about most dietary supplements. While the beneficial effects of whole foods, particularly plant based foods, are well documented, the present frenzy of artificial supplements is pseudoscience at best and fraud at worst. This doesn't mean that there is no value to supplements or engineered food, but why don't we just get our nutrients from natural sources? Someone has convinced us that artificial is better, even when they can't prove that it's true. Great marketing!
The problem with this kind of philanthropy is the idea that money can solve humanity's problems. It is charity based on moneyism, so naturally there needs to be a lot of money involved. This can only be possible with prudent business investments. Ultimately, the organization serves the capital in the hopes that the capital will then benefit the poor.
What is the benefit to the poor? It is relief from the symptoms of poverty. At what cost? At the cost of promoting business interests. Is this a bad thing? It is a bad thing to those of us who doubt that any entity that lacks a conscience (e.g. business) can provide a destiny other than that of consumer.
The philanthropies of rich men have always tended to shape society by creating dependent consumers from among the poor. It isn't that companies are good or evil, it is that they are neither. The destiny that business proposes to us is one of complete apathy in which there is little change or progress toward true human potential.
2) a secret cabal of giant corporations is colluding to make sure nobody releases it so they can make more money.
A charming jibe against conspiracy theorists.
Consider this:
What if research were conducted that found human populations with remarkably low cancer incidence? And what if additional studies strongly correlated these lower cancer rates with a different sort of lifestyle -- ultimately suggesting that almost all cancer might actually be prevented by curbing consumer appetites and by controlling something as simple as what we choose to put in our mouths and swallow?
How many people have actually stopped to think about why we always talk about the "cure for cancer" when total prevention is so much an easier goal to achieve?
Oh, we'd much rather have a ton of cure. We've been drinking big-business' Kool-Aid for so long, we don't even need corporate conspirators to distract us from the important questions.
A wise man once noticed that such systems (e.g. moneyism) seem to have a life of their own; once we've signed up for the ride, it's as if an "invisible hand" pushes us along to our inevitable destinies from where there can be no return.
The Moneyism that needs big business is a social machine. It is a function. It takes human beings as inputs and produces consumers from them. It has no conscience. Less wise people have noticed the twisted evil that this function can produce in its awful toll on humanity, but they don't see the system itself because their own culture is invisible to them. Instead they look for conspirators among those true believers that only play their tiny roles as part of the machine.
We're the conspirators, you and I. We buy things, turn them into garbage, wreak havoc on our bodies, go back for more. When Disease finally picks our lottery ticket, then we demand the cure. It never crossed our minds that we could have prevented the situation in the first place. Big business isn't at fault - it is merely one of the operators in the machine that made us stupid.
Well, I believe that's because they don't have an expansionist policy.
You have a persuasive argument, however my intuition also suggests that it's because North Korea doesn't have any economically viable assets that need liberating. In spite of the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, the greatest threat to Western Security isn't a nuclear bomb or a germ.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang.
Yes, I don't mean "Objectivist" (an adherent to a semi-philosophical system), but "objectivist" (one who bases their wold-view upon empirical proofs). "Empiricist" might be a better word, but even that word evokes the old philosophers of Natural Law, which is still somewhat different than what I have in mind. Some of the Natural Law philosophers were Deists or adherents to other theologies.
Do atheists keep their own advice? There is so much empirical knowledge in the world that, for lack of time or interest, it is not possible for each individual to experience and "know" everything first-hand. Have you done primary research in physics and biology? If not, then you must choose who to trust when you commit yourself to their ideas.
How do you make such a choice? You come to terms with the methodology, perhaps check to see if the research has been vetted, if others have reproduced the results, and if it coincides with your own subjective judgment. Unless you have personally done the primary empirical research, your investment in any belief about anything amounts to what theists call "faith."
Spirituality, as with all types of subjective sensibility, is an area where the experience is critical. It is difficult to rely entirely on the experience of others.
It is true that some people are better equipped to sense certain things than others. Some have better minds for reason, some greater aptitude for experiment, some a precocious knack for mathematics, and some a keen spiritual sense.
I am a poor mathematician, but I have experienced a limited set of mathematical principals and come to understand them. I recognize intuitively that Newton, Whitehead, and Knuth have excelled in this area and I am willing to trust and follow their revelations regarding mathematics.
I am a poor scientist, but I have first-hand experience with the application of the scientific method in some limited things. I can see that Darwin and Dawkins and Einstein and Feynman have excelled my skill in this discipline. Thus, I am willing to give heed to their revelations in the scientific fields.
I am a poor theist, but I have first-hand experience with my own spiritual sense. Why can I not follow a prophet or a Pope or a mystic, whose insights I recognize as greater than my own? If objectivists adopt trusted authorities in objective things, then why can't spiritualists do likewise?
I do not criticize atheists for their many excellent arguments, only for the irony that happens when some of them exhibit the same flaws as those whom they despise. There are plenty of atheists who apparently live entirely by the non-thought of received ideas.
For instance, it is pure pretentious arrogance to claim that one can discern between sensibility and delusion in another person's experience. But this is exactly what some atheists do when they generalize about theists.
When one claims that "what can be known is only what can be experienced," then one can say nothing about delusion in another person until one has experienced that other person's senses first-hand. Isn't this the kind of fallacy that is scorned when atheists attack religion?
"Learned" implies evidence, and if there were any evidence they would simply change their stance to the appropriate form of theism. That's the rational way to go about things. To date there has not been any single piece of credible evidence for the existence of God(s). I suppose it depends on what you accept as evidence. Theists see evidence for God everywhere, but the standard of evidence for a trained scientist is understandably quite different than what is usually accepted for religious belief.
An objectivist comprehends only empirical senses: Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. For a thing to exist, it must first be brought into our realm of experience. X-rays, gamma-rays, all other non-visible forms of radiation; we now have tools to detect them and bring them into our perspective. Who knows what other things we are missing (and may yet discover) because we don't have the tools to see them?
Humans have other, more subjective senses too. A sense of quantity, of reason, of intuition, of balance; a moral sense and a spiritual sense. We have ways of knowing and understanding abstract forms. Do you believe in Rights? In benevolence, magnificence, or beauty? There is no litmus test, no standard experiment for any of these things, yet they exist. We have sensed and experimented with them in the ways that we know how.
The empirical scientific method is useful for many things, albeit a limited and finite number of things. To deal with abstract quantities, you need mathematics. Ethics requires philosophy and reason. Spirituality will frequently demand a form of religious devotion. There are interesting combinations of these things that lead down different paths of discovery.
When an evolutionary biologist asserts that there is no evidence for God, he is correct in a very specific way. In truth, though, he is speaking of something that he knows nothing about. He is like the blind man who denies the possibility of color because he has no evidence for it. To everyone who has sensed the reality of color, such an assertion is silly. Likewise are the assertions of atheists to those who have experienced spiritual things.
I felt the same way when I was a first-time Tolkien reader.
May I suggest that literacy does not merely consist of "knowing how to read words?" Children are inexperienced with literacy even when they know the mechanics of reading, because the language often fails to convey the intended ideas and sentiments. What good are prose and eloquence when these devices result in confusion and boredom?
Some people do not understand visual art. They have not developed a sense for it. Others can't fathom fine cuisine, having never experienced the range of possibilities. Most of us can't enjoy fine prose, rhetoric, and other types of literature, because we are essentially illiterate with regard to those particular devices. We read the news and the blogs, and then we seem to think that "advanced" literature has to do with content: usually controversial content. We believe that, when our writing becomes more licentious in tone, we have made some sort of advancement in literacy. But this is not true.
In fact, when one becomes immersed in the literature of ages, literacy is the result. Neither the sentiments of entertainment, lust, titillation, nor the simple acquisition of trivia, are new or novel in any way. But the connoisseur of literature, like the linguist, often discovers completely new sentiments or ideas that he never suspected were possible before. His mind is expanded; he has a greater context, new senses for quantifying reality. He begins to read prose that can move him with compassion, or words that can paint the Forms of dignity or of poverty or of the infinite tapestry of good and ill that constitutes humanity. His peers call it over-descriptive, boring tripe. Oh yes, they can read the words too; but not the Forms that those words were meant to convey. It requires much experience just to become literate, let alone a master wordsmith like Tolkien.
Many will argue that language has changed, and that some classics have become archaic or outdated (hence boring). It is true that our language is changing, but it is important to understand that the root of all language evolution is a culturally driven illiteracy of the full scope of the language. The language has expanded, but we now only comprehend a fraction of it. We have begun to forget even the ideas and sentiments of past ages because we are no longer literate in their mode of expression.
When you become fluent in another language, you will know I mean. You will find yourself saying things that have absolutely no translation into your native tongue. You will find that you develop additional character and personality, having now the ability to feel and think feelings and thoughts that were previously incomprehensible to you.
Tolkien's stories are more than just stories. They are loaded with human passion and human understanding, and it's too bad when we spend our effort trying to get past all of that in order to get a kick out of a fine fantasy novel. Tolkien didn't write in his unique style in order to be arcane, obscure, authentic, or for any other artificial reason that modern authors sometimes use to write in a voice that isn't their own. Tolkien was completely in-character, using the only language that could capably convey the true Form of Middle Earth to his audience -- those who have the eyes to see it. No other retelling has captured the same essence.
I have yet to read another fantasy author, with the exception of T.H. White (and possibly, occasionally, Robin McKinley), whose works could qualify as true literature. All of the rest of them have entertainment value, certainly; even brilliance and mastery of many story-telling techniques. In the distant future, maybe even some of these will become literature, if those who still have eyes to read can discover the ideas and sentiments conveyed by our modern written word.
Clue: Affluence = wealth. You won't get a rich man's disease by eating only corn. You'll get common poor-man's mal-nourishment.
Clue#2: Other healthy things can grow on the land that now produces the corn that is good for livestock. Corn isn't that great for people, but that's what the market demands we grow.
My point: we don't have to feed people what we feed cows, and I never suggested that. We need the land, not the corn.
We're not morally bankrupt because we feed cows instead of people, we're morally bankrupt because we worship an economy rather than considering the needs of human beings. Sorry about the liberal politics; it's just my opinion.
Yes, corn syrup is popular. So is cattle. There is a beef lobby, too. A big one. What do farmers feed cows? Corn!
America produces enough corn to meet the calorie needs for all living humanity. We feed it mostly to cows, though, so that a relative few can eat yummy beef. The yummy beef, in turn, assists in the production of what we call "diseases of affluence" in America, that is, heart disease and cancer (I think my source for these assertions is Dr. Colin Campbell, a man who grew up in the meat and dairy biz, but then decided he was more loyal to the science he was conducting). But I admit that beef is indeed yummy.
And so we see Mr. Smith's Invisible Hand of Benevolence moving us forward to a brighter future. Sorry for getting all weepy on ya.
Well, either we need to ban smoking, or we need to legalize other substances. My reasoning follows.
If nicotine is as addictive as heroin and has few medical benefits, then it is a prime candidate for what is termed "substance abuse." No one disagrees, not even smokers.
Smoking is bad for people and quickly gets out of hand, so it should be illegal. A similar philosophy is behind all illegal substances, is it not? Control the substance so that it can't control the people. We need a big brother to look out for us and to keep us from hurting ourselves. We apply this philosophy religiously when it comes to "illegal" drugs, few of which are as addictive as nicotine, although some have more dramatic immediate effects. Somehow we make exceptions for tobacco and alcohol: a lot of people can get them legally.
Ok, all of this is obvious logic that others have beaten to death. In order to be completely consistent human beings, able to live with ourselves, etc., we can't ban some bad things and allow others based on who-knows-what arbitrary reason (logistics? Economy?). It makes no moral sense and isn't very fair.
So we should ban tobacco and alcohol and maybe caffeine too.
Of course, we already know the nature of these substances. They produce their own economies and will not be hindered, and so then must be "fought." Hence a "war" on drugs. We will expand the current logistically insane war on drugs thousands of times in order to satisfy our philosophical rectitude and eliminate substances that people can wrongly use to hurt themselves and others.
Fine. But, then we might get an inkling that other things are bad for us and must also be controlled. You can be assured that a few special interests will be carefully guiding this inkling. "Dangerous" herbalists won't be allowed to practice their craft, only pharmacies will be able to provide their healing synthetics at a nominal fee. Herb and vegetable gardens will become regulated; these provisions will need to be bought from the grocer (an outlet for the meat, dairy, and produce monopolies). You will need a permit to grow things.
Then we'll make war on the natural plants of the earth, attempting to eliminate those which cause us harm when cultivated by evildoers.
In the mean time, subversive regimes will pop up all around the world, with the purpose of serving the lucrative Forbidden Economy. Be assured that justice won't reign supreme in systems such as these.
All this will come to pass for the righteous cause of making people behave themselves. Actually, the things I am describing are merely amplifications of the problems that already exist because of our presumption in controlling individual behavior as a federal responsibility.
You can tell that I'm not in favor of all this, but I don't agree with drugs. I promise. Nobody should smoke or drink, much less abuse cocaine or heroin. It's a morally reprehensible behavior that no human has a government-protected right to.
Actually, I'd like to see a government made by people who have faith in themselves as individuals. People who believe that, when taught correct principles in families and communities, individuals behave themselves quite nicely without government intervention. Let them make local anti-drug laws according to their community consciences, if they wish, and give them power and rights to enforce them. Let the laws of the land be heavy against those crimes committed by those who act under the influence of vicious substances. But never allow the federal government to curb behaviors that may lead to vice. That is a ruinous and slippery slope that will throw humanity on the trash heap faster than any drug will.
A group of British colonists tried the liberty experiment once, but the experiment failed on the day that children were marched under militia escort to a "public" school (against the wishes of their own parents). Today's parents don't see the gun that is held to their heads, but it is still present in the word "compulsory." And
In spite of Groklaw's "diversification," SCO was and is PJ's bread and butter.
SCO is the steaming turd-covered ax that killed Santa Claus. Other companies might sow more evil in this world than SCO has, but SCO is second to none at blackening its own reputation through sheer malicious, arrogant fraud. Nothing beats disparaging and ultimately claiming the work of others, especially when those others are admired volunteers whose work is considered world-class and is given away free-of-charge. SCO's was a classic betrayal, a spectacular public back-stabbing of sorts. Other companies do this, but not to a transparent community consisting of multiple millions of enthusiasts and volunteers who have a deep sense of ownership and pride. At least normal evil companies stick to plausible-sounding and white-washed evil; SCO picked the outrageous variety of twisted evil that doesn't fool anyone.
So there is a huge attraction to the SCO case. People have a lot of interest in this legal spectacle, watching SCO languish. There is real emotion associated with SCO, and Groklaw feeds off of this.
When SCO goes away, only PJ's core disciples will remain stalwart. Groklaw will continue, but the readership will decline. Few geeks really care about the details of these other cases, no matter how important they may prove to be (or how well PJ postures them). There just isn't the same level of emotion associated with other litigation.
You have a wii system? They have pills for that. ;)
But I wouldn't advertise it on Slashdot if I were you...
It sounds like your job isn't done yet. You have some preaching to do until your vision of equality and justice has been achieved.
Don't forget:
* Believe us or we'll crush you with our tanks -Communism
* We'll throw you into concentration camps whether you believe us or not -Nazism
* If you don't believe us, you're probably violating our constitutional rights (so prepare to be considered dangerous and stupid and possibly even the target of new legislation and scrutiny by the ACLU) -Militant Atheism
Coercion isn't limited to theistic religion. Anyone who feels strongly enough about something has a "holy cause" and marches about trying to change the world to better suit him.
Yes, these are the people we want our kids to emulate. If we don't learn to make thoughtless, reactionary decisions then our economy will utterly collapse. Why else do we have public schools?
If we want kids who think for themselves, we shouldn't be sending them to such schools in the first place. These people teach masses, not individuals.
Let's not be shocked about a "broken" school system that arose from a another, very similar system originally designed to produce good soldiery for the Napoleonic wars.
I agree that science may yet contribute much to the field of ethics by revealing the manner in which nature seems to recommend certain qualities to us. Science may also speculate on why this is, and perhaps even test these hypotheses to a degree (I doubt science can fully reason along these lines without philosophy).
It is also true that the notion of morality differs between cultures and eras, seemingly driven by external and potentially biological processes.
In my opinion, there are numerous moral entities that all humans sense in more or less the same way: Merit, demerit, magnanimity, generosity, benevolence, spite, cowardice, vanity, pride. Some of these appear universally recommended by nature, while others are not. The question of whether or not these entities exist prior to any awareness of them, or exist because of the awareness of them (that they are tied to humanity as you said), is a philosophical question that can't adequately be explored by science. I think your position is a valid and a reasonable belief, however I do not agree with it.
If a species is not equipped for the awareness of some or all moral principles, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of moral entities. In the same way, it may well be that humans lack certain sensibilities to measure and quantify specific aspects of mathematics, chemistry, physics, or other things. Because we are unaware of laws, choose to ignore them, or are unlikely to ever discover them with our limited senses, this does not mean they do not exist. I think it equally valid and reasonable to treat morality in this way.
Is mathematics biological or metaphysical?
Is logic biological or reasonable?
Is reason biological or sensible?
Is fruit an apple or an orange?
My opinion is that these so-called "scientists" are pushing a moral agenda that is merely wearing biology as its latex glove. It looks to me like a media-endorsed reincarnation of the various licentious systems, this time based in the recently popular thinking that morality is subject to and arises from DNA. It is a backwards view that claims reality is subject to awareness or to a physical adaptation meant to sense it, rather than vice versa.
Humans have a reliable way of experiencing some kinds of things: Heat, light, taste, sound, viscosity, gravity, density, hardness, etc., etc. These sensations form the basis of science as well as the natural law philosophies of the empiricists.
The fact that individuals may experience the "sensations" of morality differently from one another can not logically invalidate any absolute attributes that morality might encompass. If external senses arose from primitive ancestors, this does not mean that the nature of heat has changed. Likewise, if moral senses arose from primitive ancestors, this does not mean that the nature of morality has changed or suddenly come into existence. If two individuals possess different notions of quantity, this doesn't mean that two plus two no longer equal four. There are definite laws that govern the physical and the abstract, regardless of how well our minds are designed to comprehend them.
The discipline of philosophy has always held that the metaphysical realm of logic is likewise governed by definite laws, and that from these laws are derived the realities of propriety, merit, and so forth.
I have hope that good scientists avoid the sort of dogmatic proselytizing represented in this NYTimes article. I will venture to say that morality will never be subject to the empirical sort of testing that science demands, and that scientists therefore have nothing to say about it (as scientists). At best, the scientist might claim that animals seem to have a sort of moral sense which is nicely facilitated by the wonders of genetics, and leave it at that. Science can't give us the value of such a statement. That belongs to philosophy.
Someone forgot to tell the politicians.
Really? Know that for a fact do you? Yellowstone could blow up tomorrow, or it could blow up in 17,000 years. All we know is that it will blow up again someday.
No, we don't.
At best we suspect that it may blow up again some day.
Science never knows anything about the future because it can't empirically test the future. When speaking of the future, all science can do is make educated guesses.
Because these things aren't even theories or theoretical. A scientific theory, by definition, must be physically testable. At best, science would call Dr. Hawking's idea a "hypothesis." A theory is something that has already been tested and has been proven to the degree that all available evidence could yield no other testable explanation. The conclusions that scientists draw from theories are what the layman might understand to be "facts."
But, for some reason, the layman is very uncomfortable with the word "theory." When he disagrees with a scientific finding he will say that "It's only a theory, " as if theories were akin to guesses. What he really means by this is "it's only a hypothesis." But then, in most cases, he would be wrong. It's true that some theories have eventually been disproved once new data have come to light, but this is much less common than the ever-changing face of hypotheses.
Science and religion are really two faces of the same coin. They both begin their quest with human intuition; gut feelings, if you like. In the one case, the practitioner attempts to vet his ideas using empirical methods. In the other case, his ideas are applied to senses that are less physical in nature, but he tests them as best he can. In the scientific discipline, doubt and skepticism are useful tools. In religion, hope. Doubt and hope are likewise two faces of the same uncertain coin.
It is sometimes difficult for an individual in either camp to let go of cherished intuition. Sometimes it is difficult to see the truth revealed by an experiment, whether the experiment be empirical or spiritual in nature. In other cases, there is simply too much for one individual to directly experience in his own lifetime, and so he relies on the testimony of one who has been there, made the experiment, and discovered what seems to be the truth. When you believe what someone else tells you, even though you have not directly observed the results of the experiment for yourself, this is called faith. There are times when misguided men and women take advantage of another's faith, and times when we simply refuse to move beyond tradition or intuition and apply those principles that we hold dear to us to our mental, physical and spiritual capacities.
In such times, we fight amongst ourselves. In such times, I think we will find that we have replaced both our scientists and our prophets with businessmen, ideologues, or sophists.
Eric Hoffer put it best in the preface to his book, The True Believer: "For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image."
The true believer doesn't care much for the experiment. He needs to either follow or be followed.
This kind of thing is very subjective. While it does seem that Wolfenstein represented the birth of the genre as well as any of the early fps games, the hype surrounding Doom was enormous. I think it was a huge leap ahead of Wolf 3d, and I think this is reflected in the fact that fps today looks a whole lot more like Doom than like castle Wolfenstein. Wolfenstein was only "kinda" 3d. Doom really did bring the 3rd dimension, and that defined the genre more than anything. It was the breakout point.
I thought another good argument was for Dune II over warcraft. Dune II was very, very significant for the rts genre (and hugely popular, as I remember). Dozens of games copied that idea. Warcraft was significant because it was the first rts that allowed network play... and this was the missing link in rts. The whole idea becaomes immeasurably better when you add that one little thing.
Personally, I would have preferred to see Sierra Online representing the Adventure Genre. I think they defined the graphical adventure game. We have very few text adventures left. If they can choose Doom and Warcraft over Wolfenstein and Dune II, then surely King's Quest ought win out over Zork.
Let's see... Here are the elements required for achieving front page on Digg:
3rd-hand rumor, preferably from a newsgroup post or blog (check!)
Personal gripe (check!)
Conspiracy against the accuser (check!)
Some sort of advocacy for or against a vendor or company (check!)
It's the four-point-proof of adolescence!
And it's coming to Slashdot.
Or maybe I'm just now noticing.
Whatever the case may be, there is no lack of software for any of these three platforms. Each camp has its own population of geeks for whom their choice OS is the most flexible and convenient software imaginable. The Linux enthusiast has been ogling translucent windows and eye candy since 1998 or earlier. The OSX geek can run any Windows or Linux applications on his iMac. The Windows fanatic has for many years enjoyed features that are now standard in Windows Vista and seem "new" to everyone else.
Linux people argue that they can run Windows software too. Unix proggies? Oh yeah, Windows has been running those forever. No one else can enjoy some of the superior Mac software, argues the OSX geek. And Mac hardware looks better. But wait, PC hardware can be endlessly customized and "modded." We dual and triple boot now. We have the best of all worlds, but we prefer this to that. Unix is more secure. Windows is sophomoric. OSX is the new geek. Steve Jobs is an arrogant fool. Bill gates is evil. Linus Torvalds is a dork. Standards... Free software ideology... Intellectual property... Software licensing... DRM... Security... Aesthetics... Economy... There is no end to the adolescent arguments that constitute platform evangelism. The only thing it all proves is how conditioned to marketing we have become. The only way we can talk to each other is through a sales pitch.
A good point. It appears to me that the consensus among nutrition experts who are not on the payroll of the dairy, food, or supplement corporations, is that there currently isn't enough scientific evidence to form good theories about most dietary supplements. While the beneficial effects of whole foods, particularly plant based foods, are well documented, the present frenzy of artificial supplements is pseudoscience at best and fraud at worst. This doesn't mean that there is no value to supplements or engineered food, but why don't we just get our nutrients from natural sources? Someone has convinced us that artificial is better, even when they can't prove that it's true. Great marketing!
The problem with this kind of philanthropy is the idea that money can solve humanity's problems. It is charity based on moneyism, so naturally there needs to be a lot of money involved. This can only be possible with prudent business investments. Ultimately, the organization serves the capital in the hopes that the capital will then benefit the poor.
What is the benefit to the poor? It is relief from the symptoms of poverty. At what cost? At the cost of promoting business interests. Is this a bad thing? It is a bad thing to those of us who doubt that any entity that lacks a conscience (e.g. business) can provide a destiny other than that of consumer.
The philanthropies of rich men have always tended to shape society by creating dependent consumers from among the poor. It isn't that companies are good or evil, it is that they are neither. The destiny that business proposes to us is one of complete apathy in which there is little change or progress toward true human potential.
2) a secret cabal of giant corporations is colluding to make sure nobody releases it so they can make more money.
A charming jibe against conspiracy theorists.
Consider this:
What if research were conducted that found human populations with remarkably low cancer incidence? And what if additional studies strongly correlated these lower cancer rates with a different sort of lifestyle -- ultimately suggesting that almost all cancer might actually be prevented by curbing consumer appetites and by controlling something as simple as what we choose to put in our mouths and swallow?
How many people have actually stopped to think about why we always talk about the "cure for cancer" when total prevention is so much an easier goal to achieve?
Oh, we'd much rather have a ton of cure. We've been drinking big-business' Kool-Aid for so long, we don't even need corporate conspirators to distract us from the important questions.
A wise man once noticed that such systems (e.g. moneyism) seem to have a life of their own; once we've signed up for the ride, it's as if an "invisible hand" pushes us along to our inevitable destinies from where there can be no return.
The Moneyism that needs big business is a social machine. It is a function. It takes human beings as inputs and produces consumers from them. It has no conscience. Less wise people have noticed the twisted evil that this function can produce in its awful toll on humanity, but they don't see the system itself because their own culture is invisible to them. Instead they look for conspirators among those true believers that only play their tiny roles as part of the machine.
We're the conspirators, you and I. We buy things, turn them into garbage, wreak havoc on our bodies, go back for more. When Disease finally picks our lottery ticket, then we demand the cure. It never crossed our minds that we could have prevented the situation in the first place. Big business isn't at fault - it is merely one of the operators in the machine that made us stupid.
Well, I believe that's because they don't have an expansionist policy.
You have a persuasive argument, however my intuition also suggests that it's because North Korea doesn't have any economically viable assets that need liberating. In spite of the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, the greatest threat to Western Security isn't a nuclear bomb or a germ.