Willfully ignorant? That's not fair. Have you considered that perhaps they're simply global warming supporters?
Progressive climate advocates aren't afraid of change, unlike you right-wing climate conservatives. Change is good.
"But... But Florida will be under water!" cry the anti-climate change zealots. I can live with that. There's nothing but retirees, crazies, and scientologists down there anyway.
The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements.
Nonsense! Science requires a plethora of foundational assumptions.
Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
Science necessarily presupposes a specific "world view".
Yet I'm a scientist [...] One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic
Yet you have this bizarre idealized concept of science that, while it plays to the Slashdot wannabe scientist crowd, is obviously a non-starter. Didn't they teach philosophy of science anywhere you studied?
Right. So you admit you've presented no evidence of your belief that Homeopathy works.
Did you forget what this was about? As laypersons, according to you, we must defer to the "domain experts" as you put it:
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
Why waste time with arguments and evidence when you believe that:
It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts.
Best to skip the bickering and head straight to the library!
The only bit missing was how to figure out who the domain experts were. Fortunately, you have the "answer" for us -- at least for this specific topic:
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
So I find a few well-established peer-reviewed scientific journals from reputable publishers on the subject and upon reviewing a sample of recent articles, quite to my surprise, a clear consensus emerged: homeopathy was effective. This was great, as it might just show you why your pronouncement sounds so ridiculous to educated people!
But like the finger-print scanner farce, you just double down. Now you tell me:
A journal called "Homeopathy" is not a reputable scientific journal.
Apparently, you can tell from just the title alone! Can I assume that no scientific journal is reputable if it is named after the subject?
Tell me, what criteria a layperson should use to determine which journals are "reputable scientific journals" when looking to identify the "domain experts" in a given subject?
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.
A survey of the relevant peer-reviewed journals shows otherwise. The data do not support your claim. I'm afraid that, according to you, it would be "irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts". The domain experts being "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy"
I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources,
What sources are more reputable than "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"? Do you want to revise your earlier statement?
Who are the domain-experts if not those publishing "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"?
not by reading your links which I have not and will not be clicking on.
You won't be clicking on them because they don't exist. You're imagining things.
So, do you still agree with the following?
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Thereby proving that you missed the phrase "the consensus".
You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.
At no point did I say that non-domain experts should be swayed in any way by singular links that their opponent claims came up at the top of an unspecified web search.
No one is claiming that at all. All I offered was an example to show you what you'll find in the relevant "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy." The one i offered was was from the most recent edition of the journal Homeopathy You seemed to be somewhat misinformed as to what the relevant journals were actually publishing, likely because you've never looked for yourself, so I thought an example would be helpful to you. As always, I urge you to check for yourself.
Take your time. I'll wait....
Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself, I have to ask: Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"? Do you still believe that "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise."?
Of your examples, the first comes closest to reality. It's wrong, of course, but you could make a good argument.
The original iPhone browser wasn't (and still isn't) good enough for high-quality web apps. Of course, at the time, neither was any browser. If you'll recall, Apple didn't seem interested in third-party apps at the time. They were much more interested in controlling what apps were on the platform. (The ability to local/offline local/offline web app with a nice icon on the home screen icon was little more than a vague promise as late as October 2007.) Really, it's difficult to say that it had web apps at all.
The release of the SDK looked more like an attempt to regain some control over the iOS software market, as intrepid hackers had already developed native third-party applications. Jobs couldn't stop it, and the endless exploits were an embarrassment. The world would not let him have his completely closed platform. The SDK let them have some control those nasty third-party apps.
Palm never released a native SDK. The closest they came was the PDK, which isn't quite the same thing. I'm not sure who was complaining, as even the internet doesn't seem to remember. Today, new standards like webGL and the web audio api negate the need that Palm's PDK intended to fullfill.
RIM has always had a native SDK. Nor do I recall anyone complaining about webworks, not that it would matter if they did as there has always been an NDK.
I've been waiting patiently for years to see full local file access added to JavaScript, so that I can start using HTML/JavaScript for general app development.
You could try node-webkit. Yes, it supports the FileSystem API.
Nonsense. jQuery even introduces cross-browser issues!
The unstable API virtually guarantees you'll have maintenance issues in the future -- with the library itself offering solutions to help you mix multiple versions! Yeah, even if I believed that you save any amount of development time using jQuery, which I do not, you'll quickly loose it all in maintenance costs.
Oh, yes, and it's written by a group of completely incompetent people. Having looked at the code, I'm not convinced Resig understand the basics of the language. No big surprise, as his books are riddled with obvious errors.
Take a look at the code yourself. Tell me you wouldn't fire anyone on your team that produced something like it. It's a disgusting mess. If I were Resig, I'd be ashamed.
jQuery is a shitty Javascript library that, on the client side, slows down websites, increases development time, and generally makes cross-browser scripting impossible. It's worse than useless.
Node.js is essentially Javascript without the browser, plus a few extras. There are varioususes for it. It can be handy, but it's far from the panacea it's made out to be by its proponents.
They're quite different. The only similarity I can come up with is that both are over-hyped.
No, I quote explicitly explained that you should trust the domain-experts.
Okay, and who are the domain experts?
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Okay, I've found them. See the earlier list of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
And pointed out that you are not very good at identifying who the domain-experts are.
Wait, so the domain experts on homeopathy are NOT the scientists that have peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy?
If you are trying to tell me that the domain-experts are saying that homeopathy works beyond placebo
Well, I apparently don't know who the domain experts are! I took you at your word and found "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy".
The first article I clicked on says: "Significant differences (p 0.05) in the mixed parasite conditions were found within the different Homeopatila 100® treatments. The hepatosomatic ratio of fish treated with Homeopatila 100® was significantly lower than that of fish from the control group." Concluding: "The addition of Homeopatila 100® at a concentration 40 mL per kg/meal to the diet of juvenile Nile tilapias resulted in improved hepatocytes and intracellular glycogen levels as well as the lowest mean rate of branchial histological changes with an increase in acidic mucin-producing cells compared to neutral mucin-producing cells, compared to control."
Go take a look through those journals and see for yourself. I didn't spend hours tracking that on down. It is the very first article I found with a google search.
Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"?
"The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Okay. I won't disagree with that. I believe I even listed several top journals.
The scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it has no effect beyond placebo."
You'll find that the top peer-reviewed homeopathy journals show a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious.
So when it comes to homeopathy, we should trust everyone except the domain experts? Is that what you're saying here?
Homeopaths are only domain experts on what the system of homeopathy says. They are not domain experts on whether it works. Domain experts on whether it works are medical research scientists from one angle, and physicists or chemists from another.
Oh, so those researchers publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals aren't the really experts after all? What do you think they publish in those journals? The same stuff over and over? You seem to think that homeopathy is some fixed, unchanging, set of rules. Take a look through some of the journals I mentioned. You can find plenty online.
Now that you've done that, you'll find that reality contradicts you. Just like the fingerprint scanner, you'll get over it. They spend a great deal of time on the question of efficacy.
Nonsense! It is obviously not "ad-hominem". This has already been explained to you!
If you want to claim otherwise, in face of evidence to the contrary, you're going to have to actually make your case. All I've got out of you so far is bold assertion.
Perhaps that's all you've got? All you have left is to dodge the issue, refusing to defend the indefensible statement: "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise."? You know, the point of this "discussion".
This isn't a holy finger-print scanner we're talking about, after all. You can safely admit that a universal statement like that just might be overreaching!
What are you babbling about? This is completely incoherent:
The fact that you posited your whole statement as a *premise* implies that you see no possibility for any part of it to be false. You were therefore not engaging in inductive reasoning.
It would also appear that you didn't quite understand my explanation. Give it another go. We're on Chapter 1, somewhere between pages 1-5 of just about any book on sentential logic that you're likely to find. This is incredibly simple stuff we're dealing with here. Go do some reading.
Before you ignore my advice and post more silly nonsense, let me again remind you that you're making all of this fuss over a trivial detail in a single statement in an argument that I'm not even making! What do you hope to accomplish?
Slashdot Mirror
Willfully ignorant? That's not fair. Have you considered that perhaps they're simply global warming supporters?
Progressive climate advocates aren't afraid of change, unlike you right-wing climate conservatives. Change is good.
"But ... But Florida will be under water!" cry the anti-climate change zealots. I can live with that. There's nothing but retirees, crazies, and scientologists down there anyway.
Bring on the heat!
Indeed.
The Apple fans are out in full force. They've been quiet since the TouchID fiasco. There isn't much sanity left here.
The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements.
Nonsense! Science requires a plethora of foundational assumptions.
Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
Science necessarily presupposes a specific "world view".
Yet I'm a scientist [...] One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic
Yet you have this bizarre idealized concept of science that, while it plays to the Slashdot wannabe scientist crowd, is obviously a non-starter. Didn't they teach philosophy of science anywhere you studied?
How's that "argument" rational? Is god writing textbooks now?
This sounds familiar.
You don't happen to know a fellow named Ned Ludd do you?
Right. So you admit you've presented no evidence of your belief that Homeopathy works.
Did you forget what this was about? As laypersons, according to you, we must defer to the "domain experts" as you put it:
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
Why waste time with arguments and evidence when you believe that:
It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts.
Best to skip the bickering and head straight to the library!
The only bit missing was how to figure out who the domain experts were. Fortunately, you have the "answer" for us -- at least for this specific topic:
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
So I find a few well-established peer-reviewed scientific journals from reputable publishers on the subject and upon reviewing a sample of recent articles, quite to my surprise, a clear consensus emerged: homeopathy was effective. This was great, as it might just show you why your pronouncement sounds so ridiculous to educated people!
But like the finger-print scanner farce, you just double down. Now you tell me:
A journal called "Homeopathy" is not a reputable scientific journal.
Apparently, you can tell from just the title alone! Can I assume that no scientific journal is reputable if it is named after the subject?
Tell me, what criteria a layperson should use to determine which journals are "reputable scientific journals" when looking to identify the "domain experts" in a given subject?
Sorry, what's wrong with it as a language?
Or were you just playing to a popular slashdot meme?
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
That is a lie. The clear scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it works no better than placebo.
A survey of the relevant peer-reviewed journals shows otherwise. The data do not support your claim. I'm afraid that, according to you, it would be "irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts". The domain experts being "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy"
I have of course confirmed for myself what the scientific consensus is. By consulting reputable sources,
What sources are more reputable than "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"? Do you want to revise your earlier statement?
Who are the domain-experts if not those publishing "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic"?
not by reading your links which I have not and will not be clicking on.
You won't be clicking on them because they don't exist. You're imagining things.
So, do you still agree with the following?
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Thereby proving that you missed the phrase "the consensus".
You'll discover, by reviewing the relevant journals, that "The domain-experts on homeopathy", which you'll know as, "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.", are in broad agreement. There is a clear consensus on the issue of the efficacy of homeopathy.
At no point did I say that non-domain experts should be swayed in any way by singular links that their opponent claims came up at the top of an unspecified web search.
No one is claiming that at all. All I offered was an example to show you what you'll find in the relevant "peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy." The one i offered was was from the most recent edition of the journal Homeopathy You seemed to be somewhat misinformed as to what the relevant journals were actually publishing, likely because you've never looked for yourself, so I thought an example would be helpful to you. As always, I urge you to check for yourself.
Take your time. I'll wait ....
Now that you've taken some time to examine the relevant journals and discover what the consensus is yourself, I have to ask: Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"? Do you still believe that "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise."?
What?
Of your examples, the first comes closest to reality. It's wrong, of course, but you could make a good argument.
The original iPhone browser wasn't (and still isn't) good enough for high-quality web apps. Of course, at the time, neither was any browser. If you'll recall, Apple didn't seem interested in third-party apps at the time. They were much more interested in controlling what apps were on the platform. (The ability to local/offline local/offline web app with a nice icon on the home screen icon was little more than a vague promise as late as October 2007.) Really, it's difficult to say that it had web apps at all.
The release of the SDK looked more like an attempt to regain some control over the iOS software market, as intrepid hackers had already developed native third-party applications. Jobs couldn't stop it, and the endless exploits were an embarrassment. The world would not let him have his completely closed platform. The SDK let them have some control those nasty third-party apps.
Palm never released a native SDK. The closest they came was the PDK, which isn't quite the same thing. I'm not sure who was complaining, as even the internet doesn't seem to remember. Today, new standards like webGL and the web audio api negate the need that Palm's PDK intended to fullfill.
RIM has always had a native SDK. Nor do I recall anyone complaining about webworks, not that it would matter if they did as there has always been an NDK.
I've been waiting patiently for years to see full local file access added to JavaScript, so that I can start using HTML/JavaScript for general app development.
You could try node-webkit. Yes, it supports the FileSystem API.
EMACS is pretty amazing. I'd switch over myself, but it really needs a better text editor.
exactly, the *idea* of FFOS. how do you know carriers don't add tracking / spying software into the phones running FirefoxOS?
If you're paranoid, just build it yourself.
So what you're saying is that I as a non-domain expert ought to be informed by the domain-experts you found?
According to you, that's exactly who you ought to be informed by.
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
So, do you still stand by your assertion?
Nonsense. jQuery even introduces cross-browser issues!
The unstable API virtually guarantees you'll have maintenance issues in the future -- with the library itself offering solutions to help you mix multiple versions! Yeah, even if I believed that you save any amount of development time using jQuery, which I do not, you'll quickly loose it all in maintenance costs.
Oh, yes, and it's written by a group of completely incompetent people. Having looked at the code, I'm not convinced Resig understand the basics of the language. No big surprise, as his books are riddled with obvious errors.
Take a look at the code yourself. Tell me you wouldn't fire anyone on your team that produced something like it. It's a disgusting mess. If I were Resig, I'd be ashamed.
jQuery is a shitty Javascript library that, on the client side, slows down websites, increases development time, and generally makes cross-browser scripting impossible. It's worse than useless.
Node.js is essentially Javascript without the browser, plus a few extras. There are various uses for it. It can be handy, but it's far from the panacea it's made out to be by its proponents.
They're quite different. The only similarity I can come up with is that both are over-hyped.
That would have been really funny 10 years ago.
No, I quote explicitly explained that you should trust the domain-experts.
Okay, and who are the domain experts?
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Okay, I've found them. See the earlier list of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
And pointed out that you are not very good at identifying who the domain-experts are.
Wait, so the domain experts on homeopathy are NOT the scientists that have peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy?
If you are trying to tell me that the domain-experts are saying that homeopathy works beyond placebo
Well, I apparently don't know who the domain experts are! I took you at your word and found "the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy".
The first article I clicked on says: "Significant differences (p 0.05) in the mixed parasite conditions were found within the different Homeopatila 100® treatments. The hepatosomatic ratio of fish treated with Homeopatila 100® was significantly lower than that of fish from the control group." Concluding: "The addition of Homeopatila 100® at a concentration 40 mL per kg/meal to the diet of juvenile Nile tilapias resulted in improved hepatocytes and intracellular glycogen levels as well as the lowest mean rate of branchial histological changes with an increase in acidic mucin-producing cells compared to neutral mucin-producing cells, compared to control."
Go take a look through those journals and see for yourself. I didn't spend hours tracking that on down. It is the very first article I found with a google search.
Do you still believe that "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts"?
"The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
Okay. I won't disagree with that. I believe I even listed several top journals.
The scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it has no effect beyond placebo."
You'll find that the top peer-reviewed homeopathy journals show a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious.
So when it comes to homeopathy, we should trust everyone except the domain experts? Is that what you're saying here?
Homeopaths are only domain experts on what the system of homeopathy says. They are not domain experts on whether it works. Domain experts on whether it works are medical research scientists from one angle, and physicists or chemists from another.
Oh, so those researchers publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals aren't the really experts after all? What do you think they publish in those journals? The same stuff over and over? You seem to think that homeopathy is some fixed, unchanging, set of rules. Take a look through some of the journals I mentioned. You can find plenty online.
Now that you've done that, you'll find that reality contradicts you. Just like the fingerprint scanner, you'll get over it. They spend a great deal of time on the question of efficacy.
Sure it is. Blatantly.
Nonsense! It is obviously not "ad-hominem". This has already been explained to you!
If you want to claim otherwise, in face of evidence to the contrary, you're going to have to actually make your case. All I've got out of you so far is bold assertion.
Perhaps that's all you've got? All you have left is to dodge the issue, refusing to defend the indefensible statement: "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise."? You know, the point of this "discussion".
This isn't a holy finger-print scanner we're talking about, after all. You can safely admit that a universal statement like that just might be overreaching!
What are you babbling about? This is completely incoherent:
The fact that you posited your whole statement as a *premise* implies that you see no possibility for any part of it to be false. You were therefore not engaging in inductive reasoning.
It would also appear that you didn't quite understand my explanation. Give it another go. We're on Chapter 1, somewhere between pages 1-5 of just about any book on sentential logic that you're likely to find. This is incredibly simple stuff we're dealing with here. Go do some reading.
Before you ignore my advice and post more silly nonsense, let me again remind you that you're making all of this fuss over a trivial detail in a single statement in an argument that I'm not even making! What do you hope to accomplish?
Then I read your last line ad-hominem "Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?"
That's not ad-hominem.
Sigh... Here, let me help you...
That's not just a premise, there's a deduction too.
1) What you think you see would be an induction, not a deduction.
2) You only see that due to awkward paraphrasing on my part. (Try: "There are too many guns for a ban to be efficacious")
Next time, try not to make incredibly basic errors when "correcting" someone else on what would ultimately have been a mere triviality.
LOL! How is that "ad hominem"?
You tried an example of homeopathy, and were shot down.
That's not true. You simply ignored it, mumbling some nonsense about "ad hominem" instead. Presumably because you can't face reality.
You're very confused.