"Could have, might have, maybe by chance, are all speculations of believing minds, but they are not science. Real science, not pseudoscience, is observation and experimentation, not idle mental exercise or mathematical gymnastics. If it cannot be shown by repeated experiment and observation, it is idle speculation akin to religion."
This kind of explanation addresses a specific criticism of the theory. The criticism is that the eye is too complex to have evolved. It's a fair and logical suggestion, yet a logical demonstration that an eye could evolve is adequate to counter it.
Really, if you want to exile logic and math from science, you'll have to explain yourself better than just an assertion on slashdot.
"Dogs have made nothing but dogs, cats have made nothing but cats and birds produce only more birds. This is observed and experimental FACT, not religious or evolutionary dogma."
It's religious dogma, because it isn't true. For instance, Humans and dogs have both been observed to evolve into single-celled organisms, among many other direct observations.
Your insistence on laboratory observation seems to be an extension of your devaluing of math and logic. Using logic, it's possible to deduce or infer something about remote or one-off phenomena through indirect evidence.
"Evolutionists generally get around experimentally and observationally verified facts by putting forth the mechanism of vast ages of time."
Time, chance, a huge planet, a mountain of evidence so imposing you apparently can't look at it, and solid logic support the theory of evolution.
"The Christian doctrine that an intelligent, transcendent God is behind all of creation also cannot be proven or refuted by the scientific method."
It can and has been refuted. It was the dominant scientific theory for millenia, but it was never able to explain very much, and never did well when subjected to close scrutiny.
True, the modern "god did it" can't be falsified, but then it fails immediately by explaining absolutely nothing. Not only is it not falsifiable, it's not even a theory.
"The assertion that Mount Rushmore or Stonehenge are intelligent human creations rather than a natural rock formations cannot be refuted or corroborated by the scientific method either."
Yes, they can. One merely has to look and think. That's all science is, really. You'd like throw the "think" part out, apparently. If you did not see humans make Mt. Rushmore with your own eyes from beginning to end, then you don't know that they did. But how do you trust your eyes, how do you know those are really humans and not an illusion? How do you know Mt. Rushmore wasn't there all along and humans just uncovered it?
Even with direct observation, you still have to use your head.
Dawkins may not demonstrate how an eyeball was evolved, but showing plausible steps does counter the argument that it could not have arisen by chance, or that scientists don't understand how it could have arisen by chance.
So what? In a free country, a military is a necessary evil. It's not a good thing that young people have to sign themselves over to the government to become trained killers and learn to follow orders.
"and quite lacking in substance."
How much substance is needed to make the obvious point that military spending/service is largely economic dead weight?
And these account for only a tiny fraction of religious killings in that time period, from the periodic slaughter to church-approved mass slaughter of fellow Christians. Heck, a man who only a few years previous had massacred an entire town was elected pope in the 14th century.
First, it's not clear from the email snippet that the Phil was the same guy who handled the Siberian data.
Second, it is clear that Phil had to argue his case. If he'd had the power of an unexplained veto, there'd be a conflict, but since a rational for rejection was required, the rejection would have to be a defense of the previous work.
Heck, if I was an editor, I'd think myself remiss in not contacting an author who'd been criticized in a submission to get either a "That guy is full of crap and here's why" or a "I made a mistake and this guy is awesome".
That's how peer review works, if the peers don't think it should be published it ( usually ) doesn't get published.
A couple of interesting points are made clear from the email. One is that Phil wasn't sure in the case of one journal whether his rejection was sufficient. The other is that he had to argue his case. The journals didn't take his word on the rejection, but expected a reason for it.
"Serious doubt has been cast on the value of trusting these guys" by people who ripped a bunch of email snippets out of contexts, as you just did, and in some cases probably completely misconstrued them. Luckily, climate scientists have solved this problem by having lots of themselves working around the world even as the East Anglia guys are savaged by a campaign of innuendo based on casual, private conversations.
"Apparently someone tried, but was blocked by the people at East Anglia, as you can see from this quote: [eastangliaemails.com] "
So there were two articles submitted for publication. They were peer reviewed. Someone in East Anglia, as part of the peer review, recommended rejection. Where is the issue here? If you've some evidence that the articles did not deserve rejection, then you forgot to post it. If, in fact, the other peer reviewers recommended against rejection, then it seem likely that one or both of them got published.
All through '43, we had separate puzzlers each working on a single piece, for safety. One time, a puzzler saw the piece of another and had to be hospitalized for three weeks.
That's funny, since I've already heard that games -> real life as masturbation -> sex. Which raises the question: sex -> masturbation as masturbation ->...?
The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil, and blame his advisors for leading him astray.
Americans do have planes in the region, and they'll blow up pirates if they find them, even if they're not attacking American boats. Problem is, it's a big area. It's hard to take out the pirates once they've captured the hostages, and it's hard to spot them before they do.
Uh, no. An orange is just as much a fruit as an apple. If you're teaching fruit school but drop oranges because some crazies think they don't exist, you're not doing it right.
So argument against health care reform is that the current system allows the rest of the world to skate on research funded by overpriced care in the US?
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor.
Of course we believe society should foot the bill, that's why we have an extensive insurance and medicare system. It's why emergency rooms are forced to treat everyone. The only question is whether we're going to stop being schizo about it.
but 99% of Americans have enough money to pay the bill themselves and should do so.
You are completely out of touch with the cost of health care. Most Americans would go bankrupt if they were forced to pay the whole bill for a serious health problem.
Also the "40 million American are uninsured" is only half the story. The other half of the story is that 30 million of those Americans are uninsured but covered by government programs like SCHIP and Medicare.
Those people are insured, they aren't counted.
The remaining ones are illegal intruders (non-citizens).
You are pretty far out of touch here, too. SCHIP and Medicare only cover kids (and not all of them) and the old. Medicaid covers some of the poor, but by no means all. Some states have additional coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
"Could have, might have, maybe by chance, are all speculations of believing minds, but they are not science. Real science, not pseudoscience, is observation and experimentation, not idle mental exercise or mathematical gymnastics. If it cannot be shown by repeated experiment and observation, it is idle speculation akin to religion."
This kind of explanation addresses a specific criticism of the theory. The criticism is that the eye is too complex to have evolved. It's a fair and logical suggestion, yet a logical demonstration that an eye could evolve is adequate to counter it.
Really, if you want to exile logic and math from science, you'll have to explain yourself better than just an assertion on slashdot.
"Dogs have made nothing but dogs, cats have made nothing but cats and birds produce only more birds. This is observed and experimental FACT, not religious or evolutionary dogma."
It's religious dogma, because it isn't true. For instance, Humans and dogs have both been observed to evolve into single-celled organisms, among many other direct observations.
Your insistence on laboratory observation seems to be an extension of your devaluing of math and logic. Using logic, it's possible to deduce or infer something about remote or one-off phenomena through indirect evidence.
"Evolutionists generally get around experimentally and observationally verified facts by putting forth the mechanism of vast ages of time."
Time, chance, a huge planet, a mountain of evidence so imposing you apparently can't look at it, and solid logic support the theory of evolution.
"The Christian doctrine that an intelligent, transcendent God is behind all of creation also cannot be proven or refuted by the scientific method."
It can and has been refuted. It was the dominant scientific theory for millenia, but it was never able to explain very much, and never did well when subjected to close scrutiny.
True, the modern "god did it" can't be falsified, but then it fails immediately by explaining absolutely nothing. Not only is it not falsifiable, it's not even a theory.
"The assertion that Mount Rushmore or Stonehenge are intelligent human creations rather than a natural rock formations cannot be refuted or corroborated by the scientific method either."
Yes, they can. One merely has to look and think. That's all science is, really. You'd like throw the "think" part out, apparently. If you did not see humans make Mt. Rushmore with your own eyes from beginning to end, then you don't know that they did. But how do you trust your eyes, how do you know those are really humans and not an illusion? How do you know Mt. Rushmore wasn't there all along and humans just uncovered it?
Even with direct observation, you still have to use your head.
"Anybody can explain anything on paper"
That's a fairly bold statement.
Dawkins may not demonstrate how an eyeball was evolved, but showing plausible steps does counter the argument that it could not have arisen by chance, or that scientists don't understand how it could have arisen by chance.
You are aware that life systems are mostly stochastic and would not work if entropy didn't increase, right?
He's only a human after all.
"...was completely disrespectful in tone...
So what? In a free country, a military is a necessary evil. It's not a good thing that young people have to sign themselves over to the government to become trained killers and learn to follow orders.
"and quite lacking in substance."
How much substance is needed to make the obvious point that military spending/service is largely economic dead weight?
"New Testament -> Christianity"
If only it were so.
And these account for only a tiny fraction of religious killings in that time period, from the periodic slaughter to church-approved mass slaughter of fellow Christians. Heck, a man who only a few years previous had massacred an entire town was elected pope in the 14th century.
Agnosticism is a religion like knowing proper postage is a hobby.
First, it's not clear from the email snippet that the Phil was the same guy who handled the Siberian data.
Second, it is clear that Phil had to argue his case. If he'd had the power of an unexplained veto, there'd be a conflict, but since a rational for rejection was required, the rejection would have to be a defense of the previous work.
Heck, if I was an editor, I'd think myself remiss in not contacting an author who'd been criticized in a submission to get either a "That guy is full of crap and here's why" or a "I made a mistake and this guy is awesome".
Only if your firepower is highly surface area dependent. See hunter/killer subs for vessels that project huge firepower from their pointy ends.
Right wing propaganda has earned its reputation lately, unfortunately.
Might want to check the calander.
That's how peer review works, if the peers don't think it should be published it ( usually ) doesn't get published.
A couple of interesting points are made clear from the email. One is that Phil wasn't sure in the case of one journal whether his rejection was sufficient. The other is that he had to argue his case. The journals didn't take his word on the rejection, but expected a reason for it.
"Serious doubt has been cast on the value of trusting these guys" by people who ripped a bunch of email snippets out of contexts, as you just did, and in some cases probably completely misconstrued them. Luckily, climate scientists have solved this problem by having lots of themselves working around the world even as the East Anglia guys are savaged by a campaign of innuendo based on casual, private conversations.
"Apparently someone tried, but was blocked by the people at East Anglia, as you can see from this quote: [eastangliaemails.com] "
So there were two articles submitted for publication. They were peer reviewed. Someone in East Anglia, as part of the peer review, recommended rejection. Where is the issue here? If you've some evidence that the articles did not deserve rejection, then you forgot to post it. If, in fact, the other peer reviewers recommended against rejection, then it seem likely that one or both of them got published.
All through '43, we had separate puzzlers each working on a single piece, for safety. One time, a puzzler saw the piece of another and had to be hospitalized for three weeks.
I'm gonna steal that idea and put it in a short story - thanks!
-Orson Scott Card, circa 1977
Sounds like she should be relieved, too.
That's funny, since I've already heard that games -> real life as masturbation -> sex. Which raises the question: sex -> masturbation as masturbation -> ...?
The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil, and blame his advisors for leading him astray.
Americans do have planes in the region, and they'll blow up pirates if they find them, even if they're not attacking American boats. Problem is, it's a big area. It's hard to take out the pirates once they've captured the hostages, and it's hard to spot them before they do.
The crews on these ships are usually not well paid and often not nice guys.
Uh, no. An orange is just as much a fruit as an apple. If you're teaching fruit school but drop oranges because some crazies think they don't exist, you're not doing it right.
What are you, an idiot? I guess scientists should be happy for money to research a handful of played out corrupted stem cell lines.
So argument against health care reform is that the current system allows the rest of the world to skate on research funded by overpriced care in the US?
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft of another man's labor.
Of course we believe society should foot the bill, that's why we have an extensive insurance and medicare system. It's why emergency rooms are forced to treat everyone. The only question is whether we're going to stop being schizo about it.
but 99% of Americans have enough money to pay the bill themselves and should do so.
You are completely out of touch with the cost of health care. Most Americans would go bankrupt if they were forced to pay the whole bill for a serious health problem.
Also the "40 million American are uninsured" is only half the story. The other half of the story is that 30 million of those Americans are uninsured but covered by government programs like SCHIP and Medicare.
Those people are insured, they aren't counted.
The remaining ones are illegal intruders (non-citizens).
You are pretty far out of touch here, too. SCHIP and Medicare only cover kids (and not all of them) and the old. Medicaid covers some of the poor, but by no means all. Some states have additional coverage.