I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?
I guess it is a but subtle, isn't it? The belief itself is separate from how you came to believe it.
Now, there is a knowledge component the comes in to play, which is why you've probably already shouted "how on earth can beliefs be rational or irrational on their own!" Indeed, there is also a social component, but neither are important for making the distinction, which is our only goal here.
That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two.
Knowledge and belief are pretty easy to distinguish -- and you do it rather well in the post I'm replying to! Let me try a different example from the mind/brain one: The terms theism and gnosticism refer to two different things. Theism is about belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief in a god (handy, that little a). Gnosticism is more general, but refers to knowledge. An agnostic (without knowledge) theist (believer) would say that he believes that there is a god, but doesn't claim to know that there is a god -- that is, he claims no knowledge that supports that belief. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, would claim knowledge in addition to belief; for example, through personal revelation.
That's a bit deceptive as in the above we're talking about a claim to belief, but should still make the distinction between knowledge and belief clear. [A gnostic atheist is in a different position that the person who has knowledge but lacks a corresponding belief.]
I prefer the mind/brain example as it's a very widely held belief that is necessitated by a common set of metaphysical assumptions. That is, you don't actually need any evidence to hold the belief. (Consequently, all the evidence we have that indicates a relationship between the mind and the brain can only be interpreted to support that belief -- there can be no alternative interpretation from within that metaphysical system!)
I hesitate to use it, but the luminiferous aether is a neat example as it was also a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the time (mechanism, in this case). When the wave behavior of light was observed, the most obvious question to ask was "what, exactly, is waving?" I can imagine slashdotters, had they existed at the time, saying: "We can't have waves without a medium through which they propagate! Waves aren't some mystical magical things, they're just particles bumping in to one another." (I've neglected tons of history here, but only to keep the example clear.)
Anyhow, the point of all this is to show that it's easy to hold a belief without evidence and not know or be able to acknowledge it. Some very smart people even managed a century of science on the basis of a belief without evidence merely because it was demanded by their metaphysical assumptions!
I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence
I agree. That was what I was getting at.
If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.
They are ridiculous! In the average religious group, you'll find that the majority of the adherents can't articulate even the very basic tenants of their faith. The "Rationalists" are no different from their religious counterparts in that respect -- which is very amusing.
I don't know what that means. That's like saying my car is behavioral -- it's incoherent.
I'm assuming that you have no idea what "metaphysics" is, but assume that it means "nonsense". I don't know how to help you with that -- start with the Wikipedia article and work your way from there, I guess.
Anyhow, it misses the point. The point was that the belief is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions even given the evidence. The evidence is insufficient to support the belief on it's own -- it can only be held within a particular set of metaphysical assumptions.
This should be obvious as the idea that the mind is a product of the brain predates our modern understanding of the brain by a couple hundred years. I remember reading an old paper from the late 19th century that, very seriously, described the function of the brain in a purely mechanical way -- complete with descriptions like molecules bumping in to one another from the retina down the optic nerve like so many billiard balls! The metaphysics are the same, the physics and understanding of the physiology are very different... yet the conclusion is the same. Why? Because the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the metaphysics, not of the evidence! That is, you can't interpret the evidence in any other way given the underlying metaphysics.
I'm reminded of the luminiferous aether. We look back today and wonder why anyone would posit something so strange. Well, because it was a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the time. In this case, it was the wave behavior of light (hence the luminiferous part). If light is a wave, those early physicist asked, then through what is it propagating; what is doing the waving?
Just took a minute, and I can't think of how irrational beliefs would make it easier for me to function day to day. It seems rather the opposite.
The claim wasn't that you hold irrational beliefs, but that you held beliefs irrationally (beliefs without evidence).
there's nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" if you lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty.
There is nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" -- but we're not talking about knowledge, we're talking about belief. In the case I mention, if you believe that the mind is a product of the brain, that belief is irrational as you don't have sufficient evidence to hold that belief to the degree that it is typically held. That you can also say "I don't know" is an entirely different matter.
Remember, I'm using your definition of rational here (from the post I first responded to) "Nor do I have any other beliefs based upon anything other than sufficient evidence to support them."
My contention was that you do hold beliefs without sufficient evidence to support them, you merely refuse to acknowledge them or believe that you have sufficient evidence even when this is not the case.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "rationalist" here.
It's a relatively new pseudo-intellectual movement prevalent in the atheist community. (Hence, the capital R. I assumed that you'd be familiar with it, given your post.) It's a misnomer, however, as many supposed Rationalists actually reject epistemological rationalism!
Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.
The parent did confuse knowledge and beliefs. Saying "I don't believe any gods exist" is the same as saying "I believe that no gods exist" -- What he's trying to say is that he's not asserting knowledge about his belief. He doesn't believe that any gods exist but makes no positive claim about the nonexistence of gods. Consequently, he's an agnostic atheist.
It's arrogant to assume that you don't believe in things that you have inadequate or no evidence for -- you just refuse to acknowledge those beliefs or assume that you have adequate evidence, even if that's not the case.
Go on, take a minute and you'll find that you have a ridiculous number of beliefs that have inadequate or no evidence. It's difficult to function day-to-day otherwise!
Take something as simple as the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Even if you're a credentialed neuroscientist, you notice immediately that this is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions and that you don't actually have adequate evidence to support such a belief to the absolute degree that that belief is held.
There's a reason that rational people stay away from the "Rationalists". They're typically the most irrational and poorly educated people you'll meet -- having little more than a superficial understanding of science and philosophy.
Your argument is a bit off. You've missed a good bit of Godel, which unfortunately just weakens it further.
Your point one is an odd mix of Godels two theorems - mostly the second - that you can't prove that a system is self-consistent from within the system itself; closely related to the first - that there are undecidable statements in any self-consistent mathematical system. (It looks like you got your take from reading Hofstadter? Correct me if I'm wrong there.)
In the end, of course, we get to - there are statements in any self-consistent mathematical system that we can know are true, but can't prove to be true within that system.
Your argument doesn't work unless we say that all of science must be describable within a single self-consistent mathematical system. (This is why it's a weak argument.)
You're right that there are known epistemological limits to science, but Godel isn't the best way to get there.
Bringing this back on-topic: The belief that science can (eventually) explain everything about the natural world is magical thinking.
While you're 100% correct about copyright being automatic (at least in the US) with respect to the implementation of the language, the question here is if that also applies to the language itself.
This would be a fairly new thing. Langauges like C and Pascal, for example, had zillions of different implementations each the copyright of their respective creators, but no one "owned" the language itself. (i.e. UCSD didn't pay Wirth for Pascal, Borland didn't pay Ritchie for C)
Code isn't exactly the best choice for an 11-year-old. The material starts off a bit too easy, and gets significantly more difficult in the later half of the book.
Also, reading isn't playing -- which is what the child will be doing as he's learning to program.
Casey Anthony was a woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.
She was found to be innocent by a jury of her peers. (Though she was found guilty of lying to a police officer.)
There wasn't much controversy, just public outrage. Almost everyone who knew about the case wanted to see her convinced -- or lynched, failing that. Probably because she is an absolutely horrible person. Really. She makes Mephistopheles look like a paragon of virtue.
There are no consequences at for creating a "scam" project, collecting donations, and doing no work at all.
It's difficult to tell those from projects that fail honestly, either from lack of funds or mismanagement.
Required communication won't really help; that's too easy to fake. They'd need required deliverables, which won't work for ultimately commercial software projects or hardware projects.
Short of only releasing funds after certain milestones have been met might help, but the project would need enough capital already to achieve each milestone ahead of time. (To say nothing of intermediaries to verify progress!) The trouble is that honest groups may not be able to even begin a project until there were enough promised funds. Even then, if they fail they'd be on the hook for more than they may be able to reasonably afford. But that's the very risk that programs like KickStarter are designed to mitigate!
You used the term "Walled Garden" in a way that is not approved by the Apple fans on Slashdot. "Walled Garden" must only be used to describe a safe place that has everything you'd ever want -- a garden that you're happy to be trapped in because you never want to leave.
Not to be confused with the Walled Garden in, say, the short story Rappaccini's Daughter -- No matter how great the analogy.
I don't think you realize how incredibly small Apple was at the time.
It consisted of Jobs and Woz and wasn't really a company -- Hell, Woz was still *very happy* at HP. Jobs was at Atari at the time, iirc. (He'd have Woz come over at night to do work for him in exchange for getting to play on the arcade machines for free!)
I doubt they'd have found another source that they could afford. The $25 6502 was about the best they could hope for. It's not like Woz had anything left to sell to fund the company after he hocked his two prized calculators!
It's only a rumor that Jack had it hanging in his living room. My guess is that it was scrapped along with whatever the other prize was (the jade thing or the crown, maybe?).
A shame, really, they were the only thing good about the Sword Quest games. I had two of them as a kid. They didn't stand on their own. Without the comics and the contest, I doubt we'd remember them.
Kinkade? That worthless hack in no way compares to Wallace or Tramiel.
Kinkade's mass-produced crap isn't good enough to hang in a gas station restroom. The world's a better place without that self-aggrandizing publicity whore.
The media has been felating his corpse, calling him the "painter of light" -- a title that he gave himself -- so I can see why you'd get confused.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?
I guess it is a but subtle, isn't it? The belief itself is separate from how you came to believe it.
Now, there is a knowledge component the comes in to play, which is why you've probably already shouted "how on earth can beliefs be rational or irrational on their own!" Indeed, there is also a social component, but neither are important for making the distinction, which is our only goal here.
That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two.
Knowledge and belief are pretty easy to distinguish -- and you do it rather well in the post I'm replying to! Let me try a different example from the mind/brain one: The terms theism and gnosticism refer to two different things. Theism is about belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief in a god (handy, that little a). Gnosticism is more general, but refers to knowledge. An agnostic (without knowledge) theist (believer) would say that he believes that there is a god, but doesn't claim to know that there is a god -- that is, he claims no knowledge that supports that belief. A gnostic theist, on the other hand, would claim knowledge in addition to belief; for example, through personal revelation.
That's a bit deceptive as in the above we're talking about a claim to belief, but should still make the distinction between knowledge and belief clear. [A gnostic atheist is in a different position that the person who has knowledge but lacks a corresponding belief.]
I prefer the mind/brain example as it's a very widely held belief that is necessitated by a common set of metaphysical assumptions. That is, you don't actually need any evidence to hold the belief. (Consequently, all the evidence we have that indicates a relationship between the mind and the brain can only be interpreted to support that belief -- there can be no alternative interpretation from within that metaphysical system!)
I hesitate to use it, but the luminiferous aether is a neat example as it was also a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the time (mechanism, in this case). When the wave behavior of light was observed, the most obvious question to ask was "what, exactly, is waving?" I can imagine slashdotters, had they existed at the time, saying: "We can't have waves without a medium through which they propagate! Waves aren't some mystical magical things, they're just particles bumping in to one another." (I've neglected tons of history here, but only to keep the example clear.)
Anyhow, the point of all this is to show that it's easy to hold a belief without evidence and not know or be able to acknowledge it. Some very smart people even managed a century of science on the basis of a belief without evidence merely because it was demanded by their metaphysical assumptions!
I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence
I agree. That was what I was getting at.
If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.
They are ridiculous! In the average religious group, you'll find that the majority of the adherents can't articulate even the very basic tenants of their faith. The "Rationalists" are no different from their religious counterparts in that respect -- which is very amusing.
None of this evidence is in any way metaphysical.
I don't know what that means. That's like saying my car is behavioral -- it's incoherent.
I'm assuming that you have no idea what "metaphysics" is, but assume that it means "nonsense". I don't know how to help you with that -- start with the Wikipedia article and work your way from there, I guess.
Anyhow, it misses the point. The point was that the belief is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions even given the evidence. The evidence is insufficient to support the belief on it's own -- it can only be held within a particular set of metaphysical assumptions.
This should be obvious as the idea that the mind is a product of the brain predates our modern understanding of the brain by a couple hundred years. I remember reading an old paper from the late 19th century that, very seriously, described the function of the brain in a purely mechanical way -- complete with descriptions like molecules bumping in to one another from the retina down the optic nerve like so many billiard balls! The metaphysics are the same, the physics and understanding of the physiology are very different ... yet the conclusion is the same. Why? Because the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the metaphysics, not of the evidence! That is, you can't interpret the evidence in any other way given the underlying metaphysics.
I'm reminded of the luminiferous aether. We look back today and wonder why anyone would posit something so strange. Well, because it was a necessary consequence of the metaphysical assumptions of the time. In this case, it was the wave behavior of light (hence the luminiferous part). If light is a wave, those early physicist asked, then through what is it propagating; what is doing the waving?
Just took a minute, and I can't think of how irrational beliefs would make it easier for me to function day to day. It seems rather the opposite.
The claim wasn't that you hold irrational beliefs, but that you held beliefs irrationally (beliefs without evidence).
there's nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" if you lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty.
There is nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" -- but we're not talking about knowledge, we're talking about belief. In the case I mention, if you believe that the mind is a product of the brain, that belief is irrational as you don't have sufficient evidence to hold that belief to the degree that it is typically held. That you can also say "I don't know" is an entirely different matter.
Remember, I'm using your definition of rational here (from the post I first responded to) "Nor do I have any other beliefs based upon anything other than sufficient evidence to support them."
My contention was that you do hold beliefs without sufficient evidence to support them, you merely refuse to acknowledge them or believe that you have sufficient evidence even when this is not the case.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "rationalist" here.
It's a relatively new pseudo-intellectual movement prevalent in the atheist community. (Hence, the capital R. I assumed that you'd be familiar with it, given your post.) It's a misnomer, however, as many supposed Rationalists actually reject epistemological rationalism!
Theism is about belief. Gnosticism is about knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.
The parent did confuse knowledge and beliefs. Saying "I don't believe any gods exist" is the same as saying "I believe that no gods exist" -- What he's trying to say is that he's not asserting knowledge about his belief. He doesn't believe that any gods exist but makes no positive claim about the nonexistence of gods. Consequently, he's an agnostic atheist.
Very insightful!
It's arrogant to assume that you don't believe in things that you have inadequate or no evidence for -- you just refuse to acknowledge those beliefs or assume that you have adequate evidence, even if that's not the case.
Go on, take a minute and you'll find that you have a ridiculous number of beliefs that have inadequate or no evidence. It's difficult to function day-to-day otherwise!
Take something as simple as the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Even if you're a credentialed neuroscientist, you notice immediately that this is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions and that you don't actually have adequate evidence to support such a belief to the absolute degree that that belief is held.
There's a reason that rational people stay away from the "Rationalists". They're typically the most irrational and poorly educated people you'll meet -- having little more than a superficial understanding of science and philosophy.
Your argument is a bit off. You've missed a good bit of Godel, which unfortunately just weakens it further.
Your point one is an odd mix of Godels two theorems - mostly the second - that you can't prove that a system is self-consistent from within the system itself; closely related to the first - that there are undecidable statements in any self-consistent mathematical system. (It looks like you got your take from reading Hofstadter? Correct me if I'm wrong there.)
In the end, of course, we get to - there are statements in any self-consistent mathematical system that we can know are true, but can't prove to be true within that system.
Your argument doesn't work unless we say that all of science must be describable within a single self-consistent mathematical system. (This is why it's a weak argument.)
You're right that there are known epistemological limits to science, but Godel isn't the best way to get there.
Bringing this back on-topic: The belief that science can (eventually) explain everything about the natural world is magical thinking.
He's not advocating solipsism. Slashdot fails basic philosophy again!
?
We're in complete agreement -- where did you think we disagreed?
While you're 100% correct about copyright being automatic (at least in the US) with respect to the implementation of the language, the question here is if that also applies to the language itself.
This would be a fairly new thing. Langauges like C and Pascal, for example, had zillions of different implementations each the copyright of their respective creators, but no one "owned" the language itself. (i.e. UCSD didn't pay Wirth for Pascal, Borland didn't pay Ritchie for C)
I'll add to the others that BASIC is a great beginners language -- especially the old unstructured kind with (only) an interactive mode.
Python, not so much... It has an interactive mode, but that's about all it has going for it pedagogically.
There are some fantastic beginner programming books from the 1980's that expect the beginner to know absolutely nothing.
Really, snag a working C-64 on eBay (it'll add quite a bit of novelty and fun) and a few Commodore 64 programming books.
There's a lot of magic left in those old micros.
Code isn't exactly the best choice for an 11-year-old. The material starts off a bit too easy, and gets significantly more difficult in the later half of the book.
Also, reading isn't playing -- which is what the child will be doing as he's learning to program.
You see "legacy". I see something that is standardized enough to be used with just about any machine still running.
Well said!
C. A sexual act involving [censored, for the sake of the children].
Cowboy Neil?
So not a murderer, only an absolutely horrible person/mother.
Yup. That's what I was trying to get across.
Casey Anthony was a woman accused of murdering her 2-year-old daughter.
She was found to be innocent by a jury of her peers. (Though she was found guilty of lying to a police officer.)
There wasn't much controversy, just public outrage. Almost everyone who knew about the case wanted to see her convinced -- or lynched, failing that. Probably because she is an absolutely horrible person. Really. She makes Mephistopheles look like a paragon of virtue.
The real problem is a lack of accountability.
There are no consequences at for creating a "scam" project, collecting donations, and doing no work at all.
It's difficult to tell those from projects that fail honestly, either from lack of funds or mismanagement.
Required communication won't really help; that's too easy to fake. They'd need required deliverables, which won't work for ultimately commercial software projects or hardware projects.
Short of only releasing funds after certain milestones have been met might help, but the project would need enough capital already to achieve each milestone ahead of time. (To say nothing of intermediaries to verify progress!) The trouble is that honest groups may not be able to even begin a project until there were enough promised funds. Even then, if they fail they'd be on the hook for more than they may be able to reasonably afford. But that's the very risk that programs like KickStarter are designed to mitigate!
that one hung out there just a wee too much
That's what she said!
You used the term "Walled Garden" in a way that is not approved by the Apple fans on Slashdot. "Walled Garden" must only be used to describe a safe place that has everything you'd ever want -- a garden that you're happy to be trapped in because you never want to leave.
Not to be confused with the Walled Garden in, say, the short story Rappaccini's Daughter -- No matter how great the analogy.
That rule applies only to women ...
Yes, Iranians are Persians (and rather proud of that). They speak Farsi (Persian) which is an arabicized version of Parsi.
I don't see why we couldn't have both. How convenient would it be to have a single line text box to dump commands into in the task tray?
I'm thinking something like Lotus HAL could work really well for beginners and advanced users alike.
I don't think you realize how incredibly small Apple was at the time.
It consisted of Jobs and Woz and wasn't really a company -- Hell, Woz was still *very happy* at HP. Jobs was at Atari at the time, iirc. (He'd have Woz come over at night to do work for him in exchange for getting to play on the arcade machines for free!)
I doubt they'd have found another source that they could afford. The $25 6502 was about the best they could hope for. It's not like Woz had anything left to sell to fund the company after he hocked his two prized calculators!
If not for the 6502, there would be no Apple.
It's only a rumor that Jack had it hanging in his living room. My guess is that it was scrapped along with whatever the other prize was (the jade thing or the crown, maybe?).
A shame, really, they were the only thing good about the Sword Quest games. I had two of them as a kid. They didn't stand on their own. Without the comics and the contest, I doubt we'd remember them.
Kinkade? That worthless hack in no way compares to Wallace or Tramiel.
Kinkade's mass-produced crap isn't good enough to hang in a gas station restroom. The world's a better place without that self-aggrandizing publicity whore.
The media has been felating his corpse, calling him the "painter of light" -- a title that he gave himself -- so I can see why you'd get confused.
The world is better off without him.