Insofar as "public education" is financed by the government, no, I'm not sure that I am aware of that. You might be referring to "private education", which is the kind that's not financed by the government.
If my commute choices are driving for 45 minutes in traffic, or standing on a bus for an hour and a half with a transfer or two, I'm gonna drive.
I love public transportation, if and when it works. I'm willing to take a little longer to commute without having to drive, but I'm not willing to double my commute time in vastly less comfortable environs.
Why would you run those applications on a slow $400 machine, when the applications themselves cost ten times that much? And what does CAD have to do with gaming (which was your original point, I think...)
Again, that's like saying there's a conflict between hammers and screwdrivers. It's not like there are scientists looking at the world around them and struggling with whether they should pray about a question, or break out the microscope.
I suppose I'm willing to concede that there is conflict here. I'm just saying that the conflict is manufactured by humans, not intrinsic in the philosophy.
"Please explain in detail who is "invested in creating" a conflict between science and religion."
Well, I was more thinking the religious fundamentalists who seem to need to discredit science in order to validate their world view. But I'm not one to get between you and your preconceptions.
"I look at the diversity, and universality, of religion as proof of A) its arbitrariness; and B) that it, itself, is bestowed upon us by evolution."
I don't argue that at all. I'm also not willing to dismiss non-rational cognition out of hand, and just say that rationality is always better. I'm a pretty darn rational person...I couldn't do my job if I wasn't. However, I don't think it's rational to blindly assert that only rationality is valid or useful.
As an aside, I think that rationality is the only just way to create a system of government, for exactly the reason you mention above. We can all understand the same rational framework. We may not all share the same philosophical constructs.
"I don't think that science, as a largely mathematical system, can provide all of the answers to reality, and it especially cannot bestow meaning (which is existentially important)."
Again, I think you're making my point for me. Was that what you meant to do?
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not, but it sure sounds like you're making my point for me.
"How do I make a rocket ship?" and "What happens if we dump a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere?" are excellent questions for scientific inquiry, and remarkably bad ones for religious (or, if you prefer, philosophical) inquiry.
There are a number of people who try to apply scientific reasoning to situations that simply don't lend themselves. Specifically, when both my wife and I have low blood sugar, it doesn't matter how rational one or the other of us tries to be...if we're not sensitive to one another, we're gonna have a fight. Of course, the scientific answer is "Don't have low blood sugar". But it's nice to have more alternatives, more ways to think about my relationships, than just scientific ones.
But what the hell do I know? I'm just a religious engineer. I'll probably start frothing at the mouth any minute.
"Religious people will always believe what their holy book says over what any scientist says"
That is simply false. I am a religious person. I do not believe what my "holy book" says over what scientists say, since I am also a scientist. (OK, an engineer, but similar world view for these purposes).
I'm not saying that adherents of science and adherents of religion always agree. I am saying that there is no fundamental incompatibility between those two world views. How do I know? Because I are one. I see science and religion as complementary ways of interacting with the world.
You are, of course, free to disagree. But you're being silly if you just blindly assert that all religious people are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
What if one of those LINKSYS routers is mine, and I'm trying to connect to it to configure it? How do I tell which one is mine?
Insofar as "public education" is financed by the government, no, I'm not sure that I am aware of that. You might be referring to "private education", which is the kind that's not financed by the government.
IFF people buy it, the prices are not horrendous.
Value is identically equal to the amount somebody is willing to pay for something.
Accountability is not "Whoops, my bad! Can I have my check now?" Accountability is "I made this mess, and this is how I'm going to clean it up."
Sorry, I made you both have this whole conversation with the power or my mind. DANCE, MY LITTLE PUPPETS!
"By contrast, putting content on a URL you don't publish..."
If the URL resolves, it has been published by the host. It's a trivial matter to make that URL not work except from an internal referrer.
If my commute choices are driving for 45 minutes in traffic, or standing on a bus for an hour and a half with a transfer or two, I'm gonna drive.
I love public transportation, if and when it works. I'm willing to take a little longer to commute without having to drive, but I'm not willing to double my commute time in vastly less comfortable environs.
You know you can resize the dock, right?
Well played! I didn't consider Dvorak, because he's a complete idiot, and Woz and Carmack aren't.
Maybe, someday. I'll bet you a shiny nickel that the iPhone SDK ships before an Android device.
You might want to check the spelling on "Carmack" again, Sparky.
Why would you run those applications on a slow $400 machine, when the applications themselves cost ten times that much? And what does CAD have to do with gaming (which was your original point, I think...)
Now that I can buy into. Who do we vote for?
Again, that's like saying there's a conflict between hammers and screwdrivers. It's not like there are scientists looking at the world around them and struggling with whether they should pray about a question, or break out the microscope.
I suppose I'm willing to concede that there is conflict here. I'm just saying that the conflict is manufactured by humans, not intrinsic in the philosophy.
But you just said my argument was invalidated by historical precedent, so you're asserting that your solution has already happened.
I'm certain I don't understand what you're after, but I'm equally certain it's not because I'm dumb.
"please start with the creationists"
I have. I've been arguing against dogmatic creationists since third grade. Sometimes successfully, I might add.
"unforgivably ignorant of the long history religion has of making testable claims about the material world"
And I think that people who say that religion and science are incompatible are unforgivably ignorant of the long history of religious scientists.
"Please explain in detail who is "invested in creating" a conflict between science and religion."
Well, I was more thinking the religious fundamentalists who seem to need to discredit science in order to validate their world view. But I'm not one to get between you and your preconceptions.
I love the way the "Overrated" mod means "I disagree with you, and I have mod points".
"If you were indeed as stupendously educated as you claim you are, you would have understood that I was not advocating a witch hunt"
I didn't know what you were advocating. That's why I asked.
"your original argument was invalidated by historical precedent"
Right, because there are no more irrational people on Earth. Your point is well taken.
(there's the sarcasm, by the way.)
No, I'm saying that everything that develops in parallel in every known culture is worthy of consideration, rather than being dismissed out of hand.
And, Godwin. Get back to me when you've got a more cogent argument than "Anything that can be connected to Nazis is bad."
"I look at the diversity, and universality, of religion as proof of A) its arbitrariness; and B) that it, itself, is bestowed upon us by evolution."
I don't argue that at all. I'm also not willing to dismiss non-rational cognition out of hand, and just say that rationality is always better. I'm a pretty darn rational person...I couldn't do my job if I wasn't. However, I don't think it's rational to blindly assert that only rationality is valid or useful.
As an aside, I think that rationality is the only just way to create a system of government, for exactly the reason you mention above. We can all understand the same rational framework. We may not all share the same philosophical constructs.
"I don't think that science, as a largely mathematical system, can provide all of the answers to reality, and it especially cannot bestow meaning (which is existentially important)."
Again, I think you're making my point for me. Was that what you meant to do?
I am stupendously well educated. What are you going to try to do to me to impose your views?
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not, but it sure sounds like you're making my point for me.
"How do I make a rocket ship?" and "What happens if we dump a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere?" are excellent questions for scientific inquiry, and remarkably bad ones for religious (or, if you prefer, philosophical) inquiry.
There are a number of people who try to apply scientific reasoning to situations that simply don't lend themselves. Specifically, when both my wife and I have low blood sugar, it doesn't matter how rational one or the other of us tries to be...if we're not sensitive to one another, we're gonna have a fight. Of course, the scientific answer is "Don't have low blood sugar". But it's nice to have more alternatives, more ways to think about my relationships, than just scientific ones.
But what the hell do I know? I'm just a religious engineer. I'll probably start frothing at the mouth any minute.
So what's your prescription? Eliminate everybody who believes in God? Please explain to me how that's even remotely moral.
I assert, and will defend, my right to believe as I wish. You don't get a vote. That's true for all values of "I" and "you".
"Religious people will always believe what their holy book says over what any scientist says"
That is simply false. I am a religious person. I do not believe what my "holy book" says over what scientists say, since I am also a scientist. (OK, an engineer, but similar world view for these purposes).
I'm not saying that adherents of science and adherents of religion always agree. I am saying that there is no fundamental incompatibility between those two world views. How do I know? Because I are one. I see science and religion as complementary ways of interacting with the world.
You are, of course, free to disagree. But you're being silly if you just blindly assert that all religious people are the same.