All of the numbers have one (1) significant digit. It's amazing God got it right thousands of years before science was invented. Go figure.
I assume your comment was intentionally ironic. But just in case...
"God" didn't get it right. If we take the link's interpretation of numerology as read (which is a big stretch), then a person corrected the original text. If you assume that the original text was inspired by a god, then that god got it wrong and was corrected by a human, who was more precise than the god had chosen to be.
Moreover, whoever wrote the original text (which needed correction) was using paper (a product of science), ink (a product of science), and talking about construction (a product of science).
Modern Science was invented when they started disallowing explanations such as "the pixies did it" or "Yahweh did it" because they are unsatisfactory. Science, however, has been around as long as humans were capable of reasoned thought - but it wasn't always called that, and was much more frequently wrong.
Other than that, you're bang on, I think: whoever wrote the initial text probably used round numbers because they were simpler, and unless you were an architect yourself, you wouldn't care much about those decimal places. The bible was written for a lay audience, after all. Round numbers are good enough.
In my experience, liberals have always worked hard to counter facts
I think you mean politicians. Of all parties. Ignoring facts or lying would be counter to basic liberal policies - freedom of the individual, freedom of thought and speech, and so forth. And those exact policies would be far more likely to be exposed in a liberal party than a left-wing or a right-wing party (which are both based on dogma, ultimately).
The Republicans have a far geater reputation in fact-distortion than the Democrats, for example (outside the Republican party, that is, and especially in Europe, where we have a more neutral press overall). I note that 4 out of 10 Republican candidates this year do not believe in evolution, whereas all the Democrat candidates do.
So.. remind me.. which side likes to ignore facts again..?
Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?
OK, I couldn't resist one last response: Because Paley thought of that argument over two hundred years ago, and it has been completely discredited many times since then. Again, I urge you to refer to the (vast) amount of populare science literature which is widely available on this subject. A good place to start would be "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which will show you precisely why that argument is flawed at its most basic level.
But if you buy any book on how to think logically, then you should be able to spot the flaw for yourself in time.
The myth that there are no atheists in foxholes is very untrue. Atheists are perhaps more likely to survive in a war, as they don't waste time praying when they should be shooting and keeping their mind on the job.
Common sense is absolutely no use whatsoever as far as weather patterns over the course of hundreds of years are concerned; let alone millenia. If you have any proof of what you say (other than "I, not being an expert nor having examined the evidence, don't think so because of my gut instinct"), then I suggest that you publish it. If your ideas and evidence have any merit, you are pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. I wait with baited breath.
One hundred years isn't a short amount of time; it's a VERY long time, especially in new areas of science. Computers have only existed since the early 1940s. They have come a long way since then. It is also no surprise at all that the predictions of a new science vary back and forth. Techniques are refined all the time, and new discoveries made. By measuring the predictions they made, and seeing how badly they were wrong, they know how badly wrong the theories are. The theories are then adjusted (unlike religious dogmas), and new prediciotns made. This is how science works. It's how it is SUPPOSED to work. But that, of course, doesn't prevent newspapers and other media from taking once scientific papaer and screaming "SCIENTISTS CLAIM: EARTH WILL COOL DOWN!" Of course it doesn't. And the scientists who published the paper screaming "it's only an early theory" get ignored, because that doesn't sell as many newspapers.
I expect weather predictions back then were also far less accurate than they are today, and frequently much more incorrect than they are now - wildly so, I expect. They are still wrong a lot of the time nowadays, but they are amazingly accurate.
the realm of thought Yes, it's quite different from matter and engery, but is purely there because of them. You can try it for yourself, by giving yourself a frontal lobotomy. All of a sudden, your personality pretty much vanishes. Personality and thought processes are created by the mind. Again, if you can prove different (or even have some evidence for this assertion), then your second Nobel prize awaits.
The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect DNA looks, in fact, as if it came together like that really slowly, over a long period of time, through a series of small changes which accumulated. As if it.. evolved. Spooky, eh?
If it is in fact designed (as you assert without an iota of proof), then the designer is quite simply the most incompetant fool whose work has ever been put under public scrutiny. Again, if you have any evidence whatsoever which is any way convincing, I would urge you to publish it immediately. You can get your third Nobel prize for that!
Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is. It depends on the context they say it in, of course. If there's evidence, then it's not guesswork; it's a good, working theory. If they do it without evidence, then it is guesswork, and not good science; certainly not to be relied upon too heavily.
Guesswork didn't build radios, televisions, planes, central heating, steel knives and forks, automobiles, or any one of the hundreds of thousands of objects which science has created down the years through application of good, solid theories that are nothing to do with guesswork at all.
Do try and remember that next time you turn on the TV, watch a DVD, use the Internet (or any computer); these things were ALL made using the SAME principles of science as every other branch of science uses.
Repeating "just like religion" doesn't make it any more true than it was when you said it before. I will repeat the obvious, for your benefit: if scientists based their work on ANYTHING like the
You have defeated your own argument. If science was based on faith, belief or assumption, then the assumption made in 1985 would still be prevelant today. It wouldn't change; it wouldn't need to change, as it would be an assumption.
If science were in any way comparable to religion, then anyone today who tried to oppose the 1895 view would be told in no uncertain terms that they had no right to pry into that, or to question it.
The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.
I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".
Where DNA came from? Yes, big mystery. The difference between science and religion, again, is that science says: "we don't know - we may never know, because we don't have any evidence preserved from that far back. We can make an educated guess, we may even one day make it happen in a lab, but that won't prove that it happened that way before. Since we are scientists and don't want to make any assumptions without facts we can't speculate further". Religion would say: "a magic pixie made it" or some such thing, and then scorn anyone who disagreed for ever more.
Your statement about Cosmology re-inforces the argument which proves you wrong. I am not familiar with the area of science, but I can well believe that if Cosmologists were only able to accurately detect one major force, then one major force is what they would work with. They may well know that the results they get are not 100% accuracte, and that there must be something else out there that they haven't discovered yet.
They may even make assumptions (yes!) if those assumptions make the calculations more accurate, but they would be stated as assumptions and known to be a bit dodgy, and liable to be proven wrong at any moment. The assumptions would NOT be held in the highest regard, and unchallengable in the face of new evidence, as religion would insist.
But they wouldn't make any assumptions which made the emasurements more inaccurate, or for which there was no evidence.
So.. not at all like religion in any way then - which you yourself have kindly demonstrated beyond any doubt.
Yes, sadly, many people do still think that religions can provide some sort of meaningful answer, rather just rather empty, meaningless sayings. There's nothing of value in any religion that isn't in Humanism, as far as I can see. But religions are far more dangerous than humanism.
Do I feel superior? Good question, actually; I think that I do. I do feel superior to people who think that anything can be explained from an initial starting point of nonsense. I do feel superior when I see people who want to believe any old strange and/or weird thing, clinging desperately to those beliefs despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think that it's a very silly thing to do, frankly.
I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.
And no, science can in no way be called a religion, or accused of being based on faith or belief; to claim so is palpabale nonsense, and easily demonstrated if you know the basics of the scientific method. That's like calling atheism a faith. Both are untrue for the exact same reason.
Ahem. Not that I am comparing Hinduism to Scientology in any way other than they both claim to be religions, and have no actual evidence to back up their claims (which is after all one of the defining attributes of a religion - if there was evidence, it wouldn't be religion, but science).
1, Where did I come from? 2, Who am I, really? 3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence? 4, What will happen to me after I die
Religion is better at answering the above four in a way that appeals to people much more, than the answers that science attempts to give.
No it isn't. Religion is better at creating answers which sound plausable to people who don't think too deeply about them.
For example, previous answers include: 1) God made the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago (proved wrong by the fossil record, carbon dating and many other things) 2) A spirit inhabiting a body, and you make it work by magic (the brain, muscles, tendons and nerves actually do this; and the brain creates consiousness) 3) Whatever the religous answer to this (and they are many and varied), the best-fit answer is still the scientific "to reproduce your genes". Nothing else fits human behaviour as well in all aspects. 4) You will go to a Big Happy Party in the sky. but only if you accept Jesus Christ as the son of god and your personal saviour. Oh, you also have to accept that he wasn't the Son of God, but a human and a prophet (Islam). You also have to accept that he wasn't a prophet (Judaism). And that's only according to the Big Three. All three cannot be correct. In what way is this better than the scientific approach of saying: "we have no evidence that anything at all happens after death"? Only in that it gives people who are scared of dying comfort because they believe they will live on.
If suicidal or genocidal militants didn't believe that paradise awaited them for their Holy Act, then there would be far fewer suicicdal militants and genocides (and I talk here of Cruisaders as well as modern maniacs of whatever denomination - it's true through the ages).
In short, if you rely on religion to answer any meaningful questions, then you don't ever have progress. We'd still think that electricity was Zeus being angry in the sky. Religion is deemed to be better only by people who don't actually think about the questions in any detail.
Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions, then you must also logically accept any explanation which offers the same burden of proof (i.e. none whatsoever). So if the Catholics or the Muslims are correct about the above, then so too must be the Hindus and the Scientologists.
Nice post; just one more thing. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that human children will absolutely believe anything told to them by an adult with responsibility (such as a parent, or group elder) without question. This is sensible, as it includes advice such as: "Don't kick wolves - just edge away slowly", and "don't eat the bright red berries that grow on small bushes". This helps survival, as life-or-death facts can be passed on quickly and in bulk. It also happens to helps propogate religion. Almost everyone in the world who is religous is so because their parents were. And they almost always share the same religion as their parents.
People are religous not because they have thought about it, concluded that it is correct, and chosen a sect to suit themselves. They are religous because they don't go around kicking wolves, eating the bright red berries, or running over the freeway without looking because it's a handy shortcut. They have been told that this is how the world works from an early age, and they simply accepted it as fact, as a by-product of a useful behaviour which has been evolved.
If we started from a clean slate, and had all children raised in a secular society, taught equally about all religions *and* science, then which do you think the children would choose? Even if they chose to be religous (and if taught properly about science and reason, I think that most would be atheist), the odds are that they wouldn't make the same choice as their parents (there are just so many sects to choose from).
The reason we keep electing Presidents that seem to have such a connection to religion is
3.) "We" didn't elect them, voters with connections to religion did.
Actually, voters with connections to religion made sure that nobody else even had a choice of candidate who wasn't religous.
Despite the USA's constitution stating explicitly that there should be a seperation of Chruch and State (quite sensibly), in practice, no candidate can hope to win a major election unless they are religous in some degree. The current incumbent of the White house (and the previous incumbent of 10 Downing Street) have even stated in public that some of their policy decisions are made by asking an Invisible Magic Person In The Sky Who Talks To Them Inside Their Heads. This is not a good way to run a country.
You talk of true democracy: one person one vote on all issues.
I thought about this a while ago but had to discard the idea. There are so many issues which need consideration, that just keeping up with all of them and being well-informed enough to vote on the issues I cared about would be a full-time job. I could, of course, vote without being fully informed (just going with my basic prejudices and instinct), but then I may as well join the Tory party or the Rebublicans </cheap side swipe>.
It also doesn't take into account the variable abilities and intellects of people. Not everyone, sadly, is above average intelligent (by definition). Such a voting system would have the immediate effect of reducing all political debate in the highest chamber of the land to the average level of discourse. Electing representitives at least gives us above-average intelligence in the decision making process (er.. most of the time, anyway).
The drawbacks are numerous, and I shan't list them here, but I will go with Sir Winston Churchill on this: "It has been said that democracy* is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that a benign dictatorship would be the best form of government - or pehaps a group of highly intelligent, well-educated, and totally secular (whatever their own faith) "board of directors" type of thing. And as soon as everyone else reaches this stunningly obvious conclusion and implements it, I shall be able to start implementing my sensible policies for the good of mankind. Starting with the one about Dancing Girls in my office.
Of course, that is a system open to massive abuse, and therefore not really feasible. My Dancing Girls will have to wait. But they should feel free to come round to my place and "practice for the revolution". Ahem.
*Note that he was almost certainly referring to Parlimentarian, not "true" democracy.
Interestingly (on while we're on the topic), my boss (who sits next to me) just found a 13-line comment (followed by a one-line fix), which I left in the code a couple of years ago.. he's looking at a bug, and right bang where the code took him, there's the massive great big comment...
The comment described a thorny GUI issue, why it would happen, how the code below fixed it, and what the parent control should do to handle the fixed behaviour. He could then use that detailed knowledge to make a fix in the parent component, which was handling events ever-so-slightly incorrectly under certain circumstances. I reckon that's probably saved him at least half a day's work.
Which is nice:)
I don't advocate huge comments normally, but when there's complex behaviour which isn't obvious (in this case the order in which windows events fire, depending on where the mouse starts/finishes), it is fully justified; I'd go as far as to say necessary.
heh.. yeah, I know my sample code was inefficient.. it wasn't written for what it did, so much as I wanted 3 code blocks, and didn't want to post real production code, so I made up some rubbish stuff:)
Actually, my initial comment *did* include remarks about totalling, but I took them out; the point I was trying to make is that the totalling was less likely to have happened in either of the other two blocks, so the middle block (from comments alone) was where you should start looking. My example wasn't terribly realistic.
I like the look of your code - and yes, our code basically *has* to be written for performance - everywhere. We deal with large grids of data; multiple loops make the system unresponsive.
The agile guys are right. If the code is written well, it will speak for itself. There's no need to duplicate what the code says in another language (i.e. english).
Some of the time, that is correct. Most of the time, it isn't. But that's just in my field (financial software). There are two languages in use in the software I write and maintain: "code", and "business". It is vital, in my area, that code is commented well, to explain the business reasons behind the code. Small loops sometimes speak for themselves and don't need commenting. For example, a method called "getAllCashSecuritiesForAccount", if it contains only a simple loop, doesn't need commenting.
But because developers come in who don't have a financial background, and don't know their way around the system, comments in the code are essential. It helps them understand both the code they are looking at, and the business flow.
But the main reason for having clear, concise comments in the code is so that you don't have to read the code. For example (apologies for the VB):
'get the securities in the current scope avItems = dctSecurities.Items for nCtr = 0 to dctAllSecurities.Count-1
Set oSecurity = avItems(nCtr)
If oSecurity.CurrentScope = enScope Then
colScopeSecurities.Add oSecurity
End If Next nCtr
' Apply the change to each security in turn - if they have the relevant settlement currency dTotal = 0 For each oSecurity in colSecurities
If oSecurity.SettlementCCy = sCCy Then
oSecurity.MakeAChange dNewValue
dTotal = dTotal + oSecurity.MarketValue
End If Next oSecurity
' Handle case of account going short If dTotal < 0 then
oAccount.HandleShortChange End If
The above comments are all aligned. They appear in the IDE in a different colour. They are written in plain English. They are clear and concise. If I am looking for a bug which involves the total value which has changed being wrong, then from scanning 3 lines, written in plain English, it is fairly clear where I should start my search. Yes, given a few more seconds, I can read through the whole code, and see what is being done. But it's quicker and easier to read 3 lines of English than 15-odd lines of code, which aren't aligned.
In fact, possibly the most useful aspect of comments like the above are to eliminate all the code you don't need to read.
You could argue, of course, that the above could be broken down into 3 seperate methods, all clearly named. But I think that's overkill. This is a simple method, doing three simple things. I ought to be able to read it all the way through without having to flip between three different methods, which exist only to save the developer taking the time to type some clear comments.
Lastly: yes, I am aware that the above code performs two seperate iterations of the same objects, and is terribly inefficient; it is for illustrative purposes only, and on no account should be treated with any seriousness:)
Wow, at first I thought there was a whole lot wrong with your post, but then I realised that all your points really boil down to this:
- you believe that non-scientific analysis is as valid as scientific (which is demonstrably wrong)
- you do not understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean, hence there's a lot of confusion
- you overuse the word "bigot"; as far as I can determine, you use it to mean: "people who disagree with me"
A few facts, then, which may help set you a little straighter: 1) Not all scientists are white (I have NO IDEA, again, what you meant by that, by the way) 2) peer review by scientists IS superior to peer review by non-scientists, because scientists tend to use the scientific method better, and tend to be more objective 3) "Objective" still doesn't mean what you think it means. Mutliple witnesses are not objective. Double blind tests were developed specifically *because* humans find it very difficult to be subjective, and their observations can taint the evidence if they know what test is being performed. Double blind tests with statistical analysis are not perfect by any means, but they are much better than the methods used by non-scientists, who often fall into the traps which these techniques are specifically designed to avoid.
If you have a theory, write it up and submit it for proper scientific peer review. They will tell you what is wrong, you will call them "bigots" and go away quite happily believing that you are, in some way, still correct even when all the actual evidence points otherwise.
You also don't appear to understand the word "supernatural". The Pope is NOT the head of a religion based on a non-supernatural philsophy. Quite the reverse; it's one of the most supernatural-based religions on the planet. Why on EARTH would you try and get away with that is beyond me.
Your book may have been peer-reviewed by other religious people, or by non-scientific people. That doesn't mean anything. Because they won't have reviewed it scientifically. If you want to offer proof, you must offer it in the proper way.
And no, the only valid sources I will accept are those which have a well reasoned argument and objective observation to back it up. I change my mind fairly often when confronted with such sources. You do not qualify on any counts, which is why I will not accept your arguments. What you wrote does apply, sir, but only to yourself.
That's probably my last word on this subject, unless you do something stunning (such come up with a proper argument). I expect you'll call me a bigot again, or launch another ad hominam attack, because that's what deogmatic people tend to do when they have no actual argument or any facts to back their case up. You'll almost certainly also claim "haha, there, you see, science can't answer the arguments because they are correct". No, I can't be bothered to waste my time, any more than I would if you were claining that the moon is made of cheese. It clearly isn't. If you suggest it is, you should provide appropriate proof. You can't do that. It's as simple as that, really.
Wow! Something in what I said upset you, obviously.
Still, I'm quite a forgiving chap, so I will let your ad hominem attacks slide.
So, your other points: the Church had been claiming that the earth DID move around the sun for about 100 years before Galileo- the real scientific question was whether the planets moved in elliptical or circular orbits- with Galileo taking circular
I'll take your word for that. So.. the disagreement was with the nature of the orbits, rather than the orbits themselves? Fascinating - I never knew that. Was that worth putting a man on trial for, then, and demanding that he recant, on pain of death? I'm just asking. Because it looked to everyone else as if the Church was wanting to supress the truth because it disagreed with their religous dogma.
Do you agree with the current Catholic dogma? In *every* area?
The whole reason we're having this conversation is that personal, subjective experiences of God are no longer subjective, but objective and repeatable
No. Subjective experiences of god are subjective. That is what "subjective" means. "Objective" is something different. This should not be an issue for debate, surely?
Rational religions have always claimed that you can put your brain in an alternate state to experience the divine; this is just more reproducible than older methods
Nope. TFA is making no claim to experience "the Divine deity", but rather that they can reproduce the feeling that many people have *claimed* to be a divine deity. But without any divine activity. Whatsoever. Unless you wish to claim that god has a measurable ampage, and that we should change his fuse every once in a while..?
If that's your attitude, then I'd say the logical fallacies are in your "quick glance" to which you devote NO thought and NO actual logic, locking yourself into a system where you believe in the existence of "logical fallacies" without any proof that they are fallacies. [ad hominem attack removed].
Can you back that up in any way? I ask for evidence. A hundred thousand people shouting "THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT AND TRUE MORE THAN THOSE OTHER 99,999 PEOPLE'S BOOKS" isn't really convincing. I declined to read YOUR book in the same way I decline those other 99,999 people. You have a claim? Fine. Measure it. Analayse it. Submit it for peer review.
"We don't qualify for peer review because we don't NEED it because WE were given the truth before we started" is NOT a valid argument. It's stupid.
Supernatural doesn't exist. I thought you were a theist, not an atheist!
No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander. WTF? *Every* religion claims that the supernatural exists. That's what religion means.
One doesn't have to believe in the supernatural to be religious... One must only believe that mankind hasn't explained quite everything yet. If you can give me a single example of any religious leader, anywhere in the world, claiming that their entire religion is based on non-supernatural ideas, I will be very impressed. I, personally, have never heard of any such thing. Especailly that the definition of a religion encompasses items based on the supernatural. The supernatural, of course, being things which are outside the natural world as understood by science. Hence "supernatural".
If any religous leader can claim that their religion is based on entirely non-supernatural beliefs, then - by definition- it is NOT a religion. It is science.
Please, provide me with that reference.
I suggest that there's a good social movement that might create volunteers- the gangsta movement. I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
All evidence gathered by somebody else dying is hearsay, and thus, subjective. Which is pretty much what I said when arguing against your previous post.
This is why the mainstream Christian Church (for example) has moved steadily away from any areas covered by science over the centuries
The Roman Catholic Church took the opposite tack..admitted that which can be scientifically disproven, is false
This is actually what I mean by "moving steadily away" from. Some ideas they admit are false and give up. Others they simply drop and don't talk about any more (such as the movement of the earth around the sun). I expect there was an official notice at some point that it was no longer official church position. But they moved away from these areas in that they no longer claim them to be Truth. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive. I wonder, actually, what %age of official Catholic teachings have been abandoned over the years? It would be interesting to know, especially since they claim that their popes are infallable:)
#2 isn't just faith- it is empirical research. It's the experience of the experiment.
No, you said that #2 was personal, subjective experience of god. Subjective is the key word. It means to me that the measurement of this is in no way objective. The experiment in TFA is objective, and therefore cannot back up any subjective experience of god. It gives people what feels exactly the same. It isn't anything to do with god. It suggests, therefore, that there is a ver y reasonable alternate explanation to a deity which makes people have such expereinces. This was always probable, but it's interesting that somebody has now gone and shown a way to reproduce the effect.
Well, [refusal to read the Book Of The Dead] would more tell me that the "scientific community" is being willfully ignorant- choosing their data to fit a predetermined conclusion.
Why on earth would that be the case? There are thousands of spiritual/philosophical books out there. I often get told by muslims, for example, that "Book X Y or Z will proove it all to you", while Chirsitans refer me to books "A, B, C, D, E, F" and so on. A quick glance at most of them will confirm that they are either chock full of logical fallacies or offer no evidence, just philosphical arguments (often also logically flawed to a huge degree).
I disregard the book as evidence because it's not been presented as such. If it holds valid scientific hypotheses, then by all means write these up in an appropriate manner and submit them for peer review. If they hold any water at all, your article will get published, and then I'll regard it as holding more water than any of the thousands of other books.
Sorry, but not being prepared to take your word that this book is entirely different from all the other similar books is in no way disregarding evidence. I simply don't have the time to read all the books which religous people tell me prove various wild ideas. In my experience they haven't - ever, and this is just yet another Book X. If I wrote 1000 books, and told people to read book 1, then book 2, then book 3, then their refusal to read book 537 could not be classed as disregarding evidence, could it? It would be a pretty sensible course of action on their part, in actual fact, or they'd spend their whole time reading books just so that people couldn't claim that their ideas must therefore be true but ignored by science.
Oh, I'm not a scientist, by the way - just Interested In Stuff.
choosing to be willfully ignorant of the effect of prayer on the human mind directly
I have no doubt that prayer can act on the human mind (my above statement about prayer was its effectiveness outside the indivdual praying, and yes - I hadn't related that to the article). Scientific studies have shown, for example, that Bhuddist monks can acheieve physical effects through prayer. It also acts as a very powerful placebo. Depressed people are far more likely to g
Slashdot Mirror
I assume your comment was intentionally ironic. But just in case...
"God" didn't get it right. If we take the link's interpretation of numerology as read (which is a big stretch), then a person corrected the original text. If you assume that the original text was inspired by a god, then that god got it wrong and was corrected by a human, who was more precise than the god had chosen to be.
Moreover, whoever wrote the original text (which needed correction) was using paper (a product of science), ink (a product of science), and talking about construction (a product of science).
Modern Science was invented when they started disallowing explanations such as "the pixies did it" or "Yahweh did it" because they are unsatisfactory. Science, however, has been around as long as humans were capable of reasoned thought - but it wasn't always called that, and was much more frequently wrong.
Other than that, you're bang on, I think: whoever wrote the initial text probably used round numbers because they were simpler, and unless you were an architect yourself, you wouldn't care much about those decimal places. The bible was written for a lay audience, after all. Round numbers are good enough.
Yes, but they didn't do it standing underneath a tree with low-hanging branches, did they? CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!
I think you mean politicians. Of all parties. Ignoring facts or lying would be counter to basic liberal policies - freedom of the individual, freedom of thought and speech, and so forth. And those exact policies would be far more likely to be exposed in a liberal party than a left-wing or a right-wing party (which are both based on dogma, ultimately).
The Republicans have a far geater reputation in fact-distortion than the Democrats, for example (outside the Republican party, that is, and especially in Europe, where we have a more neutral press overall). I note that 4 out of 10 Republican candidates this year do not believe in evolution, whereas all the Democrat candidates do.
So.. remind me.. which side likes to ignore facts again..?
Just out of curiosity, did your crisis begin before or after the fifth pint of the evening had been consumed?
Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?
OK, I couldn't resist one last response: Because Paley thought of that argument over two hundred years ago, and it has been completely discredited many times since then. Again, I urge you to refer to the (vast) amount of populare science literature which is widely available on this subject. A good place to start would be "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which will show you precisely why that argument is flawed at its most basic level.
Or this site.
But if you buy any book on how to think logically, then you should be able to spot the flaw for yourself in time.
The myth that there are no atheists in foxholes is very untrue. Atheists are perhaps more likely to survive in a war, as they don't waste time praying when they should be shooting and keeping their mind on the job.
Cheers now!
to me, as to anyone with common sense, rather than fancy garbage-in-garbage-out computer models
Sigh.
Common sense is absolutely no use whatsoever as far as weather patterns over the course of hundreds of years are concerned; let alone millenia. If you have any proof of what you say (other than "I, not being an expert nor having examined the evidence, don't think so because of my gut instinct"), then I suggest that you publish it. If your ideas and evidence have any merit, you are pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. I wait with baited breath.
One hundred years isn't a short amount of time; it's a VERY long time, especially in new areas of science. Computers have only existed since the early 1940s. They have come a long way since then. It is also no surprise at all that the predictions of a new science vary back and forth. Techniques are refined all the time, and new discoveries made. By measuring the predictions they made, and seeing how badly they were wrong, they know how badly wrong the theories are. The theories are then adjusted (unlike religious dogmas), and new prediciotns made. This is how science works. It's how it is SUPPOSED to work. But that, of course, doesn't prevent newspapers and other media from taking once scientific papaer and screaming "SCIENTISTS CLAIM: EARTH WILL COOL DOWN!" Of course it doesn't. And the scientists who published the paper screaming "it's only an early theory" get ignored, because that doesn't sell as many newspapers.
I expect weather predictions back then were also far less accurate than they are today, and frequently much more incorrect than they are now - wildly so, I expect. They are still wrong a lot of the time nowadays, but they are amazingly accurate.
the realm of thought
Yes, it's quite different from matter and engery, but is purely there because of them. You can try it for yourself, by giving yourself a frontal lobotomy. All of a sudden, your personality pretty much vanishes. Personality and thought processes are created by the mind. Again, if you can prove different (or even have some evidence for this assertion), then your second Nobel prize awaits.
The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect
DNA looks, in fact, as if it came together like that really slowly, over a long period of time, through a series of small changes which accumulated. As if it.. evolved. Spooky, eh?
If it is in fact designed (as you assert without an iota of proof), then the designer is quite simply the most incompetant fool whose work has ever been put under public scrutiny. Again, if you have any evidence whatsoever which is any way convincing, I would urge you to publish it immediately. You can get your third Nobel prize for that!
Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is.
It depends on the context they say it in, of course. If there's evidence, then it's not guesswork; it's a good, working theory. If they do it without evidence, then it is guesswork, and not good science; certainly not to be relied upon too heavily.
Guesswork didn't build radios, televisions, planes, central heating, steel knives and forks, automobiles, or any one of the hundreds of thousands of objects which science has created down the years through application of good, solid theories that are nothing to do with guesswork at all.
Do try and remember that next time you turn on the TV, watch a DVD, use the Internet (or any computer); these things were ALL made using the SAME principles of science as every other branch of science uses.
Repeating "just like religion" doesn't make it any more true than it was when you said it before. I will repeat the obvious, for your benefit: if scientists based their work on ANYTHING like the
You have defeated your own argument. If science was based on faith, belief or assumption, then the assumption made in 1985 would still be prevelant today. It wouldn't change; it wouldn't need to change, as it would be an assumption.
If science were in any way comparable to religion, then anyone today who tried to oppose the 1895 view would be told in no uncertain terms that they had no right to pry into that, or to question it.
The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.
I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".
Where DNA came from? Yes, big mystery. The difference between science and religion, again, is that science says: "we don't know - we may never know, because we don't have any evidence preserved from that far back. We can make an educated guess, we may even one day make it happen in a lab, but that won't prove that it happened that way before. Since we are scientists and don't want to make any assumptions without facts we can't speculate further". Religion would say: "a magic pixie made it" or some such thing, and then scorn anyone who disagreed for ever more.
Your statement about Cosmology re-inforces the argument which proves you wrong. I am not familiar with the area of science, but I can well believe that if Cosmologists were only able to accurately detect one major force, then one major force is what they would work with. They may well know that the results they get are not 100% accuracte, and that there must be something else out there that they haven't discovered yet.
They may even make assumptions (yes!) if those assumptions make the calculations more accurate, but they would be stated as assumptions and known to be a bit dodgy, and liable to be proven wrong at any moment. The assumptions would NOT be held in the highest regard, and unchallengable in the face of new evidence, as religion would insist.
But they wouldn't make any assumptions which made the emasurements more inaccurate, or for which there was no evidence.
So.. not at all like religion in any way then - which you yourself have kindly demonstrated beyond any doubt.
And yes, my previous answer came down a tadge harsh-sounding - sorry about that; bad day!
Yes, sadly, many people do still think that religions can provide some sort of meaningful answer, rather just rather empty, meaningless sayings. There's nothing of value in any religion that isn't in Humanism, as far as I can see. But religions are far more dangerous than humanism.
Do I feel superior? Good question, actually; I think that I do. I do feel superior to people who think that anything can be explained from an initial starting point of nonsense. I do feel superior when I see people who want to believe any old strange and/or weird thing, clinging desperately to those beliefs despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think that it's a very silly thing to do, frankly.
I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.
And no, science can in no way be called a religion, or accused of being based on faith or belief; to claim so is palpabale nonsense, and easily demonstrated if you know the basics of the scientific method. That's like calling atheism a faith. Both are untrue for the exact same reason.
Ahem. Not that I am comparing Hinduism to Scientology in any way other than they both claim to be religions, and have no actual evidence to back up their claims (which is after all one of the defining attributes of a religion - if there was evidence, it wouldn't be religion, but science).
No it isn't. Religion is better at creating answers which sound plausable to people who don't think too deeply about them.
For example, previous answers include:
1) God made the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago (proved wrong by the fossil record, carbon dating and many other things)
2) A spirit inhabiting a body, and you make it work by magic (the brain, muscles, tendons and nerves actually do this; and the brain creates consiousness)
3) Whatever the religous answer to this (and they are many and varied), the best-fit answer is still the scientific "to reproduce your genes". Nothing else fits human behaviour as well in all aspects.
4) You will go to a Big Happy Party in the sky. but only if you accept Jesus Christ as the son of god and your personal saviour. Oh, you also have to accept that he wasn't the Son of God, but a human and a prophet (Islam). You also have to accept that he wasn't a prophet (Judaism). And that's only according to the Big Three. All three cannot be correct. In what way is this better than the scientific approach of saying: "we have no evidence that anything at all happens after death"? Only in that it gives people who are scared of dying comfort because they believe they will live on.
If suicidal or genocidal militants didn't believe that paradise awaited them for their Holy Act, then there would be far fewer suicicdal militants and genocides (and I talk here of Cruisaders as well as modern maniacs of whatever denomination - it's true through the ages).
In short, if you rely on religion to answer any meaningful questions, then you don't ever have progress. We'd still think that electricity was Zeus being angry in the sky. Religion is deemed to be better only by people who don't actually think about the questions in any detail.
Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions, then you must also logically accept any explanation which offers the same burden of proof (i.e. none whatsoever). So if the Catholics or the Muslims are correct about the above, then so too must be the Hindus and the Scientologists.
Nice post; just one more thing. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that human children will absolutely believe anything told to them by an adult with responsibility (such as a parent, or group elder) without question. This is sensible, as it includes advice such as: "Don't kick wolves - just edge away slowly", and "don't eat the bright red berries that grow on small bushes". This helps survival, as life-or-death facts can be passed on quickly and in bulk. It also happens to helps propogate religion. Almost everyone in the world who is religous is so because their parents were. And they almost always share the same religion as their parents.
People are religous not because they have thought about it, concluded that it is correct, and chosen a sect to suit themselves. They are religous because they don't go around kicking wolves, eating the bright red berries, or running over the freeway without looking because it's a handy shortcut. They have been told that this is how the world works from an early age, and they simply accepted it as fact, as a by-product of a useful behaviour which has been evolved.
If we started from a clean slate, and had all children raised in a secular society, taught equally about all religions *and* science, then which do you think the children would choose? Even if they chose to be religous (and if taught properly about science and reason, I think that most would be atheist), the odds are that they wouldn't make the same choice as their parents (there are just so many sects to choose from).
Actually, voters with connections to religion made sure that nobody else even had a choice of candidate who wasn't religous.
Despite the USA's constitution stating explicitly that there should be a seperation of Chruch and State (quite sensibly), in practice, no candidate can hope to win a major election unless they are religous in some degree. The current incumbent of the White house (and the previous incumbent of 10 Downing Street) have even stated in public that some of their policy decisions are made by asking an Invisible Magic Person In The Sky Who Talks To Them Inside Their Heads. This is not a good way to run a country.
You talk of true democracy: one person one vote on all issues.
I thought about this a while ago but had to discard the idea. There are so many issues which need consideration, that just keeping up with all of them and being well-informed enough to vote on the issues I cared about would be a full-time job. I could, of course, vote without being fully informed (just going with my basic prejudices and instinct), but then I may as well join the Tory party or the Rebublicans </cheap side swipe>.
It also doesn't take into account the variable abilities and intellects of people. Not everyone, sadly, is above average intelligent (by definition). Such a voting system would have the immediate effect of reducing all political debate in the highest chamber of the land to the average level of discourse. Electing representitives at least gives us above-average intelligence in the decision making process (er.. most of the time, anyway).
The drawbacks are numerous, and I shan't list them here, but I will go with Sir Winston Churchill on this: "It has been said that democracy* is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that a benign dictatorship would be the best form of government - or pehaps a group of highly intelligent, well-educated, and totally secular (whatever their own faith) "board of directors" type of thing. And as soon as everyone else reaches this stunningly obvious conclusion and implements it, I shall be able to start implementing my sensible policies for the good of mankind. Starting with the one about Dancing Girls in my office.
Of course, that is a system open to massive abuse, and therefore not really feasible. My Dancing Girls will have to wait. But they should feel free to come round to my place and "practice for the revolution". Ahem.
*Note that he was almost certainly referring to Parlimentarian, not "true" democracy.
Interestingly (on while we're on the topic), my boss (who sits next to me) just found a 13-line comment (followed by a one-line fix), which I left in the code a couple of years ago.. he's looking at a bug, and right bang where the code took him, there's the massive great big comment...
:)
The comment described a thorny GUI issue, why it would happen, how the code below fixed it, and what the parent control should do to handle the fixed behaviour. He could then use that detailed knowledge to make a fix in the parent component, which was handling events ever-so-slightly incorrectly under certain circumstances. I reckon that's probably saved him at least half a day's work.
Which is nice
I don't advocate huge comments normally, but when there's complex behaviour which isn't obvious (in this case the order in which windows events fire, depending on where the mouse starts/finishes), it is fully justified; I'd go as far as to say necessary.
Absolutely you still have to read the code. And if the code-monkies damagae the comments, then they don't get their bananas :)
heh.. yeah, I know my sample code was inefficient.. it wasn't written for what it did, so much as I wanted 3 code blocks, and didn't want to post real production code, so I made up some rubbish stuff :)
Actually, my initial comment *did* include remarks about totalling, but I took them out; the point I was trying to make is that the totalling was less likely to have happened in either of the other two blocks, so the middle block (from comments alone) was where you should start looking. My example wasn't terribly realistic.
I like the look of your code - and yes, our code basically *has* to be written for performance - everywhere. We deal with large grids of data; multiple loops make the system unresponsive.
in order to insert goat porn.. all it takes is changing some text which is designed to be easily modified.
Call me conservative and traditionalist if you will, but what is wrong with good old goatse itself?
The youth of today clearly have no respect for the values and history of the interweb. For shame.
duplicate what the code says in another language (i.e. english).
Some of the time, that is correct. Most of the time, it isn't. But that's just in my field (financial software). There are two languages in use in the software I write and maintain: "code", and "business". It is vital, in my area, that code is commented well, to explain the business reasons behind the code. Small loops sometimes speak for themselves and don't need commenting. For example, a method called "getAllCashSecuritiesForAccount", if it contains only a simple loop, doesn't need commenting.
But because developers come in who don't have a financial background, and don't know their way around the system, comments in the code are essential. It helps them understand both the code they are looking at, and the business flow.
But the main reason for having clear, concise comments in the code is so that you don't have to read the code. For example (apologies for the VB):
The above comments are all aligned. They appear in the IDE in a different colour. They are written in plain English. They are clear and concise. If I am looking for a bug which involves the total value which has changed being wrong, then from scanning 3 lines, written in plain English, it is fairly clear where I should start my search. Yes, given a few more seconds, I can read through the whole code, and see what is being done. But it's quicker and easier to read 3 lines of English than 15-odd lines of code, which aren't aligned.
In fact, possibly the most useful aspect of comments like the above are to eliminate all the code you don't need to read.
You could argue, of course, that the above could be broken down into 3 seperate methods, all clearly named. But I think that's overkill. This is a simple method, doing three simple things. I ought to be able to read it all the way through without having to flip between three different methods, which exist only to save the developer taking the time to type some clear comments.
Lastly: yes, I am aware that the above code performs two seperate iterations of the same objects, and is terribly inefficient; it is for illustrative purposes only, and on no account should be treated with any seriousness
Heh. I don't have that problem, thankfully. When you google for me, you get a bunch of stuff about some guy who sings or something.
Obviously I bought his CD, because we James Ingrams have to stick together, after all.
And I like to think that I'm following in the footsteps of Michael Jackson, who of course was the creator of Jackson Structured Programming.
That's ridiculous even by your standards, mate.
If you can provide me with a single religion based on science (that's science, by the way, not faith), then I will still be impressed.
Religions are not scientific. By definition. Saying that they are doesn't make it true.
Wow, at first I thought there was a whole lot wrong with your post, but then I realised that all your points really boil down to this:
- you believe that non-scientific analysis is as valid as scientific (which is demonstrably wrong)
- you do not understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean, hence there's a lot of confusion
- you overuse the word "bigot"; as far as I can determine, you use it to mean: "people who disagree with me"
A few facts, then, which may help set you a little straighter:
1) Not all scientists are white (I have NO IDEA, again, what you meant by that, by the way)
2) peer review by scientists IS superior to peer review by non-scientists, because scientists tend to use the scientific method better, and tend to be more objective
3) "Objective" still doesn't mean what you think it means. Mutliple witnesses are not objective. Double blind tests were developed specifically *because* humans find it very difficult to be subjective, and their observations can taint the evidence if they know what test is being performed. Double blind tests with statistical analysis are not perfect by any means, but they are much better than the methods used by non-scientists, who often fall into the traps which these techniques are specifically designed to avoid.
If you have a theory, write it up and submit it for proper scientific peer review. They will tell you what is wrong, you will call them "bigots" and go away quite happily believing that you are, in some way, still correct even when all the actual evidence points otherwise.
You also don't appear to understand the word "supernatural". The Pope is NOT the head of a religion based on a non-supernatural philsophy. Quite the reverse; it's one of the most supernatural-based religions on the planet. Why on EARTH would you try and get away with that is beyond me.
Your book may have been peer-reviewed by other religious people, or by non-scientific people. That doesn't mean anything. Because they won't have reviewed it scientifically. If you want to offer proof, you must offer it in the proper way.
And no, the only valid sources I will accept are those which have a well reasoned argument and objective observation to back it up. I change my mind fairly often when confronted with such sources. You do not qualify on any counts, which is why I will not accept your arguments. What you wrote does apply, sir, but only to yourself.
That's probably my last word on this subject, unless you do something stunning (such come up with a proper argument). I expect you'll call me a bigot again, or launch another ad hominam attack, because that's what deogmatic people tend to do when they have no actual argument or any facts to back their case up. You'll almost certainly also claim "haha, there, you see, science can't answer the arguments because they are correct". No, I can't be bothered to waste my time, any more than I would if you were claining that the moon is made of cheese. It clearly isn't. If you suggest it is, you should provide appropriate proof. You can't do that. It's as simple as that, really.
One minor correction to my original reply.
Scientologists have (it is alledged by some) claimed to have a religion based on science.
If you can provide me with one single religous leader whose religion is actually based on science, then I will be impressed.
Wow! Something in what I said upset you, obviously.
Still, I'm quite a forgiving chap, so I will let your ad hominem attacks slide.
So, your other points:
the Church had been claiming that the earth DID move around the sun for about 100 years before Galileo- the real scientific question was whether the planets moved in elliptical or circular orbits- with Galileo taking circular
I'll take your word for that. So.. the disagreement was with the nature of the orbits, rather than the orbits themselves? Fascinating - I never knew that. Was that worth putting a man on trial for, then, and demanding that he recant, on pain of death? I'm just asking. Because it looked to everyone else as if the Church was wanting to supress the truth because it disagreed with their religous dogma.
Do you agree with the current Catholic dogma? In *every* area?
The whole reason we're having this conversation is that personal, subjective experiences of God are no longer subjective, but objective and repeatable
No. Subjective experiences of god are subjective. That is what "subjective" means. "Objective" is something different. This should not be an issue for debate, surely?
Rational religions have always claimed that you can put your brain in an alternate state to experience the divine; this is just more reproducible than older methods
Nope. TFA is making no claim to experience "the Divine deity", but rather that they can reproduce the feeling that many people have *claimed* to be a divine deity. But without any divine activity. Whatsoever. Unless you wish to claim that god has a measurable ampage, and that we should change his fuse every once in a while..?
If that's your attitude, then I'd say the logical fallacies are in your "quick glance" to which you devote NO thought and NO actual logic, locking yourself into a system where you believe in the existence of "logical fallacies" without any proof that they are fallacies. [ad hominem attack removed].
Can you back that up in any way? I ask for evidence. A hundred thousand people shouting "THIS BOOK IS DIFFERENT AND TRUE MORE THAN THOSE OTHER 99,999 PEOPLE'S BOOKS" isn't really convincing. I declined to read YOUR book in the same way I decline those other 99,999 people. You have a claim? Fine. Measure it. Analayse it. Submit it for peer review.
"We don't qualify for peer review because we don't NEED it because WE were given the truth before we started" is NOT a valid argument. It's stupid.
Supernatural doesn't exist.
I thought you were a theist, not an atheist!
No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.
WTF? *Every* religion claims that the supernatural exists. That's what religion means.
One doesn't have to believe in the supernatural to be religious... One must only believe that mankind hasn't explained quite everything yet.
If you can give me a single example of any religious leader, anywhere in the world, claiming that their entire religion is based on non-supernatural ideas, I will be very impressed. I, personally, have never heard of any such thing. Especailly that the definition of a religion encompasses items based on the supernatural. The supernatural, of course, being things which are outside the natural world as understood by science. Hence "supernatural".
If any religous leader can claim that their religion is based on entirely non-supernatural beliefs, then - by definition- it is NOT a religion. It is science.
Please, provide me with that reference.
I suggest that there's a good social movement that might create volunteers- the gangsta movement.
I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
All evidence gathered by somebody else dying is hearsay, and thus, subjective.
Which is pretty much what I said when arguing against your previous post.
But the hypotheses is measurable in
This is actually what I mean by "moving steadily away" from. Some ideas they admit are false and give up. Others they simply drop and don't talk about any more (such as the movement of the earth around the sun). I expect there was an official notice at some point that it was no longer official church position. But they moved away from these areas in that they no longer claim them to be Truth. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive. I wonder, actually, what %age of official Catholic teachings have been abandoned over the years? It would be interesting to know, especially since they claim that their popes are infallable :)
No, you said that #2 was personal, subjective experience of god. Subjective is the key word. It means to me that the measurement of this is in no way objective. The experiment in TFA is objective, and therefore cannot back up any subjective experience of god. It gives people what feels exactly the same. It isn't anything to do with god. It suggests, therefore, that there is a ver y reasonable alternate explanation to a deity which makes people have such expereinces. This was always probable, but it's interesting that somebody has now gone and shown a way to reproduce the effect.
Why on earth would that be the case? There are thousands of spiritual/philosophical books out there. I often get told by muslims, for example, that "Book X Y or Z will proove it all to you", while Chirsitans refer me to books "A, B, C, D, E, F" and so on. A quick glance at most of them will confirm that they are either chock full of logical fallacies or offer no evidence, just philosphical arguments (often also logically flawed to a huge degree).
I disregard the book as evidence because it's not been presented as such. If it holds valid scientific hypotheses, then by all means write these up in an appropriate manner and submit them for peer review. If they hold any water at all, your article will get published, and then I'll regard it as holding more water than any of the thousands of other books.
Sorry, but not being prepared to take your word that this book is entirely different from all the other similar books is in no way disregarding evidence. I simply don't have the time to read all the books which religous people tell me prove various wild ideas. In my experience they haven't - ever, and this is just yet another Book X. If I wrote 1000 books, and told people to read book 1, then book 2, then book 3, then their refusal to read book 537 could not be classed as disregarding evidence, could it? It would be a pretty sensible course of action on their part, in actual fact, or they'd spend their whole time reading books just so that people couldn't claim that their ideas must therefore be true but ignored by science.
Oh, I'm not a scientist, by the way - just Interested In Stuff.
I have no doubt that prayer can act on the human mind (my above statement about prayer was its effectiveness outside the indivdual praying, and yes - I hadn't related that to the article). Scientific studies have shown, for example, that Bhuddist monks can acheieve physical effects through prayer. It also acts as a very powerful placebo. Depressed people are far more likely to g