A very nice strawman. I didn't say it was a problem, I said it was a privilege. since being "privileged" is supposedly the most evil thing you can be in Ms. Wu's worldview
Speaking of strawmen...
I am merely asking why class privilege does not seemingly count.
Because a single person can't focus on every possible social problem at once.
At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.
Still, Slashdot editors know that even mentioning women brings out the bottom 10% in full force. I have little doubt they were the first to initiate contact, knowing it would drive up traffic.
I described what a science is and what it isn't and how theology does not fit the definition of a science.
Well, you certainly think you did. I'll let you review what you've written and decide for yourself if you'd like to revise that assertion a bit. That is, if you really think falsification is the sole criterion for demarcation.
Show me testable and repeatable hypothesis theology has ever made that have been shown to be true by objective evidence.
Now you've moved from falsification to verification? You should know that there are serious problems with verification and quite a bit of difficulty reconciling it with falsification. I'm going to guess you skipped Popper and Carnap altogether in favor of forum posts. This is why I'm not convinced you understand basic science. Further, science, quite obviously, doesn't deal in truth. (I'll leave the bit about objectivity for another day. It's not as simple as you seem to believe.)
Moving on, there is a really silly bit in your previous post that I'd like to point out.
l. You can have a scientific study of the psychology of theology. You can study anthropology, history, sociology, etc as it relates to religion.
The implication here is that you accept those discipline as science. The reverse, in that case, should also be true. As you can study the sociological impact of religion on society, you should equally be able to study the theological impact of society on religion. You can't really justify privileging one over the other, at least, not rationally.
You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves. You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.
I think you're confused, though I'm not sure where you've gone wrong. A little history of science, and a better understanding of induction might help you here.
You know what they call "alternative medicine" That's been proved to work? Medicine."
What bothers me about that it's a complete misrepresentation. Criticism is meaningless when it drifts off in to some parody of the topic under discussion.
In this case, the author implies that "alternative medicine" is understood as "alternatives to medicine" instead of "alternative approaches to medicine". If he intends his talk to convince believers that they're mistaken, he's failed. They'll simply roll their eyes, convinced he doesn't understand the topic, as it appears the speaker doesn't understand the topic at all.
It's just as bad as the yahoos that go around defining homeopathy. I'm sure you can find a "That's not what homeopathy is, it's really..." comment here already. It's simply not helpful. The believer will see that definition, realize it's not related to their beliefs, and ignore it.
Bad arguments are bad, regardless of who makes them or what their intentions happen to be. If you want to be rational, you can't go around shouting slogans and making bad arguments indistinguishable from some mad-libs version of the arguments of the opposing side. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Flash doesn't run on iOS, so it's already on the way out.
So said everyone... 7 years ago. At this point, it's just pure delusion. iOS just isn't relevant.
The "major decline" you and everyone else has been on about nearly a decade just hasn't happened. Flash has declined, sure, but not significantly. Google and Mozilla recognize this, and have taken steps to ensure flash content will work in their browsers for the foreseeable future. After all, if their browser can't render the content people want, they'll look elsewhere.
I suspect we'll have this exact same discussion 5 years from now. There's just too much content and the alternatives just aren't mature enough to see any significant change over the next few years.
Here's something you might not know: Your personal use case is not representative of the world at large.
Flash is still quite popular, and isn't likely to vanish any time soon. Millions upon millions of users engage with flash content on the web daily. It's going to take a very long time for alternatives to catch-up in terms of authoring tools and, most importantly, content. It'll take even longer for that old content to fade into obscurity -- just like Java applets before it.
I know it's cool to play the ideologue, but it's foolish to deny the obvious reality. Flash is going to be with us for many years.
Well, the challenge I offered is still on the table: Give it a try.
Can you manage it? By an act of will, can you truly believe that a blue ghost is stealing socks from the laundry? Can you simply stop believing in, say, the existence of field mice?
Who? Not an individual, but the rest of the civilized world.
We've collectively decided to maintain those sites for a purpose. We've also collectively decided what does and does not constitute disrespectful behavior at those sites.
You're upset that you can't do whatever you want, wherever you want, without facing social consequences for your actions. You hear this sort of nonsense from school kids trying to defend their poor behavioral choices.
You wouldn't send text messages in a movie theater, would you? Then don't play video games at Dachau!
You might have a case. You're clearly suffering from serious emotional distress. The only question, of course, is if the bogeymen causing you such harm are real or imaginary.
This type of thinking is exactly the same as the folks pushing the "everyone can/should learn how to program" idiocy. Programming is not easy.
Don't be silly. Programming is ridiculously easy. So easy, in fact, that young children can, and often do, teach themselves. The bulk of programmers here taught themselves -- a good many of those when they were less than 10 years old.
Anyone can do it. It does not take a special mind. Looking at studies done in the 80's, there's evidence that programming can be successfully introduced early in elementary school. You'll find that there isn't any evidence for the absurd belief that programming is limited to a select few.
That may hurt your feelings. It's hard to accept the fact that the skill you're so proud to hold doesn't make you special or unique in any way. I hate to see anyone suffer, but spreading nonsense like "programming is hard" and the absurd belief that only a select few are capable of writing computer programs is harmful.
Weak troll is weak. One need only reach as far as "conservative majority on Slashdot" to realize it's a troll post.
So your contention is that there isn't a conservative majority on Slashdot? I will direct you to the comments on any article that even vaguely hints at a social issue as evidence to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
A very nice strawman. I didn't say it was a problem, I said it was a privilege. since being "privileged" is supposedly the most evil thing you can be in Ms. Wu's worldview
Speaking of strawmen...
I am merely asking why class privilege does not seemingly count.
Because a single person can't focus on every possible social problem at once.
Do you also believe they faked the moon landing? There's some really compelling evidence on several other paranoid conspiracy websites.
Remember, folks, if someone speaks out against any abuse, they're nothing more than attention-seekers playing the victim card.
At this point, any woman would garner an adverse reaction as strong as the one we're seeing here.
Still, Slashdot editors know that even mentioning women brings out the bottom 10% in full force. I have little doubt they were the first to initiate contact, knowing it would drive up traffic.
I'm deeply skeptical of that claim. The discussion here should explain why.
I do not know of an objective basis for privileging empiricism over rationalism over religion.
Again, we're not discussing religion.
Yes, we have moved to verification. That's kinda the point.
You really should learn at least a little bit about science. Clearly, Wikipedia and skeptic forums have not served you well.
Not that it matters. We're clearly not having the same conversation here.
Charles Sanders Peirce, the father of modern scientific inquiry
You can't be serious. Who fed you that nonsense?
I described what a science is and what it isn't and how theology does not fit the definition of a science.
Well, you certainly think you did. I'll let you review what you've written and decide for yourself if you'd like to revise that assertion a bit. That is, if you really think falsification is the sole criterion for demarcation.
Show me testable and repeatable hypothesis theology has ever made that have been shown to be true by objective evidence.
Now you've moved from falsification to verification? You should know that there are serious problems with verification and quite a bit of difficulty reconciling it with falsification. I'm going to guess you skipped Popper and Carnap altogether in favor of forum posts. This is why I'm not convinced you understand basic science. Further, science, quite obviously, doesn't deal in truth. (I'll leave the bit about objectivity for another day. It's not as simple as you seem to believe.)
Moving on, there is a really silly bit in your previous post that I'd like to point out.
l. You can have a scientific study of the psychology of theology. You can study anthropology, history, sociology, etc as it relates to religion.
The implication here is that you accept those discipline as science. The reverse, in that case, should also be true. As you can study the sociological impact of religion on society, you should equally be able to study the theological impact of society on religion. You can't really justify privileging one over the other, at least, not rationally.
You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves. You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.
I think you're confused, though I'm not sure where you've gone wrong. A little history of science, and a better understanding of induction might help you here.
You know what they call "alternative medicine"
That's been proved to work?
Medicine."
What bothers me about that it's a complete misrepresentation. Criticism is meaningless when it drifts off in to some parody of the topic under discussion.
In this case, the author implies that "alternative medicine" is understood as "alternatives to medicine" instead of "alternative approaches to medicine". If he intends his talk to convince believers that they're mistaken, he's failed. They'll simply roll their eyes, convinced he doesn't understand the topic, as it appears the speaker doesn't understand the topic at all.
It's just as bad as the yahoos that go around defining homeopathy. I'm sure you can find a "That's not what homeopathy is, it's really ..." comment here already. It's simply not helpful. The believer will see that definition, realize it's not related to their beliefs, and ignore it.
Bad arguments are bad, regardless of who makes them or what their intentions happen to be. If you want to be rational, you can't go around shouting slogans and making bad arguments indistinguishable from some mad-libs version of the arguments of the opposing side. It's absolutely ridiculous.
What, exactly, do you think TESS stands for anyway?
Here you go
Flash doesn't run on iOS, so it's already on the way out.
So said everyone ... 7 years ago. At this point, it's just pure delusion. iOS just isn't relevant.
The "major decline" you and everyone else has been on about nearly a decade just hasn't happened. Flash has declined, sure, but not significantly. Google and Mozilla recognize this, and have taken steps to ensure flash content will work in their browsers for the foreseeable future. After all, if their browser can't render the content people want, they'll look elsewhere.
I suspect we'll have this exact same discussion 5 years from now. There's just too much content and the alternatives just aren't mature enough to see any significant change over the next few years.
This is simply reality.
That shouldn't be terribly difficult.
Here's something you might not know: Your personal use case is not representative of the world at large.
Flash is still quite popular, and isn't likely to vanish any time soon. Millions upon millions of users engage with flash content on the web daily. It's going to take a very long time for alternatives to catch-up in terms of authoring tools and, most importantly, content. It'll take even longer for that old content to fade into obscurity -- just like Java applets before it.
I know it's cool to play the ideologue, but it's foolish to deny the obvious reality. Flash is going to be with us for many years.
they usually hang up as quickly as possible.
Who wouldn't? They probably assumed you were mentally ill. Even low-life scammers have their limits.
Any belief is subject to change
Sure, but neither one of us is suggesting that beliefs cannot change.
Well, the challenge I offered is still on the table: Give it a try.
Can you manage it? By an act of will, can you truly believe that a blue ghost is stealing socks from the laundry? Can you simply stop believing in, say, the existence of field mice?
Who? Not an individual, but the rest of the civilized world.
We've collectively decided to maintain those sites for a purpose. We've also collectively decided what does and does not constitute disrespectful behavior at those sites.
You're upset that you can't do whatever you want, wherever you want, without facing social consequences for your actions. You hear this sort of nonsense from school kids trying to defend their poor behavioral choices.
You wouldn't send text messages in a movie theater, would you? Then don't play video games at Dachau!
You seem to be arguing with your imagination.
Good luck.
Religion is a choice in the same sense that homosexuality is a choice: You can chose to pretend to be what you aren't and to believe what you don't.
The AC is right. Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
Give it a try.
You might have a case. You're clearly suffering from serious emotional distress. The only question, of course, is if the bogeymen causing you such harm are real or imaginary.
This type of thinking is exactly the same as the folks pushing the "everyone can/should learn how to program" idiocy.
Programming is not easy.
Don't be silly. Programming is ridiculously easy. So easy, in fact, that young children can, and often do, teach themselves. The bulk of programmers here taught themselves -- a good many of those when they were less than 10 years old.
Anyone can do it. It does not take a special mind. Looking at studies done in the 80's, there's evidence that programming can be successfully introduced early in elementary school. You'll find that there isn't any evidence for the absurd belief that programming is limited to a select few.
That may hurt your feelings. It's hard to accept the fact that the skill you're so proud to hold doesn't make you special or unique in any way. I hate to see anyone suffer, but spreading nonsense like "programming is hard" and the absurd belief that only a select few are capable of writing computer programs is harmful.
Weak troll is weak. One need only reach as far as "conservative majority on Slashdot" to realize it's a troll post.
So your contention is that there isn't a conservative majority on Slashdot? I will direct you to the comments on any article that even vaguely hints at a social issue as evidence to the contrary.