"'Back in the day, too many people had too much invested in the world being the center of the universe. That's what the church taught. That's what the schools taught. That was the accepted inferrence.
Today, too many people have too much invested in ideas like about the organic origin of oil, electron shells, or the distance between stars.'
The first was a religious belief with no supporting evidence. The second is based on scientific research with supporting evidence. There is no comparison between the two."
The first was supported by all available evidence. The sun and stars clearly spun around the world. They saw this every day. Therefore the reasonable inferrence drawn by scientists was that the earth was in the middle and everything spun around it.
What I would have is a system where every idea was evaluated on its merit without regard to how well it fits in with other established ideas. Unfortunately such a system is impossible under either the present Government fudned system or the old Church funded system. My main point, and the central problem that draws reporters to fringe science is that the conflicts in the system do not allow for multiple, even conflicting ideas to be pursued with the same zeal at the same time. This is what good science should permit.
My proposed solution is not in this post, because I don't have one. I've been careful thusfar not to espouse either fringe ideas or popular ones. For example, at no time have I endorsed either the 6000 year old earth or the 4.8 billion year old earth theory. From what I personally have observed both ideas have potential to be correct.
Would that our funding machine, and newspaper reporters, could both do the same without fear of reprisal.
"Your entire premise is based on the idea that scientific fact is just a matter of opinion open for debate."
Scientific fact, such as it is, consists only of what can be demonstrated through a reporducable test. What these "facts" mean is very much a matter open for debate.
We accept for example as scientific fact that an object falls at 32 feet per second, squared because we can reproduce it. Does this mean we should also accept as fact the notion that objects always fall at this rate?
The distinction I'm trying to illustrate is that science suffers from the assertion that commonly used inferrences can become so entrenched that they get accepted as "fact." Then when the next galieo comes along and starts talking elements that our inferrence fails to consider, he gets excommunicated.
Back in the day, too many people had too much invested in the world being the center of the universe. That's what the church taught. That's what the schools taught. That was the accepted inferrence.
Today, too many people have too much invested in ideas like about the organic origin of oil, electron shells, or the distance between stars. If someone were to offer to disprove these ideas, or even pursue an unrelated theory, it would hamper the funding of pretty much EVERYONE Else.
1. You come up with some idea about how things work. 2. You gather facts relevant to the question. 3. You compare those facts to your idea 4. You revise your idea if necessary.
Grant writing follows the same notion, except that someone else gets to look at your idea first. If your idea is that natural phenomena A is most easily explained by Divine origin. You don't get government funding.
In our present regime, there are two assumptions you can start with. Either everything you see happend by chance, or it go there through a divine origin of your choice. Granted this is really a choice between the ultimately un-provable and the mathematically impossible, but neither approach would actually prevent science from learning useful things. Unfortunately, only one gets funding.
While it is true that religion can and does fund research, that research is subject to the same conflict of interest I've described already, and perhaps even more so because of those well meaning but over-zealous types.
The problem is not with the scientific method, but with the fact that track records matter in funding. Researchers that are "right" more often get more funding. This has the effect of turning scientists into lawyers. They are pressured to gather evidence that supports their premise, and find ways to discount contradictory facts.
"All you've done is claim that the lack of scientific proof of religious beliefs is due to some conspiracy theory that science is somehow being funded to suppress religion."
I don't assert that the lack of scientific proof of a particular religion is due to some conspiracy. I assert that no such proof, or any other fact contradictory to modern norms, could easily come to light under the current system. Most research funding comes from government sources. Government sources in most nations cannot fund research that involves a religion-affiliated theory no matter how sound.
"'If you believe that even though this funding regime is in place research still proceeds in a perfectly neutral and unspoiled eden, are you not demonstrating a faith in something unprovable and contrary to observable fact?'
No."
Well, if this debate comes down to a question of credibility, I rest my case. You feel that science is infallible even though there is considerable evidence to suggest otherwise. Clearly christians are just planted on earth as a trap for the unwary scientist.
You thump your government funded textbook, they'll thump their bibles, and if you get into a rhythm maybe it'll drown you both out.
This could go on all night... But I really don't think you're thinking clearly.
1. I did suggest, by analogy, that secular funding for research influences the results. Ethics makes the conflict of interest easy to spot. Government cannot fund religion (presidential politics aside.) Democratic government will not fund people who disagree with the majority. Therefore anyone who wants funding is encouraged at the very least to produce results that meet the expected norms.
2. If you believe that even though this funding regime is in place research still proceeds in a perfectly neutral and unspoiled eden, are you not demonstrating a faith in something unprovable and contrary to observable fact?
Perhaps you'd have found the point on third try. In any case, I'll save you the time:
A reporter who looks at history can observe that there are from time to time scientists who bucked the commonly accepted ideas about things and were eventually proven right. They are few and far between, but that ONE disagreeable scientist who disagrees with the whole world might just be the reporter's Pulitzer Prize.
As far as geological age, It is irrelevant to my point, but feel free to contact Dr. Robert Kohl at the Unviersity of South Dakota.
Actually, I'm a lawyer who has apparently grown to reliant on spell checking software. The really funny part about all this is that so many people totally missed the point about journalism just because I used the word "church" in an example.
Ordinarily I'd let comments like these go, but In this case I'm pretty sure you didn't read the first paragraph of my post. You know, the part about times when the church was wrong? I think you're confusing my social commentary about a newspaper reporter wanting to be the one who discovers the next Galileo with a scientific argument.
I get the impression that some well meaning but over zealous christian did something to you in the past to really make you mad... and now you're just venting.
On the other hand, I took geology in a state-funded university and left pretty convinced that modern science has no well supported idea how old the world really is.
As radical as it may seem, perhaps the journalists studied enough history in College to remember all the times when the general view of accepted science was horribly wrong. We're pretty sure now that the world is neither flat nor at the center of the universe.
Back in the day, scientists couldn't say anything that disagreed with the church because they'd loose their funding, credibility, and probably their lives.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
I think my state should just pick electors in the State Legislature. How those of you who are not from my state handle your selection process is none of my business.
Ah, well I have this vague memory of a childre's story - either in book form or perhaps on television in the early 1980's... It might have been some animated commentary on nuclear war, or it might have been a story about how people who stand around doing nonthing will get squished...
Maybe it was from "The Day After"... it would have been about the time that movie came out.
Does this mean I can get four times as many drink-coasters every month? I just moved into a bigger place, so I need some.
Seriously though, will this provide newfound independence for the Netscape folks, and newfound options for the browsers associated with them? Or will it just be a management shift that has no practical effect on the rest of the world?
1. RIAA will read the report, and ignore it. They will continue to press for legal protections in the courts and congress.
2. This will cost them money, but not increase profits. They will insist on MORE legal protections.
3. This will cost them money, but not increase profits. (Again, because 66-75% of their losses are their own fault.) Cycle repeats till several large producers go broke and technology passes their business model by. Those that survive do so by producing better content.
4. Big government bail-out.... maybe... but at least for a while music should get better.
True Story
on
Digital Retro
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Some of these old systems never loose their appeal... A few years back, about 4 if I recall, My boss asked me to find him a computer. He is a pioneering engineer type, never went to college, designs aircraft sensors with pen & paper... And wanted a single-line display handheld computer that took some BASIC variant for a programming language. A high tech toy from the early 1980's.
I found one on Ebay for like 5 bucks - He uses it almost daily. I guess if it works, you don't need to add features and soak up RAM.
Has anyone ever done a simulation to see exactly how long it would take a million monkeys with typewriters to produce the complete works of William Shakespear? I'd really like to know. It couldn't be that hard, maybe I'll dust off that Turbo Pascall they tought me in Undergraduate...
Well... yes.... but.... I like it? Many of the room descriptions are particularly well done. The world is nice and big.... and it was one of the first MMOG's I played.
And when you say "Almost everything" what else do you have in mind?
I've always been a big fan of Fantasy based MUDs such as those found at fire.pvv.org, port 4242 (Multi-User Middle Earth) and rots.us, port 3791 (Return of the Shadow)
To play these effectively (as a new player) you will need a MUD client. These are just a modified telent terminal. Zmud is popular for windows users, Powwow, Tintin, and others are good on a Linux system.
Once you get in, start reading things. Most MUDs support intuitive commands like "west" to go west, or "Say" to say something, or "Chat" to say something to everyone in the game. Ask questions, take notes, and... be prepared in case of addiction.
None of this would matter if we just had our state legislatures select the presidential electors. No more half truth sound bites from the campaigns, interest groups, angry individuals, or international actors. Just a peaceful discussion between the best & brightest in each state about which people should be given the job of choosing president.
1. I have a black and white TV that I seldom watch, what the heck is all this red/blue state stuff?
2. Can we please stop calling any citizen of a United State "American"? There's a reason the word "United Statesian" was never used... If you live in the Union, you're a citizen of your state. American's can be Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian....
3. Did I hear right that Senator Daschle has obtained a court order keeping only Republican poll watchers out of polling places on South Dakota Indian Reservations?
4. Anyone want to tell me about the wonders of some neat new technology and help me overcome post-election depression?
Slashdot Mirror
"'Back in the day, too many people had too much invested in the world being the center of the universe. That's what the church taught. That's what the schools taught. That was the accepted inferrence.
Today, too many people have too much invested in ideas like about the organic origin of oil, electron shells, or the distance between stars.'
The first was a religious belief with no supporting evidence. The second is based on scientific research with supporting evidence. There is no comparison between the two."
The first was supported by all available evidence. The sun and stars clearly spun around the world. They saw this every day. Therefore the reasonable inferrence drawn by scientists was that the earth was in the middle and everything spun around it.
What I would have is a system where every idea was evaluated on its merit without regard to how well it fits in with other established ideas. Unfortunately such a system is impossible under either the present Government fudned system or the old Church funded system. My main point, and the central problem that draws reporters to fringe science is that the conflicts in the system do not allow for multiple, even conflicting ideas to be pursued with the same zeal at the same time. This is what good science should permit.
My proposed solution is not in this post, because I don't have one. I've been careful thusfar not to espouse either fringe ideas or popular ones. For example, at no time have I endorsed either the 6000 year old earth or the 4.8 billion year old earth theory. From what I personally have observed both ideas have potential to be correct.
Would that our funding machine, and newspaper reporters, could both do the same without fear of reprisal.
"Your entire premise is based on the idea that scientific fact is just a matter of opinion open for debate."
Scientific fact, such as it is, consists only of what can be demonstrated through a reporducable test. What these "facts" mean is very much a matter open for debate.
We accept for example as scientific fact that an object falls at 32 feet per second, squared because we can reproduce it. Does this mean we should also accept as fact the notion that objects always fall at this rate?
The distinction I'm trying to illustrate is that science suffers from the assertion that commonly used inferrences can become so entrenched that they get accepted as "fact." Then when the next galieo comes along and starts talking elements that our inferrence fails to consider, he gets excommunicated.
Back in the day, too many people had too much invested in the world being the center of the universe. That's what the church taught. That's what the schools taught. That was the accepted inferrence.
Today, too many people have too much invested in ideas like about the organic origin of oil, electron shells, or the distance between stars. If someone were to offer to disprove these ideas, or even pursue an unrelated theory, it would hamper the funding of pretty much EVERYONE Else.
Regarding government funding of research, take a look at:
k s/ rd.html
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/boo
Scientific research works on the following plan:
1. You come up with some idea about how things work.
2. You gather facts relevant to the question.
3. You compare those facts to your idea
4. You revise your idea if necessary.
Grant writing follows the same notion, except that someone else gets to look at your idea first. If your idea is that natural phenomena A is most easily explained by Divine origin. You don't get government funding.
In our present regime, there are two assumptions you can start with. Either everything you see happend by chance, or it go there through a divine origin of your choice. Granted this is really a choice between the ultimately un-provable and the mathematically impossible, but neither approach would actually prevent science from learning useful things. Unfortunately, only one gets funding.
While it is true that religion can and does fund research, that research is subject to the same conflict of interest I've described already, and perhaps even more so because of those well meaning but over-zealous types.
The problem is not with the scientific method, but with the fact that track records matter in funding. Researchers that are "right" more often get more funding. This has the effect of turning scientists into lawyers. They are pressured to gather evidence that supports their premise, and find ways to discount contradictory facts.
"All you've done is claim that the lack of scientific proof of religious beliefs is due to some conspiracy theory that science is somehow being funded to suppress religion."
I don't assert that the lack of scientific proof of a particular religion is due to some conspiracy. I assert that no such proof, or any other fact contradictory to modern norms, could easily come to light under the current system. Most research funding comes from government sources. Government sources in most nations cannot fund research that involves a religion-affiliated theory no matter how sound.
"'If you believe that even though this funding regime is in place research still proceeds in a perfectly neutral and unspoiled eden, are you not demonstrating a faith in something unprovable and contrary to observable fact?'
No."
Well, if this debate comes down to a question of credibility, I rest my case. You feel that science is infallible even though there is considerable evidence to suggest otherwise. Clearly christians are just planted on earth as a trap for the unwary scientist.
You thump your government funded textbook, they'll thump their bibles, and if you get into a rhythm maybe it'll drown you both out.
This could go on all night... But I really don't think you're thinking clearly.
1. I did suggest, by analogy, that secular funding for research influences the results. Ethics makes the conflict of interest easy to spot. Government cannot fund religion (presidential politics aside.) Democratic government will not fund people who disagree with the majority. Therefore anyone who wants funding is encouraged at the very least to produce results that meet the expected norms.
2. If you believe that even though this funding regime is in place research still proceeds in a perfectly neutral and unspoiled eden, are you not demonstrating a faith in something unprovable and contrary to observable fact?
"Try saying what you mean instead of accusing me of not understanding you."
I'm terribly sorry. Please forgive my overestimations.
Perhaps you'd have found the point on third try. In any case, I'll save you the time:
A reporter who looks at history can observe that there are from time to time scientists who bucked the commonly accepted ideas about things and were eventually proven right. They are few and far between, but that ONE disagreeable scientist who disagrees with the whole world might just be the reporter's Pulitzer Prize.
As far as geological age, It is irrelevant to my point, but feel free to contact Dr. Robert Kohl at the Unviersity of South Dakota.
Actually, I'm a lawyer who has apparently grown to reliant on spell checking software. The really funny part about all this is that so many people totally missed the point about journalism just because I used the word "church" in an example.
Ordinarily I'd let comments like these go, but In this case I'm pretty sure you didn't read the first paragraph of my post. You know, the part about times when the church was wrong? I think you're confusing my social commentary about a newspaper reporter wanting to be the one who discovers the next Galileo with a scientific argument.
I get the impression that some well meaning but over zealous christian did something to you in the past to really make you mad... and now you're just venting.
On the other hand, I took geology in a state-funded university and left pretty convinced that modern science has no well supported idea how old the world really is.
As radical as it may seem, perhaps the journalists studied enough history in College to remember all the times when the general view of accepted science was horribly wrong. We're pretty sure now that the world is neither flat nor at the center of the universe.
Back in the day, scientists couldn't say anything that disagreed with the church because they'd loose their funding, credibility, and probably their lives.
Today, scientists can't say anything that appears to agree with the church, because they'll loose their funding, their credibility and possibly their lives.
Maybe the reporters have it right
There are a jillion online dating sites.
There are a jillion online employment sites.
Are there any sites that match FOSS projects with potential volunteers?
For example, I'm a lawyer and I'm not doing anything this evening. I'm sure some FOSS project could use one....But I don't know which or where.
I think my state should just pick electors in the State Legislature. How those of you who are not from my state handle your selection process is none of my business.
Ah, well I have this vague memory of a childre's story - either in book form or perhaps on television in the early 1980's... It might have been some animated commentary on nuclear war, or it might have been a story about how people who stand around doing nonthing will get squished...
... it would have been about the time that movie came out.
Maybe it was from "The Day After"
Does this mean I can get four times as many drink-coasters every month? I just moved into a bigger place, so I need some.
Seriously though, will this provide newfound independence for the Netscape folks, and newfound options for the browsers associated with them? Or will it just be a management shift that has no practical effect on the rest of the world?
Here's my prediction:
1. RIAA will read the report, and ignore it. They will continue to press for legal protections in the courts and congress.
2. This will cost them money, but not increase profits. They will insist on MORE legal protections.
3. This will cost them money, but not increase profits. (Again, because 66-75% of their losses are their own fault.) Cycle repeats till several large producers go broke and technology passes their business model by. Those that survive do so by producing better content.
4. Big government bail-out.... maybe... but at least for a while music should get better.
Some of these old systems never loose their appeal... A few years back, about 4 if I recall, My boss asked me to find him a computer. He is a pioneering engineer type, never went to college, designs aircraft sensors with pen & paper... And wanted a single-line display handheld computer that took some BASIC variant for a programming language. A high tech toy from the early 1980's.
I found one on Ebay for like 5 bucks - He uses it almost daily. I guess if it works, you don't need to add features and soak up RAM.
I'm sure we all know the truth - these missing votes were all cast for Bandarik.
The real question is, with all of these maps of every county in every state - why can't a third party candidate even take his HOME COUNTY?
Has anyone ever done a simulation to see exactly how long it would take a million monkeys with typewriters to produce the complete works of William Shakespear? I'd really like to know. It couldn't be that hard, maybe I'll dust off that Turbo Pascall they tought me in Undergraduate...
Well... yes.... but .... I like it? Many of the room descriptions are particularly well done. The world is nice and big.... and it was one of the first MMOG's I played.
And when you say "Almost everything" what else do you have in mind?
I've always been a big fan of Fantasy based MUDs such as those found at fire.pvv.org, port 4242 (Multi-User Middle Earth) and rots.us, port 3791 (Return of the Shadow)
... be prepared in case of addiction.
To play these effectively (as a new player) you will need a MUD client. These are just a modified telent terminal. Zmud is popular for windows users, Powwow, Tintin, and others are good on a Linux system.
Once you get in, start reading things. Most MUDs support intuitive commands like "west" to go west, or "Say" to say something, or "Chat" to say something to everyone in the game. Ask questions, take notes, and
2+ ghz processor... check ... check ... check ... check .. check ... check ... Check?
$160 video card
17 inch monitor
512mb + of ram
Screamin' Soundcard
Highspeed cable modem
Telnet client
Conenction to MUD that's been running since 1990... CHECK?!
The implications are correct, the best games have been around for years, designed and maintained by old hands... and they're text-based.
None of this would matter if we just had our state legislatures select the presidential electors. No more half truth sound bites from the campaigns, interest groups, angry individuals, or international actors. Just a peaceful discussion between the best & brightest in each state about which people should be given the job of choosing president.
Hook me up!
1. I have a black and white TV that I seldom watch, what the heck is all this red/blue state stuff?
2. Can we please stop calling any citizen of a United State "American"? There's a reason the word "United Statesian" was never used... If you live in the Union, you're a citizen of your state. American's can be Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian....
3. Did I hear right that Senator Daschle has obtained a court order keeping only Republican poll watchers out of polling places on South Dakota Indian Reservations?
4. Anyone want to tell me about the wonders of some neat new technology and help me overcome post-election depression?
The individuals who were responsible for this post have just been sacked!