Thing is, he has a point, and if more people understood it, it might help in the general appreciation of evolution. We tend to think of a "species" as some kind of well-defined entity, but it really is little more than a relatively stable set of common traits in a relatively distinct group, maintained over a relatively long period of time; and those "relativily"-ies get blurred all the time. So, to be truly accurate, those Tree of Life diagrams that high school textbooks are so fond of, would have to extend to the level of individual organisms.
An example of non-reciprocal rights in a egalitarian society is the rights of children to be cared for by their parents, which is a duty of parents to render care to the children. This right is not reciprocal. A child is free, when grown, to let his aged parent starve. We'd see this as deplorable, but we impose no such duty on children.
This actually isn't as asymmetrical as you make it sound. The parents of a grownup have no more responsibilities to him than he to them. If, on the other hand, the parents are found to be unable to care for themselves (let's say because of extreme dementia) and the child is assigned as their guardian, then the child will have all the same responsibilities that his parents did when he was in their care. Now, the child is not required to accept this responsibility (as far as I know), but then the parents aren't prohibited from relinquishing their guardianship, either.
The only difference is that a newborn is automatically assumed to have such "diminished capacity" (obviously), and the parents are automatically the guardians (something they can get out of almost immediately). It's just a question of when and how a certain status is assigned to individuals.
Now, we should ask whether it is possible for assymetrical duties to exist. If it is, it is quibbling to argue that what the beneficiary of this duty has is not a "right".
Ah, but there's a larger issue. Say we do proclaim that all hominids have the "asymmetrical" right to life (the foremost of our human rights), so we can't kill them, but they are not held to the same responsibility. By our understanding of rights, we would have to protect chimps from being killed by other chips; we would not impose punishment on the transgressor, but we would have to protect the victim. Otherwise, you are saying that chimps have the right to "not be killed by humans", which is just silly - a right to something can't be limited by circumstances.
This is why I think the language here does a lot of damage to the debate - I'm all for reasonable rules that govern human behavior towards animals, but calling them rights really rubs me the wrong way. I am of course talking about the general issue of "animal rights", not the current, ridiculous assertion that apes are humans, too.
i dont think anyone is suggesting that an ape should have the right to, say, own property or drive a car, thats just absurd.
That's precisely what TFA claims. And in fact they want to declare it a "person", so yes, they are claiming that it should have all human rights. Driving a car isn't normally considered a right, though.
So, I take it it's going to be the usual torrent of idiotic "funnies" this year?
Editors, I beg of you to ask yourselves: if it's not funny enough to be considered satire, yet so obvious that no one could possible be "pranked" by it, what on earth is the point?
The issue is that "skepticism" towards the theory of evolution is emblematic of a rejection of science itself.
That person does not speak for most scientifically inclined people.
I can guarantee that as long as I live I will never assign a negative connotation to the word "skepticism" (I am of course going strictly by its Greek origin "skeptomai" - "to examine, consider").
It is perfectly possible to have a proposition that can never be conclusively proven, but can be conclusively disproven.
That is actually the only kind of scientific hypothesis you can have. Science can't absolutely prove things, just fail to disprove them for a really long time.
Jesus is the only one on that list who fits his description of "shepherd" (Mohammad was merely a prophet and teacher, the rest are of course jokes). It's no great trick to assume the Christian world-view and then show that Christianity fits it best.
People are sheep, most of the time, but we also have those few flashes of non-sheepdom when we notice that our (human) shepherds are stepping outside of what our personal overriding principles dictate. For many religious people those principles are dogmatic, for the secular minded they are based in reason and ethics.
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I certainly would be, if it did, but it hasn't come to that. Many of these polls are poorly worded, and miss a lot of nuance, but they have been very consistent in showing that those who reject the concept of evolution entirely, do so in favor of creationism, not some other scientific theory.
When the options are:
(A) Evolution
(B) Creationism
(C) Both
(D) Other
almost no one chooses D (the popularity of the other ones is usually: B, then C, then A).
Calling the acceptance of evolution as the best supported theory a "belief" is the old tactic of repeating a strawman ad nauseam, in the hopes that people get tired of denying it every single time (kinda like calling atheism a religion).
Talking of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, you should probably mention that the documentary hypothesis you're quoting is unfalsifiable, and is just logical conjecture based on scriptural analysis, rather than solid fact.
Well of course, but this is textual analysis of an ancient document, not physics; I'm not sure you can apply the concept of falsifiability outside the hard sciences.
By the way, I wasn't actually trying to advocate the documentary hypothesis (or any specific versions of it), just the most general proposition that Genesis (in this case) comprises several distinct narratives and some of them have a few identifiable links with the history of the surrounding region (Jahvist and Elohist are just labels for identifiably different portions of text). Still just a "conjecture" of course, but the preponderance of evidence seems to be on its side; and I've yet to see any convincing argument against this interpretation that's not based in theology.
Anyway, most of what I was trying to say refers to the translation of the text, the authorship is actually quite irrelevant.
I used to think that's true, but I don't anymore. They may not practice the rites of the religion all that often, but they do believe in the core tenets. It's kind of ironic that when people did take the form of religion much more seriously (you know, the Middle Ages), they generally had a much more nuanced understanding of their theological principles. Whereas today there's this almost comical clinging to the literal truth of a few bits and pieces of the Bible here and there.
Actually, I believe it's the other way around: a single omnipotent being in the form of three entities; if that makes any sense.
I think Muslims, especially, like to take Christians to task for this seemingly polytheistic proposition, but I think to them it's one of those things that, when taken on faith without resort to reason, makes them feel like they've achieved a deeper understanding of their theology. We ask, how can God be both one and three? But they know it to be true. Ergo, we are confused, but they have the light of God with them.
It has nothing to do with logic, and it's what religions thrive on.
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong).
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and all that.
There is no such thing as a Christian version of Genesis, both of the traditions you refer to are in the Hebrew Bible (and they are by no means the only ones, just the most prominent in that part). The word "Elohim" is morphologically plural, but most of the time is used as a singular (ie takes singular verbs and adjectives) for God; sometimes it is used in a plural sense as a general word for "gods" (note the lower case) - eg, "You will have no other gods beside me." It's true that the "Elohist" and "Jahvist" authors/redactors have fairly different conceptions of God (one is more anthropomorphic, for example), but both do talk about a single God. There are some remnants of the earlier Near Eastern concept of a "Divine Council" or "Celestial Host" headed by the supreme god El in the Elohist, and the religion of the time was certainly not monotheistic in our understanding, but the subordinate gods/celestial beings are completely irrelevant in Genesis.
Those who try to take the Bible literally do have an extremely difficult time of it, not the least of the reasons is the question of what exactly is "the Bible". As an example, when the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint disagree, which do you trust? The much earlier Greek translation or the Jewish tradition which was largely oral for a long period of time? Especially when many of the differences are almost certainly deliberate edits, which happen to be inline with the exegesis of one group, or the other.
That could have been a comforting way to look at it, but we are not comparing these numbers to pre-Enlightenment thinking, we are comparing them to other "developed" countries.
Unfortunately, a combination of other facts and beliefs make these beliefs relevant to our lives. Specifically, the fact that many of these people hold positions of power (and those that don't often make up a powerful majority), and their belief that they have a mandate from god to dictate how we live our lives.
I suspect that government is largely irrelevant to the maintenance of the value of a currency, perhaps even counter productive.
Interesting. Brings me back to my question about the value of a Czechoslovakian crown (or a deutschmark, or a French franc, for that matter).
Ok, I know I should have used utility. There's really no such thing as intrinsic value.
Yes, there is. You can boil your 1 kg of coffee and then drink it; it has value, and in that it's different from money. Are you freaking kidding me here? What, in your eyes, is the definition of money?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorage
Oh please, no government of a reasonably developed country will try to "profit" by driving up inflation, that's just irresponsible and counterproductive. Read their main example there - the US government made some pocket change on collectible quarters - a feat akin to releasing a line of commemorative stamps.
It isn't stupid, it's the nature of money. The intrinsic value of money is it's market value, as the intrinsic value of coffee is it's flavour and high caffeine content.
The "market value" of a bank note only exist because you have a reasonable certainty that someone will accept it at that value (usually a government provides that certainty). The intrinsic value of a bank note is the amount of paper and ink needed to produce it - usually much lower than the market value. I didn't say that only governments can issue money, just that money has no value without the backing of the issuer (that's kind of the definition of money).
You've been taken in by your local government's propaganda over the nature of money.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. How does my understanding of economics allow the government to profit from my deception? Money certainly can be issued privately, governments are usually just in a better position to do it.
Tell me, what exactly is the intrinsic value of a Czechoslovak crown?
So, no, there's no fundamental difference between real and virtual money, just as there's no fundamental difference between real money and a kg of coffee.
That's just plain stupid. Coffee has intrinsic value, money does not. Just because the "value" of money fluctuates, does not make money a commodity.
A currency is only as strong as the government that issued it. When the government that printed your money collapses, it instantly loses all its value and becomes paper again. It makes sense that nowadays there are companies powerful enough to back their own currency (in whatever limited way); it's a little ironic that the best example of this is in China.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who don't RTFA miss just how hilariously absurd it is - they actually claim that apes have the capacity to own property.
Thing is, he has a point, and if more people understood it, it might help in the general appreciation of evolution. We tend to think of a "species" as some kind of well-defined entity, but it really is little more than a relatively stable set of common traits in a relatively distinct group, maintained over a relatively long period of time; and those "relativily"-ies get blurred all the time. So, to be truly accurate, those Tree of Life diagrams that high school textbooks are so fond of, would have to extend to the level of individual organisms.
An example of non-reciprocal rights in a egalitarian society is the rights of children to be cared for by their parents, which is a duty of parents to render care to the children. This right is not reciprocal. A child is free, when grown, to let his aged parent starve. We'd see this as deplorable, but we impose no such duty on children.
This actually isn't as asymmetrical as you make it sound. The parents of a grownup have no more responsibilities to him than he to them. If, on the other hand, the parents are found to be unable to care for themselves (let's say because of extreme dementia) and the child is assigned as their guardian, then the child will have all the same responsibilities that his parents did when he was in their care. Now, the child is not required to accept this responsibility (as far as I know), but then the parents aren't prohibited from relinquishing their guardianship, either.
The only difference is that a newborn is automatically assumed to have such "diminished capacity" (obviously), and the parents are automatically the guardians (something they can get out of almost immediately). It's just a question of when and how a certain status is assigned to individuals.
Now, we should ask whether it is possible for assymetrical duties to exist. If it is, it is quibbling to argue that what the beneficiary of this duty has is not a "right".
Ah, but there's a larger issue. Say we do proclaim that all hominids have the "asymmetrical" right to life (the foremost of our human rights), so we can't kill them, but they are not held to the same responsibility. By our understanding of rights, we would have to protect chimps from being killed by other chips; we would not impose punishment on the transgressor, but we would have to protect the victim. Otherwise, you are saying that chimps have the right to "not be killed by humans", which is just silly - a right to something can't be limited by circumstances.
This is why I think the language here does a lot of damage to the debate - I'm all for reasonable rules that govern human behavior towards animals, but calling them rights really rubs me the wrong way. I am of course talking about the general issue of "animal rights", not the current, ridiculous assertion that apes are humans, too.
a calm cow is easy to handle and still just as tasty
You can't know that for sure.
i dont think anyone is suggesting that an ape should have the right to, say, own property or drive a car, thats just absurd.
That's precisely what TFA claims. And in fact they want to declare it a "person", so yes, they are claiming that it should have all human rights. Driving a car isn't normally considered a right, though.
"You keep using that hword. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Is that like the Cool Hwip joke from a hwile ago?
How is this better than a real teacher?
the ammount of naked people (and crossdressers)
Doesn't that make them cross-undressers?
"And who else do you sue?"
"More customers!!!"
What happened with the raid on Pirate Bay could very well be a constitutional offense.
Holy crap, other countries still have those?
So, I take it it's going to be the usual torrent of idiotic "funnies" this year?
Editors, I beg of you to ask yourselves: if it's not funny enough to be considered satire, yet so obvious that no one could possible be "pranked" by it, what on earth is the point?
Sigh, see you in 24 hours.
PS: MS buys Apple!! Teh lolz!1!
The issue is that "skepticism" towards the theory of evolution is emblematic of a rejection of science itself.
That person does not speak for most scientifically inclined people.
I can guarantee that as long as I live I will never assign a negative connotation to the word "skepticism" (I am of course going strictly by its Greek origin "skeptomai" - "to examine, consider").
It is perfectly possible to have a proposition that can never be conclusively proven, but can be conclusively disproven.
That is actually the only kind of scientific hypothesis you can have. Science can't absolutely prove things, just fail to disprove them for a really long time.
What makes you think that this is bad for superpower status?
I don't think democracy has every been shown to be anything but a deterrent to flourishing imperialism.
Jesus is the only one on that list who fits his description of "shepherd" (Mohammad was merely a prophet and teacher, the rest are of course jokes). It's no great trick to assume the Christian world-view and then show that Christianity fits it best.
People are sheep, most of the time, but we also have those few flashes of non-sheepdom when we notice that our (human) shepherds are stepping outside of what our personal overriding principles dictate. For many religious people those principles are dogmatic, for the secular minded they are based in reason and ethics.
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I certainly would be, if it did, but it hasn't come to that. Many of these polls are poorly worded, and miss a lot of nuance, but they have been very consistent in showing that those who reject the concept of evolution entirely, do so in favor of creationism, not some other scientific theory.
When the options are:
(A) Evolution
(B) Creationism
(C) Both
(D) Other
almost no one chooses D (the popularity of the other ones is usually: B, then C, then A).
Calling the acceptance of evolution as the best supported theory a "belief" is the old tactic of repeating a strawman ad nauseam, in the hopes that people get tired of denying it every single time (kinda like calling atheism a religion).
Talking of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, you should probably mention that the documentary hypothesis you're quoting is unfalsifiable, and is just logical conjecture based on scriptural analysis, rather than solid fact.
Well of course, but this is textual analysis of an ancient document, not physics; I'm not sure you can apply the concept of falsifiability outside the hard sciences.
By the way, I wasn't actually trying to advocate the documentary hypothesis (or any specific versions of it), just the most general proposition that Genesis (in this case) comprises several distinct narratives and some of them have a few identifiable links with the history of the surrounding region (Jahvist and Elohist are just labels for identifiably different portions of text). Still just a "conjecture" of course, but the preponderance of evidence seems to be on its side; and I've yet to see any convincing argument against this interpretation that's not based in theology.
Anyway, most of what I was trying to say refers to the translation of the text, the authorship is actually quite irrelevant.
I used to think that's true, but I don't anymore. They may not practice the rites of the religion all that often, but they do believe in the core tenets. It's kind of ironic that when people did take the form of religion much more seriously (you know, the Middle Ages), they generally had a much more nuanced understanding of their theological principles. Whereas today there's this almost comical clinging to the literal truth of a few bits and pieces of the Bible here and there.
but rather 3 separate entities in the form of one
Actually, I believe it's the other way around: a single omnipotent being in the form of three entities; if that makes any sense.
I think Muslims, especially, like to take Christians to task for this seemingly polytheistic proposition, but I think to them it's one of those things that, when taken on faith without resort to reason, makes them feel like they've achieved a deeper understanding of their theology. We ask, how can God be both one and three? But they know it to be true. Ergo, we are confused, but they have the light of God with them.
It has nothing to do with logic, and it's what religions thrive on.
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong).
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and all that.
There is no such thing as a Christian version of Genesis, both of the traditions you refer to are in the Hebrew Bible (and they are by no means the only ones, just the most prominent in that part). The word "Elohim" is morphologically plural, but most of the time is used as a singular (ie takes singular verbs and adjectives) for God; sometimes it is used in a plural sense as a general word for "gods" (note the lower case) - eg, "You will have no other gods beside me." It's true that the "Elohist" and "Jahvist" authors/redactors have fairly different conceptions of God (one is more anthropomorphic, for example), but both do talk about a single God. There are some remnants of the earlier Near Eastern concept of a "Divine Council" or "Celestial Host" headed by the supreme god El in the Elohist, and the religion of the time was certainly not monotheistic in our understanding, but the subordinate gods/celestial beings are completely irrelevant in Genesis.
Those who try to take the Bible literally do have an extremely difficult time of it, not the least of the reasons is the question of what exactly is "the Bible". As an example, when the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint disagree, which do you trust? The much earlier Greek translation or the Jewish tradition which was largely oral for a long period of time? Especially when many of the differences are almost certainly deliberate edits, which happen to be inline with the exegesis of one group, or the other.
That could have been a comforting way to look at it, but we are not comparing these numbers to pre-Enlightenment thinking, we are comparing them to other "developed" countries.
Unfortunately, a combination of other facts and beliefs make these beliefs relevant to our lives. Specifically, the fact that many of these people hold positions of power (and those that don't often make up a powerful majority), and their belief that they have a mandate from god to dictate how we live our lives.
I suspect that government is largely irrelevant to the maintenance of the value of a currency, perhaps even counter productive.
Interesting. Brings me back to my question about the value of a Czechoslovakian crown (or a deutschmark, or a French franc, for that matter).
Ok, I know I should have used utility. There's really no such thing as intrinsic value.
Yes, there is. You can boil your 1 kg of coffee and then drink it; it has value, and in that it's different from money. Are you freaking kidding me here? What, in your eyes, is the definition of money?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniorage
Oh please, no government of a reasonably developed country will try to "profit" by driving up inflation, that's just irresponsible and counterproductive. Read their main example there - the US government made some pocket change on collectible quarters - a feat akin to releasing a line of commemorative stamps.
As a Java programmer, I realize that they are sometimes equal. Depends on whether you have a HashMap or a TreeMap, for example.
It isn't stupid, it's the nature of money. The intrinsic value of money is it's market value, as the intrinsic value of coffee is it's flavour and high caffeine content.
The "market value" of a bank note only exist because you have a reasonable certainty that someone will accept it at that value (usually a government provides that certainty). The intrinsic value of a bank note is the amount of paper and ink needed to produce it - usually much lower than the market value. I didn't say that only governments can issue money, just that money has no value without the backing of the issuer (that's kind of the definition of money).
You've been taken in by your local government's propaganda over the nature of money.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. How does my understanding of economics allow the government to profit from my deception? Money certainly can be issued privately, governments are usually just in a better position to do it.
Tell me, what exactly is the intrinsic value of a Czechoslovak crown?
So, no, there's no fundamental difference between real and virtual money, just as there's no fundamental difference between real money and a kg of coffee.
That's just plain stupid. Coffee has intrinsic value, money does not. Just because the "value" of money fluctuates, does not make money a commodity.
A currency is only as strong as the government that issued it. When the government that printed your money collapses, it instantly loses all its value and becomes paper again. It makes sense that nowadays there are companies powerful enough to back their own currency (in whatever limited way); it's a little ironic that the best example of this is in China.