This guy's mistake is selecting too few winners and giving them too much.
You know what? YOU can go out and become an internet billionaire, and then do a physics prize right. Imagine how embarrassed he'll be when you do it the right way.
No. Extraordinary claims require the same evidence as any other claim. There isn't a branch in the scientific method that's taken only when the claim is extraordinary. If you disagree, then think about it this way: would you allow your worst enemy to decide which claims are extraordinary and which ones aren't?
Isn't it usual that if the government forces people to BUY something for whatever reason (eg: you have to goto drivers school to get a drivers license), then the thing they are buying will suddenly sky rocket in price?
No, that's crazy talk. I don't see how you could...even...actually, now that I think about it: yes. It will. The price will go up quickly. Then there will be legislation limiting the price. Then there will be industry executives capturing the price commission. Then the price will go up quickly.
What are HMOs?
Health Maintenance Organisations. During World War Two the US government passed a law saying that wages couldn't increase. To get around the law, industries started giving their employees "free" medical care. Purchasing insurance on the market, actually. Then the price started to go up quickly. So the industries hired HMOs to keep the price increases in check. HMOs do that mostly by limiting medical coverage, but also sometimes by limiting your choices of physicians.
Why are Americans so convinced that amoral profit seeking corporations have their best interests at heart, and not an elected government whose power is given to them by the people?
Several reasons, actually. We've seen a number of studies that strongly suggest that elected government officials do whatever benefits elected government officials most. You might look to the recent furor regarding ACTA, etc. Furthermore, we've seen a number of industries that try like the very devil to please their customers. The classic example given in Uni economics courses was when McDonald's changed to Styrofoam packaging when their customers complained about the harm to forests done by the paper packaging. Then a few years later McDonald's changed from Styrofoam packaging back to the paper ones when people lost interest in any harm that paper might do, and started complaining about Styrofoam waste. I probably shouldn't have given that example because of the harsh feelings many have for McDonald's. But think of some of the industries that you do approve. Starbucks? Apple? Rolls-Royce? Ferrari? I suppose an argument could be made that those industries only please because they fear what government might do to them for doing otherwise, but I think most such arguments would be strained.
The principal reason Americans distrust elected government officials has to do with concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Let me give you an example. During the Bush administration the United States got in trouble with the World Trade Organisation. What happened was that the steel industry and associated labour organisations approached elected government officials and said that they were having trouble making a profit. They asked for tariffs to be placed on imported steel. That would make domestic steel more attractive to domestic buyers, benefiting the steel industry and their labour (concentrated benefits). Of course, it would cost every user of steel more money to buy that steel, but it wouldn't strongly affect any particular consumer (diffuse costs). So Bush administrated the tariffs, even though the US had promised not to do so. Whose interests did Bush have at heart when he did so?
The vast majority of Americans don't live in public housing. The vast majority of Americans will now see a tax if they don't purchase health insurance.
Yes, if only there was some kind of citywide "public transportation" option...
Yes, and if only the IRS would tax you if you didn't use it. And if only the citywide public transportation was expanded to make it statewide or even nationwide. And if only the middle class were force to use it instead of cars. And if only the police and the military were required to ride on it.
A grocery store's business model is not predicated on selling you food, and then trying their hardest not to give it to you.
Well, actually, yes it is. The traditional example is for a grocery store to put fresh ripe strawberries on top of an opaque package, and then put green or rotten ones on the bottom where you can't see. For every penny a grocery store can cut costs they receive an additional penny of profit.
Actually, food stamps and section 8 housing are public subsidies for private enterprise...just like the Affordable Health Care Act.
If food stamps were just the same as the AHC Act, then people would see a new federal tax whenever they didn't purchase food. If section 8 housing was the same as the AHC Act then the homeless would see a new federal tax.
What ever happened to the public option? You know, cutting the profit motive out of funding health care, so that people do not have to fight with their insurance companies or with hospitals just to get the treatment they need?
What we need is a public option for food. You know, cutting the profit motive out of fending off starvation, so that people do not have to fight with their grocery stores just to get the sustenance we need. Also a public option for housing, so that people don't have to fight with their landlords or builders just to keep from dying from exposure. And a public option for transportation, just so I don't have to fight with the auto retailer just so I can perform useful work for this great civilization. And a public option for clothing, but I already mentioned exposure. And a public option for entertainment, because life will be awfully dreary with no entertainment.
There's only one explanation for the drop in gasoline prices. Let me remind you that the news reports a few months back referred to the wave of greed being exhibited by big oil and the gasoline retailers. That being the case, the only reasonable explanation is that there has new been a wave of altruism affecting big oil and the gasoline retailers, cancelling the earlier wave of greed.
If that was really a condition, Japan would be left without a government (not to mention Emperor).
It almost certainly included that Field Marshal Sugiyama Hajime and Admiral Nagano Osami could not serve in the government. It almost certainly did not include Emperor Hirohito. Nor did it include the elimination of government.
As implemented, it was close enough,
Are you saying that Allied occupation of Japanese cities is close to not having any such occupation? That no government should concern itself with the occupation of its cities by an enemy army? Please explain yourself, because I'm not understanding what you've said.
and none of it would be a problem if negotiations actually happened.
You mean the negotiations that Japan refused to attend? On 27 Jul 1945 Prime Minister Suzuki stated, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."
it was supposedly worth of destroying two cities and killing countless civilians (on top of more civilians killed in a war itself -- what is disgusting but at least served some understandable purpose).
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had an understandable purpose--that of shortening the war and saving Allied lives. The only debatable issue is whether it also, on net, saved Japanese lives. For example, [i]n keeping with the custom of a new government declaring its purposes, following the May meetings the Army staff produced a document, the government of Japan decided that "The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War,"...that the Japanese people would fight to extinction rather than surrender. This policy was adopted by the Big Six on June 6. At this point, the battle of Okinawa was still ongoing, but the battle of Iwo Jima was two months concluded.
By then, Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender.
According to this article the Japanese always planned on getting a negotiated ending to the war. In a sense one might say that the Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender[1] even as they were dropping torpedoes on Pearl Harbor.
Americans wanted to be the ones who dictated the condition for surrender,
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point to fighting a war--getting to dictate the terms. Japan wanted to dictate terms. America wanted to dictate terms. The Soviet Union wanted to dictate terms. Germany wanted to dictate terms. Great Britain wanted to dictate terms. France wanted to dictate terms. Morocco wanted to dictate terms. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Côte d'Ivoire wanted to dictate terms.
even though the conditions they imposed were exactly the same as ones Japanesed proposed to begin with.
That's not correct. Terms the Allies insisted upon that were unacceptable to Japan included the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies", Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine, the Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed, stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners, and the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The Japanese government rejected those demands as late as 27 July 1945.
In other words, the whole thing was entirely to humiliate Japanese (and to threaten the rest of the world).
That's not correct. While it's true that any country would find it humiliating to be forced to accept such terms, it's also true that merely having to surrender would be humiliating to a country who had never lost a war, which situation Japan found itself in prior to August 1945. All of the above terms and the simple fact of surrender, itself, had as their primary goal not to humiliate Japan, but rather to forestall the onset of World War III.
~Loyal
Contrary to popular belief, believing something does not make it so.
Clearly the correct (and most feasible) approach to us putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere is to put less CO2 into the atmosphere
Yep. That's why I never exercise. Clearly the correct and most feasible approach to putting too much food into my mouth is to put less food into my mouth.
Again, your argument falls apart because using a methodology is not making a statement.
You're overlooking the possibility of making statements about methodologies. For example, much earlier when I made the statement, "the scientific method is a good way of finding out about the universe," then I was making a statement. And, the particular statement I made was one concerning a methodology. Now returning to my argument--the steps of the argument depended only upon there being a statement having a particular property. The particular property was the property of your acceptance that it was true. In other words, any claim that you held as properly describing the way things are. Now let me offer you a dilemma. As the first horn of the dilemma, suppose a statement exists that you accept, and suppose it's not about methodologies. Then the conclusion is that you believe some statement, not necessarily the same one, that has no proof. As the second horn of the dilemma, suppose a statement exists that you accept, and suppose that it is about methodologies. Then the conclusion is that you believe some statement that has no proof. The conclusion of the dilemma is that you believe some statement that has no proof, because it's the conclusion of both horns of the dilemma. Being about a methodology is irrelevant when it comes to discerning between statements that lead to the conclusion.
The intent of that quote is not to make you reject your god(s), but to make you think why you reject others. This is the core sentence in that quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods". The quote does in no way invalidate the existance of a god or gods, nor does it in itself offer any argument why you should dismiss your god(s). Those arguments are provided by yourself once you awnser why you reject other gods.
Unfortunately, as I described earlier, those arguments also lead me to reject the number 2 as an even prime. I know a number of rules of inferrence. There's modus ponens. There's modus tollens. There's reasoning by analogy. There's syllogism. There's reductio ad absurdum. There's generalization. There's existential generalization. There's universal specialization. Now Roberts is offering me a new rule of inferrence that I can't find in any of the literature, and leads me to what I'm pretty sure are false conclusions. I have to reject such a rule.
You are mistaking in the first one and you do not grasp the core idea behind the second.
Fair enough. Point out my mistake to me and help me grasp the core idea. It's not enough to tell someone they're making a mistake. For example, would you allow me to use that on you? "Oh, well, you see you're making a mistake. Now you'll have to reject your previous conclusions and adopt mine." Did you find that convincing? If not, then neither should I find it convincing when you claim that I have made one.
Your whole argument hinges on the claim that I (or someone else) believes in the scientific method while I consider it to be a tool (for lack of a better word).
No. My argument hinges on a statement that I called A, and on your acceptance that A is true. That's why I said, 'Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far"...or it could be something else entirely.' Suppose for a moment that A is the statement, "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." That would be something else entirely than belief in the scientific method. However, my argument still works with that statement because my argument didn't depend on belief in the scientific method at any point. My argument depended only upon there being a statement that you accepted as being true. At this point we can stop supposing that statement A is "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." I make precisely two claims about A. First, it's a statement, and second, you accept it as being true. Now, by the law of generalization (and assuming my argument is valid and my premisses are true) then at least one of my four conclusions must be true. If my argument is invalid then I invite you to show me where I've made my mistake. If my premisses aren't true, then I invite you to tell me why you keep making statements.
My question is simple: Why do you believe in your religion (be it hindusm or christianity) and not in the others?
That may be your question now, but it certainly wasn't what I responded to. What I responded to was your quotation of Stephen F. Roberts, which I repeat here.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
My claim amounted to saying that Roberts' quotation was worthless insofar as rejecting the existence of any one particular god, analogously to it's worth in rejecting the number 2 as the only even prime. I still haven't seen you provide anything to change my mind regarding that.
Let me summarise by saying that I am making two claims. Firstly, you (probably) believe in something without proof. And secondly, Mr. Robert's insight doesn't permit one to reject the existence any particular god.
China also cheated by pegging the Yuan to the Dollar.
Isn't that just a guarantee that they'll buy the dollar at a guaranteed price, and a guarantee that they'll sell it at that same price, or just a little difference due to seigniorage? How is that cheating? Seriously. I don't know the actual mechanism.
Perhaps I've explained myself poorly. Let me try again. You've made the claim, "No, I don't believe that," which presumably means that you don't believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe. I have a little trouble reconciling that with the later claim you made that you accept that the scientific method is the best way we know so far, but I suppose it's possible that the scientific is both the best way we know so far and not a good way. The reason I say that your claim amounts to a claim that the scientific method is not a good way to learn about the universe is because I said (verbatim,) "do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe?" to which you replied (also verbatim,) "No, I don't believe that." However, I don't want to get bogged down in those details too much, because I have these other details that I want to get bogged down in.
Let's suppose you have a belief, which I'll call A. I don't mean that in the sense of taking A on faith, but rather in the sense that you accept A as being true. Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far" or it could be "no, I don't believe that," or it could be "the method is simple," or it could be "there is no logical, reasonable or provable argument why your faith would be correct and others wrong," or it could be something else entirely. There are only two requirements on A; it is a statement and you accept it as being true. Given that you accept A, there are only two possibilities--either there is a reason for believing A, or there isn't. Let's consider the latter first. If there isn't a reason for believing A then you believe in something that's unprovable (which is something that you've claimed is untrue.) Now let's consider the former. Here, again there are only two possibilities. Either the reason for believing A is A, itself, or it's something else. If the reason for believing A is A itself, then you accept circular reasoning as being valid, and you cannot reject the bible's claim to be accurate--or rather you cannot reject it on the basis of circular reasoning being invalid. If you reject it then it must be on some other basis. If the reason for believing A is something else, then let's give it a name in order to make it easier to reason about. I'll call it A-1. This is where the infinite recursion comes in, because I ask what reason you have for accepting A-1? It must either be unsupportable, or in the A through A-k list, or it must be a new reason which I'll call A-2. The reason that always creating a new reason is a problem is that all finite reasons can be expressed with a finite number of characters, which would mean that you believe at least one thing that cannot be expressed. Now let's turn to the final possibility, that A doesn't exist. That would mean that you don't believe anything. The problem with that is that you've made a large number of statements, and you don't believe any of them. So, to summarize, the following are the only possibilities: 1) You believe in something that's unprovable. 2) You believe circular reasoning is valid. 3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long. 4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are. Frankly, I believe 1), and I think Gödel does, too, which I believe you can find more about if you study one or the other of his incompleteness theorems.
You are comparing a method of work with religion which, to be honest, is above silly.
Wait 'til I get started.
For instance, I accept the concept of evolution as being the correct theory to explain how we as a species came to be, however, if tomorrow it turns out to be completely wrong and that there's a completely different mechanism at work, that will not alter my world view.
Did you write what you meant to write? I ask because it appears that you are saying that you would continue to bel
I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable.
I suspect that you actually do put belief in something that's unprovable, but that you simply don't realize that you are doing so. For example, do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe? If so, then what proof do you have that such might be the case? Many people would answer that it can be proved using the scientific method, but those same people scoff when shown a claim by the bible that the bible is reliable, and call it circular reasoning. Ultimately, you're left with an infinite regress of reasons supporting reasons, which to my mind is more difficult to put faith in than the existence of god.
On the other hand, suppose you're skeptical about the scientific method. Ask yourself whether skepticism is the correct way to approach knowledge of the universe. Shouldn't one be skeptical of such a belief? One must either accept and operate on the assumption that skepticism is the appropriate opinion to hold, or that it's not. One must accept one of those beliefs on faith, as it were.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and analogously that precisely one god exists. Let's suppose furthermore that Mr. Roberts believes that no even primes exist, and analogously that no god exists. I dismiss candidates 3, 17, and 61 because they aren't even. I dismiss candidates 10, 34, and 100002 because they aren't prime. I dismiss candidates h, e, and pi because they aren't integers. I dismiss candidates -3, 0, and 1 because they aren't greater than one. I now understand why I dismiss all the other possible even primes (other than 2). Mr. Roberts' would now claim that I understand why he dismisses 2. In fact, I don't. Number 2 is even; it's a prime; it's an integer; it's greater than one. Arguments that claim that something doesn't have a property have no bearing on other predicates. Specifically, if I claim that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because it was imagined by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest a decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design, then that has no bearing on the god that we supposed I believed in at the beginning of this paragraph, provided that we didn't suppose I believed in the flying spaghetti monster.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. If Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and caused injuries to his nose and head, as Zimmerman claims, then Martin was not "an innocent."
GP is probably alluding to the Second Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937. That was a part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, of which we are so familiar.
Morally? Try out the app. Write what you really think. If you don't like it, either don't say anything, or tell the company what you didn't like. Maybe they can use your input to improve the thing. Worse comes to worst, tell them that at least now they know you're truthful when you tell them something.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen any clear way to calculate say an integral using something like c++ or c#.
It it has a closed form solution, then you just use addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Otherwise Runge Kutta.
~Loyal
This guy's mistake is selecting too few winners and giving them too much.
You know what? YOU can go out and become an internet billionaire, and then do a physics prize right. Imagine how embarrassed he'll be when you do it the right way.
~Loyal
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No. Extraordinary claims require the same evidence as any other claim. There isn't a branch in the scientific method that's taken only when the claim is extraordinary. If you disagree, then think about it this way: would you allow your worst enemy to decide which claims are extraordinary and which ones aren't?
~Loyal
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Isn't it usual that if the government forces people to BUY something for whatever reason (eg: you have to goto drivers school to get a drivers license), then the thing they are buying will suddenly sky rocket in price?
No, that's crazy talk. I don't see how you could...even...actually, now that I think about it: yes. It will. The price will go up quickly. Then there will be legislation limiting the price. Then there will be industry executives capturing the price commission. Then the price will go up quickly.
What are HMOs?
Health Maintenance Organisations. During World War Two the US government passed a law saying that wages couldn't increase. To get around the law, industries started giving their employees "free" medical care. Purchasing insurance on the market, actually. Then the price started to go up quickly. So the industries hired HMOs to keep the price increases in check. HMOs do that mostly by limiting medical coverage, but also sometimes by limiting your choices of physicians.
Why are Americans so convinced that amoral profit seeking corporations have their best interests at heart, and not an elected government whose power is given to them by the people?
Several reasons, actually. We've seen a number of studies that strongly suggest that elected government officials do whatever benefits elected government officials most. You might look to the recent furor regarding ACTA, etc. Furthermore, we've seen a number of industries that try like the very devil to please their customers. The classic example given in Uni economics courses was when McDonald's changed to Styrofoam packaging when their customers complained about the harm to forests done by the paper packaging. Then a few years later McDonald's changed from Styrofoam packaging back to the paper ones when people lost interest in any harm that paper might do, and started complaining about Styrofoam waste. I probably shouldn't have given that example because of the harsh feelings many have for McDonald's. But think of some of the industries that you do approve. Starbucks? Apple? Rolls-Royce? Ferrari? I suppose an argument could be made that those industries only please because they fear what government might do to them for doing otherwise, but I think most such arguments would be strained.
The principal reason Americans distrust elected government officials has to do with concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Let me give you an example. During the Bush administration the United States got in trouble with the World Trade Organisation. What happened was that the steel industry and associated labour organisations approached elected government officials and said that they were having trouble making a profit. They asked for tariffs to be placed on imported steel. That would make domestic steel more attractive to domestic buyers, benefiting the steel industry and their labour (concentrated benefits). Of course, it would cost every user of steel more money to buy that steel, but it wouldn't strongly affect any particular consumer (diffuse costs). So Bush administrated the tariffs, even though the US had promised not to do so. Whose interests did Bush have at heart when he did so?
~Loyal
We have that.
The vast majority of Americans don't live in public housing. The vast majority of Americans will now see a tax if they don't purchase health insurance.
Yes, if only there was some kind of citywide "public transportation" option...
Yes, and if only the IRS would tax you if you didn't use it. And if only the citywide public transportation was expanded to make it statewide or even nationwide. And if only the middle class were force to use it instead of cars. And if only the police and the military were required to ride on it.
~Loyal
A grocery store's business model is not predicated on selling you food, and then trying their hardest not to give it to you.
Well, actually, yes it is. The traditional example is for a grocery store to put fresh ripe strawberries on top of an opaque package, and then put green or rotten ones on the bottom where you can't see. For every penny a grocery store can cut costs they receive an additional penny of profit.
~Loyal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope [wikipedia.org]
Non sequitur
Actually, food stamps and section 8 housing are public subsidies for private enterprise...just like the Affordable Health Care Act.
If food stamps were just the same as the AHC Act, then people would see a new federal tax whenever they didn't purchase food. If section 8 housing was the same as the AHC Act then the homeless would see a new federal tax.
~Loyal
What ever happened to the public option? You know, cutting the profit motive out of funding health care, so that people do not have to fight with their insurance companies or with hospitals just to get the treatment they need?
What we need is a public option for food. You know, cutting the profit motive out of fending off starvation, so that people do not have to fight with their grocery stores just to get the sustenance we need. Also a public option for housing, so that people don't have to fight with their landlords or builders just to keep from dying from exposure. And a public option for transportation, just so I don't have to fight with the auto retailer just so I can perform useful work for this great civilization. And a public option for clothing, but I already mentioned exposure. And a public option for entertainment, because life will be awfully dreary with no entertainment.
~Loyal
There's only one explanation for the drop in gasoline prices. Let me remind you that the news reports a few months back referred to the wave of greed being exhibited by big oil and the gasoline retailers. That being the case, the only reasonable explanation is that there has new been a wave of altruism affecting big oil and the gasoline retailers, cancelling the earlier wave of greed.
~Loyal
how am I supposed to eat my soup with these two sticks?
Is one of the sticks hollow?
~Loyal
If that was really a condition, Japan would be left without a government (not to mention Emperor).
It almost certainly included that Field Marshal Sugiyama Hajime and Admiral Nagano Osami could not serve in the government. It almost certainly did not include Emperor Hirohito. Nor did it include the elimination of government.
As implemented, it was close enough,
Are you saying that Allied occupation of Japanese cities is close to not having any such occupation? That no government should concern itself with the occupation of its cities by an enemy army? Please explain yourself, because I'm not understanding what you've said.
and none of it would be a problem if negotiations actually happened.
You mean the negotiations that Japan refused to attend? On 27 Jul 1945 Prime Minister Suzuki stated, "I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war."
it was supposedly worth of destroying two cities and killing countless civilians (on top of more civilians killed in a war itself -- what is disgusting but at least served some understandable purpose).
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had an understandable purpose--that of shortening the war and saving Allied lives. The only debatable issue is whether it also, on net, saved Japanese lives. For example, [i]n keeping with the custom of a new government declaring its purposes, following the May meetings the Army staff produced a document, the government of Japan decided that "The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War,"...that the Japanese people would fight to extinction rather than surrender. This policy was adopted by the Big Six on June 6. At this point, the battle of Okinawa was still ongoing, but the battle of Iwo Jima was two months concluded.
~Loyal
No, they did not.
Yes. They did.
By then, Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender.
According to this article the Japanese always planned on getting a negotiated ending to the war. In a sense one might say that the Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender[1] even as they were dropping torpedoes on Pearl Harbor.
Americans wanted to be the ones who dictated the condition for surrender,
Well, yeah. That's kind of the point to fighting a war--getting to dictate the terms. Japan wanted to dictate terms. America wanted to dictate terms. The Soviet Union wanted to dictate terms. Germany wanted to dictate terms. Great Britain wanted to dictate terms. France wanted to dictate terms. Morocco wanted to dictate terms. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Côte d'Ivoire wanted to dictate terms.
even though the conditions they imposed were exactly the same as ones Japanesed proposed to begin with.
That's not correct. Terms the Allies insisted upon that were unacceptable to Japan included the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies", Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine, the Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed, stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners, and the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The Japanese government rejected those demands as late as 27 July 1945.
In other words, the whole thing was entirely to humiliate Japanese (and to threaten the rest of the world).
That's not correct. While it's true that any country would find it humiliating to be forced to accept such terms, it's also true that merely having to surrender would be humiliating to a country who had never lost a war, which situation Japan found itself in prior to August 1945. All of the above terms and the simple fact of surrender, itself, had as their primary goal not to humiliate Japan, but rather to forestall the onset of World War III.
~Loyal
Contrary to popular belief, believing something does not make it so.
[1] For certain values of "surrender".
Clearly the correct (and most feasible) approach to us putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere is to put less CO2 into the atmosphere
Yep. That's why I never exercise. Clearly the correct and most feasible approach to putting too much food into my mouth is to put less food into my mouth.
~Loyal
As the presumably loyal opposition,...
I...what? Oh. Well, I certainly haven't objected yet, so I suppose you have a point.
~Loyal Opposition
Again, your argument falls apart because using a methodology is not making a statement.
You're overlooking the possibility of making statements about methodologies. For example, much earlier when I made the statement, "the scientific method is a good way of finding out about the universe," then I was making a statement. And, the particular statement I made was one concerning a methodology. Now returning to my argument--the steps of the argument depended only upon there being a statement having a particular property. The particular property was the property of your acceptance that it was true. In other words, any claim that you held as properly describing the way things are. Now let me offer you a dilemma. As the first horn of the dilemma, suppose a statement exists that you accept, and suppose it's not about methodologies. Then the conclusion is that you believe some statement, not necessarily the same one, that has no proof. As the second horn of the dilemma, suppose a statement exists that you accept, and suppose that it is about methodologies. Then the conclusion is that you believe some statement that has no proof. The conclusion of the dilemma is that you believe some statement that has no proof, because it's the conclusion of both horns of the dilemma. Being about a methodology is irrelevant when it comes to discerning between statements that lead to the conclusion.
The intent of that quote is not to make you reject your god(s), but to make you think why you reject others. This is the core sentence in that quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods". The quote does in no way invalidate the existance of a god or gods, nor does it in itself offer any argument why you should dismiss your god(s). Those arguments are provided by yourself once you awnser why you reject other gods.
Unfortunately, as I described earlier, those arguments also lead me to reject the number 2 as an even prime. I know a number of rules of inferrence. There's modus ponens. There's modus tollens. There's reasoning by analogy. There's syllogism. There's reductio ad absurdum. There's generalization. There's existential generalization. There's universal specialization. Now Roberts is offering me a new rule of inferrence that I can't find in any of the literature, and leads me to what I'm pretty sure are false conclusions. I have to reject such a rule.
You are mistaking in the first one and you do not grasp the core idea behind the second.
Fair enough. Point out my mistake to me and help me grasp the core idea. It's not enough to tell someone they're making a mistake. For example, would you allow me to use that on you? "Oh, well, you see you're making a mistake. Now you'll have to reject your previous conclusions and adopt mine." Did you find that convincing? If not, then neither should I find it convincing when you claim that I have made one.
~Loyal
I would only find it hard to argue with people who think that murder is OK because such people cannot be found.
Would it be hard to find people who think it is okay to murder people of, say, only one certain race?
~Loyal
Your whole argument hinges on the claim that I (or someone else) believes in the scientific method while I consider it to be a tool (for lack of a better word).
No. My argument hinges on a statement that I called A, and on your acceptance that A is true. That's why I said, 'Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far"...or it could be something else entirely.' Suppose for a moment that A is the statement, "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." That would be something else entirely than belief in the scientific method. However, my argument still works with that statement because my argument didn't depend on belief in the scientific method at any point. My argument depended only upon there being a statement that you accepted as being true. At this point we can stop supposing that statement A is "Slashdot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters." I make precisely two claims about A. First, it's a statement, and second, you accept it as being true. Now, by the law of generalization (and assuming my argument is valid and my premisses are true) then at least one of my four conclusions must be true. If my argument is invalid then I invite you to show me where I've made my mistake. If my premisses aren't true, then I invite you to tell me why you keep making statements.
My question is simple: Why do you believe in your religion (be it hindusm or christianity) and not in the others?
That may be your question now, but it certainly wasn't what I responded to. What I responded to was your quotation of Stephen F. Roberts, which I repeat here.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
My claim amounted to saying that Roberts' quotation was worthless insofar as rejecting the existence of any one particular god, analogously to it's worth in rejecting the number 2 as the only even prime. I still haven't seen you provide anything to change my mind regarding that.
Let me summarise by saying that I am making two claims. Firstly, you (probably) believe in something without proof. And secondly, Mr. Robert's insight doesn't permit one to reject the existence any particular god.
~Loyal
China also cheated by pegging the Yuan to the Dollar.
Isn't that just a guarantee that they'll buy the dollar at a guaranteed price, and a guarantee that they'll sell it at that same price, or just a little difference due to seigniorage? How is that cheating? Seriously. I don't know the actual mechanism.
~Loyal
Except the average person is a complete moron. Remember that.
Except that the average bureaucrat is a complete moron. Remember that.
~Loyal
No, I don't believe that.
Perhaps I've explained myself poorly. Let me try again. You've made the claim, "No, I don't believe that," which presumably means that you don't believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe. I have a little trouble reconciling that with the later claim you made that you accept that the scientific method is the best way we know so far, but I suppose it's possible that the scientific is both the best way we know so far and not a good way. The reason I say that your claim amounts to a claim that the scientific method is not a good way to learn about the universe is because I said (verbatim,) "do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe?" to which you replied (also verbatim,) "No, I don't believe that." However, I don't want to get bogged down in those details too much, because I have these other details that I want to get bogged down in.
Let's suppose you have a belief, which I'll call A. I don't mean that in the sense of taking A on faith, but rather in the sense that you accept A as being true. Statement A could be "the scientific method is the best method we know of so far" or it could be "no, I don't believe that," or it could be "the method is simple," or it could be "there is no logical, reasonable or provable argument why your faith would be correct and others wrong," or it could be something else entirely. There are only two requirements on A; it is a statement and you accept it as being true. Given that you accept A, there are only two possibilities--either there is a reason for believing A, or there isn't. Let's consider the latter first. If there isn't a reason for believing A then you believe in something that's unprovable (which is something that you've claimed is untrue.) Now let's consider the former. Here, again there are only two possibilities. Either the reason for believing A is A, itself, or it's something else. If the reason for believing A is A itself, then you accept circular reasoning as being valid, and you cannot reject the bible's claim to be accurate--or rather you cannot reject it on the basis of circular reasoning being invalid. If you reject it then it must be on some other basis. If the reason for believing A is something else, then let's give it a name in order to make it easier to reason about. I'll call it A-1. This is where the infinite recursion comes in, because I ask what reason you have for accepting A-1? It must either be unsupportable, or in the A through A-k list, or it must be a new reason which I'll call A-2. The reason that always creating a new reason is a problem is that all finite reasons can be expressed with a finite number of characters, which would mean that you believe at least one thing that cannot be expressed. Now let's turn to the final possibility, that A doesn't exist. That would mean that you don't believe anything. The problem with that is that you've made a large number of statements, and you don't believe any of them. So, to summarize, the following are the only possibilities:
1) You believe in something that's unprovable.
2) You believe circular reasoning is valid.
3) You believe at least one statement that is inexpressible because it's infinitely long.
4) You state things are true when you actually don't believe they are.
Frankly, I believe 1), and I think Gödel does, too, which I believe you can find more about if you study one or the other of his incompleteness theorems.
You are comparing a method of work with religion which, to be honest, is above silly.
Wait 'til I get started.
For instance, I accept the concept of evolution as being the correct theory to explain how we as a species came to be, however, if tomorrow it turns out to be completely wrong and that there's a completely different mechanism at work, that will not alter my world view.
Did you write what you meant to write? I ask because it appears that you are saying that you would continue to bel
I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable.
I suspect that you actually do put belief in something that's unprovable, but that you simply don't realize that you are doing so. For example, do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe? If so, then what proof do you have that such might be the case? Many people would answer that it can be proved using the scientific method, but those same people scoff when shown a claim by the bible that the bible is reliable, and call it circular reasoning. Ultimately, you're left with an infinite regress of reasons supporting reasons, which to my mind is more difficult to put faith in than the existence of god.
On the other hand, suppose you're skeptical about the scientific method. Ask yourself whether skepticism is the correct way to approach knowledge of the universe. Shouldn't one be skeptical of such a belief? One must either accept and operate on the assumption that skepticism is the appropriate opinion to hold, or that it's not. One must accept one of those beliefs on faith, as it were.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and analogously that precisely one god exists. Let's suppose furthermore that Mr. Roberts believes that no even primes exist, and analogously that no god exists. I dismiss candidates 3, 17, and 61 because they aren't even. I dismiss candidates 10, 34, and 100002 because they aren't prime. I dismiss candidates h, e, and pi because they aren't integers. I dismiss candidates -3, 0, and 1 because they aren't greater than one. I now understand why I dismiss all the other possible even primes (other than 2). Mr. Roberts' would now claim that I understand why he dismisses 2. In fact, I don't. Number 2 is even; it's a prime; it's an integer; it's greater than one. Arguments that claim that something doesn't have a property have no bearing on other predicates. Specifically, if I claim that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because it was imagined by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest a decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design, then that has no bearing on the god that we supposed I believed in at the beginning of this paragraph, provided that we didn't suppose I believed in the flying spaghetti monster.
~Loyal
He shot an innocent with candies
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. If Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and caused injuries to his nose and head, as Zimmerman claims, then Martin was not "an innocent."
~Loyal
it started in 1939.
GP is probably alluding to the Second Sino-Japanese war that started in 1937. That was a part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, of which we are so familiar.
~Loyal
How would you deal with this?
Morally? Try out the app. Write what you really think. If you don't like it, either don't say anything, or tell the company what you didn't like. Maybe they can use your input to improve the thing. Worse comes to worst, tell them that at least now they know you're truthful when you tell them something.
~Loyal