Let's see, you ask me what kind of Ferrari I drive, I say 'none', and you say that's a kind of Ferrari.
And you express that idiotic view with a glaring logical fallacy: If religion is a collection of beliefs, it does not follow that every collection of beliefs is a religion.
Don't these sociopaths realize that people cling to their guns and religion? What happens when you take away their religion? Hmm?
But I jest. From an atheist viewpoint, religion serves a valuable purpose: to keep the real sociopaths in line. The only reason they don't run rampant is because they believe in Heaven/Hell, and God's omniscience.
Except for those who think that means they *should* run rampant.
Atheists like Marx believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but they're fools to tell anyone that!
Yeah, I found his observation really offensive when I was a church-going schoolboy. But now I don't think many religious people even know what he meant: it's not about religion-as-a-drug, but rather about religion as a way to keep the masses under control. Apparently *lots* of famous leaders throughout history said the same thing, in their own words.
I vividly recall GWB at a memorial for some people he sent off to die in Iraq stating confidently that they were in a better place now. As if he (or anyone else) would actually know.
Apparently the neocons behind "intelligent design" were following the script from Plato's Republic: religious beliefs are good for the masses, though the Guardian class knows better. And they humbly consented to bear the burdens of being the Guardians and dealing with reality so the masses won't have to.
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
I disagree. Anyone who actually reasons about their religion will shuck it in a heartbeat. There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's, so the only rational choice is to set your standard for evidence low and believe all of them, or set it high and reject all of them. And since they are mutually contradictory, reason requires you to throw one of those options out.
Religion is a culturally transmitted phenomenon, almost like language. It's no accident that if you know when and where a randomly selected person lives or lived you can predict both their language and religion with fairly high accuracy. Reason indicates that religion all about tradition, not about some objective reality.
That's kind of how I feel about it. I don't believe in anything supernatural, period. But I don't need to join a club, go to meetings, fanboy some heros, and all that jazz. It starts to be a cult, even if not a religious cult.
Of course, rational argument isn't going to lever anyone out of religious beliefs, so maybe this kind of jazz is what is needed to break religion's stranglehold on public policy.
Another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between weather
Yep, global warming denialists think that if global warming was really happening I should wear short sleeves and cutoffs today, despite the fact that I'm freezing my ass off in the winter weather.
I see. So warming is why it snowed in the state of Arkansas in MAY of 1814??? NO, 2013!!!!! Records have never shown a snowfall in May and they've got records going all the way back to when the French owned this land.
How come one cold snap disproves global warming, but one heat wave doesn't prove it?
And the Antarctic has had the all-time record ice coverage in history. Yep, getting really hot.
its policies, and the politicians who support the same are directly responsible for massive losses of money and jobs
How does that compare to, say, the policies that have made offshoring lucrative, or the changes to depression-era rules that allowed the 2008 global economic meltdown?
FWIW, tests like the Tukey HSD ("Honestly Statistically Different") are designed to avoid that problem.
I suspect that's how the much-discussed "Jupiter Effect" for astrology came about: Throw in a big pile of names and birth signs, turn the crank, and watch a bogus correlation pop out.
Johnson found that a P value of 0.05 or less — commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in many fields including social science — still meant that as many as 17–25% of such findings are probably false (PDF).
. Found? Was he unaware that using a threshold of 0.05 means a 20% probability that a finding is a chance result - by definition ?
More interesting, IMO, is that statistical doesn't tell you what the scale of an effect is. There can be a trivial difference between A and B even if the difference is statistically significant. People publish it anyway.
I don't get it... Why are all the young tech-savvy bucks on Slashdot wringing their hands over what mitigation is going to cost, instead of drooling over how rich their startup is going to make them off of it?
The problem is that "scientists" have all adopted a ridiculus lieberal agenda
That's because of reality's well known extreme liberal bias.
whether it is global warming, "organic" food or evolution, they constantly ignore evidence that contradicts their world view and just try to shove their own down our collective throghts
You forgot to offer up some of that evidence that contradicts global warming or evolution.
(And I don't even know what you mean if you say something contradicts organic food. Denying its existence?)
You wouldn't know it from reading the summary, but the NSF already requires an explicit statement about "broader impact" in the summary of every grant proposal - automatic rejection if you leave it out.
The review criteria (instructions to reviewers) also state that the "broader impact" must be taken into consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, you ask me what kind of Ferrari I drive, I say 'none', and you say that's a kind of Ferrari.
And you express that idiotic view with a glaring logical fallacy: If religion is a collection of beliefs, it does not follow that every collection of beliefs is a religion.
Hope you were just out for a troll...
No, that has to wait until we all get to Hell.
Don't these sociopaths realize that people cling to their guns and religion? What happens when you take away their religion? Hmm?
But I jest. From an atheist viewpoint, religion serves a valuable purpose: to keep the real sociopaths in line. The only reason they don't run rampant is because they believe in Heaven/Hell, and God's omniscience.
Except for those who think that means they *should* run rampant.
Atheists like Marx believe that religion is the opiate of the masses, but they're fools to tell anyone that!
Yeah, I found his observation really offensive when I was a church-going schoolboy. But now I don't think many religious people even know what he meant: it's not about religion-as-a-drug, but rather about religion as a way to keep the masses under control. Apparently *lots* of famous leaders throughout history said the same thing, in their own words.
I vividly recall GWB at a memorial for some people he sent off to die in Iraq stating confidently that they were in a better place now. As if he (or anyone else) would actually know.
Apparently the neocons behind "intelligent design" were following the script from Plato's Republic: religious beliefs are good for the masses, though the Guardian class knows better. And they humbly consented to bear the burdens of being the Guardians and dealing with reality so the masses won't have to.
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
I disagree. Anyone who actually reasons about their religion will shuck it in a heartbeat. There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's, so the only rational choice is to set your standard for evidence low and believe all of them, or set it high and reject all of them. And since they are mutually contradictory, reason requires you to throw one of those options out.
Religion is a culturally transmitted phenomenon, almost like language. It's no accident that if you know when and where a randomly selected person lives or lived you can predict both their language and religion with fairly high accuracy. Reason indicates that religion all about tradition, not about some objective reality.
That's kind of how I feel about it. I don't believe in anything supernatural, period. But I don't need to join a club, go to meetings, fanboy some heros, and all that jazz. It starts to be a cult, even if not a religious cult.
Of course, rational argument isn't going to lever anyone out of religious beliefs, so maybe this kind of jazz is what is needed to break religion's stranglehold on public policy.
I suppose I'm just not the club-joining type.
Now only 48 more articles on this topic.
This is supposed to be a capitalist democracy. There is supposedly a free market.
Is that actually in our Constitution?
Or just put the receiver on the desk, and waste a bit of *their* time.
is letting one corporation get a choke-hold on the world's food supply.
"Ada" is the name of a person, and the language.
"ADA" is the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the American Dental Association.
s/dirt/poop/
What kind of editor would miss that opportunity?
Back then it was fire, brimstone, and buckshot.
I get the impression that the percentage of A/C posts is far higher on stories about GW than on the average story. Anyone got time to count?
Another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between weather
Yep, global warming denialists think that if global warming was really happening I should wear short sleeves and cutoffs today, despite the fact that I'm freezing my ass off in the winter weather.
I see. So warming is why it snowed in the state of Arkansas in MAY of 1814??? NO, 2013!!!!! Records have never shown a snowfall in May and they've got records going all the way back to when the French owned this land.
How come one cold snap disproves global warming, but one heat wave doesn't prove it?
And the Antarctic has had the all-time record ice coverage in history. Yep, getting really hot.
Yawn.
Deniers, like creationists, keep offering their arguments long after they've been refuted. Wonder why that is?
Oh, yeah. Deniers aren't actually doing any climate science, so they have to rely on something they read on the innertube.
that's not what MY bible says.
God just faked the temperatures to make it look like global warming happening, deceiving the unrighteous.
its policies, and the politicians who support the same are directly responsible for massive losses of money and jobs
How does that compare to, say, the policies that have made offshoring lucrative, or the changes to depression-era rules that allowed the 2008 global economic meltdown?
Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]
FWIW, tests like the Tukey HSD ("Honestly Statistically Different") are designed to avoid that problem.
I suspect that's how the much-discussed "Jupiter Effect" for astrology came about: Throw in a big pile of names and birth signs, turn the crank, and watch a bogus correlation pop out.
Johnson found that a P value of 0.05 or less — commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in many fields including social science — still meant that as many as 17–25% of such findings are probably false (PDF).
.
Found? Was he unaware that using a threshold of 0.05 means a 20% probability that a finding is a chance result - by definition ?
More interesting, IMO, is that statistical doesn't tell you what the scale of an effect is. There can be a trivial difference between A and B even if the difference is statistically significant. People publish it anyway.
Tesla down, Bitcoin down, what's Slashdot going to push when they fold?
I don't get it... Why are all the young tech-savvy bucks on Slashdot wringing their hands over what mitigation is going to cost, instead of drooling over how rich their startup is going to make them off of it?
The problem is that "scientists" have all adopted a ridiculus lieberal agenda
That's because of reality's well known extreme liberal bias.
whether it is global warming, "organic" food or evolution, they constantly ignore evidence that contradicts their world view and just try to shove their own down our collective throghts
You forgot to offer up some of that evidence that contradicts global warming or evolution.
(And I don't even know what you mean if you say something contradicts organic food. Denying its existence?)
You wouldn't know it from reading the summary, but the NSF already requires an explicit statement about "broader impact" in the summary of every grant proposal - automatic rejection if you leave it out.
The review criteria (instructions to reviewers) also state that the "broader impact" must be taken into consideration.
I think it's transmitted by LSD. My computer stopped doing that kind of stuff as soon as I stopped taking it.
Maybe one of the editors is trying to get an FP.