if you focus your energies on knowledge, the food on your plate will dwindle. if you focus your energies on putting food on your plate, you will have cornucopia
see how simple that is?
the contrast is completely within the realm of the self
it has nothing to do with conspiracies or agendas or broken social values outside your self. you cannot ask society to value you just because you have committed yourself to the extension of knowledge. the reason being, what you may be studying might be horseshit. the only proof that what you are studying is not horseshit is the PRODUCT of your energies, not the mere fact that you exert yourself in them
so you don't want to starve? then sell out
but the search for knowledge is too important to you to abandon?
fine. but then get used to cabbage
and all of this is should be plainly evident to you. that you have this delusion society is going to cherish and reward you just because you work in a white coat, i don't know where you got this absurd notion from, as no society has ever done this, or ever will
show results, or you don't eat
this sound harsh, unfair?
well its the same arrangement every single human being toils under, scientist or not
why are you so special to think you are not beholden to this essential fact of life?
you have this odd sense of priveledge, that you do not deserve
science has people resistant to change, for sure. in the 1980s there was an australian scientist who proposed that ulcers form from an undiscovered bacteria, and he was ridiculed. well, he found that bacteria, and we now know ulcers are transmissible, and that australian has a nobel prize
but please note, change actually happened. the dogmatic fools were triumphed over
in religion, such a challenge would never be tolerated
in other words, science has inertia, certainly. but this is just intellectual laziness common to all humanity. meanwhile, any scientist worth his salt knows that all scientific knowledge is suspect to reinterpretation. all of science is rigorous observation and testing of natural phenomenon. in this way, what science knows, while not absolute, is AS BEST AS ONE CAN SAY at the current time
meanwhile, organized religion asserts ABSOLUTE knowledge that
1. never changes 2. cannot be questioned 3. has no proof 4. cannot be tested
now you honeslty want to tell me they are the same
no, in a very simple way, science is completely unlike religion, and inherently stronger. science has some dogmatic fools, but is essentially sound. religion is the opposite: religion has generous and positive thinking proponents, but is essentially just a dogmatic house of cards
religion is essentially dogmatic. science is essentially NOT dogmatic. if you don't understand that, you don't stand the nature of science, or you don't understand that nature of religion, or you don't udnerstand both
women's liberation contrasts with traditional thinking
proponents of traditional thinking in the middle east portray the movement for women's rights as a western plot to destabilize the middle east and destroy traditional culture and traditional islam
this is true of any society: take the argument over gay marriage in the united states
all societies are changing in one way or another, pitting traditionalists against liberal thinkers. the traditionalists use scare tactics. for example, in the usa the propagandizers say gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia and necrophilia. yes, some idiots in the usa really believe that's what gay marriqage will lead to. just like some idiots in the middle east think women can't drive a car, according to islam
nobody in the government is out to destroy the family unit. to hint at that reveals you have some sort of poverty in your thinking about what the role of government is in your society
if the government is making a policy, any policy, that weakens the family unit, then a clear cut case can be made for that, the urgency of the need to correct that will be appreciated by anyone acting in good faith, and the policy will be changed
you do understand that your government is composed of your fellow citizens acting in good faith, right?
this is the dangerous mentally unsound disconnect i feel here: that you think the government is some sort of conspiracy to destroy
no, if the government has some sort of policy you belive is out to destroy the family, i think you don't understand the policy or its real impact
and if i am wrong, then run for office, and make things right. you live in a democracy
organized religion, any organized religion, teaches its children to regurgitate back to the teacher the traditional party line, for example, memorizing the koran. it does not reward novel thinking, or questioning beliefs, it in fact punishes those things. so education in countries with strong religious dominance (any religion, not just islam) leads to a nation of dull and obedient minds, zombies
to be a great scientist, you must have a mind that is nurtured in an environment which encourages the child to question everything, to take risks, to be pioneering. anyone who thinks like that in a strongly religious society will be punished
let us say you have a 7 year old in tehran who comes to you and says "i don't believe that allah exists". this is a child whose mind is precocious, exploring, questioning, doubting. as he gets older, he may come to see allah exists, but it is not wrong for him to explore the existence of allah within his own mind in childhood. momentary doubt can lead to renewed faith down the road
this is a strong, fertile mind in which great ideas will take root, this doubting mind. but that child will be admonished, and punished for saying such things about allah. meanwhile, the child who memorizes the rote dead passages of an old dusty book will receive top honors. but this child is just a robot, repeating what someother mind wrote. so the slave will be promoted, the genius will be punished in this education system
under religion, you do not get great science. only in breaking away from religion- any religion, not just islam, only then do you get great thinkers and great scientific discoveries. religious education rewards dull weak feeble obedient minds, zombies. open education that allows questioning of everything leads to risk takers, explorers, bright strong minds. religion is wary and scared of such minds, and so it represses them. but it does so at the risk of weakening the mental strenght of the entire society
if you honestly believe otherwise, that somehow science can flourish in a religous environment, then you don't even know what science is, you only know of what science is from the ancient lore of the islamic world, when algebra, alkali, alcohol... great scientific advances were taking place
this was done by liberal thinking muslims of a long dead age. the muslims who did the great leaps in science in ages past were not obedient fundamentalist muslims, they were liberla thinkers. they HAVE to be in order to be mentally fit in order to make the great discoveries they made
but what you have in the middle east today is not the vanguard of a new scientific age, but the dogmatic shell of a system that talks triumphantly of long ago faded glory, and not the faintest clue of how to get it back. and in fact represents a way to move FURTHER from scientific progress: religious dogmatic zombification
dogmatic organized islam, dogmatic organzied ANY religion, leads to weak brittle societies, not great scientists
if you make a great discovery that cannot be capitalized financially, it can still be capitalized in terms of fame
i don't think albert einstein was a millionaire, but there are plenty of millionaires who have come and gone and will continue to come and go, for centuries, that are utterly forgotten, while the name and mind of albert einstein will continue to live
so you as a scientist may toil in poverty your entire life. but if you find that amazing discovery, your name will live for centuries, while all of your contemporaries living in mansions will be anonymous and unimportant and mediocre
while europe was busy bashing each other's heads in over tribal stupidities, the middle east was the light of the world, leading in science
guess what happened though in the last 700 years?
now the positions are reversed: europe leads in the sciences, the middle east languishes in tribal and religious backbiting
how did that happen?
because the middle east grew more dogmatic under religion, minds got closed, while europe broke away from religious dominance, minds opened up to new and novel thinking
now you tell me, through "their true religious beliefs convictions" the middle east is going to do what exactly? anything through "their true religious beliefs convictions" cna only lead to more closed minds, zombification. fundamentalist education does not reward novel thinking, ti rewards students who regurgitate back exactly what they are told. it encourages minds that are dull and obedient, not independent and risk taking
by binding themselves closer to religious dogmatism, the middle east is only dooming themselves further to weakness and dominance by the west. the middle east will never break free of dominance from the west until it is strong on its own. and you don't find strenght by adhering to religious dogma, you find only further weakness
it is away from islam, not towards it, that the middle east grows strong. and please don't get me wrong: the issue is not islam as a negative influence, the negative influence i am referring to is ANY religion, interpretted dogmatically
liberal islam, that's what the middle east needs. an interpretation of the koran that is subject to personal differences, respected and tolerated, which leads to an opening of the mind, and strength in society with a richenss of thought. as long as someone is passionate about their faith and acting in the conviction of good faith, it should be ok to have an interpretation of islam that might differ form tradition. but that is not tolerated under dogmatic fundamentalist teaching
if everyone in the society is forced to march lockstep into one fundamentalist viewpoint, you have a nation of zombies, not great scientists
it is through fundamentalist islam that the middle east remains weak
it is a shame more middle easterners do not see that
yes religion the more nebulous concept doesn't stand against science. but religion, ie organized religion, which i should have said explicitly, but was referring to in shorthand, does stand in the way of science
simply because organized religion is, by definition, dogmatic. and whereever organized religion dominates society, its dogmatic approach bleeds into legal and social attitudes and automatically squelches and reduces the free thinking that is required for science to flourish
and yes, any dogmatic system, not just organized religion, can squelch science. except that religion is the lions share of the pie chart in terms of sources of dogmatic repression of scientific progress
to set off a car bomb, in the name of fighting western decadence
or you use a gps system to target a bomb in the name of fighting western meddling
do you not see the essential irony in that?
you are using technologies developed in the west, to fight the social and ideological ideas that made those technologies possible
there is nothing about human knowledge that is western, or chinese, or persian: of course, 100% agreed. but what is also true is that humanist principles aren't western either. so islamic fundamentalist aren't really fighting westernization. they are fighting humanization
the technologies that islamic fundamentalist militants and fundamentalist regimes use could have just as well been developed in the middle east... but only if the middle east adopted secular humanism and thereby allowed for the social and economic climate in which science and technology flourish
so yes: if you use human knowledge to fight for an ideology which destroys the ability to create human knowledge, there is something wrong there. and religious fundamentalism destroys human knowledge and scientific progress
so it is entirely accurate of me to say that the regime in iran stole science and technology form other countries
#1: that "unknown reason" was the fight against communism. the usa did plenty of vile things in the cold war. all of which was to prevent the spread of communism, which was a monumentally good fight, that you benefitted from. not to mention all of the vile things the enemies of the usa did during the same period, which everyone conveniently forgets when digging up old cold war american crimes. such as, the vile things the shah of iran did. but no, the usa dealt with the shah, so they are guilty of EVERYTHING the guy did. well, what about all the other governments who dealt with the shah at the time? are they 100% accountable for what he did?
hey, here's a wacky thought: iran under the shah was the result of the shah and his government, and the usa certainly meddled and had influence, but to establish a direct line of accountability and responsibility because of that is to suggest that no one in this world has any free will or makes any choices except americans. oh really? the shah never did evil things because the SHAH decided to do them?
#2: "In essence, the United States *created* Iranian Islamic fundamentalism through their meddling"...this is so laughably ethnocentric, where does one begin? you are so unable to view the world outside of a western pov, you actually want to say that islamic fundamentalism is the creation of something the west did. so, when those islamic revolutionaries were studying islamic scripture, and finding the passion to fight for an islamic state, they did it BECAUSE OF THE USA?! really? so you don't view nonwestern people as complete whole human beings with their own desires and agendas. you see them as cutout cardboard reflections of something the west did
you do realize that this racist, patronizing way of denigrating anything a nonwesterner does as just a reflection of the west makes you just as bad as the most jingoistic american ultranationalist?
if i sell a guy a gun, and he murders someone with it, who is the murderer? in your view, it is the guy who sold the gun, and the guy who actually fired the thing is innocent. amazing, how blind people can be like you are. collosal ethnocentrism on your part
based on that ideal, you criticize any expansion of the nuclear club
of course, the rpely comes back that you are playing favorites. so at the same time, you work for the reduction of nukes in the countries that already have them
but if you agree with me no one should have nukes, then you decry iran going nuclear. and that doesn't make you pro-western, it just makes you pro-human
everyone having nukes leads to an accident somewhere down the line, a mistaken missile firing or meltdown here or there. and then millions dead
so in the name of the betterment of humanity, you work for iran not getting nukes AND the usa getting rid of theres
but you cannot call yourself such a humanist if you believe that iran should have nukes just because the usa has them
i mean you CAN say that, but then you are a warmongering supporter of nuclear proliferation. because once iran has them, egypt and saudi arabia has to get them too. so make up your mind: are you against nuclear proliferation? or are you a warmongering fool? saying you are against proliferation and supporting iran getting nukes is logically and morally incoherent of you
want a nuclear missile free planet? then you stand against iranian nukes AND you fight the ones the usa has. simple as that
"But we've got some serious beams in our own eyes to deal with, and that's more important. They're not perfect, and neither are we, but we have no right to complain about the things WE are also guilty of."
there is no such thing as regional morality anymore. there is no such thing as what americans are guilty of, or what iranians are guilty of. there are only things humanity is guity of. you can't coherently criticize what america does, and remain mute on iran, or visa versa
you can't focus on just the west, or just the usa, you must also criticize every other part of the world. it is the age of the internet and jet air travel. what happens in kandahar matters in manhattan
the only intellectually and morally coherent point of view is a global, humanist one. a muslim point of view is incoherent. a christian point of view is incoherent. a western point of view is incoherent. a middle eastern point of view is incoherent
maybe if we lives in the days of sailing ships, you'd have a valid point of view, but even then, via colonization, the walls separating cultures and societies was breaking down
when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the rock of gibraltar, or the ural mountains, the human beings you encounter there are not in any way different than you. your fight for whatever it is you are fighting for in the west must also include those outside the west equally, or the fight is not valid. you apply the same morality to them as you do to those in the west, or you have no real morality at all
granted, national sovereignity and ultrantionalism and religious bigotry warp these simple truths, but the future of the world is about the death of national boundaries and religious fiefdoms. it already started with the eu, it already started with the separation of church and state
"please don't say the free market. You'll make yourself look like a religious nut"
what, exactly, in your mind is the "free market"?
the free market is nothing other than a group of people placing whatever value they want on a number of concepts. for example, such a group might place a higher value on say, the invention of television, than say, the flowbee vacuum powered hair cutter. but i could be wrong. because i don't know the real value is of either, amd more importantly, no one else does either. only the market knows, where the "market" is nothing more than an emergent phenomenon outside the control of any one individual or group. the market value of something is entirely bound to the behavior of the group en masse, under no ones dogmatic control
it is a mechanism for valueing opposed to say, some group of "specialists" attaching what they percieve the value of a discovery to be according to some sort of agenda. this top-down approach, like communism, really is a dogmatic, quasi-religious approach: that some "spcial" group of people have arcane unique knowledge for valueing things
in other words, the free market is about as undogmatic and unreligious a way to value discoveries as you can get
therefore, that you should equate the free market with religious dogma is beyond absurd, it is directly contradictory to the concepts you are involving yourself in
you're either profoundly incoherent and ignorant about the subject matter, or you are a really good troll, i can't decide which
just study edison and tesla, or farnsworth and rca, if you want a good contrast of what can happen to an innovator whose ideas are coopted
but you can't fight and lose your right to your rightful share of the bounty if you haven't even made a discovery in the first place. in other words, demanding that scientists make millions before they even discover something is absurd. you let them struggle in poverty, and when they make that amazing discovery, they have to start a new struggle: getting their fair share
but there's no struggle for a fair share up front, before a discovery is even made
pride has an upside and a downside, and one downside of pride is you would rather retain your identity even though it also means being in a weaker position
the muslim world sees elements of the west that alternately repel and attract. unfortunately, some of those elements of the west aren't things unique to the west, but are actually more accurately described as elements of simple humanity. such that a lot of the fighting of westernization that goes on in the name of pride in the middle east are actually wars against humanization
for example: women's rights. when you fight that, because it's "western", you are actually retarding the development of your own societies on a human level. if the west never existed, one can imagine the fight for women's rights continuing in the middle east, because such a fight does not depend upon the west as some sort of example, but is a fight valid within itself in islamic societies. that is, the fight for women's rights is not some sort of decadent western influence betraying traditional identity, but is instead a humanist, organic struggle native to the middle east. but humanist struggles always entail a bit of the strange and unknown, to breakway from traditional ways, and so it is easy to confuse two sources of conflict: westernization and humanization. and so, in the name of fighting the west, muslim societies subjugate their own women, and wind up hobbling the development of half their societies. for doing that, the middle east can never hope to be as powerful and as influential as the west, with half their population treated like cattle
there's plenty of things the islamic world says it hates about the west that are shared by the west and, for example, the far east. such that to describe these concepts they say threatens the middle east as some sort of western thing is false: they are human concepts. the islamic world, in the name of retaining an identity distinct from the west, are embracing agendas that are not really anti-western, but are actually anti-human
1. was there ever a time in history, in any culture, in which scientists made the money you think they deserve? i'm not counting the rich gentleman scientists from the 1800s and 1700s. their income was not derived from their research anyways, and their science was more hobby than vocation
2. if you are paid a pittance, and you are not in raw research, you ARE being underpaid, and my words above about being a prospector don't apply to you. your job description sounds more like engineering, and you deserve a high income and respect for that, simply because you have the capacity to migrate to industry from university, or, if you've done that already, to another company that is willing to pay you for your rare abilities and the commensuration such rare abilities deserve. in which case, kick yourself in the ass and migrate to the better pay you should be getting. you can't hold it against your current employer that you don't have the gumption to demand the respect you deserve. if a chick is dating a guy who beats her, she's a fool to stay and think she can turn him into a better man. far better to just leave the loser and find that better man. likewise, for you, go out and find that better paying job. or sit and sulk like a beaten wife who unwisely accepts an unjust fate
what you deserve in life is not just handed to you on a silver platter. you have to go out and fight for what you deserve
you're not filled with blind prejudiced hate. notice the ignorant hatred in the comment i was replying to
you can't snap your fingers and enlighten the mind of a hater. to turn the mind of a hater, you have to lay a road out for them, and push them on the first step down that road
the first step is to make the object of their hate more dissolute. notice i told them to go right on hating america... but why don't you hate iran too?
if they see the logic that hating the usa for crimes iran does as well is hypocritical, and so they agree to hate iran as well, then their hate begins to become diffuse, not pointed, and then it eventually dissipates further down the road
and then they approach the mellow mature mindset towards iran and the usa that you embody
you SHOULD earn a pittance as a university researcher. because you haven't found anything yet. we shouldn't just pay people a lot of money just because they sit in front of a microscope or a chromatograph
however, when you DO find something of value, guess what: you cash out and become a millionaire
scientific research is like being a prospector. actually it is EXACTLY the same thing as being a prospector: you go out in to a strange unexplored land, you follow your nose and your knowledge of geology, and, with some luck, some good preparation, you make a gold strike. with science, the strange unexplored land is the edges of human knowledge. where is the next big discovery? if your mind is keen enough, and you are lucky to be right at the edge of something huge, you cash out with fame and fortune
plenty of other prospectors meanwhile, go out in the wilderness, and starve to death. why should we pay prospectors up front to go prospecting? some of them might not be very good, some of them might be really good, but are just unlucky to be exploring the wrong land
so it is with university researchers: let them live on ramen noodles and live in tiny apartments. if they find something huge, they will be living the good life soon enough
and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this arrangement. every great scientist, no matter how well they are paid (and some ARE paid well, for example: pharmaceutical researchers or petrochemists), knows well enough their value as a scientist, their self-value, pretty much rests on this allegory of the prospector. they can toil in obscurity for decades, and find nothing of substance. or they can pick the one right avenue at a young age, and be known as the next einstein, and be handed a nobel in middle age
what is not ok is to be so blinded by your hatred of america that you give other countries, some a lot worse, a free pass. iran is a fundamentalist theocracy which is building nuclear bombs and censors its press, jails and tortures political dissidents, and enforces an ultrastrict fundamentalist religious pov, especially on its women. they have actual police brigades in tehran that fine women for wearing clothing that are too risque. you want to defend this as somehow not as bad as what the usa does? please note something i am saying here: the problem is NOT islam, the problem is fundamentalism
again, it is ok to be anti-american. but why do you think that means you have to be pro-iranian? here's a suggestion: why don't you be anti-american AND anti-iranian, at the same time? why would you want to do that?
so that you can say you oppose the usa based on principles, rahter than just blind dumb prejudice. because if you applied your principles, the principles you say you have according to which you say you hate the usa, if you applied those principles uniformly across all world governments, you would find yourself hating a lot more than just the usa
grow a brain. blind america bashing is tired and dull
Ali Khamenei has been supportive of scientific progress in Iran. He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.[27] In 2004, Khamenei said that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus ensuring the country's progress and development.[28]
he recongizes the truth: iran will be a second rate power unless it leads in the field of science, through which it retains its independence and preeminence. this is why attacking iran's nuclear pursuits is hopeless, since iran attaches so much pride in iranian science and technology exploits. they just launched a satellite too. but all of these advances came from science and technology stolen or borrowed from other countries
but the history of persian science is a rich one, and there is no reason its future shouldn't be bright as well, if only the ayatollah would also realize that the preeminence of the west in science came only after the enlightenment
what else happened in the west during the enlightenment? religion was questioned. this is not a mistake or a coincidence: the questioning of religion is inseperable from being a strong scientific thinker. the probing mind of a scientist must be able to question everything, no taboos, in order to do the best science one can. you train young minds to question everything, and in this way, you make great scientists
so dear ayatollah: i celebrate your desire to reassert persia at the forefront of science and technology. so why don't you further this great goal along by relaxing the stifling theocratic censorship of your society, ensuring bright young minds are trained to their utmost? in order to ensure that persian civilization flowers again, let little discoveries like this thin film motor not by isolated gems, but instead be the beginning of a rich tapestry of persian thought
do that, by relaxing your fundamentalist stranglehold on the mind of the young iranian
Slashdot Mirror
or you don't even understand what you are saying
or you are straight up lying to me
if you focus your energies on knowledge, the food on your plate will dwindle. if you focus your energies on putting food on your plate, you will have cornucopia
see how simple that is?
the contrast is completely within the realm of the self
it has nothing to do with conspiracies or agendas or broken social values outside your self. you cannot ask society to value you just because you have committed yourself to the extension of knowledge. the reason being, what you may be studying might be horseshit. the only proof that what you are studying is not horseshit is the PRODUCT of your energies, not the mere fact that you exert yourself in them
so you don't want to starve? then sell out
but the search for knowledge is too important to you to abandon?
fine. but then get used to cabbage
and all of this is should be plainly evident to you. that you have this delusion society is going to cherish and reward you just because you work in a white coat, i don't know where you got this absurd notion from, as no society has ever done this, or ever will
show results, or you don't eat
this sound harsh, unfair?
well its the same arrangement every single human being toils under, scientist or not
why are you so special to think you are not beholden to this essential fact of life?
you have this odd sense of priveledge, that you do not deserve
science has people resistant to change, for sure. in the 1980s there was an australian scientist who proposed that ulcers form from an undiscovered bacteria, and he was ridiculed. well, he found that bacteria, and we now know ulcers are transmissible, and that australian has a nobel prize
but please note, change actually happened. the dogmatic fools were triumphed over
in religion, such a challenge would never be tolerated
in other words, science has inertia, certainly. but this is just intellectual laziness common to all humanity. meanwhile, any scientist worth his salt knows that all scientific knowledge is suspect to reinterpretation. all of science is rigorous observation and testing of natural phenomenon. in this way, what science knows, while not absolute, is AS BEST AS ONE CAN SAY at the current time
meanwhile, organized religion asserts ABSOLUTE knowledge that
1. never changes
2. cannot be questioned
3. has no proof
4. cannot be tested
now you honeslty want to tell me they are the same
no, in a very simple way, science is completely unlike religion, and inherently stronger. science has some dogmatic fools, but is essentially sound. religion is the opposite: religion has generous and positive thinking proponents, but is essentially just a dogmatic house of cards
religion is essentially dogmatic. science is essentially NOT dogmatic. if you don't understand that, you don't stand the nature of science, or you don't understand that nature of religion, or you don't udnerstand both
all societies are dynamic, not static
there is a large movement in the middle east for women's rights
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lipstick-revolution-irans-women-are-taking-on-the-mullahs-1632257.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu2.html
women's liberation contrasts with traditional thinking
proponents of traditional thinking in the middle east portray the movement for women's rights as a western plot to destabilize the middle east and destroy traditional culture and traditional islam
this is true of any society: take the argument over gay marriage in the united states
all societies are changing in one way or another, pitting traditionalists against liberal thinkers. the traditionalists use scare tactics. for example, in the usa the propagandizers say gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia and necrophilia. yes, some idiots in the usa really believe that's what gay marriqage will lead to. just like some idiots in the middle east think women can't drive a car, according to islam
nobody in the government is out to destroy the family unit. to hint at that reveals you have some sort of poverty in your thinking about what the role of government is in your society
if the government is making a policy, any policy, that weakens the family unit, then a clear cut case can be made for that, the urgency of the need to correct that will be appreciated by anyone acting in good faith, and the policy will be changed
you do understand that your government is composed of your fellow citizens acting in good faith, right?
this is the dangerous mentally unsound disconnect i feel here: that you think the government is some sort of conspiracy to destroy
no, if the government has some sort of policy you belive is out to destroy the family, i think you don't understand the policy or its real impact
and if i am wrong, then run for office, and make things right. you live in a democracy
organized religion, any organized religion, teaches its children to regurgitate back to the teacher the traditional party line, for example, memorizing the koran. it does not reward novel thinking, or questioning beliefs, it in fact punishes those things. so education in countries with strong religious dominance (any religion, not just islam) leads to a nation of dull and obedient minds, zombies
to be a great scientist, you must have a mind that is nurtured in an environment which encourages the child to question everything, to take risks, to be pioneering. anyone who thinks like that in a strongly religious society will be punished
let us say you have a 7 year old in tehran who comes to you and says "i don't believe that allah exists". this is a child whose mind is precocious, exploring, questioning, doubting. as he gets older, he may come to see allah exists, but it is not wrong for him to explore the existence of allah within his own mind in childhood. momentary doubt can lead to renewed faith down the road
this is a strong, fertile mind in which great ideas will take root, this doubting mind. but that child will be admonished, and punished for saying such things about allah. meanwhile, the child who memorizes the rote dead passages of an old dusty book will receive top honors. but this child is just a robot, repeating what someother mind wrote. so the slave will be promoted, the genius will be punished in this education system
under religion, you do not get great science. only in breaking away from religion- any religion, not just islam, only then do you get great thinkers and great scientific discoveries. religious education rewards dull weak feeble obedient minds, zombies. open education that allows questioning of everything leads to risk takers, explorers, bright strong minds. religion is wary and scared of such minds, and so it represses them. but it does so at the risk of weakening the mental strenght of the entire society
if you honestly believe otherwise, that somehow science can flourish in a religous environment, then you don't even know what science is, you only know of what science is from the ancient lore of the islamic world, when algebra, alkali, alcohol... great scientific advances were taking place
this was done by liberal thinking muslims of a long dead age. the muslims who did the great leaps in science in ages past were not obedient fundamentalist muslims, they were liberla thinkers. they HAVE to be in order to be mentally fit in order to make the great discoveries they made
but what you have in the middle east today is not the vanguard of a new scientific age, but the dogmatic shell of a system that talks triumphantly of long ago faded glory, and not the faintest clue of how to get it back. and in fact represents a way to move FURTHER from scientific progress: religious dogmatic zombification
dogmatic organized islam, dogmatic organzied ANY religion, leads to weak brittle societies, not great scientists
if you make a great discovery that cannot be capitalized financially, it can still be capitalized in terms of fame
i don't think albert einstein was a millionaire, but there are plenty of millionaires who have come and gone and will continue to come and go, for centuries, that are utterly forgotten, while the name and mind of albert einstein will continue to live
so you as a scientist may toil in poverty your entire life. but if you find that amazing discovery, your name will live for centuries, while all of your contemporaries living in mansions will be anonymous and unimportant and mediocre
while europe was busy bashing each other's heads in over tribal stupidities, the middle east was the light of the world, leading in science
guess what happened though in the last 700 years?
now the positions are reversed: europe leads in the sciences, the middle east languishes in tribal and religious backbiting
how did that happen?
because the middle east grew more dogmatic under religion, minds got closed, while europe broke away from religious dominance, minds opened up to new and novel thinking
now you tell me, through "their true religious beliefs convictions" the middle east is going to do what exactly? anything through "their true religious beliefs convictions" cna only lead to more closed minds, zombification. fundamentalist education does not reward novel thinking, ti rewards students who regurgitate back exactly what they are told. it encourages minds that are dull and obedient, not independent and risk taking
by binding themselves closer to religious dogmatism, the middle east is only dooming themselves further to weakness and dominance by the west. the middle east will never break free of dominance from the west until it is strong on its own. and you don't find strenght by adhering to religious dogma, you find only further weakness
it is away from islam, not towards it, that the middle east grows strong. and please don't get me wrong: the issue is not islam as a negative influence, the negative influence i am referring to is ANY religion, interpretted dogmatically
liberal islam, that's what the middle east needs. an interpretation of the koran that is subject to personal differences, respected and tolerated, which leads to an opening of the mind, and strength in society with a richenss of thought. as long as someone is passionate about their faith and acting in the conviction of good faith, it should be ok to have an interpretation of islam that might differ form tradition. but that is not tolerated under dogmatic fundamentalist teaching
if everyone in the society is forced to march lockstep into one fundamentalist viewpoint, you have a nation of zombies, not great scientists
it is through fundamentalist islam that the middle east remains weak
it is a shame more middle easterners do not see that
yes religion the more nebulous concept doesn't stand against science. but religion, ie organized religion, which i should have said explicitly, but was referring to in shorthand, does stand in the way of science
simply because organized religion is, by definition, dogmatic. and whereever organized religion dominates society, its dogmatic approach bleeds into legal and social attitudes and automatically squelches and reduces the free thinking that is required for science to flourish
and yes, any dogmatic system, not just organized religion, can squelch science. except that religion is the lions share of the pie chart in terms of sources of dogmatic repression of scientific progress
to set off a car bomb, in the name of fighting western decadence
or you use a gps system to target a bomb in the name of fighting western meddling
do you not see the essential irony in that?
you are using technologies developed in the west, to fight the social and ideological ideas that made those technologies possible
there is nothing about human knowledge that is western, or chinese, or persian: of course, 100% agreed. but what is also true is that humanist principles aren't western either. so islamic fundamentalist aren't really fighting westernization. they are fighting humanization
the technologies that islamic fundamentalist militants and fundamentalist regimes use could have just as well been developed in the middle east... but only if the middle east adopted secular humanism and thereby allowed for the social and economic climate in which science and technology flourish
so yes: if you use human knowledge to fight for an ideology which destroys the ability to create human knowledge, there is something wrong there. and religious fundamentalism destroys human knowledge and scientific progress
so it is entirely accurate of me to say that the regime in iran stole science and technology form other countries
#1: that "unknown reason" was the fight against communism. the usa did plenty of vile things in the cold war. all of which was to prevent the spread of communism, which was a monumentally good fight, that you benefitted from. not to mention all of the vile things the enemies of the usa did during the same period, which everyone conveniently forgets when digging up old cold war american crimes. such as, the vile things the shah of iran did. but no, the usa dealt with the shah, so they are guilty of EVERYTHING the guy did. well, what about all the other governments who dealt with the shah at the time? are they 100% accountable for what he did?
hey, here's a wacky thought: iran under the shah was the result of the shah and his government, and the usa certainly meddled and had influence, but to establish a direct line of accountability and responsibility because of that is to suggest that no one in this world has any free will or makes any choices except americans. oh really? the shah never did evil things because the SHAH decided to do them?
#2: "In essence, the United States *created* Iranian Islamic fundamentalism through their meddling" ...this is so laughably ethnocentric, where does one begin? you are so unable to view the world outside of a western pov, you actually want to say that islamic fundamentalism is the creation of something the west did. so, when those islamic revolutionaries were studying islamic scripture, and finding the passion to fight for an islamic state, they did it BECAUSE OF THE USA?! really? so you don't view nonwestern people as complete whole human beings with their own desires and agendas. you see them as cutout cardboard reflections of something the west did
you do realize that this racist, patronizing way of denigrating anything a nonwesterner does as just a reflection of the west makes you just as bad as the most jingoistic american ultranationalist?
if i sell a guy a gun, and he murders someone with it, who is the murderer? in your view, it is the guy who sold the gun, and the guy who actually fired the thing is innocent. amazing, how blind people can be like you are. collosal ethnocentrism on your part
the ideal is, no one has nukes, right?
based on that ideal, you criticize any expansion of the nuclear club
of course, the rpely comes back that you are playing favorites. so at the same time, you work for the reduction of nukes in the countries that already have them
but if you agree with me no one should have nukes, then you decry iran going nuclear. and that doesn't make you pro-western, it just makes you pro-human
everyone having nukes leads to an accident somewhere down the line, a mistaken missile firing or meltdown here or there. and then millions dead
so in the name of the betterment of humanity, you work for iran not getting nukes AND the usa getting rid of theres
but you cannot call yourself such a humanist if you believe that iran should have nukes just because the usa has them
i mean you CAN say that, but then you are a warmongering supporter of nuclear proliferation. because once iran has them, egypt and saudi arabia has to get them too. so make up your mind: are you against nuclear proliferation? or are you a warmongering fool? saying you are against proliferation and supporting iran getting nukes is logically and morally incoherent of you
want a nuclear missile free planet? then you stand against iranian nukes AND you fight the ones the usa has. simple as that
"But we've got some serious beams in our own eyes to deal with, and that's more important. They're not perfect, and neither are we, but we have no right to complain about the things WE are also guilty of."
there is no such thing as regional morality anymore. there is no such thing as what americans are guilty of, or what iranians are guilty of. there are only things humanity is guity of. you can't coherently criticize what america does, and remain mute on iran, or visa versa
you can't focus on just the west, or just the usa, you must also criticize every other part of the world. it is the age of the internet and jet air travel. what happens in kandahar matters in manhattan
the only intellectually and morally coherent point of view is a global, humanist one. a muslim point of view is incoherent. a christian point of view is incoherent. a western point of view is incoherent. a middle eastern point of view is incoherent
maybe if we lives in the days of sailing ships, you'd have a valid point of view, but even then, via colonization, the walls separating cultures and societies was breaking down
when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the rock of gibraltar, or the ural mountains, the human beings you encounter there are not in any way different than you. your fight for whatever it is you are fighting for in the west must also include those outside the west equally, or the fight is not valid. you apply the same morality to them as you do to those in the west, or you have no real morality at all
granted, national sovereignity and ultrantionalism and religious bigotry warp these simple truths, but the future of the world is about the death of national boundaries and religious fiefdoms. it already started with the eu, it already started with the separation of church and state
and you will also notice i said its ok to be antiamerican
all i said was you have to hate iran too if you hate america, in order not to be a hypocrite
in other words, i am not defending america. i am attacking the stupidity and hypocrisy of being anti-american and pro-iranian. feel me yet?
please, dude, go on with your bad self, call america evil. please, be my guest: death to america, rah rah rah
just make sure you say the same to iran, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite
"please don't say the free market. You'll make yourself look like a religious nut"
what, exactly, in your mind is the "free market"?
the free market is nothing other than a group of people placing whatever value they want on a number of concepts. for example, such a group might place a higher value on say, the invention of television, than say, the flowbee vacuum powered hair cutter. but i could be wrong. because i don't know the real value is of either, amd more importantly, no one else does either. only the market knows, where the "market" is nothing more than an emergent phenomenon outside the control of any one individual or group. the market value of something is entirely bound to the behavior of the group en masse, under no ones dogmatic control
it is a mechanism for valueing opposed to say, some group of "specialists" attaching what they percieve the value of a discovery to be according to some sort of agenda. this top-down approach, like communism, really is a dogmatic, quasi-religious approach: that some "spcial" group of people have arcane unique knowledge for valueing things
in other words, the free market is about as undogmatic and unreligious a way to value discoveries as you can get
therefore, that you should equate the free market with religious dogma is beyond absurd, it is directly contradictory to the concepts you are involving yourself in
you're either profoundly incoherent and ignorant about the subject matter, or you are a really good troll, i can't decide which
i see your point a: the value of the tradional female homemaker
and i see your point b,c,d: inflation, real estate, the upper middle class sucks
how those are all related completely escapes me, and i think it completely escapes you too
make a coherent argument, or say nothing at all
in fact, he even tricked god. he said "god, i doubt you exist" while flying a kite
god naturally threw a thunderbolt at him for the insubordinance, giving franklin the electricity he was investigating
thus, did a scientist outwit god
just study edison and tesla, or farnsworth and rca, if you want a good contrast of what can happen to an innovator whose ideas are coopted
but you can't fight and lose your right to your rightful share of the bounty if you haven't even made a discovery in the first place. in other words, demanding that scientists make millions before they even discover something is absurd. you let them struggle in poverty, and when they make that amazing discovery, they have to start a new struggle: getting their fair share
but there's no struggle for a fair share up front, before a discovery is even made
pride has an upside and a downside, and one downside of pride is you would rather retain your identity even though it also means being in a weaker position
the muslim world sees elements of the west that alternately repel and attract. unfortunately, some of those elements of the west aren't things unique to the west, but are actually more accurately described as elements of simple humanity. such that a lot of the fighting of westernization that goes on in the name of pride in the middle east are actually wars against humanization
for example: women's rights. when you fight that, because it's "western", you are actually retarding the development of your own societies on a human level. if the west never existed, one can imagine the fight for women's rights continuing in the middle east, because such a fight does not depend upon the west as some sort of example, but is a fight valid within itself in islamic societies. that is, the fight for women's rights is not some sort of decadent western influence betraying traditional identity, but is instead a humanist, organic struggle native to the middle east. but humanist struggles always entail a bit of the strange and unknown, to breakway from traditional ways, and so it is easy to confuse two sources of conflict: westernization and humanization. and so, in the name of fighting the west, muslim societies subjugate their own women, and wind up hobbling the development of half their societies. for doing that, the middle east can never hope to be as powerful and as influential as the west, with half their population treated like cattle
there's plenty of things the islamic world says it hates about the west that are shared by the west and, for example, the far east. such that to describe these concepts they say threatens the middle east as some sort of western thing is false: they are human concepts. the islamic world, in the name of retaining an identity distinct from the west, are embracing agendas that are not really anti-western, but are actually anti-human
1. was there ever a time in history, in any culture, in which scientists made the money you think they deserve? i'm not counting the rich gentleman scientists from the 1800s and 1700s. their income was not derived from their research anyways, and their science was more hobby than vocation
2. if you are paid a pittance, and you are not in raw research, you ARE being underpaid, and my words above about being a prospector don't apply to you. your job description sounds more like engineering, and you deserve a high income and respect for that, simply because you have the capacity to migrate to industry from university, or, if you've done that already, to another company that is willing to pay you for your rare abilities and the commensuration such rare abilities deserve. in which case, kick yourself in the ass and migrate to the better pay you should be getting. you can't hold it against your current employer that you don't have the gumption to demand the respect you deserve. if a chick is dating a guy who beats her, she's a fool to stay and think she can turn him into a better man. far better to just leave the loser and find that better man. likewise, for you, go out and find that better paying job. or sit and sulk like a beaten wife who unwisely accepts an unjust fate
what you deserve in life is not just handed to you on a silver platter. you have to go out and fight for what you deserve
you're not filled with blind prejudiced hate. notice the ignorant hatred in the comment i was replying to
you can't snap your fingers and enlighten the mind of a hater. to turn the mind of a hater, you have to lay a road out for them, and push them on the first step down that road
the first step is to make the object of their hate more dissolute. notice i told them to go right on hating america... but why don't you hate iran too?
if they see the logic that hating the usa for crimes iran does as well is hypocritical, and so they agree to hate iran as well, then their hate begins to become diffuse, not pointed, and then it eventually dissipates further down the road
and then they approach the mellow mature mindset towards iran and the usa that you embody
you SHOULD earn a pittance as a university researcher. because you haven't found anything yet. we shouldn't just pay people a lot of money just because they sit in front of a microscope or a chromatograph
however, when you DO find something of value, guess what: you cash out and become a millionaire
scientific research is like being a prospector. actually it is EXACTLY the same thing as being a prospector: you go out in to a strange unexplored land, you follow your nose and your knowledge of geology, and, with some luck, some good preparation, you make a gold strike. with science, the strange unexplored land is the edges of human knowledge. where is the next big discovery? if your mind is keen enough, and you are lucky to be right at the edge of something huge, you cash out with fame and fortune
plenty of other prospectors meanwhile, go out in the wilderness, and starve to death. why should we pay prospectors up front to go prospecting? some of them might not be very good, some of them might be really good, but are just unlucky to be exploring the wrong land
so it is with university researchers: let them live on ramen noodles and live in tiny apartments. if they find something huge, they will be living the good life soon enough
and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this arrangement. every great scientist, no matter how well they are paid (and some ARE paid well, for example: pharmaceutical researchers or petrochemists), knows well enough their value as a scientist, their self-value, pretty much rests on this allegory of the prospector. they can toil in obscurity for decades, and find nothing of substance. or they can pick the one right avenue at a young age, and be known as the next einstein, and be handed a nobel in middle age
this is the nature of science
what is not ok is to be so blinded by your hatred of america that you give other countries, some a lot worse, a free pass. iran is a fundamentalist theocracy which is building nuclear bombs and censors its press, jails and tortures political dissidents, and enforces an ultrastrict fundamentalist religious pov, especially on its women. they have actual police brigades in tehran that fine women for wearing clothing that are too risque. you want to defend this as somehow not as bad as what the usa does? please note something i am saying here: the problem is NOT islam, the problem is fundamentalism
again, it is ok to be anti-american. but why do you think that means you have to be pro-iranian? here's a suggestion: why don't you be anti-american AND anti-iranian, at the same time? why would you want to do that?
so that you can say you oppose the usa based on principles, rahter than just blind dumb prejudice. because if you applied your principles, the principles you say you have according to which you say you hate the usa, if you applied those principles uniformly across all world governments, you would find yourself hating a lot more than just the usa
grow a brain. blind america bashing is tired and dull
the ayatollah has made science a high priority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
he recongizes the truth: iran will be a second rate power unless it leads in the field of science, through which it retains its independence and preeminence. this is why attacking iran's nuclear pursuits is hopeless, since iran attaches so much pride in iranian science and technology exploits. they just launched a satellite too. but all of these advances came from science and technology stolen or borrowed from other countries
but the history of persian science is a rich one, and there is no reason its future shouldn't be bright as well, if only the ayatollah would also realize that the preeminence of the west in science came only after the enlightenment
what else happened in the west during the enlightenment? religion was questioned. this is not a mistake or a coincidence: the questioning of religion is inseperable from being a strong scientific thinker. the probing mind of a scientist must be able to question everything, no taboos, in order to do the best science one can. you train young minds to question everything, and in this way, you make great scientists
so dear ayatollah: i celebrate your desire to reassert persia at the forefront of science and technology. so why don't you further this great goal along by relaxing the stifling theocratic censorship of your society, ensuring bright young minds are trained to their utmost? in order to ensure that persian civilization flowers again, let little discoveries like this thin film motor not by isolated gems, but instead be the beginning of a rich tapestry of persian thought
do that, by relaxing your fundamentalist stranglehold on the mind of the young iranian
"resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"
i think slashdot needs to update its icons
the borg bill gates icon is threatening only circa 1996. microsoft of 2009 is on a real decline
meanwhile, the company of all-domination in 2009 is obviously google. we need a remake of the google icon for slashdot to include the borg cube
and the microsoft icon should be remade with just a non-borg bill gates holding a jar of mosquitoes
can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?