told a conference in London this week that it was time for the music and technology industries to set aside their differences and strive instead toward a common goal: nothing less than the total global domination of British music.
The old "if you can't beat them, ask them to join you" strategy.
Considering that point about "scientifically observable entities"... I suppose materialists hold that science is currently capable of observing all that is, or at least, everything that is important.
If it can't be measured with currently-available tools it doesn't exist, right?
I wonder if anyone actually holds the views that you're so keen on disparaging.
Two hundred years ago no one knew how to measure, or even detect x-rays, but they were as real then as they are now. Neutrinos. Continental drift. Expanding universe. Dark matter. It would be folly to think there isn't anything more that we haven't been able to detect yet.
If you then go onto say God does not exist and start claiming so to other people, then you need to, at the very least, give supporting evidence for such claims. This is actually an impossible position to be in (you can't prove a negative) therefore most Atheists quickly fall back to the Agnostic position and argue that the burden of proof is on the Theists while trying to argue that God does not exist.
And the same applies to people who believe in one god but say that the other 9,999 don't exist, right? Or is there some kind of double standard in all this hair-splitting?
If anyone was hoping for a less hot-headed response to the GP, it might have gone something like this:
a) Popper et al. don't speak for me.
b) Letting evidence guide your beliefs isn't a philosophy; it's the foundation of sanity.
c) Whenever "philosophy" and "materialism" are brought up in an on-line discussion, it's almost always by a creationist or some other flavor of reality-denying kook who wants to paint a veneer of erudition on their rejection of well-established facts.[*]
d) Those same people don't have any problem with the evidence-guided life when it doesn't impinge on their kookery or superstitions. When they come home and find the carpet wet they don't pause for a minute to consider supernatural explanations. And when it turns out to be the toilet tank overflowing, they don't invoke "philosophy" and "materialism" as excuses to deny that all the water running out of the tank is the cause of the wet carpet.
e) I don't speak for atheists. And as far as I know, no one is an atheist because I said they should be, so there's no reason to suppose they're counting on me to defend their lack of belief in your invisible sky man.
[*] I don't consider every creationist a kook; some are merely ignorant, others are misled by con artists. But when someone starts arguing "materialism" and "philosophy" to defend their superstitions, it's a sure sign that they already know they've lost the argument if they try to deal in facts. And to invoke rhetorical dogcrap to defend a position that you know you've lost is the sign - evidence - of kookery.
You need to learn what materialism is. The way you are trying to use the word is nothing like the way any educated person uses it.
Never mind educated people; I have trouble guessing what apologists for this or that mean by it in on-line forums. Today I've been on the verge of asking several posters what they mean by it.
Regarding the rest of your post, you're a fucking idiot.
When a country moves too far to the left, demand arises for a populist right wing figure to satisfy all the simple people who rightly feel that there is something wrong but lack the understanding of what exactly, and therefore need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board, just like in school. That's where Glenn Beck comes in.
Or maybe it's simply that Rupert Murdoch thought he would be a useful tool for his political agenda and gave him a show.
Also, for the most part you can change "need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board" to "want it misrepresented with politicobabble in front of a chalk board, to reinforce their fantasies about reality".
Scientists are still looking for that fundamental material building block, but they haven't found it yet. Why assume that matter is the basis of all that is, when the latest scientific evidence is heavily in favor of Energy being the first cause?
Do scientists think matter is more fundamental than energy?
But materialists have just as much of an agenda as the creationists, which is why we're subjected to this crap about life emerging from a chemical soup.
If by "materialists" you mean "scientists", then your claim is true.
But the two agendas are very different: scientists are trying to figure out what has happened and how stuff works, and creationists are trying to defend an ancient tradition about what has happened and how stuff works.
As for the L-Field... are you suggesting that electromagnetism has a non-material cause?
The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable.
In early August Beck said we're in for a severe stock market fall soon. The time frame for his prediction runs out in just a few days. Unless something strange comes about, he's wrong on that one.
But it probably helped his sponsors market investments in gold.
I've long wanted to visit Washington DC to see the Smithsonian and the other museums there (is that nerdy enough for you?)./quote? Almost!
Allow two full days to see the Smithsonian and related museums along the Mall. Less if you don't like art. Being a Slashdotter, you'll probably want to start with the Air & Space thing, to make sure you have enough time for it.
Having been visiting/. for over 15 years I'm shocked at the amount of, what appears to be, left wingers here. It's never really come up but am I in the conservative minority on Slashdot?
It's hard to say. A lot of people used to vehemently defend the Iraq war, but as the public soured on it they became a distinct minority. We still get a fairly large number of anti-Islam anti-Muslim posters... I was shocked by the views I saw posted here (and modded up) on a story a week or two ago.
But maybe all that doesn't really reflect conservative/liberal politics.
Traditionally we've had a very large number of "Latter Day Libertarians", by which I mean self-described Libertarians who apparently don't care about anything but gun ownership, taxes, and laws that might restrict their ability to become filthy rich.
Also... The most vocal group isn't necessarily the biggest group. We should have a/. poll on political orientation.
Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...
This is conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it's true. I have certainly gone the opposite direction.
Also, I suspect liberals and conservatives disagree intensely what "responsible" means.
Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC rerunsHalf the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns
The "ultra-liberal" MSNBC also gives air time to Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. And you might as well add Pat Buchanan, given how regularly he gets soapbox time on Matthews' show.
The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.
I liked it when he had Dick Cheney on for an interview about his (then) new book, and held up a copy of the book with a huge "35% Off" sticker on the cover throughout most of the interview.
Slashdot Mirror
told a conference in London this week that it was time for the music and technology industries to set aside their differences and strive instead toward a common goal: nothing less than the total global domination of British music.
The old "if you can't beat them, ask them to join you" strategy.
Considering that point about "scientifically observable entities"... I suppose materialists hold that science is currently capable of observing all that is, or at least, everything that is important.
If it can't be measured with currently-available tools it doesn't exist, right?
I wonder if anyone actually holds the views that you're so keen on disparaging.
Two hundred years ago no one knew how to measure, or even detect x-rays, but they were as real then as they are now. Neutrinos. Continental drift. Expanding universe. Dark matter. It would be folly to think there isn't anything more that we haven't been able to detect yet.
If you then go onto say God does not exist and start claiming so to other people, then you need to, at the very least, give supporting evidence for such claims. This is actually an impossible position to be in (you can't prove a negative) therefore most Atheists quickly fall back to the Agnostic position and argue that the burden of proof is on the Theists while trying to argue that God does not exist.
And the same applies to people who believe in one god but say that the other 9,999 don't exist, right? Or is there some kind of double standard in all this hair-splitting?
If anyone was hoping for a less hot-headed response to the GP, it might have gone something like this:
a) Popper et al. don't speak for me.
b) Letting evidence guide your beliefs isn't a philosophy; it's the foundation of sanity.
c) Whenever "philosophy" and "materialism" are brought up in an on-line discussion, it's almost always by a creationist or some other flavor of reality-denying kook who wants to paint a veneer of erudition on their rejection of well-established facts.[*]
d) Those same people don't have any problem with the evidence-guided life when it doesn't impinge on their kookery or superstitions. When they come home and find the carpet wet they don't pause for a minute to consider supernatural explanations. And when it turns out to be the toilet tank overflowing, they don't invoke "philosophy" and "materialism" as excuses to deny that all the water running out of the tank is the cause of the wet carpet.
e) I don't speak for atheists. And as far as I know, no one is an atheist because I said they should be, so there's no reason to suppose they're counting on me to defend their lack of belief in your invisible sky man.
[*] I don't consider every creationist a kook; some are merely ignorant, others are misled by con artists. But when someone starts arguing "materialism" and "philosophy" to defend their superstitions, it's a sure sign that they already know they've lost the argument if they try to deal in facts. And to invoke rhetorical dogcrap to defend a position that you know you've lost is the sign - evidence - of kookery.
You need to learn what materialism is. The way you are trying to use the word is nothing like the way any educated person uses it.
Never mind educated people; I have trouble guessing what apologists for this or that mean by it in on-line forums. Today I've been on the verge of asking several posters what they mean by it.
Regarding the rest of your post, you're a fucking idiot.
When a country moves too far to the left, demand arises for a populist right wing figure to satisfy all the simple people who rightly feel that there is something wrong but lack the understanding of what exactly, and therefore need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board, just like in school. That's where Glenn Beck comes in.
Or maybe it's simply that Rupert Murdoch thought he would be a useful tool for his political agenda and gave him a show.
Also, for the most part you can change "need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board" to "want it misrepresented with politicobabble in front of a chalk board, to reinforce their fantasies about reality".
And what's this nonsense about biochemists and physicists having an "agenda" like creationists.
I said "materialists". For example, James Randi (the magician) is a materialist with an religious agenda.
So Randi doesn't believe in energy???
You're sending a very confused message.
Sometimes even the best scientists fall in love with their guiding philosophy.
Pray tell, what is scientists' guiding philosophy?
For me, evidence trumps tradition. Is that a philosophy?
Didn't the Miller-Urey Experiment answer how amino acids could show up?
They have been spotted even in interstellar gas. Seems that they're not so hard to form in our universe.
Scientists are still looking for that fundamental material building block, but they haven't found it yet. Why assume that matter is the basis of all that is, when the latest scientific evidence is heavily in favor of Energy being the first cause?
Do scientists think matter is more fundamental than energy?
The stuff has been cooking for the last thirty years, and no life has crawled out yet . . .
Hardly a surprise, since the real thing took as much as a billion years in a planet-sized beaker.
FWIW, I'm not sure the U-M experiments properly reflect our current understanding of the chemistry of the early earth, either.
do you mean a hypothesis ?
No, he means that science that doesn't jibe with what he believes should be treated as arbitrary opinions.
But materialists have just as much of an agenda as the creationists, which is why we're subjected to this crap about life emerging from a chemical soup.
If by "materialists" you mean "scientists", then your claim is true.
But the two agendas are very different: scientists are trying to figure out what has happened and how stuff works, and creationists are trying to defend an ancient tradition about what has happened and how stuff works.
As for the L-Field... are you suggesting that electromagnetism has a non-material cause?
What kind of rank idiot fucks up something like that?!?!
Are you supposing that Obama made the rug himself?
There are plenty of substantive issues you could have criticized him for.
The fine structure constant is given as being equal to "e^2/hc", so if the FSC is not a constant then one (or more) of the other values must also be a variable.
Or maybe the "2" is changing?
Not mathematically, but 1.999--> 2.001 or such.
In early August Beck said we're in for a severe stock market fall soon. The time frame for his prediction runs out in just a few days. Unless something strange comes about, he's wrong on that one.
But it probably helped his sponsors market investments in gold.
I've long wanted to visit Washington DC to see the Smithsonian and the other museums there (is that nerdy enough for you?)./quote?
Almost!
Allow two full days to see the Smithsonian and related museums along the Mall. Less if you don't like art. Being a Slashdotter, you'll probably want to start with the Air & Space thing, to make sure you have enough time for it.
Having been visiting /. for over 15 years I'm shocked at the amount of, what appears to be, left wingers here. It's never really come up but am I in the conservative minority on Slashdot?
It's hard to say. A lot of people used to vehemently defend the Iraq war, but as the public soured on it they became a distinct minority. We still get a fairly large number of anti-Islam anti-Muslim posters... I was shocked by the views I saw posted here (and modded up) on a story a week or two ago.
But maybe all that doesn't really reflect conservative/liberal politics.
Traditionally we've had a very large number of "Latter Day Libertarians", by which I mean self-described Libertarians who apparently don't care about anything but gun ownership, taxes, and laws that might restrict their ability to become filthy rich.
Also... The most vocal group isn't necessarily the biggest group. We should have a /. poll on political orientation.
Younger people are typically left-wing. As you get older, and if you're responsible, you'll begin swinging right... unless you're a career politician...
This is conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it's true. I have certainly gone the opposite direction.
Also, I suspect liberals and conservatives disagree intensely what "responsible" means.
What exactly has Beck said that is incorrect or false lately? Examples please..... just curious.
At the rally he said the break in building the Washington Monument was "during the Civil War".
Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC rerunsHalf the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns
The "ultra-liberal" MSNBC also gives air time to Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. And you might as well add Pat Buchanan, given how regularly he gets soapbox time on Matthews' show.
Why is this liberal garbage on SlashDot?
Probably because of reality's well-known liberal bias.
(Hey, we're only 87 subscribers apart!)
Should the dark side be somewhere in the chain of reasoning?
No, it has to be to the side. Otherwise we'd call it the Dark Somewhereinthemiddle.
Same with the Daily Show--they'll mock conservatives for their policies
Policies, plural?
Ten years ago they had "bomb Iraq" and "cut taxes on the rich" as the twin pillars of their platform, but since 2003 they've been down to one.
The Best Thing Ever was when some Bush-administration lackey took Colbert seriously enough to invite him to speak at the 2006 White House Correspondents' dinner.
I liked it when he had Dick Cheney on for an interview about his (then) new book, and held up a copy of the book with a huge "35% Off" sticker on the cover throughout most of the interview.
I thin Glenn Beck is crazy enough to believe himself.
I don't think he really buys it... I think he's like a modern-day Joseph Smith... or at least wants to be.
Your .sig explains Bek best: "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..."
The reason liberals don't like Obama is because under his leadership every dollar of public good is bought with two dollars of corporate welfare.
Cf. Health Care Reform