For my Fortune 500 company, I needed to build an automated update process (using the cross-platform enterprise-ready tools we already owned.)
Of course, politics and contract negotiations made it so that I was not allowed to have my own box for engineering patch deployment, so what's a guy to do?
I found and installed WBEL on some commodity hardware in the lab and began my testing by pushing 'approved' RHEL patches to the lab box. Eventually I crushed the lab box. I thought either I had done something wrong, or there were bugs in WBEL that made it incompatible with RHEL.
What I later learned was that there was an RPM bug in both RHEL and WBEL that corrupted the RPM database.
I tested WBEL with dozens of patches and found it to be binary compatible down to the bugs.
Of course, after we had been live for six months, pushing RHEL patches to fully-licensed RHEL servers on server-class hardware, I was finally allowed licenses for the lab.
This is why people use free alternatives in corporations. The deadlines don't move out just because all the licensing and political ducks are not lined up.
I switched to CentOS because it seemed that WBEL was not as quick to build updates, and there seemed to be a stronger community around it.
Conversion of my home server from WBEL to CentOS was trivial. The same was true for my 'utility-player' linux box at the office.
Of course, it's not officially sanctioned, but when you need a copy of grep that doesn't choke at 2048 character lines, or a quick and dirty ftp server, or a place to rsync production logs so you don't have to give vendors access to production boxes, or you need to set up a lab with a custom mail server and web front end, or......That's why I call it a utility player.
First I want to assure you that we are in total agreement with respect to the nature of science.
I'm not sure how I can more clearly explain that the whole study of origins is non-scientific in nature. As such, it seems to me that it does not belong in science classes. Do we agree on that point?
You keep restating this but have not submitted any further argument for why it is so.
When 'people of faith' express convictions about what conclusions should be drawn from certain facts, many times they are belittled by scientists because there is a presumption that natural causes are the ONLY viable explanation for the facts. It's the interpretation that is troublesome, and this type of interpretation is prevalent in so-called scientific information.
As an example, I recently watched a program on TV called 'the search for the ultimate survivor' - supposedly a tale about the path that mankind followed to make it until today. Again and again, information was presented as absolute fact - even when the producers themselves admitted in the program that the data supporting those conclusions was minimal. At the head end of the program, they acknowledged that all human fossils found everywhere would not even fill the back of a pickup truck. During the program they told numerous cgi-enhanced fanciful tales about the lives and cultures of peoples - in one case I think it was something like parts of 8 skeletons were found, and they went on and on about the culture and types of creatures that evolved from this or that line of hominids. They did not let their lack of concrete data prevent them from speculating about what, how, and WHY!
I have seen this type of rampant speculation in Imax movies, on public television, in books and movies, in textbooks ad nauseum. The fact that these things are presented as fact is what is troublesome to me.
You are right when you say that science is not about absolutes. It is about unfalsified hypotheses. What is ultimately frustrating to me is that these productions and documents fail to acknowledge this fact. In our culture, science is often presented as the arbiter of truth, when in point of fact, it can only deal with the physical world. It can establish facts about material conditions, but cannot legitimately extrapolate the cause of those facts. When so-called scientists move from describing the material world to defining the meaning around the facts, they are injecting philosophy into science - and that is in my mind a corruption of science. On what basis can one say that an atheistic explanation is superior? What if theism is true?
I doubt either one of us will convert the other, that's not really my plan though.
My goal is not specifically to convert you, although I do believe that my world view is true, and that you would benefit from becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.
the evidence of the creation of the universe (natural or otherwise) is all around us.
You are right. In this we violently agree. The Bible says: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork"
As a creationist, I believe we must examine the evidence and learn what we can from it. God gave us intellect, curiosity, reason, and I believe that He expects that we should use it to learn about our universe. The scientific method has proven to be a helpful framework for describing the cosmos. As a Christian, I should, must, and DO embrace good science. This is my duty to God.
Creationists and materialists have the same evidence. We have different theories about the meaning of that evidence. Our preconceptions define what we allow ourselves to posit about the root cause or the meaning. This is true for the creationist and for the materialist. Lewontin's statement that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' suggests that non-natural processes are precluded, regardless of their validity as an explanation.
These explanations about meaning are derived from something. For the scientist, it starts with an idea, a hypothesis. This idea comes from some basis.
can apply Occam's Razor to try to find the least unlikely one
The problem is that Occam's razor is a 'rule of thumb' not an absolute measure. Many unlikely things are actually true, in spite of their seeming disconnection from being likely to be true.
science doesn't deal with absolutes...Scientific knowledge is always changing
This is correct. What is troublesome to me is that scientific information is presented as if it is Truth with a capital T.
I submit to you that naturalism and materialism are insufficient frameworks for exploration of the human experience. That materialistic philosophy has no place in science class, yet it persists.
This is my beef with the 'scientific community.' They rail about the thoughtless, foolish faithful, while they worship in a cathedral built to honor materialism and naturalism. We're all biased. They should acknowledge that.
In addition, philosophy belongs in the philosophy classroom, and science belongs in the science classroom. Today they are intertwined and the only politically correct philosophy in science class is that which agrees with the scientist.
Scientists' theories about origins cannot be tested using the scientific method.
religious nuts who won't or can't submit their loony theories to any test at all
Let me ask you this. What tests should be applied to a philosophy or set of teachings?
As a fundamentalist Christian, I have a set of tests that I apply to the Bible and to the teachings of Christianity. I do not neglect reason or intellect in my study of Christ's teachings. My understanding of fundamentalism is "one who adheres to the fundamental teachings of the historic Christian faith."
For example, with respect to Christian belief, some of the components I have examined include: eyewitness evidence for Christ, documentary evidence about Him, corroborating evidence along side scripture, archeological evidence, rebuttal evidence, psychological evidence - Christ's psyche as described in scripture, and the evidence of changed lives of people in the past, and people I know today.
Finally, one critical test af any world view is 'can it be lived out?' Can anyone do it? Can I do it? What are the social, political, economic, and psychological consequences of living with strict adherence to the teachings of any philosophy? What is the logical outcome?
Naturalism is unable to speak to origins because they are untestable. Materialistic dreams about origins have no more place in science classses than does any other philosophy.
Because naturalists DEMAND their non-scientific philosophy be a part of curriculum, I'm going to work to have my philosophy have a part in that curriculum, too.
These predictions are testable, and in fact have been tested, over and over and over. They are falsifiable,
You can make predictions about finding evidence that supports a hypothesis, and if you do, that lends credence to the hypothesis. If you do not, you simply lack evidence.
In either case, you cannot test to determine the root cause of the genesis of the universe. It is impossible to test that, or to observe it.
Science can investigate and falsify ideas about the cosmos, but can merely speculate about what cannot be observed or repeated. This speculation has no more credence in my book than ANY philosophical explanation of origins.
Gould represents one of two major factions within evolutionary thought. The lack of compelling evidence for traditional evolution in the fossil record was what compelled him to form a new theory. This helps to support the idea that even evolutionists disagree about the meaning of the evidence.
The Lewontin quote is a clear admission that he has a bias that precludes his consideration of anything supernatural.
So... What if it's true? What if a non-natural explanation is the REAL explanation? Lewontin would be precluded from even *considering* it.
if you want to make ID a scientific hypothesis you must first fulfill the demands that places on a scientific hypothesis. Because as it stands it's not one.
And materialistic explanations of the origin of the universe are not testable and therefore not falsifiable. They are therefore non-scientific, and should not be taught as such in science classrooms.
I think that evolution - where it describes adaptation of creatures based on favorable characteristics contributing those characteristics to the gene pool and therefore having dominance within the offspring is clearly demonstrably correct. Totally supported by the evidence, and quite testable. This is good science.
I agree that evolution as a theory of origin of species is a viable scientific theory. In my opinion, it's a horrible theory, but it is scientific, and it is the current conventional wisdom with respect to the genesis of species. This explanation is the best bad explanation of the gathered facts, IF you start with the philosophical basis that materialism and naturalism are effective and complete models for describing the universe.
Noted evolutionists have admitted that evidence tends to be lacking, (Gould - 'philetic gradualism' was 'never seen in the rocks') and that they have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism.' (Lewontin) This sounds like an admission of bias to me....
I submit to you that naturalistic or materialistic explanations of the origin of matter or the universe suffer from the same challenges that you describe about ID. According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, either could emerge from hypothesis status.
We agree violently about your Newton example above. Origins - specifically that of the universe is by definition untestable.
Naturalists and Creationists agree that specific data has been collected. We both theorize about origins and have differing understandings of the MEANING behind the collected data.
Since the scientific method cannot be used, let's stop calling speculation about origins science.
As I said, once naturalists take their phiolosophy out of the science curriculum, I'll cease trying to get my philosophy in. If it's fair to apply materialism and naturalism, then theism is fair game, too.
Until that happens, I think that the textbook stickers are a great idea. If nothing else, it gets people to think, and I hope we can all agree that a thinking populous is a good thing. I will also work to "call a spade a spade" with respect to philosophy in science class.
It's not those 'neutral thinking scientists' versus 'those biased religious nuts' it's
those 'biased materialistic naturalists' versus 'those biased people of theistic faith.'
Evolution as scientific theory of the emergence of species is reasonable and testable.
Evolution does not speak to origins. By defintion, speculation about origins is philosophy.
We cannot use science to speak of origins, because we cannot observe the event, document it and repeat it. Science can collect evidence and propose theories about it, but since these theories are untestable, it is not scientific to draw conclusions about origins in the guide of science!
Get your naturalistic philosophy out of my science classroom, and I'll stop trying to get my theistic phiolosophy IN!
Printer installation and queue management are EASIER under OS X and Windows XP than under Linux. Hands down.
Interestingly, when I enabled 128 bit WEP at home, linux was easier than OS X, but that is definitely the exception.
iTunes produces mp3's just fine. All of my music is in mp3 format. Some ripped with grip, most ripped with iTunes. If you don't like mp3, aiff, wav or AAC, find plugins that support LAME, add plugins for ogg or whatever formats you want. There's no reason to think that you couldn't use iTunes to rip the music and then copy it to your mp3 player. Of course, Apple's mp3 player does not support ogg, and apparently never will.
WRT price comparison, your Dell is missing a BUNCH of hardware that the mini includes. Equip your Dell with similar interfaces, and the cost of the Dell will be close to the mini.
While I agree that the Gimp is a great image editor, how easy is something as simple as redeye correction? VERY possible, but again, iPhoto makes it trivial. For that matter, it's trivial using Picasa on Windows.
What about photo collection management? Export to webpage? Creation of slideshows with music? iPhoto makes that easy. Import of photo collections to home movie editing tools? DVD Mastering? All reasonably easy on my Mac. All conceptually possible on linux but non-trivial.
Please don't misunderstand. I love Linux. I'm wearing a Tux shirt to work at my Fortune 500 company as I post this. (Something that doesn't quite fit with our corporate culture, if you know what I mean.)
I'm at a point in my life where my time matters to me - it's fun to tinker with things, and linux makes that easy and possible. Mac OS X/iLife is BETTER at a lot of common things, and that makes it worth paying for.
Find print drivers that work for your printer prior to printing - how hard is it to tell how much ink is in the printer? Yes, there are tools that can do that, but it's not standardized or simple.
Ripping CDs does not take long on Linux - but you DO have to know how to find GRIP and then configure it to use the right encoder to produce the files that you want - knowing the right command line flags because it's not menu-driven.
Once you've ripped the mp3's, then how do you organize them? iTunes is SIMPLE.
Exporting the slideshow is trivial on my Mac.
Mac hardware costs a little more, but not a LOT more. The software that is included with the hardware is worth a lot to me.
You're right, you have to pay for Mac hardware and software. I call it paying for value.
My Mac makes it easy to do what I want to do. I love Linux and free software, but it's not trivial to do the things that I want to do with it.
The 'poor' here are extremely unlikely to revolt until the tide rises for the third world. The US is the best place in the world to live in terms of opportunity and resources. They poor won't revolt until they have no hope. Some Americans have little or no hope for their future, but not many.
the top 5% control 95% of the wealth but pay less then 50% of the taxes
I guess it depends where you get your facts. The treasury dept says
"In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income." Sounds pretty nuts to me. Why should the rich bother? Speaking of the top 50% of wage earners in the country, the report continues: "In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total."
96% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners!
Why should you penalize those who work hard by taking what they have earned?
Apparently earning less than $130K is enough to qualify someone as being in the top 5% of wage earners. Is $130K/year 'rich?'
FWIW - I'd bet that most people who earn that much are in debt more than those who earn less - even after adjusted as a percentage of AGI.
I grew up 'poor' by US standards. I got my first job at age 9 (paper route) and worked continuously until today. I worked my way through college, and have carefully chosen to budget my resources so that I have very little debt. I choose to drive used cars, live in a conservative home, and I save money.
I don't earn that much, but proably will in my lifetime. Will I deserve to have my assets taken once I hit that level?
I suppose if you want to live in a world of 'us' and 'them' then thinking in terms of income redistribution is a great idea, until you become 'them.'
I'm reminded of a friend who worked as a union laborer for a grocery chain to pay his way through college. He definitely had an 'us' and 'them' mentality. I tried to explain that by becoming college educated, and seeking a professional job, he BECAME one of THEM. I don't think he understood that at the time.
I'm also reminded of the man I met who was a time/motion study expert representing a union of upholsterers. He genuinely believed that the manufacturer set the price of the goods independently of the manufacturing costs, and regardless of the rest of the market! Wow.
Income redistribution is a scam to make people who have little feel worse about themselves by thinking that the only way to achieve is to 'stick it to the man' and take from him.
I live in a world where opportunity stretches before me - where achievement is related to the disciplined application of my gifts and talents.
I started out as one of 'us' and through hard work, discipline, and good choices have become one of 'them.' You can too.
If you want to live in a world where the boots of 'the man' are on your neck, go ahead. Seems a shame to me, but it's your life...
So then you're suggesting that the wealth in this country be taken from those who have it and be given to those who don't for the express purpose of avoiding a revolutionary uprising of the poor against the wealthy?
I have no counter argument? Now who is failing to read prior postings?
I love Linux. I've used it on the desktop at home for about 8 years. Linux can't compare with my Powerbook in terms of desktop user experience. My Mac 'just works.'
The hardware you're talking about has the same capacity hard disk and RAM. There's a 2.3GHz celeron compared to the 1.25 GHz G4. If you're talking about raw GHz, I guess you have Apple beat.
Video? I'm sure that the included video adapter is superior on the mini. Does your server have a modem? A DVD player, CD burner? Audio in or out? USB? Firewire?
But Linux has free software! Those free applications push Linux ahead, right?
Photo management? gPhoto has pretty good camera support - if you're using the right USB drivers. That gets the photos from the camera - now, what about organizing and editing photos? Slideshows with transitions, audio, etc? iPhoto kicks butt here.
Video editing? First find and configure the firewire card drivers for the chipset you have, then go get what? Cinelerra? Too hard for a linux geek to make work. VirtualDub, Kino? WAAAAY too limited in terms of features and ease of use.
DVD mastering? Don't get me started...
Music software? XMMS is pretty handy for playing music, but organizing, sorting? Grip for capturing the data...
OpenOffice and GAIM on linux are fine tools. NeoOffice and Adium are fine tools on my Mac, and they work almost identically on the Mac.
The point is that it's POSSIBLE to do these things on linux. On my Mac, it's EASY.
Write a letter, print it to a remote printer, rip a CD and copy it to a USB or firewire equipped MP3 player, take digital photos, create a slideshow with music, export it to a readily available format (doesn't have to be quicktime, but find something equally easy for the recipient to use.... Compare start-to-finish time on both platforms. My Mac clobbers linux in this.
Don't get me wrong here I'm a big Linux geek. My Mac makes desktop computing useful and usable.
You said: What usually followed was a revolution in which the rich were killed
It seems to me that the logical extension of this is that the poor countries of the world should be expected to rise up to eliminate the rich ones. They certainly outnumber us.
You also said: What you fail to understand is that the natural tendency of money is to flow "uphill"
Are you saying we should all live like palestenians?
I'm not saying that, but if you truly advocate equitable distribution of resources, once all of the US assets (currently owned by ~300M of us) are distributed to the ~6.5B people in the world, we'd be living in squalor, and those in the US currently described as 'poor' would comparatively look like kings. Doesn't this logically follow?
Do you favor worldwide wealth redistribution? Really?
I hear this a lot but see very little evidence for it.
If it is necessary for the government to intervene to compel people to give, then why have charities in the US received more than $1B in private donations just for tsunami relief?
Why is it estimated that Americans gave $241B in charitable donations in 2003?
The US government is forecasted to spend $1.3T in annual entitlement spending during 2005. How much is enough?
Is it truly your argument that we should take from the 'rich' and distribute their assets to the 'poor' so that the poor don't rise up and kill the rich?
Do you realize that the poor in the US are living with orders of magnitude greater wealth that the rest of the developing world?
Should we liquidate the US assets and give them to the Indians, Chinese, and Indonesians? Would that prevent them from rising up and killing us?
Sure income redistribution is a grand idea. Let's all sign up.
Ack!
Income redistribution stifles innovation. Why should I work hard if you're going to take it away from me and give to 'the needy' (where needy is defined merely by someone who has less than 'average.')
If you redistributed income once - taking all of the money and resources away from the rich and poor and equitably distributed to each one, within ten years most of the people who were rich originally would be rich again. This is because some of them are smart, creative people who apply themselves and find ways to collect resources through socially acceptable means. Others will lie, cheat and steal from people so that they can increase their stockpile. Some of those who were originally rich - those from 'old money' - might be shut out of the cash, but others who were 'upper middle class' would most likely take their place. The poor would still be poor.
So, you must have a constant wealth redistribution plan where assets are repeatedly and frequently taken from the 'rich' to give to the poor.
Aside from the gaping loopholes, and the lack of motivation those in power have to take resources from themselves, this MIGHT work, except for the fact that it stifles innovation and kills the spirit and creativity of the workers.
Why should I achieve if you're going to take it from me? Look at the failures of the Soviet system for an example of how this falls flat. If we institute wealth redistribution (at a greater rate than we already have today due to our tax system) we will destroy the engine that drives our economy.
It's a bad deal, and I'd hate to sit on my butt letting my creative talents go to waste. If you're going to take my money - that I worked hard to earn through application of my talents and personal discipline - I might as well sign up for the handouts.
It's a bad idea. A non-starter. Enjoy your marxist philosophy. Hope you can find a place where it will actually work.
For what it's worth, I believe that we who have a great deal must have compassion on those who have substantially less. We should give generaously to those in need. I don't need the government to compel me to do it. The government is terribly inefficient at EVERYTHING it does. Let's not waste those resources.
Living in the South Eastern US, I've found Christians to be among the least tolerant folk around.
I'm sorry to hear that. I believe that Christ calls me to let you believe whatever you like, and to live any way that you choose.
Of course, this contrasts with the idea that as a Christian I need to be a good citizen, and work for justice. I am to do what I can to protect the oppressed and those with no voice.
This means that because I believe that the mentally handicapped are unable to speak well for themselves, I need to look out for their interests. Because I believe that personhood occurs at conception, I must do what I can to protect the unborn. Because I believe that freedom from oppression is available because of God's justice, I must work to free the politically oppressed.
These calls in my life may conflict with your 'liberty.' If that is the case, then I must be intolerant of your behavior. Where those ideals are not compromised, I believe that you should be able to do as you please.
I believe that while I am a self-described fundamentalist, these views are consistent with the teachings of Christ.
I'm sorry that there are intolerants around you. Have I become one of them during this post?
I'm sorry that your parents were overprotective. As a parent, I understand that the world is a big, scary place, and that kids can easy be destroyed.
There's a part of me that wants to protect my kid from pain and suffering, but I have to suppress that part, or I will be a bad dad.
How can they grow unless they try things that they are not certain they can do? Of course they will fail. Failure is a part of life. Recovery from failure is a FAR more imporatnt life skill than acting perfectly.
I hope that your parents treated you taht way because they loved you and wanted to protect you. Even if they were ignorant and misguided, that's better than some alternatives.
My job as a parent is to equip my kids to function without me.
This means as it is developmentally appropriate, loosening the boundaries so that they can learn from mistakes without endangering their lives. They need an environment that is safe to fail. I want to help my kids learn decision-making skills before they choose to hang out with a group of drunk teens in the middle of the night. Statistically this is the most dangerous time of the week, and alcohol is involved in more than 3/4 of the accidents.
By the time my kids leave high school, they need to be able to live as productive members of our society. They have to have appropriate life experience to help them make good choices. They need to know how to delay gratification, how to apply for a job, how to work hard, how to think of the needs of others, how to make a budget, how to balance a checkbook, how to negotiate, resolve conflict, find meaning in life. This and MUCH more. I've got a lot of teaching to do!
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."
The key is finding a way to allow for development of experience without getting severely scarred, wounded, or dead in the process.
support for some sort of push to force Christian ideals down the throats of us filthy nonbeliever
Don't believe everything you read in the mass media. I don't think of you as a 'filthy nonbeliever' and neither does Jesus.
If you look at the Bible, his contempt was not toward the 'sinners' but toward those who claimed to be religious but acted in a way that was contradictory to the heart of God.
When it comes to 'sinners' Jesus said 'no man comes to the Father but by me'
He also said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
It's too hard to sum up Christian worldview into a soundbite, so the media shows us as idiots. It's an easier portrayal, and how hard is it to find a loudmouth idiot of any stripe?
It's easy to think of Christians as a bunch of mindless people who use faith instead of intellect, but Jesus did not do that, and I am to live as He lived. That's a tall order.
apparent prohibition on logic and reason.
It's only apparent. Dig deeply enough, with your intellect engaged, and the prohibitions are merely apparent.
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of bozos who check their brains at the door when they embrace Christianity or any other philosophy. I also do not claim to have an explanation of everything in the universe. I have examined the evidence and find that there is compelling reason to believe as I do.
I hope you don't take offense when I say that this alone places you head-and-shoulders above many of your "peers."
No offense taken. Bozos abound of all stripes. Please consider that while there are bozos, they do not represent integrity of thought within the worldview.
The test of a worldview is not whether some kooks pervert teaching or misunderstand it. The true test of a worldview is to look to the consequences of living it out with integrity.
by espousing a particular religion, I believe that DOES attempt to establish a sense that there are "government-approved" religions.
Hang on there. Teaching truth in history classes is... well... truthful. Teaching that people conquered and terrorized in the name of Christ during the crusades is true. To teach otherwise has nothing to do with history but rather political correctness. To teach that people of faith acted courageously and self-sacrifically to flee religious persecution and come to this continent is factual.
I don't have to like the facts, but I do have to accept them. And so does everyone else.
Religious tolerance flourishes here in part because of the Christian world view. At least that's my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
For my Fortune 500 company, I needed to build an automated update process (using the cross-platform enterprise-ready tools we already owned.)
Of course, politics and contract negotiations made it so that I was not allowed to have my own box for engineering patch deployment, so what's a guy to do?
I found and installed WBEL on some commodity hardware in the lab and began my testing by pushing 'approved' RHEL patches to the lab box. Eventually I crushed the lab box. I thought either I had done something wrong, or there were bugs in WBEL that made it incompatible with RHEL.
What I later learned was that there was an RPM bug in both RHEL and WBEL that corrupted the RPM database.
I tested WBEL with dozens of patches and found it to be binary compatible down to the bugs.
Of course, after we had been live for six months, pushing RHEL patches to fully-licensed RHEL servers on server-class hardware, I was finally allowed licenses for the lab.
This is why people use free alternatives in corporations. The deadlines don't move out just because all the licensing and political ducks are not lined up.
I switched to CentOS because it seemed that WBEL was not as quick to build updates, and there seemed to be a stronger community around it.
Conversion of my home server from WBEL to CentOS was trivial. The same was true for my 'utility-player' linux box at the office.
Of course, it's not officially sanctioned, but when you need a copy of grep that doesn't choke at 2048 character lines, or a quick and dirty ftp server, or a place to rsync production logs so you don't have to give vendors access to production boxes, or you need to set up a lab with a custom mail server and web front end, or......That's why I call it a utility player.
First I want to assure you that we are in total agreement with respect to the nature of science.
I'm not sure how I can more clearly explain that the whole study of origins is non-scientific in nature. As such, it seems to me that it does not belong in science classes. Do we agree on that point?
You keep restating this but have not submitted any further argument for why it is so.
When 'people of faith' express convictions about what conclusions should be drawn from certain facts, many times they are belittled by scientists because there is a presumption that natural causes are the ONLY viable explanation for the facts. It's the interpretation that is troublesome, and this type of interpretation is prevalent in so-called scientific information.
As an example, I recently watched a program on TV called 'the search for the ultimate survivor' - supposedly a tale about the path that mankind followed to make it until today. Again and again, information was presented as absolute fact - even when the producers themselves admitted in the program that the data supporting those conclusions was minimal. At the head end of the program, they acknowledged that all human fossils found everywhere would not even fill the back of a pickup truck. During the program they told numerous cgi-enhanced fanciful tales about the lives and cultures of peoples - in one case I think it was something like parts of 8 skeletons were found, and they went on and on about the culture and types of creatures that evolved from this or that line of hominids. They did not let their lack of concrete data prevent them from speculating about what, how, and WHY!
I have seen this type of rampant speculation in Imax movies, on public television, in books and movies, in textbooks ad nauseum. The fact that these things are presented as fact is what is troublesome to me.
You are right when you say that science is not about absolutes. It is about unfalsified hypotheses. What is ultimately frustrating to me is that these productions and documents fail to acknowledge this fact. In our culture, science is often presented as the arbiter of truth, when in point of fact, it can only deal with the physical world. It can establish facts about material conditions, but cannot legitimately extrapolate the cause of those facts. When so-called scientists move from describing the material world to defining the meaning around the facts, they are injecting philosophy into science - and that is in my mind a corruption of science. On what basis can one say that an atheistic explanation is superior? What if theism is true?
I doubt either one of us will convert the other, that's not really my plan though.
My goal is not specifically to convert you, although I do believe that my world view is true, and that you would benefit from becoming a follower of Jesus Christ.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
the evidence of the creation of the universe (natural or otherwise) is all around us.
You are right. In this we violently agree. The Bible says: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork"
As a creationist, I believe we must examine the evidence and learn what we can from it. God gave us intellect, curiosity, reason, and I believe that He expects that we should use it to learn about our universe. The scientific method has proven to be a helpful framework for describing the cosmos. As a Christian, I should, must, and DO embrace good science. This is my duty to God.
Creationists and materialists have the same evidence. We have different theories about the meaning of that evidence. Our preconceptions define what we allow ourselves to posit about the root cause or the meaning. This is true for the creationist and for the materialist. Lewontin's statement that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' suggests that non-natural processes are precluded, regardless of their validity as an explanation.
These explanations about meaning are derived from something. For the scientist, it starts with an idea, a hypothesis. This idea comes from some basis.
can apply Occam's Razor to try to find the least unlikely one
The problem is that Occam's razor is a 'rule of thumb' not an absolute measure. Many unlikely things are actually true, in spite of their seeming disconnection from being likely to be true.
science doesn't deal with absolutes...Scientific knowledge is always changing
This is correct. What is troublesome to me is that scientific information is presented as if it is Truth with a capital T.
I submit to you that naturalism and materialism are insufficient frameworks for exploration of the human experience. That materialistic philosophy has no place in science class, yet it persists.
This is my beef with the 'scientific community.' They rail about the thoughtless, foolish faithful, while they worship in a cathedral built to honor materialism and naturalism. We're all biased. They should acknowledge that.
In addition, philosophy belongs in the philosophy classroom, and science belongs in the science classroom. Today they are intertwined and the only politically correct philosophy in science class is that which agrees with the scientist.
This is simply wrong.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
scientists with testable theories
Scientists' theories about origins cannot be tested using the scientific method.
religious nuts who won't or can't submit their loony theories to any test at all
Let me ask you this. What tests should be applied to a philosophy or set of teachings?
As a fundamentalist Christian, I have a set of tests that I apply to the Bible and to the teachings of Christianity. I do not neglect reason or intellect in my study of Christ's teachings. My understanding of fundamentalism is "one who adheres to the fundamental teachings of the historic Christian faith."
For example, with respect to Christian belief, some of the components I have examined include: eyewitness evidence for Christ, documentary evidence about Him, corroborating evidence along side scripture, archeological evidence, rebuttal evidence, psychological evidence - Christ's psyche as described in scripture, and the evidence of changed lives of people in the past, and people I know today.
Finally, one critical test af any world view is 'can it be lived out?' Can anyone do it? Can I do it? What are the social, political, economic, and psychological consequences of living with strict adherence to the teachings of any philosophy? What is the logical outcome?
No tests at all? What other tests do you propose?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Naturalism is unable to speak to origins because they are untestable. Materialistic dreams about origins have no more place in science classses than does any other philosophy.
Because naturalists DEMAND their non-scientific philosophy be a part of curriculum, I'm going to work to have my philosophy have a part in that curriculum, too.
These predictions are testable, and in fact have been tested, over and over and over. They are falsifiable,
You can make predictions about finding evidence that supports a hypothesis, and if you do, that lends credence to the hypothesis. If you do not, you simply lack evidence.
In either case, you cannot test to determine the root cause of the genesis of the universe. It is impossible to test that, or to observe it.
Science can investigate and falsify ideas about the cosmos, but can merely speculate about what cannot be observed or repeated. This speculation has no more credence in my book than ANY philosophical explanation of origins.
We all bring bias to the discussion.
Gould represents one of two major factions within evolutionary thought. The lack of compelling evidence for traditional evolution in the fossil record was what compelled him to form a new theory. This helps to support the idea that even evolutionists disagree about the meaning of the evidence.
The Lewontin quote is a clear admission that he has a bias that precludes his consideration of anything supernatural.
So... What if it's true? What if a non-natural explanation is the REAL explanation? Lewontin would be precluded from even *considering* it.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
if you want to make ID a scientific hypothesis you must first fulfill the demands that places on a scientific hypothesis. Because as it stands it's not one.
And materialistic explanations of the origin of the universe are not testable and therefore not falsifiable. They are therefore non-scientific, and should not be taught as such in science classrooms.
Do you agree?
According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, either could emerge from hypothesis status.
YIKES - what a typo!
That should have read According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, neither could emerge from hypothesis status.
I think that evolution - where it describes adaptation of creatures based on favorable characteristics contributing those characteristics to the gene pool and therefore having dominance within the offspring is clearly demonstrably correct. Totally supported by the evidence, and quite testable. This is good science.
I agree that evolution as a theory of origin of species is a viable scientific theory. In my opinion, it's a horrible theory, but it is scientific, and it is the current conventional wisdom with respect to the genesis of species. This explanation is the best bad explanation of the gathered facts, IF you start with the philosophical basis that materialism and naturalism are effective and complete models for describing the universe.
Noted evolutionists have admitted that evidence tends to be lacking, (Gould - 'philetic gradualism' was 'never seen in the rocks') and that they have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism.' (Lewontin) This sounds like an admission of bias to me....
I submit to you that naturalistic or materialistic explanations of the origin of matter or the universe suffer from the same challenges that you describe about ID. According to the 'rules' of the scientific method, either could emerge from hypothesis status.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
We agree violently about your Newton example above. Origins - specifically that of the universe is by definition untestable.
Naturalists and Creationists agree that specific data has been collected. We both theorize about origins and have differing understandings of the MEANING behind the collected data.
Since the scientific method cannot be used, let's stop calling speculation about origins science.
As I said, once naturalists take their phiolosophy out of the science curriculum, I'll cease trying to get my philosophy in. If it's fair to apply materialism and naturalism, then theism is fair game, too.
Until that happens, I think that the textbook stickers are a great idea. If nothing else, it gets people to think, and I hope we can all agree that a thinking populous is a good thing. I will also work to "call a spade a spade" with respect to philosophy in science class.
It's not those 'neutral thinking scientists' versus 'those biased religious nuts' it's
those 'biased materialistic naturalists' versus 'those biased people of theistic faith.'
Let's be fair and acknowledge our bias.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Evolution as scientific theory of the emergence of species is reasonable and testable.
Evolution does not speak to origins. By defintion, speculation about origins is philosophy.
We cannot use science to speak of origins, because we cannot observe the event, document it and repeat it. Science can collect evidence and propose theories about it, but since these theories are untestable, it is not scientific to draw conclusions about origins in the guide of science!
Get your naturalistic philosophy out of my science classroom, and I'll stop trying to get my theistic phiolosophy IN!
Printer installation and queue management are EASIER under OS X and Windows XP than under Linux. Hands down.
Interestingly, when I enabled 128 bit WEP at home, linux was easier than OS X, but that is definitely the exception.
iTunes produces mp3's just fine. All of my music is in mp3 format. Some ripped with grip, most ripped with iTunes. If you don't like mp3, aiff, wav or AAC, find plugins that support LAME, add plugins for ogg or whatever formats you want. There's no reason to think that you couldn't use iTunes to rip the music and then copy it to your mp3 player. Of course, Apple's mp3 player does not support ogg, and apparently never will.
WRT price comparison, your Dell is missing a BUNCH of hardware that the mini includes. Equip your Dell with similar interfaces, and the cost of the Dell will be close to the mini.
While I agree that the Gimp is a great image editor, how easy is something as simple as redeye correction? VERY possible, but again, iPhoto makes it trivial. For that matter, it's trivial using Picasa on Windows.
What about photo collection management? Export to webpage? Creation of slideshows with music? iPhoto makes that easy. Import of photo collections to home movie editing tools? DVD Mastering? All reasonably easy on my Mac. All conceptually possible on linux but non-trivial.
Please don't misunderstand. I love Linux. I'm wearing a Tux shirt to work at my Fortune 500 company as I post this. (Something that doesn't quite fit with our corporate culture, if you know what I mean.)
I'm at a point in my life where my time matters to me - it's fun to tinker with things, and linux makes that easy and possible. Mac OS X/iLife is BETTER at a lot of common things, and that makes it worth paying for.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Find print drivers that work for your printer prior to printing - how hard is it to tell how much ink is in the printer? Yes, there are tools that can do that, but it's not standardized or simple.
Ripping CDs does not take long on Linux - but you DO have to know how to find GRIP and then configure it to use the right encoder to produce the files that you want - knowing the right command line flags because it's not menu-driven.
Once you've ripped the mp3's, then how do you organize them? iTunes is SIMPLE.
Exporting the slideshow is trivial on my Mac.
Mac hardware costs a little more, but not a LOT more. The software that is included with the hardware is worth a lot to me.
You're right, you have to pay for Mac hardware and software. I call it paying for value.
My Mac makes it easy to do what I want to do. I love Linux and free software, but it's not trivial to do the things that I want to do with it.
end up with violent revolutions.
The 'poor' here are extremely unlikely to revolt until the tide rises for the third world. The US is the best place in the world to live in terms of opportunity and resources. They poor won't revolt until they have no hope. Some Americans have little or no hope for their future, but not many.
the top 5% control 95% of the wealth but pay less then 50% of the taxes
I guess it depends where you get your facts. The treasury dept says
"In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income."
Sounds pretty nuts to me. Why should the rich bother?
Speaking of the top 50% of wage earners in the country, the report continues:
"In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total."
96% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners!
Why should you penalize those who work hard by taking what they have earned?
Apparently earning less than $130K is enough to qualify someone as being in the top 5% of wage earners. Is $130K/year 'rich?'
FWIW - I'd bet that most people who earn that much are in debt more than those who earn less - even after adjusted as a percentage of AGI.
I grew up 'poor' by US standards. I got my first job at age 9 (paper route) and worked continuously until today. I worked my way through college, and have carefully chosen to budget my resources so that I have very little debt. I choose to drive used cars, live in a conservative home, and I save money.
I don't earn that much, but proably will in my lifetime. Will I deserve to have my assets taken once I hit that level?
I suppose if you want to live in a world of 'us' and 'them' then thinking in terms of income redistribution is a great idea, until you become 'them.'
I'm reminded of a friend who worked as a union laborer for a grocery chain to pay his way through college. He definitely had an 'us' and 'them' mentality. I tried to explain that by becoming college educated, and seeking a professional job, he BECAME one of THEM. I don't think he understood that at the time.
I'm also reminded of the man I met who was a time/motion study expert representing a union of upholsterers. He genuinely believed that the manufacturer set the price of the goods independently of the manufacturing costs, and regardless of the rest of the market! Wow.
Income redistribution is a scam to make people who have little feel worse about themselves by thinking that the only way to achieve is to 'stick it to the man' and take from him.
I live in a world where opportunity stretches before me - where achievement is related to the disciplined application of my gifts and talents.
I started out as one of 'us' and through hard work, discipline, and good choices have become one of 'them.' You can too.
If you want to live in a world where the boots of 'the man' are on your neck, go ahead. Seems a shame to me, but it's your life...
Respectfully,
Anomaly
So then you're suggesting that the wealth in this country be taken from those who have it and be given to those who don't for the express purpose of avoiding a revolutionary uprising of the poor against the wealthy?
I have no counter argument? Now who is failing to read prior postings?
I love Linux. I've used it on the desktop at home for about 8 years. Linux can't compare with my Powerbook in terms of desktop user experience. My Mac 'just works.'
The hardware you're talking about has the same capacity hard disk and RAM. There's a 2.3GHz celeron compared to the 1.25 GHz G4. If you're talking about raw GHz, I guess you have Apple beat.
Video? I'm sure that the included video adapter is superior on the mini. Does your server have a modem? A DVD player, CD burner? Audio in or out? USB? Firewire?
But Linux has free software! Those free applications push Linux ahead, right?
Photo management? gPhoto has pretty good camera support - if you're using the right USB drivers. That gets the photos from the camera - now, what about organizing and editing photos? Slideshows with transitions, audio, etc? iPhoto kicks butt here.
Video editing? First find and configure the firewire card drivers for the chipset you have, then go get what? Cinelerra? Too hard for a linux geek to make work. VirtualDub, Kino? WAAAAY too limited in terms of features and ease of use.
DVD mastering? Don't get me started...
Music software? XMMS is pretty handy for playing music, but organizing, sorting? Grip for capturing the data...
OpenOffice and GAIM on linux are fine tools. NeoOffice and Adium are fine tools on my Mac, and they work almost identically on the Mac.
The point is that it's POSSIBLE to do these things on linux. On my Mac, it's EASY.
Write a letter, print it to a remote printer, rip a CD and copy it to a USB or firewire equipped MP3 player, take digital photos, create a slideshow with music, export it to a readily available format (doesn't have to be quicktime, but find something equally easy for the recipient to use.... Compare start-to-finish time on both platforms. My Mac clobbers linux in this.
Don't get me wrong here I'm a big Linux geek. My Mac makes desktop computing useful and usable.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You said: What usually followed was a revolution in which the rich were killed
o ld=2&commentsort=3&tid=160&mode=thread&cid=1236518 1/
It seems to me that the logical extension of this is that the poor countries of the world should be expected to rise up to eliminate the rich ones. They certainly outnumber us.
You also said: What you fail to understand is that the natural tendency of money is to flow "uphill"
If you read my previous post, I agreed with that statement when I said: within ten years most of the people who were rich originally would be rich again http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147514&thresh
Are you saying we should all live like palestenians?
I'm not saying that, but if you truly advocate equitable distribution of resources, once all of the US assets (currently owned by ~300M of us) are distributed to the ~6.5B people in the world, we'd be living in squalor, and those in the US currently described as 'poor' would comparatively look like kings. Doesn't this logically follow?
Do you favor worldwide wealth redistribution? Really?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I hear this a lot but see very little evidence for it.
If it is necessary for the government to intervene to compel people to give, then why have charities in the US received more than $1B in private donations just for tsunami relief?
Why is it estimated that Americans gave $241B in charitable donations in 2003?
The US government is forecasted to spend $1.3T in annual entitlement spending during 2005. How much is enough?
Is it truly your argument that we should take from the 'rich' and distribute their assets to the 'poor' so that the poor don't rise up and kill the rich?
Do you realize that the poor in the US are living with orders of magnitude greater wealth that the rest of the developing world?
Should we liquidate the US assets and give them to the Indians, Chinese, and Indonesians? Would that prevent them from rising up and killing us?
Are you serious?
Sure income redistribution is a grand idea. Let's all sign up.
Ack!
Income redistribution stifles innovation. Why should I work hard if you're going to take it away from me and give to 'the needy' (where needy is defined merely by someone who has less than 'average.')
If you redistributed income once - taking all of the money and resources away from the rich and poor and equitably distributed to each one, within ten years most of the people who were rich originally would be rich again. This is because some of them are smart, creative people who apply themselves and find ways to collect resources through socially acceptable means. Others will lie, cheat and steal from people so that they can increase their stockpile. Some of those who were originally rich - those from 'old money' - might be shut out of the cash, but others who were 'upper middle class' would most likely take their place. The poor would still be poor.
So, you must have a constant wealth redistribution plan where assets are repeatedly and frequently taken from the 'rich' to give to the poor.
Aside from the gaping loopholes, and the lack of motivation those in power have to take resources from themselves, this MIGHT work, except for the fact that it stifles innovation and kills the spirit and creativity of the workers.
Why should I achieve if you're going to take it from me? Look at the failures of the Soviet system for an example of how this falls flat. If we institute wealth redistribution (at a greater rate than we already have today due to our tax system) we will destroy the engine that drives our economy.
It's a bad deal, and I'd hate to sit on my butt letting my creative talents go to waste. If you're going to take my money - that I worked hard to earn through application of my talents and personal discipline - I might as well sign up for the handouts.
It's a bad idea. A non-starter. Enjoy your marxist philosophy. Hope you can find a place where it will actually work.
For what it's worth, I believe that we who have a great deal must have compassion on those who have substantially less. We should give generaously to those in need. I don't need the government to compel me to do it. The government is terribly inefficient at EVERYTHING it does. Let's not waste those resources.
Respectfully,
Anomaly.
most two-parent families could have both parents at home. They just don't.
I shoud have said:
most two-parent families could have one parent at home, and two involved parents.
They just don't.
Living in the South Eastern US, I've found Christians to be among the least tolerant folk around.
I'm sorry to hear that. I believe that Christ calls me to let you believe whatever you like, and to live any way that you choose.
Of course, this contrasts with the idea that as a Christian I need to be a good citizen, and work for justice. I am to do what I can to protect the oppressed and those with no voice.
This means that because I believe that the mentally handicapped are unable to speak well for themselves, I need to look out for their interests. Because I believe that personhood occurs at conception, I must do what I can to protect the unborn. Because I believe that freedom from oppression is available because of God's justice, I must work to free the politically oppressed.
These calls in my life may conflict with your 'liberty.' If that is the case, then I must be intolerant of your behavior. Where those ideals are not compromised, I believe that you should be able to do as you please.
I believe that while I am a self-described fundamentalist, these views are consistent with the teachings of Christ.
I'm sorry that there are intolerants around you. Have I become one of them during this post?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm sorry that your parents were overprotective. As a parent, I understand that the world is a big, scary place, and that kids can easy be destroyed.
There's a part of me that wants to protect my kid from pain and suffering, but I have to suppress that part, or I will be a bad dad.
How can they grow unless they try things that they are not certain they can do? Of course they will fail. Failure is a part of life. Recovery from failure is a FAR more imporatnt life skill than acting perfectly.
I hope that your parents treated you taht way because they loved you and wanted to protect you. Even if they were ignorant and misguided, that's better than some alternatives.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
My job as a parent is to equip my kids to function without me.
This means as it is developmentally appropriate, loosening the boundaries so that they can learn from mistakes without endangering their lives. They need an environment that is safe to fail. I want to help my kids learn decision-making skills before they choose to hang out with a group of drunk teens in the middle of the night. Statistically this is the most dangerous time of the week, and alcohol is involved in more than 3/4 of the accidents.
By the time my kids leave high school, they need to be able to live as productive members of our society. They have to have appropriate life experience to help them make good choices. They need to know how to delay gratification, how to apply for a job, how to work hard, how to think of the needs of others, how to make a budget, how to balance a checkbook, how to negotiate, resolve conflict, find meaning in life. This and MUCH more. I've got a lot of teaching to do!
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."
The key is finding a way to allow for development of experience without getting severely scarred, wounded, or dead in the process.
support for some sort of push to force Christian ideals down the throats of us filthy nonbeliever
Don't believe everything you read in the mass media. I don't think of you as a 'filthy nonbeliever' and neither does Jesus.
If you look at the Bible, his contempt was not toward the 'sinners' but toward those who claimed to be religious but acted in a way that was contradictory to the heart of God.
When it comes to 'sinners' Jesus said 'no man comes to the Father but by me'
He also said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
It's too hard to sum up Christian worldview into a soundbite, so the media shows us as idiots. It's an easier portrayal, and how hard is it to find a loudmouth idiot of any stripe?
It's easy to think of Christians as a bunch of mindless people who use faith instead of intellect, but Jesus did not do that, and I am to live as He lived. That's a tall order.
apparent prohibition on logic and reason.
It's only apparent. Dig deeply enough, with your intellect engaged, and the prohibitions are merely apparent.
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of bozos who check their brains at the door when they embrace Christianity or any other philosophy. I also do not claim to have an explanation of everything in the universe. I have examined the evidence and find that there is compelling reason to believe as I do.
I hope you don't take offense when I say that this alone places you head-and-shoulders above many of your "peers."
No offense taken. Bozos abound of all stripes. Please consider that while there are bozos, they do not represent integrity of thought within the worldview.
The test of a worldview is not whether some kooks pervert teaching or misunderstand it. The true test of a worldview is to look to the consequences of living it out with integrity.
by espousing a particular religion, I believe that DOES attempt to establish a sense that there are "government-approved" religions.
Hang on there. Teaching truth in history classes is... well... truthful. Teaching that people conquered and terrorized in the name of Christ during the crusades is true. To teach otherwise has nothing to do with history but rather political correctness. To teach that people of faith acted courageously and self-sacrifically to flee religious persecution and come to this continent is factual.
I don't have to like the facts, but I do have to accept them. And so does everyone else.
Religious tolerance flourishes here in part because of the Christian world view. At least that's my opinion.
Respectfully,
Anomaly