No, I think "past time" is right. As in it's time has passed. Not "pastime" as in "baseball is Americas pastime". I also don't think your last comma is right either. And it should be "on Facebook" not "at Facebook" and Facebook should be capitalized since it's a proper noun. So, to quote a wise man:
If you're going to correct someone, at least get it right yourself.
Wait, can't I reply and mock and ridicule you? I'm not interested in your "Facts" and "Truth" because I strongly suspect they are neither. Using a capital letter doesn't make your "facts" any better.
So somebody cannot be a good materials scientist - which is not in any way related to religious aspects at all - if they believe in creationism?
In my opinion, no, they can't be a good scientist. A good scientist doesn't just use science from 9-5, Monday thru Friday and only in their direct work. A good scientist applies the scientific method to everything. There's no off switch.
You can't be a good scientist if you don't understand how science works. Anymore than you can be a good lawyer if you don't understand how the law works or a good tailor if you don't understand how to put a needle through a piece of fabric. Nobody who understands the scientific method could accept creationism as a valid theory.
But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist.
That makes no sense. It's not creationists can't do calculus or trigonometry. It's not like they don't believe in atoms and molecules. It's not like creationists can't induce chemical reactions, or put a satellite into space. It's not like that don't believe in DNA. So how is it you came to such a radical attitude?
Clearly you don't know what science is. Science is about what you know, or what procedures you can follow. Doing math isn't science, putting a satellite into space isn't science (it's engineering). Science is why you do those things, not the things themselves. You do them to test a theory and attempt to disprove it. If you're not capable of formulating a theory in a testable, disprovable fashion and then test that theory, you are not a scientist.
I mean, it literally does not follow that believing "God did it" leads to contradictions with any scientific principle or theory whatsoever.
If any time you don't understand something you'll willing to settle for "god did it" then you are not a good scientist. If you accept "god did it" then you have an easy explanation for absolutely everything.
I've heard a lot of craziness from science in the last few years, among them time travel and multiple dimensions and multiverses... a lot of theories that can't possibly ever be tested... and no one seems to think this influences bad science?
They can be tested, that's how scientific theories are constructed, to be disprovable. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad science. All of those theories have consequences and make predictions that can, in principle, be tested.
Plus, scientists themselves do bad science enough for all of us. For example, Steven Hawkings spent 30 years defending a theory that he later said was wrong. Lots of fancy math, lots of science. Now, this is not a triumph of the scientific method doing its thing; people who say that, are just putting a little political spin to save face. Scientific method or not, it was just bad science.
No it's exactly good science. It's science working as it's supposed to. New evidence, new observations are used to test theories. Hawking rejected his theory when it became clear that new evidence contradicts it. And he did it immediately and without fuss.
And Hawkings didn't even belief in creationism! And guess what, this happens like, EVERY day in science. Scientists who just HAPPEN to believe in God aren't going to do any extra damage, and yea, it is wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of their personal beliefs rather than their actual qualifications.
It is part of their qualifications. It's like hiring a mechanic that doesn't believe your car engine runs via combustion.
Random chance is the simplest theory that explains everything, so we'll stick with it until something proves otherwise.
Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you understand absolutely nothing about evolution. If you understood evolution, you'd know that it is anything but chance.
If a "scientist" asserts a position as being true without any empirical evidence, they are not a good scientist. Creationism has zero empirical evidence, therefore somebody believing in creationism is not a good scientist. This position can change in the light to new evidence, but I won't hold my breathe.
Granted, if there was empirical evidence, which there isn't. I thought it was a given that the reason why you can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism was exactly because of the lack of empirical evidence. I guess I should have spelt that out for the pedantic.
Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
You'd be surprised just how many scientists, including leaders in their respective fields, believe in creationism - either the exact word as written in scripture, a mainstream interpretation thereof, or their own interpretation.
And they would be bad scientists. Truth isn't a popularity contest. Appealing to popularity or to authority isn't a valid argument. And that's ignoring your omission of a list of such scientists.
Exactly. That's why I try and avoid question like "do you believe in aliens". It's not a question of belief, my belief or lack thereof has no impact on the truth or falsehood of a statement. The question is what evidence is there?
If Newton was applying for a job at a university today and was still professing a believe in creationism in the face of all the modern evidence we have to support evolution, then yes. He'd be a bad scientist. Of course, I believe that he, when presented with the modern evidence, and being a rational human being, would clearly see that evolution is the most logical explanation of the biosphere. But arguing about what long dead scientist may or may not think about science today is completely pointless.
If they are, say, art professors, or theology professors. But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
On the bright side, if they extend this to outlaw discrimination against believing any stupid thing then it'll make getting a job really easy. If an interviewer asks you about something you don't know, just claim you don't believe in it. If they don't hire you, sue them. Profit!
Partially, yes. But it doesn't help when you have Apple offering the "convenience" of charging you for shit without bothering to ask for your account details again. There's nothing inherently wrong with letting you kid play around with your iWhatever for a few minutes, and I'd imagine it's far too easy to forget that they could click through and buy stuff without you knowing.
Lack of creativity concerning unintended consequences does not a reasonable proposal make.
I don't believe Scott Adams intended his post to necessarily be a reasonable proposal. He also presupposed that his hypothetical situation would work, so arguments about various reasons why it won't work (and there are many), while interesting, are kinda beside the point. Talking about how people could avoid being tracked are irrelevant when the premise is that they can't not be tracked.
Now I absolutely agree with you that anonymity is important and you bring up the idea of a business rival listening in on your conversation, but the flip side is that you know he (or she) is doing that, and you could listen in on theirs too. As you said competition and negotiation would be impossible.
The rights of minority groups might be an issue, but I think most violence against minorities only occur when the perpetrators expect some degree of anonymity, i.e. they expect to get away with it. If a member of a minority turns up beaten or murdered, it would be simple to figure out who was last with them (accord to the setup of this hypothetical). Unless the majority was whipped up into a violent frenzy beforehand (how difficult that might be depends on your opinion on humanity in general, I guess) I think the perpetrators could expect some form of punishment. Even in the darkest days of racial persecution in the American south, when you could argue there was a lot of support for violence against a minority, the KKK wore hoods for a reason. Even in the days of the third Reich, the Nazis kept mostly quiet about the murder of millions of Jews, even releasing propaganda films claiming how well treated they were. Most Germans, even those living close to the concentration camps, at least claimed surprise when they found out the full extent of what had been happening.
Ultimately, both anonymity and transparency are double-edged swords.
I don't think Scott Adams is seriously proposing anybody act on his experiment. So while I agree that you need to address all the consequences (which is actually impossible) and that Scott Adams cherry picks, I think your conclusion about the "dangerous set of consequences" is a little overblown.
As for Schrodinger's Cat, it's a thought experiment to illustrate a concept, which as I see it, is kinda what Scott Adams' experiment does (although in a considerably less elegant way and less memorable way). Either way I don't know if illustrating a concept is the same as "addressing a problem" as I interpreted your original post. But it's your post, so if you're happy with Schrodinger's cat as "addressing a problem", then I don't see why Scott Adams' experiment doesn't "address a problem".
While in the first case I presented a strategy of a "volume overload" attacking your limited ability to process a high volume in a short time, the second example is on the line of "temporal overload" - I;m attacking your limited ability to explore all the consequences your choice will have. And, believe me, a creative malicious mind can find lots of other ways to overload.
Well, like all "perfect" systems, it requires "perfect" people to actually work. Which is why, in short, they don't work. Whether it's communism, free-market capitalism, total privacy or total transparency. The "pure" system cannot succeed because people are imperfect. People are limited, lazy, malicious, disinterested, greedy, petty, vindictive, judgmental, etc. Most "perfect" systems tragically underestimate human nature.
Well that's certainly true, but I think Scott Adams was working on the premise that the system would actually work. Of course, that's unrealistic, any system is likely to be exploited, but that doesn't make it an uninteresting thing to think about.
I see what you're getting at, and I think it's relevant, but with so many watchers, I think the problem is somewhat mitigated. So, for example, in your small print type hidden clause example, it's not necessary that everybody find that one clause. It's enough if one person spots it and raises the alarm. We see this happen every time Apple, Blizzard, Valve, Microsoft, Sony or somebody else changes their terms of service. Most people don't notice, but it's a pretty good bet that somebody will, and, if the change is potentially harmful to the average user, will raise hell on the blogosphere. Then everybody notices.
I'm not sure that it does, or that it needs to. It takes a premise (that of a society with no privacy) and tries to logically think through the consequences (or at least some of the consequences, as Scott Adams sees them) of such a premise. It no more addresses a problem that Schrodinger's famous thought experiment (the one with the cat) does.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think "past time" is right. As in it's time has passed. Not "pastime" as in "baseball is Americas pastime". I also don't think your last comma is right either. And it should be "on Facebook" not "at Facebook" and Facebook should be capitalized since it's a proper noun. So, to quote a wise man:
This is absolutely not true. Believing in creationism and believing in gravity are not mutually exclusive.
I never said they were.
I'd be in real trouble if you had any.
Wait, can't I reply and mock and ridicule you? I'm not interested in your "Facts" and "Truth" because I strongly suspect they are neither. Using a capital letter doesn't make your "facts" any better.
That was my first thought also.
And what would be the point of throwing a firework at and enemy soldier versus a bullet?
So somebody cannot be a good materials scientist - which is not in any way related to religious aspects at all - if they believe in creationism?
In my opinion, no, they can't be a good scientist. A good scientist doesn't just use science from 9-5, Monday thru Friday and only in their direct work. A good scientist applies the scientific method to everything. There's no off switch.
You can't be a good scientist if you don't understand how science works. Anymore than you can be a good lawyer if you don't understand how the law works or a good tailor if you don't understand how to put a needle through a piece of fabric. Nobody who understands the scientific method could accept creationism as a valid theory.
But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist.
That makes no sense. It's not creationists can't do calculus or trigonometry. It's not like they don't believe in atoms and molecules. It's not like creationists can't induce chemical reactions, or put a satellite into space. It's not like that don't believe in DNA. So how is it you came to such a radical attitude?
Clearly you don't know what science is. Science is about what you know, or what procedures you can follow. Doing math isn't science, putting a satellite into space isn't science (it's engineering). Science is why you do those things, not the things themselves. You do them to test a theory and attempt to disprove it. If you're not capable of formulating a theory in a testable, disprovable fashion and then test that theory, you are not a scientist.
I mean, it literally does not follow that believing "God did it" leads to contradictions with any scientific principle or theory whatsoever.
If any time you don't understand something you'll willing to settle for "god did it" then you are not a good scientist. If you accept "god did it" then you have an easy explanation for absolutely everything.
I've heard a lot of craziness from science in the last few years, among them time travel and multiple dimensions and multiverses... a lot of theories that can't possibly ever be tested... and no one seems to think this influences bad science?
They can be tested, that's how scientific theories are constructed, to be disprovable. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad science. All of those theories have consequences and make predictions that can, in principle, be tested.
Plus, scientists themselves do bad science enough for all of us. For example, Steven Hawkings spent 30 years defending a theory that he later said was wrong. Lots of fancy math, lots of science. Now, this is not a triumph of the scientific method doing its thing; people who say that, are just putting a little political spin to save face. Scientific method or not, it was just bad science.
No it's exactly good science. It's science working as it's supposed to. New evidence, new observations are used to test theories. Hawking rejected his theory when it became clear that new evidence contradicts it. And he did it immediately and without fuss.
And Hawkings didn't even belief in creationism! And guess what, this happens like, EVERY day in science. Scientists who just HAPPEN to believe in God aren't going to do any extra damage, and yea, it is wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of their personal beliefs rather than their actual qualifications.
It is part of their qualifications. It's like hiring a mechanic that doesn't believe your car engine runs via combustion.
Random chance is the simplest theory that explains everything, so we'll stick with it until something proves otherwise.
Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that you understand absolutely nothing about evolution. If you understood evolution, you'd know that it is anything but chance.
If a "scientist" asserts a position as being true without any empirical evidence, they are not a good scientist. Creationism has zero empirical evidence, therefore somebody believing in creationism is not a good scientist. This position can change in the light to new evidence, but I won't hold my breathe.
Granted, if there was empirical evidence, which there isn't. I thought it was a given that the reason why you can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism was exactly because of the lack of empirical evidence. I guess I should have spelt that out for the pedantic.
You'd be surprised just how many scientists, including leaders in their respective fields, believe in creationism - either the exact word as written in scripture, a mainstream interpretation thereof, or their own interpretation.
And they would be bad scientists. Truth isn't a popularity contest. Appealing to popularity or to authority isn't a valid argument. And that's ignoring your omission of a list of such scientists.
Exactly. That's why I try and avoid question like "do you believe in aliens". It's not a question of belief, my belief or lack thereof has no impact on the truth or falsehood of a statement. The question is what evidence is there?
No. I don't believe that at all. You can't be a good scientist Monday thru Friday and then turn it off for Sunday.
If Newton was applying for a job at a university today and was still professing a believe in creationism in the face of all the modern evidence we have to support evolution, then yes. He'd be a bad scientist. Of course, I believe that he, when presented with the modern evidence, and being a rational human being, would clearly see that evolution is the most logical explanation of the biosphere. But arguing about what long dead scientist may or may not think about science today is completely pointless.
If they are, say, art professors, or theology professors. But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
On the bright side, if they extend this to outlaw discrimination against believing any stupid thing then it'll make getting a job really easy. If an interviewer asks you about something you don't know, just claim you don't believe in it. If they don't hire you, sue them. Profit!
I know. Somebody at the state department hasn't heard of irony.
Partially, yes. But it doesn't help when you have Apple offering the "convenience" of charging you for shit without bothering to ask for your account details again. There's nothing inherently wrong with letting you kid play around with your iWhatever for a few minutes, and I'd imagine it's far too easy to forget that they could click through and buy stuff without you knowing.
Lack of creativity concerning unintended consequences does not a reasonable proposal make.
I don't believe Scott Adams intended his post to necessarily be a reasonable proposal. He also presupposed that his hypothetical situation would work, so arguments about various reasons why it won't work (and there are many), while interesting, are kinda beside the point. Talking about how people could avoid being tracked are irrelevant when the premise is that they can't not be tracked.
Now I absolutely agree with you that anonymity is important and you bring up the idea of a business rival listening in on your conversation, but the flip side is that you know he (or she) is doing that, and you could listen in on theirs too. As you said competition and negotiation would be impossible.
The rights of minority groups might be an issue, but I think most violence against minorities only occur when the perpetrators expect some degree of anonymity, i.e. they expect to get away with it. If a member of a minority turns up beaten or murdered, it would be simple to figure out who was last with them (accord to the setup of this hypothetical). Unless the majority was whipped up into a violent frenzy beforehand (how difficult that might be depends on your opinion on humanity in general, I guess) I think the perpetrators could expect some form of punishment. Even in the darkest days of racial persecution in the American south, when you could argue there was a lot of support for violence against a minority, the KKK wore hoods for a reason. Even in the days of the third Reich, the Nazis kept mostly quiet about the murder of millions of Jews, even releasing propaganda films claiming how well treated they were. Most Germans, even those living close to the concentration camps, at least claimed surprise when they found out the full extent of what had been happening.
Ultimately, both anonymity and transparency are double-edged swords.
I don't think Scott Adams is seriously proposing anybody act on his experiment. So while I agree that you need to address all the consequences (which is actually impossible) and that Scott Adams cherry picks, I think your conclusion about the "dangerous set of consequences" is a little overblown.
As for Schrodinger's Cat, it's a thought experiment to illustrate a concept, which as I see it, is kinda what Scott Adams' experiment does (although in a considerably less elegant way and less memorable way). Either way I don't know if illustrating a concept is the same as "addressing a problem" as I interpreted your original post. But it's your post, so if you're happy with Schrodinger's cat as "addressing a problem", then I don't see why Scott Adams' experiment doesn't "address a problem".
While in the first case I presented a strategy of a "volume overload" attacking your limited ability to process a high volume in a short time, the second example is on the line of "temporal overload" - I;m attacking your limited ability to explore all the consequences your choice will have. And, believe me, a creative malicious mind can find lots of other ways to overload.
Well, like all "perfect" systems, it requires "perfect" people to actually work. Which is why, in short, they don't work. Whether it's communism, free-market capitalism, total privacy or total transparency. The "pure" system cannot succeed because people are imperfect. People are limited, lazy, malicious, disinterested, greedy, petty, vindictive, judgmental, etc. Most "perfect" systems tragically underestimate human nature.
Well that's certainly true, but I think Scott Adams was working on the premise that the system would actually work. Of course, that's unrealistic, any system is likely to be exploited, but that doesn't make it an uninteresting thing to think about.
I see what you're getting at, and I think it's relevant, but with so many watchers, I think the problem is somewhat mitigated. So, for example, in your small print type hidden clause example, it's not necessary that everybody find that one clause. It's enough if one person spots it and raises the alarm. We see this happen every time Apple, Blizzard, Valve, Microsoft, Sony or somebody else changes their terms of service. Most people don't notice, but it's a pretty good bet that somebody will, and, if the change is potentially harmful to the average user, will raise hell on the blogosphere. Then everybody notices.
I'm not sure that it does, or that it needs to. It takes a premise (that of a society with no privacy) and tries to logically think through the consequences (or at least some of the consequences, as Scott Adams sees them) of such a premise. It no more addresses a problem that Schrodinger's famous thought experiment (the one with the cat) does.