Otter provided a handy Wikipedia link in his sig...
Why don't you click and read? You'll find that "Libertarianism" encompasses more than "minimal government" (and the fetishization of property). "Minimal" is a subjective term, and subject to one's assumptions.
"But slashdot is not a place for business sense. It's all about standing on morale high ground, fighting evil, and saving the human race."
And those are such silly, stupid goals to have, eh?
"Please don't spoil their fantasy with business sense."
You say "business sense", I say "greed, the lust for power, and an utter lack of empathy." Yeah, sounds great... I see a bright future ahead for that attitude, right up until the last bastard chops down the last rain forest tree. I'll bet the Easter Island natives thought they had great "business sense" too... right up until the end.
No one is saying "profit is bad" or "competition is bad." What we are saying is that MS has a track record of illegal business practices, including abuse of their effective monopoly position, and this looks like more of the same.
"Pretty much any form of self-improvement except new-agey personal well-being is frowned upon."
"Ah a ferenghi. They warned us at the academy about you guys"
You get "Pretty much any form of..." from "They warned us at the academy about you guys"? You put Elastigirl to shame... do you have any more corroboration than this?
As for the rest, another way of saying "Travel might not actually be controlled by "papers"... " is "Travel is not controlled by "papers." " Federation cadets probably would have their transporter use restricted, and with good reason... but it doesn't follow that everyone does. And going from the appearance of "meta-phasic shields (experimental) and matter-out-of-phasing (even more experimental and freaking dangerous)" to "Unless you're in the ruling class..." isn't even worthy of more discussion.
And no, the Federation isn't Communist... at best, it's some variation of Collectivist, which you'd expect in a post-Scarcity economy. There is a difference, you know.
You have failed to make your case. You take bits of dialog here and there and create a "They're Communist Totalitarians!" fantasy out of whole cloth.
Capitalism is not the only possible economic system that doesn't automatically devolve into totalitarianism. Really. You just need to open your mind to other possibilities.
As far as I'm concerned, Capitalism leads to Plutocracy (which I consider to be a bad thing) when "more money" => "better access to the legal system" or "more political influence." See "States, United" for a case study. At present, we don't have the tools to put a better system into place, but we can try to put safeguards and oversight in place to keep the plutocratic elements at least somewhat in check.
Oh, yeah, you're a true Champion of Democracy, all right... using phrases like '"Turban" Durbin', and calling for people who dare to say things you don't like to be "lined up and shot."
Jesus, I'll bet the irony of all this goes right over your empty head... you're probably one of those who thought "Freedom Fries" was a good idea, too.
It's the ultimate extension of a safety obsessed communist culture. Life seems good for the ruling class (Starfleet) but for everyone else? Like the workers in Metropolis, they are hidden from view.
That's quite the (unsupported) assertion you have there... got any actual evidence to back it up? Are you sure those "workers" you claim are "hidden from view" actually exist? How? Where's your evidence?
"Pretty much any form of self-improvement except new-agey personal well-being is frowned upon."
Evidence?
"No one in the federation travels without papers (in fact, there is not enough industry to support heavy starship building. Let alone interplanetary shipping and travel.)"
Evidence?
"Intra-planetery movement is limited as well. Transporter usage is heavily rationed for civillians."
Evidence?
"(And why should this be the case in a civilization that has the technology to mine the stars for energy?) Unless you're in the ruling class, life is very prison like. It's a prison with glass walls and satin sheets, but it's a prison nontheless."
Eviden... ah, forget it. When you can actually back up your assertions, then, maybe, there can be a worthwhile discussion.
Until then, I'll just file this under "Someone else who can't imagine anything can be better than Capitalism, and can't imagine a world where he can't prove his dick is the biggest by having the most money, shiny toys, or servants."
The irony is that a lot of star trek geeks don't get that the utopian universe of star trek is pretty much identical to the utopian world of A Brave New World.
Hark! It is the sound of someone talking out their ass...
The Federation seems to be pretty clearly a post-Scarcity economy... in other words, people don't have to spend most of their lives pursuing little green pictures of dead presidents so as to be able to get access to food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. That said, people do have a challenge "... to improve yourself... enrich yourself...", as Jean-Luc once told a survivor of twenty-first-century cryopreservation.
There is plenty of "feeling, art, and passion" in their world... it's just not motivated by hunger, sickness, ignorance or the lust for power.
Some people can't tell the difference.
The world of Brave New World engineers it's citizens from the embryo up, and conditions them to fit into fixed classes. The Fedration isn't like that, and I can't see how someone who knew anything about "Brave New World" or "Star Trek" could say something like that.
Oh, wait...
"Halo" is not a Ringworld, but an Orbital
on
How Lightsabers Work
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A ringworld is a ring of material that encircles a star, providing squillions of square miles of living space on its interior circumference. Examples of such are Larry Niven's "Ringworld" and Elf Sternberg's "Pendor". Orbitals are featured in the "Culture" books of Iain M. Banks. Here is a description of an orbital in the author's own words:
Perhaps the easiest way to envisage an Orbital is to compare it to the idea that inspired it (this sounds better than saying; Here's where I stole it from). If you know what a Ringworld is - invented by Larry Niven; a segment of a Dyson Sphere - then just discard the shadow-squares, shrink the whole thing till it's about three million kilometres across, and place in orbit around a suitable star, tilted just off the ecliptic; spin it to produce one gravity and that gives you an automatic 24-hour day-night cycle (roughly; the Culture's day is actually a bit longer). An elliptical orbit provides seasons.
"Halo" isn't a Ringworld, but an Orbital. The following magazine excerpt bears this out:
"Wait a minute," you might be thinking. Doesn't the premise of this game bear a striking resemblance to a certain series of books by sci-fi author Larry Niven? Designer and Bungie co-founder Jason Jones is uncomfortable with the notion that Halo might be some sort of Niven knockoff. "Ringworld's a great book, but the point is that we don't want people to think this is the game of Niven's Ringworld, simply because it takes place on a ring-shaped artificial world... you'd be surprised how often people assume this." Jones explains. "In Niven's books, the Ringworld completely encircles a star, and is thus hundreds of millions of miles in diameter, whereas Halo is just a satellite orbiting a gas giant and is considerably smaller. In fact, structurally it's more similar to the "orbitals" in Iain M. Banks' Culture novels."
When people disagree with you, that's not automatically discrimination. When you can't codify your whole religion into the law of the land, that isn't persecution.
Christians are in the majority. A minority of that majority want to turn the US into a theocracy. The rest of us object... but don't confuse that objection with either discrimination or persecution.
I take it you never saw the movie "Philadelphia" ?
Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."
Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...
If you're looking for a blog that will tell Creationism/ID fans what they want to hear, then "Evolution News" is the place for you.
However, if you actually want to hear something about evolution, creationism or ID that is, in fact, true, go somewhere else. Even the description text for the articles posted to it have more spin on them than a World Series knuckleball.
"What's laughable to me is that people ridicule my faith in accepting that the universe was created in 6 literal days, about 6,600 years ago but those same people are not even willing to accept the notion that their belief in evolution is based on no less faith then I have."
Well, the faith I have which underlies my acceptance of evolutionary theory as the current best understanding of how life changes over time is this: I have faith that the sense impressions I recieve are coming from a Reality outside myself, one I share with other intelligent beings. I also have faith that someone isn't feeding me false sense impressions in an effort to deceive me. Finally, I have faith that Reality is, in some sense, fixed, such that I can eventually understand how it works.
This, by the way, is the exact same faith you use each and every day. We all use it. That's how you know that the brake pedal of your car will slow it down today as it did yesterday, rather than speed it up instead. It is also the faith you use when you go to the grocery store, pick up a carton labelled "Milk", and take it home without openning it to make sure it really does contain milk.
"Evolution is bad science, simple fact."
Oh? How so? Could you be specific?
The problem, though, is that the community of crazies will do anything to protect their "religion" and so the truth never really gets out."
There are always people who are so in love with their worldview that they can't accept any sense impressions that contradict it, and will misinterpret their sense impressions as needed so as to keep their worldview intact. This is why Science requires independent confirmation and peer review, so that, when someone's claims are contradicted by evidence, those contradictions are brought to light.
"There are so many fallacies and outright lies in text books about evolution, many of which have been proven wrong as long as a hundred years ago,..."
Please list some of them. If these errors exist, I want them out of our textbooks with even greater fervor than you do.
"... yet the establishment is hesitant to remove them because they have nothing to replace it with."
Which "establishment" are you speaking of?
"One of the best examples of this is Ernst Haekel's drawings of embryos."
You are referring to the idea of embryonic recapitulation theory, and yes, if you have a textbook that claims this theory as credible, then that should be corrected immediately. It is an old idea, and not one accepted by modern evolutionary theorists. Indeed, this is a case of Science finding and correcting its mistakes.
"Kids are told on one page that fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and then on the next page that the rocks are dated by the fossils that they're found in -..."
Do you have a specific textbook in mind? Also, are you saying that you don't think that geological depth, and the strata we find, are a way of determining age?
"... and we wonder why kids today are confused."
Kids have always been confused at one point or another. That's good... it means they're thinking, and asking questions, just as they should be.
As to other lies that have been used to promote evolution at one time or another, we have Java Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the beaks of finches, and the colour of moths, and beneficial mutation, which has never been observed."
Sigh. It is becoming clear to me that you aren't objecting to evolutionary theory, but rather to your misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. I strongly suggest you go to this site, and read some of their FAQs. It will go a long way towards correcting your misunderstandings.
"I have no problem with evolutionary theory being taught to my children in school."
Humans, being primates, have instincts towards the formation of social hierarchies, and the climbing of same (so as to secure the best food, mates, etc.). We are the descendents of a long line of apes who succeeded at doing those very things. Well, it isn't hard to follow these instincts, and invent an "Ultimate Alpha Male" (UAM) to put at the top of the hierarchy. This has several advantages.
The UAM adds social stability. If the Alpha Male (AM) is someone susceptible to age, disease, error, or a well-placed dagger, then the AM whose favor you enjoy, or whose hind you've been kissing might be replaced, putting you in a precarious position. With an eternal UAM, the social hierarchy stabilizes, and you can make long term plans secure in the knowledge that you know where the top of the pyramid will be.
The UAM becomes a source of power that can't, on a whim, be power back. An AM could decide to stop supporting your cause, leaving you to swing in the wind, or even decide that your head would be best located somewhere other than at the end of your neck. The UAM can't complain when you use their authority and power as the basis of your own. Which brings us to...
You can claim that the UAM says whatever you want them to say so as to forward your own agenda. Unlike the AM, they can't get wind of your actions and denounce you. If there are people you don't like, or people who have things that you want, you can use the authority of the UAM to convince others to eliminate the people you don't like, and get the stuff you want from those who have it.
If you claim to speak for the UAM, or have some sort of special relationship with the UAM, you get to ride a gravy train along with all the others who make the same claims. People will give you resources in the hope that you'll somehow intercede between them and the UAM on their behalf.
The belief that the UAM exists gives comfort to those who find personal responsibility too oppressive and/or personal freedom too confusing and scary. You can just sit back and let the UAM tell you what to do and what to think... in short, you can be a carefree child once again.
If you just accept the word of the UAM, and the answers given, you don't have to do all the hard work of answering your own questions.
You can claim to be "closer" to the UAM on the hierarchy than others, making you "better" than they. This helps satisfy one's instinctual urges towards hierarchy climbing.
"Boundaries being things we're just not meant to understand?"
"Boundaries meaning: This is the part of the map we've actually visited, and this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land... Willful deception is at least as bad as willful ignorance."
Please give us some actual examples of "...this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land..." You do have actual examples with which to back up your assertions, right? Please, tell us all about this "wilfull deception" you're complaining about.
"The thing that annoys creationists is that they don't say "I don't know, so I'm going to just assume your fairytale is right."
"No, the thing that annoys creationists is when "scientists"..."
Why put the word "scientists" in quotes? What are you trying to imply here?
"...want to pretend their naturalistic fairy tales are better than everyone else's fairy tales."
What "naturalistic fairy tales" are you talking about? Are you sure you aren't confusing Creationist falsehoods and stawmen with what real scientists actually say, and what the real evolutionary theory actually says?
"(For instance: Saying evolution explains the differences between blue-green algae and man is just as silly as saying the earth was created by God in 6 days)"
Please point to the textbook or journal paper that "explains the differences between blue-green algae and man"... What the hell does that phrase mean, anyway?
I sense that your complaint isn't with Science, or scientists, or evolutionary theory, but is instead with your own misunderstanding of what Science, scientists, or evolutionary theory actually say. I strongly suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and do some serious reading of their FAQs... that will give you an accurate picture of what evolutionary theory really is. If you have compliants with the real thing, then we can address them.
"Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???"
"Um... Last I remember reeding there was a lot of fruit-fly breading. But in a sense nearly all biology, especially cellular biology, has a big influence on our understanding of evolution."
It's a feedback loop: our observation of biology led to the development of evolutionary theory, which, in turn, guides and informs our understanding of biology. But, the biology came first... evolutionary theory came about as a way of understanding and relating the mountain of evidence before us.
"And err, what kind of biologists use stem cells in their research again?"
The kind that comprise a teeny, tiny fraction of biologists as a whole.
"(Note: I'm not saying stem cell research has crossed a line at this point, merely that it would be irresponsible not to spend some time figuring out where the line should go."
Medical ethicists are indeed taking a hard look at the implications of stem cell research.
"Like it or not evolutionists as the keepers of the "origins myth" have some responsibility in this matter.)"
I agree... that said, evolutionary biology and stem cell research are related, but only in the sense that biology only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. I doubt you'd be able to find a single specialist who was working on both stem cell research and evolutionary theory.
"And yes, boundaries are mostly a side issue, but the point is scientists, and their apologists, appear to have a big problem with boundaries at times. (Partly evidenced by this portion of our discussion)"
A vague attempt at a smear against scientists. Put up specifics... if you actually have any to back up your insinuations.
"I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge."
"Saying that ID as proposed by Behe is not a useful theory is one thing (and I more or less agree, though I think the community at large has been hostile and defensive rather than helpful in this matter)."
OK...
"Claiming it is impossible to ever create any useful theory including creationist or intelligent design ideas is quite another."
It is... good thing that isn't what I, or anyone else as said.
"If you're claiming the latter, I can hardly agree."
See above...
"I think this "hard" definition of Naturalism also rules out a lot of interesting chaos principles and notions of hard randomness."
What "hard definition of Naturalism" are you talking about? You have yet to actually define what you mean by that term.
"...nor offer us insight into how Reality works."
"I'm sure you're not claiming to have a full grasp on that capitalized word there..."
You're right about that.
"If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly."
"However, there is research like this, which happens to be conducted by the church I grew up in (though I'm no longer a member)."
What sort of research are you talking about?
"I'd expect these folks to be derided in many secular circles as fools, but I don't believe that gives them any less right to ask questions than you or I."
I can't say if they're fools or not before I see the details.
"Any criticism should come from the quality of their ideas and work, not from whether the term "Bible" shows up somewhere on their website..."
"You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?"
"Well... The study of evolutionary biology in particular could probably be advanced by some pretty sick human experimentation. (Eugenics in WWII being but a weak foreshadow) Of course, it's also debatable how useful that type of "research" actually is/was."
Um... now I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. How in the world did you connect human experimentation with the study of evolutionary biology? Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???
"I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design)."
"Yes, it should also help them understand and question the role of Naturalism in science. (ie: intelligent design can never be part of any scientific theory by definition, do we need to assess what we consider scientific on a more empirical basis?)"
Intelligent Design Theory explains nothing, predicts nothing, and provides no testable hypotheses. It isn't Science. The presence of the word "Theory" in its name is an attempt to lend ID the respectability of Science without it actually earning that respectability. Hell, there isn't even an actual theory!!! It amounts to "We (claim) we don't know how X happened according to Evolutionary Theory, so it must be that God did it." That is the sum total of Intelligent Design "Theory." Everything else is smoke and mirrors designed to make that empty assertion look like more than it is.
If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly.
"Note: Creationism and intelligent design are not "invalid ideas", merely "unscientific"."
I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge, nor offer us insight into how Reality works."
I took a look at the response article from Answers in Genesis, and don't understand how you could categorize it as one that successfully argued against Kantor's claims. The AiG article was what I would have expected: chock full of ad hominem argument, straw men, and profoundly bad logic.
Successful? Well, I can see how it might convince someone who responds primarily to emotional appeals, and is already predisposed to discount reason over belief. Otherwise... no.
Computer simulations are used to enlighten us as to the nature of Reality. The computer you used to create your post, and the computer network that brought that post to my eyes, were all made possible via computer simulation. The idea that "the program gave you exactly what you predetermined in the code" is only true in that our computers are technically deterministic, but your implication that computer simulation can only, at best, "validate what you expect as you design it", is utter nonsense.
Whether you're doing finite element analysis, circuit design, or evolutionary computation, computer simulations can tell you new things, things you didn't expect. Verification is only one of the purposes of computer simulation... discovery is another. And, in the case of evolutionary computation, it can be argued that computer simulations aren't a simulation of evolution... they are in instance of it. The changes that occur in a population of imperfect replicators is evolution, whether those imperfect replicators are made of bits or atoms.
"In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them."
"Yes, well, much of what the "public knows" comes directly from what is taught in public schools..."
Well, yes and no... We do learn a lot in public school, but much of that sort of fades into the background. What I had in mind was the poor state of Science journalism, wherein details get left out, and thoroughness is sacrificed for the sake of making things short and "exciting."
That said, public school Science classes should be doing a better job of delineating what Science actually is, so, in that respect, I agree with you.
"Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it,..."
"Yes, and the religious folks can teach basic human morality and the reasons behind it without refering to a specific diety too, but how comfortable does that make you?"
Sounds great! Though, you left out a word or two: "... teach their basic morality and their reasons behind it..." Classes in ethics, comparative religion, and critical analysis would be a wonderful addition to the curriculum. I'm quite fond of the morality depicted in some of the New Testament, for example.
"More realistically lessons on basic logical analysis and methods for recognizing a tautology would be a nice pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. I don't see how anyone could recognize when Natural Selection is being misused without it..."
I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design).
"Set boundaries? Why?"
"Looks like I touched a nerve with my phrasing."
A nerve? Sorry to disappoint, but that was the least "het up" section of my post. I was just pointing out that the boundaries are already there by virtue of the boundaries of our knowledge, and that it doesn't make any sense to "set" them.
"Life is about setting boundaries."
I'd say life was about overcoming boundaries, myself.
"Science is no different. But perhaps you think testing nukes in the desert is a good thing to do?"
You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?
"Tell ya what: Don't teach my kids your beliefs about the differences between blue-green algae and man or about where the Cambrian explosion came from. Then I won't teach your kids about the "Great Spirit". Deal?"
Deal... we won't teach our beliefs concerning the differences between blue-green algae and man, or "where the Cambrian explosion came from." Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it, including the similarities (physiological and molecular) and differences we observe between the many different lifeforms on Earth, and what those similarites and differences imply. How does that sound?
"Problem is... If scientists can't learn to set boundaries and say "I don't know" when appropriate, I don't see how they can expect non-scientists to."
Set boundaries? Why? Science is about collecting evidence, constructing hypotheses, testing them, and constructing theories based on the outcome of those tests. There are plenty of "I don't knows" out there... that's where the most interesting investigation happens. The boundaries of understanding are there... no one has to set them. I'll grant you that what the lay public gets (stories about science written by non-scientists who may or may not have thoroughness and accuracy as their goals) doesn't emphasize the forever tentative nature of the results of scientific investigation. In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them.
"In other words, I think that "truely irreducible" complexity is still a good argument against evolution, but with the understanding that we're still pretty new to the 'reducing' game."
No structure has yet proven itself to be "irreducibly complex", and there is good reason to believe that no structure could be proven so... How do you tell the difference between "irreducibly complex" and "reducibly complex, but in a way that I do not, as yet, understand" ?
So no, I'd say it was a bad argument against evolution, in that it's pretty much an Argument From Personal Incredulity... "I can't believe that this structure evolved, so it didn't, so God did it" (a God which, just by coincidence, has exactly the same characteristics as the God I happen to worship).
Speaking of the "straw man" debate tactic, you're oversimplify and mischaracterizing my argument so you can tear it down.
Not at all... I'm saying that Appeal to Scripture doesn't, in my opinion, gain you anything, unless you assume a priori that what the Scripture says is actually true. Since I don't use Scriptural Validity as a starting assumption, saying "Because Scripture says so" carries as much weight with me as "Because my invisible friend says so"... which is to say, none at all.
"I agree Intelligent Design is just Creationism without saying the "G" word,...
OK...
"... but I'll firmly state God of the Holy Bible is a Reality."
That is an unsupported assertion that you are free to believe in, just as I am free to not believe in it.
The rest of my post was addressing Intelligent Design "Theory" in general, rather than the content of your post.
I find arguments which derive their support from "Scripture" (of whatever flavor) as being much akin to arguments over the outcome of a battle between "The Enterprise" and "The Death Star" based on an analysis of the movies and books from each genre: mildly entertaining and/or interesting, but having no meaningful relationship with Reality. The arguments themselves may have more or less merit within the context of the imaginary worlds they inhabit.
You might as well try to base your position on the statement: "My invisible friend says so."
So-called Intelligent Design "Theory" is nothing more than Creationism with the word "God" replaced with "Designer" (unless the audience happens to be in a church, in which case this substitution is dispensed with). It uses misunderstandings of evolutionary theory as straw men, has zero explanatory or predictive power, and offers no testable, falsifiable hypotheses whatsoever. It is what happens when Creationists are so overcome with Science Envy that they try to make their beliefs sound (but not actually be) "Scientific" too. They yearn for the respectability of Science without having to do all the pesky work required to actually earn that respect.
Slashdot Mirror
"but then again 70% of slashdots run a *nix of some sort"
"No, they run Windows, they only say they run *nix."
And you know this how, pray tell? I've been running the same linux box since '98, and I doubt I'm the only one.
Why don't you click and read? You'll find that "Libertarianism" encompasses more than "minimal government" (and the fetishization of property). "Minimal" is a subjective term, and subject to one's assumptions.
"But slashdot is not a place for business sense. It's all about standing on morale high ground, fighting evil, and saving the human race."
And those are such silly, stupid goals to have, eh?
"Please don't spoil their fantasy with business sense."
You say "business sense", I say "greed, the lust for power, and an utter lack of empathy." Yeah, sounds great... I see a bright future ahead for that attitude, right up until the last bastard chops down the last rain forest tree. I'll bet the Easter Island natives thought they had great "business sense" too... right up until the end.
No one is saying "profit is bad" or "competition is bad." What we are saying is that MS has a track record of illegal business practices, including abuse of their effective monopoly position, and this looks like more of the same.
You get "Pretty much any form of..." from "They warned us at the academy about you guys"? You put Elastigirl to shame... do you have any more corroboration than this?
As for the rest, another way of saying "Travel might not actually be controlled by "papers"... " is "Travel is not controlled by "papers." " Federation cadets probably would have their transporter use restricted, and with good reason... but it doesn't follow that everyone does. And going from the appearance of "meta-phasic shields (experimental) and matter-out-of-phasing (even more experimental and freaking dangerous)" to "Unless you're in the ruling class..." isn't even worthy of more discussion.
And no, the Federation isn't Communist... at best, it's some variation of Collectivist, which you'd expect in a post-Scarcity economy. There is a difference, you know.
You have failed to make your case. You take bits of dialog here and there and create a "They're Communist Totalitarians!" fantasy out of whole cloth.
Capitalism is not the only possible economic system that doesn't automatically devolve into totalitarianism. Really. You just need to open your mind to other possibilities.
As far as I'm concerned, Capitalism leads to Plutocracy (which I consider to be a bad thing) when "more money" => "better access to the legal system" or "more political influence." See "States, United" for a case study. At present, we don't have the tools to put a better system into place, but we can try to put safeguards and oversight in place to keep the plutocratic elements at least somewhat in check.
Oh, yeah, you're a true Champion of Democracy, all right... using phrases like '"Turban" Durbin', and calling for people who dare to say things you don't like to be "lined up and shot."
Jesus, I'll bet the irony of all this goes right over your empty head... you're probably one of those who thought "Freedom Fries" was a good idea, too.
Thanks for making me, an American, look bad.
That's quite the (unsupported) assertion you have there... got any actual evidence to back it up? Are you sure those "workers" you claim are "hidden from view" actually exist? How? Where's your evidence?
"Pretty much any form of self-improvement except new-agey personal well-being is frowned upon."
Evidence?
"No one in the federation travels without papers (in fact, there is not enough industry to support heavy starship building. Let alone interplanetary shipping and travel.)"
Evidence?
"Intra-planetery movement is limited as well. Transporter usage is heavily rationed for civillians."
Evidence?
"(And why should this be the case in a civilization that has the technology to mine the stars for energy?) Unless you're in the ruling class, life is very prison like. It's a prison with glass walls and satin sheets, but it's a prison nontheless."
Eviden... ah, forget it. When you can actually back up your assertions, then, maybe, there can be a worthwhile discussion.
Until then, I'll just file this under "Someone else who can't imagine anything can be better than Capitalism, and can't imagine a world where he can't prove his dick is the biggest by having the most money, shiny toys, or servants."
Hark! It is the sound of someone talking out their ass...
The Federation seems to be pretty clearly a post-Scarcity economy... in other words, people don't have to spend most of their lives pursuing little green pictures of dead presidents so as to be able to get access to food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. That said, people do have a challenge "... to improve yourself... enrich yourself...", as Jean-Luc once told a survivor of twenty-first-century cryopreservation.
There is plenty of "feeling, art, and passion" in their world... it's just not motivated by hunger, sickness, ignorance or the lust for power.
Some people can't tell the difference.
The world of Brave New World engineers it's citizens from the embryo up, and conditions them to fit into fixed classes. The Fedration isn't like that, and I can't see how someone who knew anything about "Brave New World" or "Star Trek" could say something like that.
Oh, wait...
"Halo" isn't a Ringworld, but an Orbital. The following magazine excerpt bears this out:
You can find more information here.
When people disagree with you, that's not automatically discrimination. When you can't codify your whole religion into the law of the land, that isn't persecution.
Christians are in the majority. A minority of that majority want to turn the US into a theocracy. The rest of us object... but don't confuse that objection with either discrimination or persecution.
Acceptable to bash Christians? You wish...
So, tell us... what test will you adminster to determine whether a couple is "normal" or not? Who gets to decide?
Feh... being gay is as abnormal as being left-handed.
I take it you never saw the movie "Philadelphia" ?
Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."
Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...
However, if you actually want to hear something about evolution, creationism or ID that is, in fact, true, go somewhere else. Even the description text for the articles posted to it have more spin on them than a World Series knuckleball.
Well, the faith I have which underlies my acceptance of evolutionary theory as the current best understanding of how life changes over time is this: I have faith that the sense impressions I recieve are coming from a Reality outside myself, one I share with other intelligent beings. I also have faith that someone isn't feeding me false sense impressions in an effort to deceive me. Finally, I have faith that Reality is, in some sense, fixed, such that I can eventually understand how it works.
This, by the way, is the exact same faith you use each and every day. We all use it. That's how you know that the brake pedal of your car will slow it down today as it did yesterday, rather than speed it up instead. It is also the faith you use when you go to the grocery store, pick up a carton labelled "Milk", and take it home without openning it to make sure it really does contain milk.
"Evolution is bad science, simple fact."
..."
Oh? How so? Could you be specific?
The problem, though, is that the community of crazies will do anything to protect their "religion" and so the truth never really gets out."
There are always people who are so in love with their worldview that they can't accept any sense impressions that contradict it, and will misinterpret their sense impressions as needed so as to keep their worldview intact. This is why Science requires independent confirmation and peer review, so that, when someone's claims are contradicted by evidence, those contradictions are brought to light.
"There are so many fallacies and outright lies in text books about evolution, many of which have been proven wrong as long as a hundred years ago,..."
Please list some of them. If these errors exist, I want them out of our textbooks with even greater fervor than you do.
"... yet the establishment is hesitant to remove them because they have nothing to replace it with."
Which "establishment" are you speaking of?
"One of the best examples of this is Ernst Haekel's drawings of embryos."
You are referring to the idea of embryonic recapitulation theory, and yes, if you have a textbook that claims this theory as credible, then that should be corrected immediately. It is an old idea, and not one accepted by modern evolutionary theorists. Indeed, this is a case of Science finding and correcting its mistakes.
"Kids are told on one page that fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and then on the next page that the rocks are dated by the fossils that they're found in -
Do you have a specific textbook in mind? Also, are you saying that you don't think that geological depth, and the strata we find, are a way of determining age?
"... and we wonder why kids today are confused."
Kids have always been confused at one point or another. That's good... it means they're thinking, and asking questions, just as they should be.
As to other lies that have been used to promote evolution at one time or another, we have Java Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the beaks of finches, and the colour of moths, and beneficial mutation, which has never been observed."
Sigh. It is becoming clear to me that you aren't objecting to evolutionary theory, but rather to your misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. I strongly suggest you go to this site, and read some of their FAQs. It will go a long way towards correcting your misunderstandings.
"I have no problem with evolutionary theory being taught to my children in school."
Really??? I find th
as my choosing to write with my right hand.
"Boundaries being things we're just not meant to understand?"
"Boundaries meaning: This is the part of the map we've actually visited, and this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land... Willful deception is at least as bad as willful ignorance."
Please give us some actual examples of "...this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land..." You do have actual examples with which to back up your assertions, right? Please, tell us all about this "wilfull deception" you're complaining about.
"The thing that annoys creationists is that they don't say "I don't know, so I'm going to just assume your fairytale is right."
"No, the thing that annoys creationists is when "scientists"..."
Why put the word "scientists" in quotes? What are you trying to imply here?
"...want to pretend their naturalistic fairy tales are better than everyone else's fairy tales."
What "naturalistic fairy tales" are you talking about? Are you sure you aren't confusing Creationist falsehoods and stawmen with what real scientists actually say, and what the real evolutionary theory actually says?
"(For instance: Saying evolution explains the differences between blue-green algae and man is just as silly as saying the earth was created by God in 6 days)"
Please point to the textbook or journal paper that "explains the differences between blue-green algae and man"... What the hell does that phrase mean, anyway?
I sense that your complaint isn't with Science, or scientists, or evolutionary theory, but is instead with your own misunderstanding of what Science, scientists, or evolutionary theory actually say. I strongly suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and do some serious reading of their FAQs... that will give you an accurate picture of what evolutionary theory really is. If you have compliants with the real thing, then we can address them.
"Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???"
"Um... Last I remember reeding there was a lot of fruit-fly breading. But in a sense nearly all biology, especially cellular biology, has a big influence on our understanding of evolution."
It's a feedback loop: our observation of biology led to the development of evolutionary theory, which, in turn, guides and informs our understanding of biology. But, the biology came first... evolutionary theory came about as a way of understanding and relating the mountain of evidence before us.
"And err, what kind of biologists use stem cells in their research again?"
The kind that comprise a teeny, tiny fraction of biologists as a whole.
"(Note: I'm not saying stem cell research has crossed a line at this point, merely that it would be irresponsible not to spend some time figuring out where the line should go."
Medical ethicists are indeed taking a hard look at the implications of stem cell research.
"Like it or not evolutionists as the keepers of the "origins myth" have some responsibility in this matter.)"
I agree... that said, evolutionary biology and stem cell research are related, but only in the sense that biology only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. I doubt you'd be able to find a single specialist who was working on both stem cell research and evolutionary theory.
"And yes, boundaries are mostly a side issue, but the point is scientists, and their apologists, appear to have a big problem with boundaries at times. (Partly evidenced by this portion of our discussion)"
A vague attempt at a smear against scientists. Put up specifics... if you actually have any to back up your insinuations.
"I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge."
"Saying that ID as proposed by Behe is not a useful theory is one thing (and I more or less agree, though I think the community at large has been hostile and defensive rather than helpful in this matter)."
OK...
"Claiming it is impossible to ever create any useful theory including creationist or intelligent design ideas is quite another."
It is... good thing that isn't what I, or anyone else as said.
"If you're claiming the latter, I can hardly agree."
See above...
"I think this "hard" definition of Naturalism also rules out a lot of interesting chaos principles and notions of hard randomness."
What "hard definition of Naturalism" are you talking about? You have yet to actually define what you mean by that term.
"...nor offer us insight into how Reality works."
"I'm sure you're not claiming to have a full grasp on that capitalized word there..."
You're right about that.
"If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly."
"However, there is research like this, which happens to be conducted by the church I grew up in (though I'm no longer a member)."
What sort of research are you talking about?
"I'd expect these folks to be derided in many secular circles as fools, but I don't believe that gives them any less right to ask questions than you or I."
I can't say if they're fools or not before I see the details.
"Any criticism should come from the quality of their ideas and work, not from whether the term "Bible" shows up somewhere on their website..."
I agree... so, where's the research?
"You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?"
"Well... The study of evolutionary biology in particular could probably be advanced by some pretty sick human experimentation. (Eugenics in WWII being but a weak foreshadow) Of course, it's also debatable how useful that type of "research" actually is/was."
Um... now I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. How in the world did you connect human experimentation with the study of evolutionary biology? Just what is it that you think evolutionary biologists do???
"I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design)."
"Yes, it should also help them understand and question the role of Naturalism in science. (ie: intelligent design can never be part of any scientific theory by definition, do we need to assess what we consider scientific on a more empirical basis?)"
Intelligent Design Theory explains nothing, predicts nothing, and provides no testable hypotheses. It isn't Science. The presence of the word "Theory" in its name is an attempt to lend ID the respectability of Science without it actually earning that respectability. Hell, there isn't even an actual theory!!! It amounts to "We (claim) we don't know how X happened according to Evolutionary Theory, so it must be that God did it." That is the sum total of Intelligent Design "Theory." Everything else is smoke and mirrors designed to make that empty assertion look like more than it is.
If you have information with counters my assertions concerning ID "Theory", I'd dearly love to see it. Honestly.
"Note: Creationism and intelligent design are not "invalid ideas", merely "unscientific"."
I'll rephrase: "Intelligent Design "Theory" and Creationism are ideas concerning the origins and evolution of life that have no explanatory power, no predictive power, and offer no testable, falsifiable hypotheses. These ideas do not expand our knowledge, nor offer us insight into how Reality works."
I took a look at the response article from Answers in Genesis, and don't understand how you could categorize it as one that successfully argued against Kantor's claims. The AiG article was what I would have expected: chock full of ad hominem argument, straw men, and profoundly bad logic.
Successful? Well, I can see how it might convince someone who responds primarily to emotional appeals, and is already predisposed to discount reason over belief. Otherwise... no.
Computer simulations are used to enlighten us as to the nature of Reality. The computer you used to create your post, and the computer network that brought that post to my eyes, were all made possible via computer simulation. The idea that "the program gave you exactly what you predetermined in the code" is only true in that our computers are technically deterministic, but your implication that computer simulation can only, at best, "validate what you expect as you design it", is utter nonsense.
Whether you're doing finite element analysis, circuit design, or evolutionary computation, computer simulations can tell you new things, things you didn't expect. Verification is only one of the purposes of computer simulation... discovery is another. And, in the case of evolutionary computation, it can be argued that computer simulations aren't a simulation of evolution... they are in instance of it. The changes that occur in a population of imperfect replicators is evolution, whether those imperfect replicators are made of bits or atoms.
"In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them."
"Yes, well, much of what the "public knows" comes directly from what is taught in public schools..."
Well, yes and no... We do learn a lot in public school, but much of that sort of fades into the background. What I had in mind was the poor state of Science journalism, wherein details get left out, and thoroughness is sacrificed for the sake of making things short and "exciting."
That said, public school Science classes should be doing a better job of delineating what Science actually is, so, in that respect, I agree with you.
"Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it,..."
"Yes, and the religious folks can teach basic human morality and the reasons behind it without refering to a specific diety too, but how comfortable does that make you?"
Sounds great! Though, you left out a word or two: "... teach their basic morality and their reasons behind it..." Classes in ethics, comparative religion, and critical analysis would be a wonderful addition to the curriculum. I'm quite fond of the morality depicted in some of the New Testament, for example.
"More realistically lessons on basic logical analysis and methods for recognizing a tautology would be a nice pre-requisite for evolutionary theory. I don't see how anyone could recognize when Natural Selection is being misused without it..."
I agree completely. It would help students distingish a valid theory (evolutionary theory) from an invalid idea (Creationism / Intelligent Design).
"Set boundaries? Why?"
"Looks like I touched a nerve with my phrasing."
A nerve? Sorry to disappoint, but that was the least "het up" section of my post. I was just pointing out that the boundaries are already there by virtue of the boundaries of our knowledge, and that it doesn't make any sense to "set" them.
"Life is about setting boundaries."
I'd say life was about overcoming boundaries, myself.
"Science is no different. But perhaps you think testing nukes in the desert is a good thing to do?"
You aren't making any sense to me. What "boundaries" do you have in mind when it comes to the study of evolution?
"Tell ya what: Don't teach my kids your beliefs about the differences between blue-green algae and man or about where the Cambrian explosion came from. Then I won't teach your kids about the "Great Spirit". Deal?"
Deal... we won't teach our beliefs concerning the differences between blue-green algae and man, or "where the Cambrian explosion came from." Instead, we'll teach evolutionary theory, and the evidence which supports it, including the similarities (physiological and molecular) and differences we observe between the many different lifeforms on Earth, and what those similarites and differences imply. How does that sound?
"Problem is... If scientists can't learn to set boundaries and say "I don't know" when appropriate, I don't see how they can expect non-scientists to."
Set boundaries? Why? Science is about collecting evidence, constructing hypotheses, testing them, and constructing theories based on the outcome of those tests. There are plenty of "I don't knows" out there... that's where the most interesting investigation happens. The boundaries of understanding are there... no one has to set them. I'll grant you that what the lay public gets (stories about science written by non-scientists who may or may not have thoroughness and accuracy as their goals) doesn't emphasize the forever tentative nature of the results of scientific investigation. In short, the scientists are well aware of the "I don't knows", even if the public isn't being reminded of them.
"In other words, I think that "truely irreducible" complexity is still a good argument against evolution, but with the understanding that we're still pretty new to the 'reducing' game."
No structure has yet proven itself to be "irreducibly complex", and there is good reason to believe that no structure could be proven so... How do you tell the difference between "irreducibly complex" and "reducibly complex, but in a way that I do not, as yet, understand" ?
So no, I'd say it was a bad argument against evolution, in that it's pretty much an Argument From Personal Incredulity... "I can't believe that this structure evolved, so it didn't, so God did it" (a God which, just by coincidence, has exactly the same characteristics as the God I happen to worship).
Speaking of the "straw man" debate tactic, you're oversimplify and mischaracterizing my argument so you can tear it down.
Not at all... I'm saying that Appeal to Scripture doesn't, in my opinion, gain you anything, unless you assume a priori that what the Scripture says is actually true. Since I don't use Scriptural Validity as a starting assumption, saying "Because Scripture says so" carries as much weight with me as "Because my invisible friend says so"... which is to say, none at all.
"I agree Intelligent Design is just Creationism without saying the "G" word,...
OK...
"... but I'll firmly state God of the Holy Bible is a Reality."
That is an unsupported assertion that you are free to believe in, just as I am free to not believe in it.
The rest of my post was addressing Intelligent Design "Theory" in general, rather than the content of your post.
I find arguments which derive their support from "Scripture" (of whatever flavor) as being much akin to arguments over the outcome of a battle between "The Enterprise" and "The Death Star" based on an analysis of the movies and books from each genre: mildly entertaining and/or interesting, but having no meaningful relationship with Reality. The arguments themselves may have more or less merit within the context of the imaginary worlds they inhabit.
You might as well try to base your position on the statement: "My invisible friend says so."
So-called Intelligent Design "Theory" is nothing more than Creationism with the word "God" replaced with "Designer" (unless the audience happens to be in a church, in which case this substitution is dispensed with). It uses misunderstandings of evolutionary theory as straw men, has zero explanatory or predictive power, and offers no testable, falsifiable hypotheses whatsoever. It is what happens when Creationists are so overcome with Science Envy that they try to make their beliefs sound (but not actually be) "Scientific" too. They yearn for the respectability of Science without having to do all the pesky work required to actually earn that respect.