There are many situations in which the development of a certain technology is in no single person's best interest, but if developed, would benefit humanity as a whole. "The market" fails in these cases.
It's for a Kia or Suzuki SUV, actually. And thank you for pointing that out. The commercial makes so much more sense now! He works at a jetpack factory and refuels every day while at work! I can now sleep at night without worrying about that commercial.
I LOVE big pharma. Despite these problems, many more lives are saved. And there is no way "small pharma" could have discovered as much medicine.
It bothers me when people say "I don't really like big pharma" but don't mention a superior alternative, or even pretend to consider what life would be like without it.
90% of the hatred toward the US started when we bankrolled the creation of Israel in the 1950s. It continuted because we kept giving Israel their military technology.
Because all their tanks come from us (as gifts), it is very reasonable to say that when Israel is at war, the USA is at war. And those who are enemies of Israel are quite resonable in considering us thier enemies as well.
If it weren't for that Israel thing, we very well might be winning the world popularity poll.
[Yes, we did a few other mean military things--all in the interest of our economy. But even factoring in banana republics and manipulations of the oil market, we did far more good.]
It seems to me that stoping technological advancement while contributing a few extra dollars to charity is bad for society as a whole. Voting for Bush because he hates stem-cell research, while sponsoring some kid in africa for $0.50/day, is anti-social. Medical advancements save many more people. But if you want to measure alturism by donations: Warren Buffet is an athiest.
Also, the most accepted theories today do NOT have an infinitely expanding and contracting universe. You are a bit outdated on that.
And while discussing infinite regression is interesting, it is wrong of you to even assume there was 1 beginning or 1 ending to everything. Your reasoning is a bit like the assumptions people used to make that the earth was flat... you can't just assume. That does not, in any way, indicate anything supernatural going on (using any reasoning I can follow).
Supernatural explanations for physical phenomena have no business in a science discussion. That was my only beef with you, and is the only point I intended to argue.
I don't think I said having a "belief" in some god or other precludes you from doing good science. Maybe I did, but part of this conversation was at 3am after several beers. You can still do good science as long as you have a well-honed sense of cognitive disonance (by leaving all superstition at the lab door). That felt far too dishonest for me back when I was young, religious, and studying science. But maybe it works for you.
If you are suggesting that a scientist, as a person, must base every belief he has upon scientific evidence, and cannot include any other beliefs that do not come out of evidence then I feel quite sorry for you.
First, you need not feel sorry for people who have higher standards of "belief" than you have. A person can have a very happy life, yet still say "I don't know," "that is unknowable," or "that is a pointless question" to many of the mysteries of the universe. I understand the natural human urge to want to know everything. But when this malfunctions, and we start satisfying our urge by accepting "beliefs" in whatever the shaman of the day proclaims, scientific progress is very often slowed. For many people, "the gods did it" is a good enough explanation that they look no further into understanding some aspects of our universe. Maybe it isn't that way for you, but it is for most other people. Spreading this "god did it" meme is anti-social, and I don't respect you for doing so.
I am careful not to use the word "believe" when stating something that has no scientific basis. And even when I do use it, it comes with the implied asterisk. When people confuse belief and opinion/speculation, it polutes our language. Again, as a scientist, I hope you come to be more careful with that word. Where there is no data, you can still make decisions based on assumptions--just don't call assumptions "beliefs."
Oh, and sorry for being nosy, but I found this in your only +5 comment:
In my own experience as an undergraduate student in psychology at UC Davis
So that answers one question. Students of physics (and this was a physics article) often consider psychology to be the softest of the "soft sciences." Some say it barely qualifies as science. In psych, undergrads can just bullshit thier way through, because it is so soft and difficult (expensive) to test (often only statistically). But I'm sure you know this. Knowing your school gives me no ill will toward UC (I know some brilliant people from UCLA and Berkley, {sorry, no Davis types yet}). I have dated far too many dumb psych undergrads, though...
God may ultimately be responsible. I merely suggest a belief or opinion
You use the word "belief" like it is a cheap whore. While many other people do this, I expect better from a scientist.
If this was as weak an argument as you claim...
When people get their religion in my science it really annoys me. This is a science article. I have never been a philosophy student, but it sounds like the crap people talked about at lunch in high school, because philosophy class was right before lunch. It seemed like pointless intellectual masturbation to me then, and it still does so now that I am educated.
Perhaps the only problem here is that you and I differ in our... working assumption toward epistemology. I apply the philosophies of science to the world, rather than leaving them in the lab. I do this because science is the only epistemoloical method that has shown itself, throughout history, to bring humanity toward useful aproximations of truth with better-than-random accuracy. [Think: You can pray all you like, but you'll never put a man on the moon.] So you can understand why looking for physical "truth" in religion is gross waste of human intellectual capital (as is shown constantly throughout human history).
And I didn't mean to demand your certification for an internet discussion of a scientific topic (ha!). I was just curious (as I said). I have a mere BS from a well-respected school, but the only real reason I grok science is that I was introduced to the writing of Carl Sagan by a motivated math TA. And it has always bothered me that so many people can get BS degrees without learning that the "S" in the degree means something more than memorizing proper lab procedures. At least science is well-undesrtood by grad students. But, yeah, I just wanted to know if your... ideas toward science were the same kind of thing (meaning, a BS from a typical school that just taught you the domain-specific "how-to" stuff).
Too many schools (especially community colleges) are calling their Software Engineering (or just "programmer trade-school") degrees "science" degrees.
I am not the person you replied to, but he's left the thread anyway (AC).
But you certainly don't sound like a scientist. Scientific theories are natural and falsifiable. The word "proof" doesn't really apply in science (that's math you're thinking of). Your reasoning of "infinite regression, THERFORE GOD!!" wouldn't even be scientific if the "natural" requirement were removed from the definition of science. And that matrix stuff? That's philosophy. High-school philosophy.
You say you're a scientist. Ok, what level of science degree do you have in which discipline from which school? I am seriously curious.
Ok, fine, it wasn't a joke. It is just idle psuedo-philosophical speculation that has nothing at all to do with science.
To your second point: The science of cosmology certainly is difficult to test in many cases, but cosmological theories are all falsifiable (there is a distinction between testable and falsifiable). You just sound ignorant stating otherwise.
If you want a soft intro into both scientific theory and cosmology, pick up Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World."
That's a valid theory, albeit an unpopular one among the Slashdot crowd.
Please go back to your room and let the adults talk. By the very definition of the word theory, that is not a theory. Supernatural, unfalsifiable ideas simply can not be scientific theories AT ALL.
I'm guessing the GP was gunning for a "Funny" mod.
Doesn't the black hole model (as you described it) defy entropy? Nothing can ever get out? Then how is energy going to gradualy disperse throughout the universe?
If you had been to a big university, you would have already realized that the average American's hygiene is 100x better than that of the average foreign student. In fact, we are among the cleanest pepople in the world thanks to awesome marketing by our soap/hygiene companies. Did you know soap operas are called that because they started out as soap commercials with story lines?
Also, our abundant water supply might make a difference. The students from the more dry parts of the world were the ones you avoided sitting by the most (because of the smell).
A hash collision? Do you know how rare that is? I would be seriously impressed if the MPAA was doing birthday attacks to sucker random schmoes out of $2.5k.
One is a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. The other is in our quadrant a few centuries into the future. There is no mention there of alternative universes.
Rule 1 of arguing about sci-fi on the internet: all sci-fi is true. Where there is a seeming contradiction, it must be explained away somehow (other dimensions, etc.). It's a lot like religion, but we don't start wars, and our arguments are at least partially based on reality.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many situations in which the development of a certain technology is in no single person's best interest, but if developed, would benefit humanity as a whole. "The market" fails in these cases.
That would be sort of like trying to repair a building after it has been blown up by investing in more bomb technology.
It's for a Kia or Suzuki SUV, actually. And thank you for pointing that out. The commercial makes so much more sense now! He works at a jetpack factory and refuels every day while at work! I can now sleep at night without worrying about that commercial.
Brilliant! I can't wait to roll up to a gas station and have 30 pumps to chose from! That's economy-of-scale for ya!
The tools to defend liberty are soap box, ballot box, wget, ammo box?
I LOVE big pharma. Despite these problems, many more lives are saved. And there is no way "small pharma" could have discovered as much medicine.
It bothers me when people say "I don't really like big pharma" but don't mention a superior alternative, or even pretend to consider what life would be like without it.
Thanks. But despite these details, the facts are that we fund that country, including its military.
90% of the hatred toward the US started when we bankrolled the creation of Israel in the 1950s. It continuted because we kept giving Israel their military technology.
Because all their tanks come from us (as gifts), it is very reasonable to say that when Israel is at war, the USA is at war. And those who are enemies of Israel are quite resonable in considering us thier enemies as well.
If it weren't for that Israel thing, we very well might be winning the world popularity poll.
[Yes, we did a few other mean military things--all in the interest of our economy. But even factoring in banana republics and manipulations of the oil market, we did far more good.]
It seems to me that stoping technological advancement while contributing a few extra dollars to charity is bad for society as a whole. Voting for Bush because he hates stem-cell research, while sponsoring some kid in africa for $0.50/day, is anti-social. Medical advancements save many more people. But if you want to measure alturism by donations: Warren Buffet is an athiest.
Also, the most accepted theories today do NOT have an infinitely expanding and contracting universe. You are a bit outdated on that.
And while discussing infinite regression is interesting, it is wrong of you to even assume there was 1 beginning or 1 ending to everything. Your reasoning is a bit like the assumptions people used to make that the earth was flat... you can't just assume. That does not, in any way, indicate anything supernatural going on (using any reasoning I can follow).
I don't think I said having a "belief" in some god or other precludes you from doing good science. Maybe I did, but part of this conversation was at 3am after several beers. You can still do good science as long as you have a well-honed sense of cognitive disonance (by leaving all superstition at the lab door). That felt far too dishonest for me back when I was young, religious, and studying science. But maybe it works for you.
First, you need not feel sorry for people who have higher standards of "belief" than you have. A person can have a very happy life, yet still say "I don't know," "that is unknowable," or "that is a pointless question" to many of the mysteries of the universe. I understand the natural human urge to want to know everything. But when this malfunctions, and we start satisfying our urge by accepting "beliefs" in whatever the shaman of the day proclaims, scientific progress is very often slowed. For many people, "the gods did it" is a good enough explanation that they look no further into understanding some aspects of our universe. Maybe it isn't that way for you, but it is for most other people. Spreading this "god did it" meme is anti-social, and I don't respect you for doing so.
I am careful not to use the word "believe" when stating something that has no scientific basis. And even when I do use it, it comes with the implied asterisk. When people confuse belief and opinion/speculation, it polutes our language. Again, as a scientist, I hope you come to be more careful with that word. Where there is no data, you can still make decisions based on assumptions--just don't call assumptions "beliefs."
So that answers one question. Students of physics (and this was a physics article) often consider psychology to be the softest of the "soft sciences." Some say it barely qualifies as science. In psych, undergrads can just bullshit thier way through, because it is so soft and difficult (expensive) to test (often only statistically). But I'm sure you know this. Knowing your school gives me no ill will toward UC (I know some brilliant people from UCLA and Berkley, {sorry, no Davis types yet}). I have dated far too many dumb psych undergrads, though...
um...
You use the word "belief" like it is a cheap whore. While many other people do this, I expect better from a scientist.
When people get their religion in my science it really annoys me. This is a science article. I have never been a philosophy student, but it sounds like the crap people talked about at lunch in high school, because philosophy class was right before lunch. It seemed like pointless intellectual masturbation to me then, and it still does so now that I am educated.
Perhaps the only problem here is that you and I differ in our... working assumption toward epistemology. I apply the philosophies of science to the world, rather than leaving them in the lab. I do this because science is the only epistemoloical method that has shown itself, throughout history, to bring humanity toward useful aproximations of truth with better-than-random accuracy. [Think: You can pray all you like, but you'll never put a man on the moon.] So you can understand why looking for physical "truth" in religion is gross waste of human intellectual capital (as is shown constantly throughout human history).
And I didn't mean to demand your certification for an internet discussion of a scientific topic (ha!). I was just curious (as I said). I have a mere BS from a well-respected school, but the only real reason I grok science is that I was introduced to the writing of Carl Sagan by a motivated math TA. And it has always bothered me that so many people can get BS degrees without learning that the "S" in the degree means something more than memorizing proper lab procedures. At least science is well-undesrtood by grad students. But, yeah, I just wanted to know if your... ideas toward science were the same kind of thing (meaning, a BS from a typical school that just taught you the domain-specific "how-to" stuff).
Too many schools (especially community colleges) are calling their Software Engineering (or just "programmer trade-school") degrees "science" degrees.
I am not the person you replied to, but he's left the thread anyway (AC).
But you certainly don't sound like a scientist. Scientific theories are natural and falsifiable. The word "proof" doesn't really apply in science (that's math you're thinking of). Your reasoning of "infinite regression, THERFORE GOD!!" wouldn't even be scientific if the "natural" requirement were removed from the definition of science. And that matrix stuff? That's philosophy. High-school philosophy.
You say you're a scientist. Ok, what level of science degree do you have in which discipline from which school? I am seriously curious.
As this is a science article, that distinction is unnecessary and implied.
Complaning about analogies on slashdot is like picking up chicks at the special olympics...
Ok, fine, it wasn't a joke. It is just idle psuedo-philosophical speculation that has nothing at all to do with science.
To your second point: The science of cosmology certainly is difficult to test in many cases, but cosmological theories are all falsifiable (there is a distinction between testable and falsifiable). You just sound ignorant stating otherwise.
If you want a soft intro into both scientific theory and cosmology, pick up Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World."
Please go back to your room and let the adults talk. By the very definition of the word theory, that is not a theory. Supernatural, unfalsifiable ideas simply can not be scientific theories AT ALL.
I'm guessing the GP was gunning for a "Funny" mod.
Doesn't the black hole model (as you described it) defy entropy? Nothing can ever get out? Then how is energy going to gradualy disperse throughout the universe?
Assigning random numbers is a time-honored way of lending false credability to claims. Thinks "72 virgins," "seven days to create the earth," etc..
Those presenting this report must think congress is quite gullible.
Actually, I would guess half of them really think the earth was created in seven days (and the rest just pretend to do so). That IS pretty gullible.
If you had been to a big university, you would have already realized that the average American's hygiene is 100x better than that of the average foreign student. In fact, we are among the cleanest pepople in the world thanks to awesome marketing by our soap/hygiene companies. Did you know soap operas are called that because they started out as soap commercials with story lines?
Also, our abundant water supply might make a difference. The students from the more dry parts of the world were the ones you avoided sitting by the most (because of the smell).
You are just flippin' the bird to everyone on ISS, aren't you? Jerk.
Well, when the war comes, I will set my phaser on kill and join the trekkies.
A hash collision? Do you know how rare that is? I would be seriously impressed if the MPAA was doing birthday attacks to sucker random schmoes out of $2.5k.
Your sig is seven lines long. Please leave slashdot and don't ever return.
One is a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. The other is in our quadrant a few centuries into the future. There is no mention there of alternative universes.
Rule 1 of arguing about sci-fi on the internet: all sci-fi is true. Where there is a seeming contradiction, it must be explained away somehow (other dimensions, etc.). It's a lot like religion, but we don't start wars, and our arguments are at least partially based on reality.