> A parallel to the 2+2=5 theory was actually witnessed at the local Wendy's. I had the sheer NERVE to give the lady $5.44 for a $3.44 item, and got $3 back
If you think that's bad, try giving them $5.69 to get rid of some pennies and get a quarter back in the change. I used to do that habitually, but had to give it up due to the chaos I was creating.
> I dont know, I always thought that is what a Libertarian society would look like. On second thought... nah, not enough machine gun crossfire. The rescuers are not charging a fee before they lift you of the roof (remember, altruism = a Libertarian no-no). Warlords did not take charge of the high ground and critical infrastructure so far. Slave traders haven't made an appearance yet. So not quite "extreme Libertarian" yet. Let's call it, say, "moderately Libertarian". How is that?
Alas, all the true Libertarians moved to the Somalian paradise, so only half-hearted Libertarians remain in New Orleans.
> The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
ID "theory" doesn't even say that much. It just says "here's something evolution couldn't have produced, therefore it's the result of intelligent design".
And when you start asking what "intelligent design" means, you'll discover that they believe "someone did something".
The "someone" is clearly the Christian God (though they don't say that except when they're presenting their "research" to religious audiences), and the "something" is... completely unspecified. Presumably if God draws something on the back of a napkin it is allowed to come into being.
> *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory", just on the basis that there is no evidence.
Here are my favorite no-evidence theories that I want schoolkiddies to learn:
Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory
Intelligent Falling Theory
Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory
Last Thursday Theory
2+2=5 Theory
We've really got to quit letting the boring old farts set the agenda!
> Doing as you suggest will, at very conservative estimates, stop you reading fifty worthwhile stories between now and the end of the year.
No problem; catch them when the other editors dupe his stories.
And I'm not sure he's going to post 50 worthwhile stories anyway. His dupism was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I was already disgruntled about some of the ASSes[*] he puts up.
> Yes, I agree with your first statement, though, it would be hard to believe in purpose without something to create the purpose, wouldn't it?
Why so? Is purpose necessarily dictated by some external agency? Can't purpose-oriented creatures decide on their own purposes? Do people who believe in a false religion have any difficulty finding a purpose in life?
> By that, I mean I understand someone could rationally conclude the idea that the complex system we live in didn't just...happen out of raw chance but there would have to be some kind of initiating actor, wouldn't there?
I can't figure out what you're saying there, but just to make sure everyone understands, scientists don't think stuff just happens "out of raw chance". If they did, they wouldn't waste their time looking for explanations.
> BAR is (or was, I don't know if it's in print now) was a true scholarly journal.
Actually, for as long as I've known about it it has been more of the "science magazine" genre, far more like Scientific American than Nature.
That's not to say it isn't worth reading, but we need to be realistic about these things.
> I don't think your statement about secular archaeologists fits what I was trying to say. I understand the comment but, by it's nature, a secular denial viewpoint (for lack of a better word) wouldn't have analogy to the Bible truth viewpoint of Christian archaeology (for lack of a better term.)
So, should we have "Christian archaeology" and "Muslim archaeology" and "Shinto archaeology", like we once had "Deutsche physic"?
> IOW, BAR would be making the case through physical evidence that the stories in the Bible are actual recorded events.
What's the difference between BAR doing that and someone else doing that?
The investigation of the history of "the holy land" is certainly legitimate, and surely merits a rag focused on that topic, but shouldn't they be trying to "see what happened" rather than "make the case"?
(BTW, where did BAR come out on those archaeologists' claims that the united kingdom never existed?)
> The more that is "proven", the less "fictional" the Bible would be.
And the same applies to the Iliad and the Odyssey, right?
(Surely you realize that even if the bible is packed with facts, that wouldn't make the rest of it true.)
> There just wouldn't be an analogy for secular viewpoints.
So, BAR is apologetics that just happens to use archaeology for its vehicle, rather than an attempt at unbiased archaeology?
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you're getting at.
> No, oh closed-minded one. Try Biblical Archaeology Review.
Could you give a name of the article(s) you have in mind? Google turns up lots of hits, but they all seem to mention BAR and ID in different sections of the page. (Also, I don't recall seeing BAR on the ever-popular list of ID's misrepresentations of where they stand in the world of peer review.)
BTW, BAR seems a rather odd place to be publishing articles about ID, unless ID has suggested a practical methodology for distinguishing designed artifacts from naturally occuring stuff.
FWIW I held Shanks in high regard back when he was rocking the boat re the Dead Sea Scrolls, but his gushing response to the faked "James Ossuary" kinda leaves me doubting his rigor, if not his sanity.
> Funny to see the posts from heathens calling the kettle black.
How do you know who's a heathen and who isn't? Or is "heathen" just jargon for "anyone who doesn't accept ID"?
> I especially like the one a few up from this [...]
Whatever. Someone's rant (if that's what it was; I don't know what post you're referring to), no matter how ill justified, does not make ID any less bullshit.
> It tells us wether the data was probably correct or not, as peer review involves 10 or 20 labs repeating your experiment and seeing if your measurments are correct.
"Peer review" can be interpreted to mean two things:
1) The formal review of a paper submitted for publication
2) The months, years, decades, or centuries of having your claims subjected to critical scrutiny by other scientists.
Most commonly it refers to (1), and in the context of a discussion of how "wrong" articles get published that seems to be the obvious interpretation here.
And if you're talking about (1), it usually involves 3-5 scientists (or their grad students) reading the paper and returning comments (and possibly rating scores) to the publisher, who forwards them to the authors in a way that (hopefully) preserves the reviewers' identities. Even if the paper is accepted, the authors are expected to revise their paper to address the reviewers' comments.
However, your experiments are not repeated by 10 to 20 labs, or even 1 lab, during this process. It simply isn't cost effective. A reviewer may raise a question if your data doesn't conform to previously published data that the reviewer knows about, but that's it. Basically, if your paper doesn't have any errors obvious to the reviewers, and is deemed relevant for the publication, it gets published on the assumption that you have your facts straight. (Careers get ruined when that turns out not to be the case, so authors usually try to make sure they do have the facts straight.)
The verifications, if any, come after other people read your article. If they doubt your claims, or feel like you are examining something extremely important, they will try to duplicate your results. If they can't duplicate them, or even if they merely disagree with your interpretations and conclusions, they will submit a paper arguing their side of the story.
> As for the conclusions... no one reads journals for the conclusions anyway.
Sure they do. You've heard the saying about standing on the shoulders of giants? No one has the time to validate the results of all the important papers in their field, so whatever foundations are needed by the current article are shorthanded by means of a citation of whoever first drew those foundations as conclusions. That's probably the #1 reason journal articles are read.
> Personally, I'd be curious how enrollment would go if they just had a division similar to the national gaurd which had, in writing, that you would never be sent out of the country.
I don't know what the current situation is, but after WWI Canada amended its constitution to say that only volunteers could be sent overseas.
That was the result of Britain using Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder. France wanted to do the same thing with US troops, which was why there was such a fuss about establishing an independent command.
> Has George finally decided to go back to work yet? [...] you'd think the guy would be trying to do something more significant.... or at least trying to LOOK like he was doing something significant.
Forgive my cynicism, but I suspect he and his staff are too busy celebrating the distraction of the media away from his five-week-long wartime vacation and the Summer of Sheehan.
> Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
I don't see anyone applying ID methodologies to determine whether this plant is the result of intelligent design or not. Any idea why?
> it's whether ID is falsifiable or not that's important. Which, AFAICT, it isn't, so it's still not science.
Since its proponents spend about 1/3 of their time making excuses for not deriving any predictions from ID, I wouldn't bank on falsifiability anytime soon.
> Does this mean that peer review fails as a method to filter out time-wasting, tree-killing dreck?
Peer review isn't a certification of correctness. It's just supposed to filter out the papers where the authors didn't do their homework. It can spot bad logic, use of outdated data, failure to consult important papers in the field, etc. But it can't tell us whether string theory is correct or not.
Slashdot Mirror
> A parallel to the 2+2=5 theory was actually witnessed at the local Wendy's. I had the sheer NERVE to give the lady $5.44 for a $3.44 item, and got $3 back
If you think that's bad, try giving them $5.69 to get rid of some pennies and get a quarter back in the change. I used to do that habitually, but had to give it up due to the chaos I was creating.
> why did Bush wait two days to curtail his cozy vacation to respond to the crisis?
He had a story about a goat that he wanted to finish.
> Last time I checked there was 10 thousand+ NationalGuardsmen heading down there
> I dont know, I always thought that is what a Libertarian society would look like. On second thought
Alas, all the true Libertarians moved to the Somalian paradise, so only half-hearted Libertarians remain in New Orleans.
> Or perhaps you're just someone with a serious lack of understanding of the Creationist model.
You mean this model?
> A little while back, I would have had no clue what the joke meant.
It was only invented three months ago.
> The real theory of Intelligent Design doesn't eliminate evolution. It actually proposes (hell, should I just say "proposed" at this point?) that evolution didn't stem only from random mutations, but from some that seem to have been encouraged.
ID "theory" doesn't even say that much. It just says "here's something evolution couldn't have produced, therefore it's the result of intelligent design".
And when you start asking what "intelligent design" means, you'll discover that they believe "someone did something".
The "someone" is clearly the Christian God (though they don't say that except when they're presenting their "research" to religious audiences), and the "something" is... completely unspecified. Presumably if God draws something on the back of a napkin it is allowed to come into being.
> *shrug* there doesn't have to be any evidence. but, that does mean it shouldn't be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory", just on the basis that there is no evidence.
Here are my favorite no-evidence theories that I want schoolkiddies to learn:
- Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory
- Intelligent Falling Theory
- Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory
- Last Thursday Theory
- 2+2=5 Theory
We've really got to quit letting the boring old farts set the agenda!> No, it doesn't.
Well, now that no one is reading his articles anymore, maybe Zonk can spend his time implementing RSS support instead of posting dupes.
> Doing as you suggest will, at very conservative estimates, stop you reading fifty worthwhile stories between now and the end of the year.
No problem; catch them when the other editors dupe his stories.
And I'm not sure he's going to post 50 worthwhile stories anyway. His dupism was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I was already disgruntled about some of the ASSes[*] he puts up.
*ASS: Annoyingly Stupid Story
> Done. Thanks for the tip.
Hope it works; I just now did it myself. (Else I wouldn't have seen this thread.)
> Seriously, Zonk...this shit just isn't funny anymore.
1) Visit http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome
2) Un-check "Zonk"
3) Click "Save"
4) See ya in another thread.
and noone screaming DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
DUPE!!!
Dupe!!!
There's something subtly funny about that post being moderated "Redundant".
> by paging lifeguards when it could not detect her moving.
Let's hope they never deploy this where I work!
> Yes, I agree with your first statement, though, it would be hard to believe in purpose without something to create the purpose, wouldn't it?
Why so? Is purpose necessarily dictated by some external agency? Can't purpose-oriented creatures decide on their own purposes? Do people who believe in a false religion have any difficulty finding a purpose in life?
> By that, I mean I understand someone could rationally conclude the idea that the complex system we live in didn't just...happen out of raw chance but there would have to be some kind of initiating actor, wouldn't there?
I can't figure out what you're saying there, but just to make sure everyone understands, scientists don't think stuff just happens "out of raw chance". If they did, they wouldn't waste their time looking for explanations.
> BAR is (or was, I don't know if it's in print now) was a true scholarly journal.
Actually, for as long as I've known about it it has been more of the "science magazine" genre, far more like Scientific American than Nature.
That's not to say it isn't worth reading, but we need to be realistic about these things.
> I don't think your statement about secular archaeologists fits what I was trying to say. I understand the comment but, by it's nature, a secular denial viewpoint (for lack of a better word) wouldn't have analogy to the Bible truth viewpoint of Christian archaeology (for lack of a better term.)
So, should we have "Christian archaeology" and "Muslim archaeology" and "Shinto archaeology", like we once had "Deutsche physic"?
> IOW, BAR would be making the case through physical evidence that the stories in the Bible are actual recorded events.
What's the difference between BAR doing that and someone else doing that?
The investigation of the history of "the holy land" is certainly legitimate, and surely merits a rag focused on that topic, but shouldn't they be trying to "see what happened" rather than "make the case"?
(BTW, where did BAR come out on those archaeologists' claims that the united kingdom never existed?)
> The more that is "proven", the less "fictional" the Bible would be.
And the same applies to the Iliad and the Odyssey, right?
(Surely you realize that even if the bible is packed with facts, that wouldn't make the rest of it true.)
> There just wouldn't be an analogy for secular viewpoints.
So, BAR is apologetics that just happens to use archaeology for its vehicle, rather than an attempt at unbiased archaeology?
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure what you're getting at.
> No, oh closed-minded one. Try Biblical Archaeology Review.
Could you give a name of the article(s) you have in mind? Google turns up lots of hits, but they all seem to mention BAR and ID in different sections of the page. (Also, I don't recall seeing BAR on the ever-popular list of ID's misrepresentations of where they stand in the world of peer review.)
BTW, BAR seems a rather odd place to be publishing articles about ID, unless ID has suggested a practical methodology for distinguishing designed artifacts from naturally occuring stuff.
FWIW I held Shanks in high regard back when he was rocking the boat re the Dead Sea Scrolls, but his gushing response to the faked "James Ossuary" kinda leaves me doubting his rigor, if not his sanity.
> Funny to see the posts from heathens calling the kettle black.
How do you know who's a heathen and who isn't? Or is "heathen" just jargon for "anyone who doesn't accept ID"?
> I especially like the one a few up from this [...]
Whatever. Someone's rant (if that's what it was; I don't know what post you're referring to), no matter how ill justified, does not make ID any less bullshit.
> It tells us wether the data was probably correct or not, as peer review involves 10 or 20 labs repeating your experiment and seeing if your measurments are correct.
"Peer review" can be interpreted to mean two things:
1) The formal review of a paper submitted for publication
2) The months, years, decades, or centuries of having your claims subjected to critical scrutiny by other scientists.
Most commonly it refers to (1), and in the context of a discussion of how "wrong" articles get published that seems to be the obvious interpretation here.
And if you're talking about (1), it usually involves 3-5 scientists (or their grad students) reading the paper and returning comments (and possibly rating scores) to the publisher, who forwards them to the authors in a way that (hopefully) preserves the reviewers' identities. Even if the paper is accepted, the authors are expected to revise their paper to address the reviewers' comments.
However, your experiments are not repeated by 10 to 20 labs, or even 1 lab, during this process. It simply isn't cost effective. A reviewer may raise a question if your data doesn't conform to previously published data that the reviewer knows about, but that's it. Basically, if your paper doesn't have any errors obvious to the reviewers, and is deemed relevant for the publication, it gets published on the assumption that you have your facts straight. (Careers get ruined when that turns out not to be the case, so authors usually try to make sure they do have the facts straight.)
The verifications, if any, come after other people read your article. If they doubt your claims, or feel like you are examining something extremely important, they will try to duplicate your results. If they can't duplicate them, or even if they merely disagree with your interpretations and conclusions, they will submit a paper arguing their side of the story.
> As for the conclusions... no one reads journals for the conclusions anyway.
Sure they do. You've heard the saying about standing on the shoulders of giants? No one has the time to validate the results of all the important papers in their field, so whatever foundations are needed by the current article are shorthanded by means of a citation of whoever first drew those foundations as conclusions. That's probably the #1 reason journal articles are read.
> Personally, I'd be curious how enrollment would go if they just had a division similar to the national gaurd which had, in writing, that you would never be sent out of the country.
I don't know what the current situation is, but after WWI Canada amended its constitution to say that only volunteers could be sent overseas.
That was the result of Britain using Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder. France wanted to do the same thing with US troops, which was why there was such a fuss about establishing an independent command.
> Has George finally decided to go back to work yet? [...] you'd think the guy would be trying to do something more significant.... or at least trying to LOOK like he was doing something significant.
Forgive my cynicism, but I suspect he and his staff are too busy celebrating the distraction of the media away from his five-week-long wartime vacation and the Summer of Sheehan.
> My coworkers are college professors
Wow, I knew lots of teachers were getting part-time jobs, but I always imagined them working as grocery clerks instead of ranch hands.
[snip irrelevant bullshit]
> Why would anyone want to close their eyes and cover their ears and say "I can't hear you - there is only evolution - there is no intelligent design - I'm not listening to you"? When actual real scientists are creating organisms which other scientists cannot distinguish from similar species found in nature?
I don't see anyone applying ID methodologies to determine whether this plant is the result of intelligent design or not. Any idea why?
> > In ~10 years of trying to find scientific evidence of just a single god the ID people haven't published a single paper.
> It depends on which journals you're reading.
Like Disinformation Science?
> it's whether ID is falsifiable or not that's important. Which, AFAICT, it isn't, so it's still not science.
Since its proponents spend about 1/3 of their time making excuses for not deriving any predictions from ID, I wouldn't bank on falsifiability anytime soon.
> Does this mean that peer review fails as a method to filter out time-wasting, tree-killing dreck?
Peer review isn't a certification of correctness. It's just supposed to filter out the papers where the authors didn't do their homework. It can spot bad logic, use of outdated data, failure to consult important papers in the field, etc. But it can't tell us whether string theory is correct or not.
> Their is a 50% chance that that's not true.
Actually, there's a 50% chance that there's a 50% chance that that's not true.