How do we explain to the scientifically illiterate among us that randomness is a human perception and not a scientific reality? For example, the randomness canard surfaces when they talk about how evolution "randomly" ended up with us humans in existence today. Except that science never explains evolution in terms of randomness -- this is a made-up assertion by those who don't have enough of a scientific grounding.
In the infinity of the cosmos (not just this universe), it is scientifically reasonable to say there is only the discrete and the probabilistic. When you roll a pair of dice, you don't get a truly "random" result. You get a probabilistic one based on discrete factors that are largely imperceptible to the human brain. And it's arguable that given all the discrete factors, the result is even a discrete one! Now, when you get down into particle physics, that's where we really get more into the probabilistic, but that's probably too deep to explain to these science-illiterates.
Science can create experiments around a number of aspects of evolution. There's no way to do this with any aspect of creation.
Also, it's not purely random how we exist. Evolution to what we are now took place over unimaginable time spans, and via natural selection we eventually arrived to where we're at today, with some people thinking unimaginatively we were created all of a sudden (snark).
Just because you cannot wrap your head around evolving biological processes and vast, VAST expanses of time, doesn't mean that life is as rare as you assert.
I am an atheist, like you, Mr. Dawkins. And I have an educational background comprising a good deal of scientific study. There is obviously no scientific/material evidence of God.
But if we take a step back from the material, and just look at rational philosophy, we accept concepts like mathematics as reality.
So, my question is...
Even as you and I don't believe in God, is there any _possible_ way to construct a rational philosophy that lends _any_ bit of credence to the existence of a master "orderer" of the cosmos (God)?
In my experience/perspective, it seems to work best to, at a minimum, try one's hardest to write code that is as efficiently encapsulated as possible and self-descriptive using well-named functions, parameters, classes, methods and variables, along with clean formatting of processing structures.
And then have a "trigger" as to whether a comment is necessary. Such as: 1) Are you doing something so arcane that another programmer wouldn't easily figure it out? Arcane things like unusual business logic that a reader of the code might not be expecting. Of course, one way to solve arcane code is to find a way to further simplify the code, perhaps breaking it up and/or using functions. 2) Is there a limited use for what you've written? Is it necessarily partially hard-coded for now? 3) Is the code section really long so that commenting can better guide the reader around the monstrosity? (or you can break it down and/or use functions to clarify) 4) Does the code do something really special that you want to point out? Does it have a potential for re-use? 5) Have you had to write an anomaly workaround or something kludgy that for some reason needs to await further review and rewrite but also needs to go into production ahead of that time? 6) If a common function library, are the purpose, parameters and return value fully explained? Similar applies to common classes.
There may be other triggers I can't recall off-hand.
Even though IDEs can hide comments, they, like code, still have to be maintained. So efficiency of comments is important, although usually not nearly as important as efficiency of code.
That's absurd, as if the public in general has the means to do this for any slight.
The real answer is contacting government officials, including your representative, when something goes wrong. They are supposed to be answerable to the public without the need for lawsuits.
On the other hand, they're usually made from a kind of plastic that recyclers don't take. If we have to continue to put up with clamshells, at least they should use a #1-#6 plastic.
Defiance in the face of bigotry is no vice. Stand your ground, EA. Most people who buy these games don't care about the addition of same-sex couples that we see all around us in reality.
In my own experience, the hardest part about math is mastering the basics (simple arithmetic). But after that point, learning most things mathematical is like jumping between baby steps.
If it's possible, I would advise working with your girls for as long as possible with the basic math skills until they get if, even if takes years. It would be nice if all schools could be configured to let some students work at their own pace (whether behind or ahead), but since they don't in general, non-stop tutoring until they "get it" is probably the best way to go.
Let's face it -- what we're learning from Mars is a snooze compared to what we're learning from our various deep space probes. I find myself far more fixated on the latest exoplanet findings than the latest "there might be water or microbial life on Mars" schtick.
You might be surprised at how many sellers on eBay don't use simple HTML to their selling advantage to present a professional looking listing.
If you have things to sell, and you know HTML, you can build up a decent store with decent sales, within months.
Also, finding work as a freelance web developer is painful and extremely difficult (I know, I used to try), so why not create your own site with your own content and/or user-contributed content, and advertise. If it's local in nature, you can accept local ads.
None of these can be achieved overnight, but I think they're better ideas than spinning wheels trying to get freelancing jobs.
Here's the thing: Real scientists don't write or say things like this.
They don't talk about "embarrassment" of those who disagree, nor of anyone's "drumbeat". As I say in the title, these are right-wing dog signals.
Secondly, CO2 has never been called a "pollutant" in the sense these "scientists" want to portray -- they are using tools of propaganda with how they describe CO2 juxtaposed with how real scientists discuss it.
To top it all off, it's always been about _climate change_ -- there was no "shift" from "warming".
You can take out your anger on me. I'm one of the Wikipedians who said Strong Support for a hard global blackout. I'm sorry that you're inconvenienced, but THAT'S THE POINT.
The voting was closed last evening and the community decision was announced.
You can tell when it's closed by it all being boxed in, with a gray background, and the message "The discussion above is closed." appearing at the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we explain to the scientifically illiterate among us that randomness is a human perception and not a scientific reality? For example, the randomness canard surfaces when they talk about how evolution "randomly" ended up with us humans in existence today. Except that science never explains evolution in terms of randomness -- this is a made-up assertion by those who don't have enough of a scientific grounding.
In the infinity of the cosmos (not just this universe), it is scientifically reasonable to say there is only the discrete and the probabilistic. When you roll a pair of dice, you don't get a truly "random" result. You get a probabilistic one based on discrete factors that are largely imperceptible to the human brain. And it's arguable that given all the discrete factors, the result is even a discrete one! Now, when you get down into particle physics, that's where we really get more into the probabilistic, but that's probably too deep to explain to these science-illiterates.
Science can create experiments around a number of aspects of evolution. There's no way to do this with any aspect of creation.
Also, it's not purely random how we exist. Evolution to what we are now took place over unimaginable time spans, and via natural selection we eventually arrived to where we're at today, with some people thinking unimaginatively we were created all of a sudden (snark).
Just because you cannot wrap your head around evolving biological processes and vast, VAST expanses of time, doesn't mean that life is as rare as you assert.
"There are not enough sub atomic particles in the universe for there to be a life-possible planet statistically"
Ummm, first, it is Dawkins being questioned, and two, we're looking for _rational_ answers.
I am an atheist, like you, Mr. Dawkins. And I have an educational background comprising a good deal of scientific study. There is obviously no scientific/material evidence of God.
But if we take a step back from the material, and just look at rational philosophy, we accept concepts like mathematics as reality.
So, my question is...
Even as you and I don't believe in God, is there any _possible_ way to construct a rational philosophy that lends _any_ bit of credence to the existence of a master "orderer" of the cosmos (God)?
In my experience/perspective, it seems to work best to, at a minimum, try one's hardest to write code that is as efficiently encapsulated as possible and self-descriptive using well-named functions, parameters, classes, methods and variables, along with clean formatting of processing structures.
And then have a "trigger" as to whether a comment is necessary. Such as:
1) Are you doing something so arcane that another programmer wouldn't easily figure it out? Arcane things like unusual business logic that a reader of the code might not be expecting. Of course, one way to solve arcane code is to find a way to further simplify the code, perhaps breaking it up and/or using functions.
2) Is there a limited use for what you've written? Is it necessarily partially hard-coded for now?
3) Is the code section really long so that commenting can better guide the reader around the monstrosity? (or you can break it down and/or use functions to clarify)
4) Does the code do something really special that you want to point out? Does it have a potential for re-use?
5) Have you had to write an anomaly workaround or something kludgy that for some reason needs to await further review and rewrite but also needs to go into production ahead of that time?
6) If a common function library, are the purpose, parameters and return value fully explained? Similar applies to common classes.
There may be other triggers I can't recall off-hand.
Even though IDEs can hide comments, they, like code, still have to be maintained. So efficiency of comments is important, although usually not nearly as important as efficiency of code.
My sites got hit so much from spambots originating from Amazon's cloud that I've had to block anything coming from it.
I hope Google does a better job at dealing with spambots originating from their servers.
Exactly.
That's absurd, as if the public in general has the means to do this for any slight.
The real answer is contacting government officials, including your representative, when something goes wrong. They are supposed to be answerable to the public without the need for lawsuits.
Corporations aren't answerable to the public. Government is.
(and no, that "invisible hand" you're thinking of? That's always been connected to a limp wrist.)
Might help us see your point if you gave us links for these claims.
On the other hand, they're usually made from a kind of plastic that recyclers don't take. If we have to continue to put up with clamshells, at least they should use a #1-#6 plastic.
Defiance in the face of bigotry is no vice. Stand your ground, EA. Most people who buy these games don't care about the addition of same-sex couples that we see all around us in reality.
You strike upon an important point.
In my own experience, the hardest part about math is mastering the basics (simple arithmetic). But after that point, learning most things mathematical is like jumping between baby steps.
If it's possible, I would advise working with your girls for as long as possible with the basic math skills until they get if, even if takes years. It would be nice if all schools could be configured to let some students work at their own pace (whether behind or ahead), but since they don't in general, non-stop tutoring until they "get it" is probably the best way to go.
Why not a combination of factors? This isn't really a black-and-white thing.
Mars is a dead planet. I say we let other countries spend themselves broke trying to get there, for no reason.
We'll get tons more benefits (esp. over costs) from telescopes and deep space probes.
The only good use for the moon is for a radio telescope to be located on the far side. Otherwise, we're wasting money.
Telescopes and deep space probes are where it's at for the best science.
Let's face it -- what we're learning from Mars is a snooze compared to what we're learning from our various deep space probes. I find myself far more fixated on the latest exoplanet findings than the latest "there might be water or microbial life on Mars" schtick.
Mars is a dead planet... move on.
You might be surprised at how many sellers on eBay don't use simple HTML to their selling advantage to present a professional looking listing.
If you have things to sell, and you know HTML, you can build up a decent store with decent sales, within months.
Also, finding work as a freelance web developer is painful and extremely difficult (I know, I used to try), so why not create your own site with your own content and/or user-contributed content, and advertise. If it's local in nature, you can accept local ads.
None of these can be achieved overnight, but I think they're better ideas than spinning wheels trying to get freelancing jobs.
Here's the thing: Real scientists don't write or say things like this.
They don't talk about "embarrassment" of those who disagree, nor of anyone's "drumbeat". As I say in the title, these are right-wing dog signals.
Secondly, CO2 has never been called a "pollutant" in the sense these "scientists" want to portray -- they are using tools of propaganda with how they describe CO2 juxtaposed with how real scientists discuss it.
To top it all off, it's always been about _climate change_ -- there was no "shift" from "warming".
You can take out your anger on me. I'm one of the Wikipedians who said Strong Support for a hard global blackout. I'm sorry that you're inconvenienced, but THAT'S THE POINT.
Then Bing can join in the blackout as well. Unless they want to be seen as scabs.
The voting was closed last evening and the community decision was announced.
You can tell when it's closed by it all being boxed in, with a gray background, and the message "The discussion above is closed." appearing at the bottom.
Ref: War on Drugs.
Not really more peaceful when you consider all the weaponry the tea partiers were carrying around. Yeah, we were noticing.