Massage therapy can be effective. That's not the issue. At issue are the claims that chiropractors make about "subluxations of the spine" being the cause of various conditions. That's quackery.
I'm trying to think of a way of saying this without sounding offensive and I'm probably going to fail, so I apologise in advance: If you spent more time actually studying the results of the scientific method, and less time attacking it, then you would be able to make much more compelling arguments.
While I appreciate the sentiment, you don't have to worry about offending me. However, I'm not attacking the scientific method; rather, I'm questioning some of the assumptions that go into certain areas of 'scientific' thought. As for more compelling arguments, well, I have some rebuttals to make, but I won't get to them tonight. To much software design work to do...
And you'll note that I didn't say that he did. What I said was the Knuth gives evidence than randomizaton can be evidence for design.
No he didn't, he stated that certain algorithms perform better with randomisation. Things like QuickSort, for example, have worst-case behaviour on sorted input. By adding randomization to the input, you make it less probable that the input to the quicksort is presorted. This does not in any way imply that randomness is a sign of intelligence, merely that intelligence is capable of using randomness.
Suppose you were inside the computer, a la Tron, and were observing the behavior of quicksort. Would there be any scientific way to tell one way or another whether the process was designed or not?
Just curious, but is science the only guide to true knowledge?
What is 'true knowledge'? You're straying way away from science now and into philosophy.
These days it seems there's a fine line between the two.
Science doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be useful, which is far easier to test.
First, if that's true, then why do a number of those who reply make the claim that there is no evidence for God?
Because they are not scientists, they are neoathiests who use science as a surrogate religion, and choose to delegate their thinking to scientists rather than priests.
Then, circling around to the reason for this post, in order for science to be better accepted, scientists need to do a better job of denouncing the neoatheists, just like Christians need to do a better job of, say, denouncing the Westboro Baptist fruitcakes.
Second, it seems to me that you're in an epistemological catch-22. Using the example of randomization, it can be evidence for sight and blindness. Why, then, is evolution "blind"? This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.
No, it is evidence of nothing more than the fact that God is not required for the theory to work. Evolution guided by random mutation, evolution guided by God and evolution guided by pixies all produce the same measurable results.
I'm not sure I buy that. Take Dawkin's Weasel program, for example. Yes, it's not an example of evolution, since it embeds information about the target in the search. Nevertheless, if the mutation rate, max number of children per generation, and max generations aren't chosen correctly, the target string isn't found. The parameters need to be "fine tuned" for it to work. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think biologists have address the issue of tuning.
You asked, "Where does Knuth say - or even imply - that God exists?" You didn't put any qualifiers on that question.
He did not, in that quote, say that science (in any form) implied the existence of God.
And you'll note that I didn't say that he did. What I said was the Knuth gives evidence than randomizaton can be evidence for design.
He chooses to believe in God, and that's his choice and not one that I object to personally, but it has no more basis in science than Dawkins' atheism.
Just curious, but is science the only guide to true knowledge?
The existence or nonexistence of God is outside the scope of science until such a time as someone provides theory which would produce different observable results if God did or did not exist.
First, if that's true, then why do a number of those who reply make the claim that there is no evidence for God? Second, it seems to me that you're in an epistemological catch-22. Using the example of randomization, it can be evidence for sight and blindness. Why, then, is evolution "blind"? This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.
Dawkins shows how a random process that is blind for any final goal still manages to optimize its product. Knuth says a random process that is blind with respect to the goal can optimize the results.
This isn't an accurate summary of the issue. Dawkins sees "random process" and assumes that it is blind. Knuth states that randomization is used in the design of sophisticated algorithms.
How does Dawkins know that the randomization seen in nature is truly blind? Is there any scientific evidence, or is it all metaphysical?
Where does Knuth say - or even imply - that God exists?
It's no secret that Knuth is a Christian....
Of course, believing in things with no evidence supporting your belief is considered to be a sign of insanity.
Without getting into all of the problems of your post (if I find time, I may take it up on my blog) let me point out what seems to have escaped some of my correspondents. Science isn't going to be accepted by "a few million other people" (it's much larger than this, btw) as long as what they hear is "you are insane. Science says so!"
Yes, I'm sure, especially since I read the entire book. Knuth is talking about algorithms that are designed to use randomness in order to achieve a purpose. Inside the system, the observer would just see the randomness. But to thereby conclude that it is "blind" is to miss the point.
Dawkins, in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", makes the assumption that random processes are blind. Then, like Hawking, he concludes that since god isn't needed, god doesn't exist.
Knuth, in his book, "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About", says: "Indeed, computer scientists have proved that certain important computational tasks can be done much more efficiently with random numbers than they could possibly ever be done by any deterministic procedure. Many of today's best computational algorithms, like methods for searching the Internet, are based on randomization."
So we have two scientists, one who says that randomness is evidence of atheism; while another implies that randomness can be evidence of design.
One of you prove it, scientifically, or shut up -- at least as far as "science says" when it says no such thing.
I don't expect you to do my job for me. I've had too many job applicants from prestigious universities whose degree was no indication of their knowledge. If I end up hiring a "cat", I'm capable of firing the same.
With these price comparisons, are any of the brick-and- mortar costs subsidized by federal, state, or local funds? If so, then unsubsidized costs should be compared.
If "who made it" is a secret, how does one study it? "Secret" in the sense of that which isn't known, not what can't be known.
That's like saying that rather than studying Newton's Laws, we should just study Sir Isaac Newton. Or rather than studying how a mechanical watch works, we should research its inventor. Well, yes. It's an interesting commentary on the times when impersonal things are of more interest than personal things.
If there is a Creator, it's unclear how one could study "God Himself." Perhaps that's because science is so wrapped up in impersonal things that it doesn't know how do deal with things it can't control. A Turing Test on the universe might prove fruitful. But, as with computers, one runs the risk that it might not want to talk to you.
I think you completely missed the point. If there is a God, then studying what He/She/It created is of far lesser importance than studying God Himself. Once God is found, everything else pales in comparison. The secrets of the universe are not in what it does, or how it works; but who made it. I think that's what Jastrow was saying, anyway.
Either theology is a subset of physics (the atheistic view) or physics is a subset of theology (the theistic view). If the latter, there comes a point where the two might be hard to distinguish. I'm reminded of the Jastrow quote, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
I've heard it's due to demographic pressure and xenophobia. The Japanese birthrate is declining and they don't like foreigners. With fewer workers and no outside source they have to increasingly mechanize their factories.
Even so, there is a difference between voluntarily submitting to the democratic process and being forced to do so. Too, at least in the USA, we weren't a democracy but a constitutional republic based on the fear of the tyranny of the majority.
Because people are intelligent enough to know that's a bad idea
You overestimate us. Consistently, the majority of people generally choose security over freedom.
If robots are ever more intelligent than us, they'll also be intelligent enough to make good decisions. Like not letting the toddlers have free run of the house? There's a reason why we have playpens and put locks on cabinets.
Frankly, I'd rather have the more intelligent beings in charge. And so it begins... letting others make your decisions is the essence of slavery.
This isn't a question of kicking anything out. It's solely about how they are let in and whether or not it will be done by secret ballot or open petition. The "open petition" format has too much potential for abuse so, IMO, it should remain by secret ballot.
The argument for God's existence from the anthropic principle is a "God of the gaps" argument.
And the multiverse is a "patch a hole in materialism" argument. To be fair, you allude to this when you ask "is it testable in any way?" So far, it's competing philosophies, not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Massage therapy can be effective. That's not the issue. At issue are the claims that chiropractors make about "subluxations of the spine" being the cause of various conditions. That's quackery.
I'm trying to think of a way of saying this without sounding offensive and I'm probably going to fail, so I apologise in advance: If you spent more time actually studying the results of the scientific method, and less time attacking it, then you would be able to make much more compelling arguments.
While I appreciate the sentiment, you don't have to worry about offending me. However, I'm not attacking the scientific method; rather, I'm questioning some of the assumptions that go into certain areas of 'scientific' thought. As for more compelling arguments, well, I have some rebuttals to make, but I won't get to them tonight. To much software design work to do...
And you'll note that I didn't say that he did. What I said was the Knuth gives evidence than randomizaton can be evidence for design.
No he didn't, he stated that certain algorithms perform better with randomisation. Things like QuickSort, for example, have worst-case behaviour on sorted input. By adding randomization to the input, you make it less probable that the input to the quicksort is presorted. This does not in any way imply that randomness is a sign of intelligence, merely that intelligence is capable of using randomness.
Suppose you were inside the computer, a la Tron, and were observing the behavior of quicksort. Would there be any scientific way to tell one way or another whether the process was designed or not?
Just curious, but is science the only guide to true knowledge?
What is 'true knowledge'? You're straying way away from science now and into philosophy.
These days it seems there's a fine line between the two.
Science doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be useful, which is far easier to test.
First, if that's true, then why do a number of those who reply make the claim that there is no evidence for God?
Because they are not scientists, they are neoathiests who use science as a surrogate religion, and choose to delegate their thinking to scientists rather than priests.
Then, circling around to the reason for this post, in order for science to be better accepted, scientists need to do a better job of denouncing the neoatheists, just like Christians need to do a better job of, say, denouncing the Westboro Baptist fruitcakes.
Second, it seems to me that you're in an epistemological catch-22. Using the example of randomization, it can be evidence for sight and blindness. Why, then, is evolution "blind"? This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.
No, it is evidence of nothing more than the fact that God is not required for the theory to work. Evolution guided by random mutation, evolution guided by God and evolution guided by pixies all produce the same measurable results.
I'm not sure I buy that. Take Dawkin's Weasel program, for example. Yes, it's not an example of evolution, since it embeds information about the target in the search. Nevertheless, if the mutation rate, max number of children per generation, and max generations aren't chosen correctly, the target string isn't found. The parameters need to be "fine tuned" for it to work. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think biologists have address the issue of tuning.
Sure. But that's not the point. A random process is observed. Is it correct to therefore conclude that the process is unguided/blind?
So if something is random, there is never any design behind it? It's always the case that when randomness is observed that it's unguided?
It's no secret that Knuth is a Christian. ...
Which is completely irrelevant.
You asked, "Where does Knuth say - or even imply - that God exists?" You didn't put any qualifiers on that question.
He did not, in that quote, say that science (in any form) implied the existence of God.
And you'll note that I didn't say that he did. What I said was the Knuth gives evidence than randomizaton can be evidence for design.
He chooses to believe in God, and that's his choice and not one that I object to personally, but it has no more basis in science than Dawkins' atheism.
Just curious, but is science the only guide to true knowledge?
The existence or nonexistence of God is outside the scope of science until such a time as someone provides theory which would produce different observable results if God did or did not exist.
First, if that's true, then why do a number of those who reply make the claim that there is no evidence for God? Second, it seems to me that you're in an epistemological catch-22. Using the example of randomization, it can be evidence for sight and blindness. Why, then, is evolution "blind"? This is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one.
Dawkins shows how a random process that is blind for any final goal still manages to optimize its product. Knuth says a random process that is blind with respect to the goal can optimize the results.
This isn't an accurate summary of the issue. Dawkins sees "random process" and assumes that it is blind. Knuth states that randomization is used in the design of sophisticated algorithms.
How does Dawkins know that the randomization seen in nature is truly blind? Is there any scientific evidence, or is it all metaphysical?
Where does Knuth say - or even imply - that God exists?
It's no secret that Knuth is a Christian. ...
Of course, believing in things with no evidence supporting your belief is considered to be a sign of insanity.
Without getting into all of the problems of your post (if I find time, I may take it up on my blog) let me point out what seems to have escaped some of my correspondents. Science isn't going to be accepted by "a few million other people" (it's much larger than this, btw) as long as what they hear is "you are insane. Science says so!"
Yes, I'm sure, especially since I read the entire book. Knuth is talking about algorithms that are designed to use randomness in order to achieve a purpose. Inside the system, the observer would just see the randomness. But to thereby conclude that it is "blind" is to miss the point.
Dawkins, in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", makes the assumption that random processes are blind. Then, like Hawking, he concludes that since god isn't needed, god doesn't exist.
Knuth, in his book, "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About", says: "Indeed, computer scientists have proved that certain important computational tasks can be done much more efficiently with random numbers than they could possibly ever be done by any deterministic procedure. Many of today's best computational algorithms, like methods for searching the Internet, are based on randomization."
So we have two scientists, one who says that randomness is evidence of atheism; while another implies that randomness can be evidence of design.
One of you prove it, scientifically, or shut up -- at least as far as "science says" when it says no such thing.
I don't expect you to do my job for me. I've had too many job applicants from prestigious universities whose degree was no indication of their knowledge. If I end up hiring a "cat", I'm capable of firing the same.
With these price comparisons, are any of the brick-and- mortar costs subsidized by federal, state, or local funds? If so, then unsubsidized costs should be compared.
Where does intelligence come from, if not from the interactions of sub-atomic particles (strings/waves, ...)?
Intelligence, and hence theology, has to be the product of the interaction of particles. Therefore, it has to be fundamentally rooted in physics.
If "who made it" is a secret, how does one study it?
"Secret" in the sense of that which isn't known, not what can't be known.
That's like saying that rather than studying Newton's Laws, we should just study Sir Isaac Newton. Or rather than studying how a mechanical watch works, we should research its inventor.
Well, yes. It's an interesting commentary on the times when impersonal things are of more interest than personal things.
If there is a Creator, it's unclear how one could study "God Himself."
Perhaps that's because science is so wrapped up in impersonal things that it doesn't know how do deal with things it can't control. A Turing Test on the universe might prove fruitful. But, as with computers, one runs the risk that it might not want to talk to you.
I think you completely missed the point. If there is a God, then studying what He/She/It created is of far lesser importance than studying God Himself. Once God is found, everything else pales in comparison. The secrets of the universe are not in what it does, or how it works; but who made it. I think that's what Jastrow was saying, anyway.
Either theology is a subset of physics (the atheistic view) or physics is a subset of theology (the theistic view). If the latter, there comes a point where the two might be hard to distinguish.
I'm reminded of the Jastrow quote, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
I've heard it's due to demographic pressure and xenophobia. The Japanese birthrate is declining and they don't like foreigners. With fewer workers and no outside source they have to increasingly mechanize their factories.
What is "non-mathematical software"?
I'll take age and treachery against youth and strength any day.
Even so, there is a difference between voluntarily submitting to the democratic process and being forced to do so. Too, at least in the USA, we weren't a democracy but a constitutional republic based on the fear of the tyranny of the majority.
It's not called slavery if you get fairly compensated for the loss of freedom.
Two words: "golden handcuffs"?
Because people are intelligent enough to know that's a bad idea
You overestimate us. Consistently, the majority of people generally choose security over freedom.
If robots are ever more intelligent than us, they'll also be intelligent enough to make good decisions.
Like not letting the toddlers have free run of the house? There's a reason why we have playpens and put locks on cabinets.
Frankly, I'd rather have the more intelligent beings in charge.
And so it begins... letting others make your decisions is the essence of slavery.
This isn't a question of kicking anything out. It's solely about how they are let in and whether or not it will be done by secret ballot or open petition. The "open petition" format has too much potential for abuse so, IMO, it should remain by secret ballot.
The argument for God's existence from the anthropic principle is a "God of the gaps" argument.
And the multiverse is a "patch a hole in materialism" argument. To be fair, you allude to this when you ask "is it testable in any way?" So far, it's competing philosophies, not science.