Re:Yup, beware of fascists... they are over THERE!
on
Leaving the GPL Behind
·
· Score: 1
You must be using Gentoo Death Camp. I suggest a prepackaged distro. Don't even think about Death Camp From Scratch; you have to make the chain-link fence yourself from metal wire.
DOES IT hart yuor FEELINGS WHEN i HAVE A missspelllings IN mie posts?? DOES it MAKES yuo WANT to crie????? I DONT WANT yuor am 2 crie litttle ac because i KNOW im teh onlee friend yuo HAF!
All sciences seek to explain relationships in terms of a system of logic and reasoning. The difference is what kind of relationships they are trying to explain. The relationship between mass and energy; the relationship between recreational drugs and the human brain; the relationship between a buttress and gravity; the relationship between two people; the relationship between a sphere's surface area and its radius. All these things are modeled by their respective fields of science to organize, explain, and predict. In this manner, mathematics is no different that other fields of science.
I disagree. Mathematics, like all other sciences, is the study of a collection of models that are built methodologically. Hypothesis, testing, and proof are used to create and verify these models, just like physics, biology, or chemistry. That those models may or may not have concrete operational representation makes no difference. Furthermore, Computer Science is also the study of a subset of these models that do, in fact, have real-life representation.
Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your statistics/psychology analogy. Are you suggesting one or both of these are not sciences?
Mathematics is science. CS is mathematics. Apply transitivity, and Bob's your uncle.
One thing I disagree with in your post is the insinuation that mathematics and science are separate entities. I should hope that anyone who's taken upper-level mathematics and upper-level physics knows there are significant points of convergence. When you have distinct fields that are both utilizing the same mathematical principles, there's a fairly strong indication that those disciplines belong together.
But that's not all. CS (and mathematics as a whole) rely not only tie into physics (and biology, and chemistry), but also into philosophy, linguistics, and a host of other seemingly completely unrelated fields. CS is not only a true science, it is in fact the single point of convergence for almost every other field of science out there, even social sciences.
And just how much better do you think RI and NC's local e-commerce retailers are doing now after this stupid game of chicken? All these states have done is ensure that when I buy books at Amazon, they won't be coming from RI or NC.
I've never understood why anti-tax forces hate their communities so much.
And I've never understood why pro-tax forces love to cause cancer in puppies. Ludicrous presuppositions precede a lack of understanding; sounds about right to me.
Basically, teaching children how to think should take priority over teaching them what to think.
Even as someone who does plan on indoctrinating my children, I fully agree with this statement. Furthermore, I will go to long lengths not to shield my children from counterarguments. I have been a strong proponent in my church groups of reading up on atheist philosophy, and understanding its arguments. It's the same reason I encouraged all my friends to have their children read "The Golden Compass". If a man thinks he's right, then his belief ought to withstand criticism, no?
I can not imagine how you can even begin to build such an argument without going - more or less obviously - the route that your teacher used. Care to point me somewhere I can read up on this?
It's an enormous monetary investment, but the first volume of Norman Giesler's "Systematic Theology" has a review in the first few chapters of a number of historical proof models. Giesler does the reader a great service by pointing out possible holes in them, and positing alternatives. The first few chapters are probably the most interesting to the casual reader, so I would recommend skimming it in a book store, rather than plopping down the $100+ of the cover price.
Disclaimer: I am not entirely convinced that systematic theology actually constitutes a "proof" of God (by "not entirely", I mean "not at all"), since such proof would contradict the definition of "faith" you posted above (and I agree with). That said, it is a fascinating mental exercise, and I am thankful that at least there are people thinking intelligently about their faith (given that I also know a great many people who do not).
The nature of faith is belief in things not unly unseen, but non-provable in principle. Or, from the more scientific POV to speak with Kuhn: Not falsifiable.
This is what I meant by "unseen." I was trying to be brief. In essence, we agree on this point.
But, it is not the same, and most importantly, one does not provide justification for the other. Just because children already belief in silly things doesn't mean it's ok to pour more of that into their heads. And just because ignorant man beliefs in all kind of nonsense it's not ok to turn that nonsense into a major world religion.
But who defines what is silly or not? Suppose I come to believe that your political philosophy is based on false assumptions and faulty logic, and I have the authority to tell you that you can't teach your children that particular philosophy? It's a slippery slope when we begin saying "we can give children these ideas, but we can't expose them to those. In my opinion, it's just a reverse of the fundamentalist "think of the children" argument. I'm equally against it.
If your assumption is false, all your results are worse then false, they're meaningless. I learnt that in logic 101 at my university, but then again I didn't study theology. I doubt it's taught in their logic classes.:-)
Actually, it is. There's a pretty wide diversity of base presuppositions in systematic theology, and each school of thought derives the same conclusions by different models. These basic presuppositions usually deal with philosophical concepts such as "can we agree on what 'existing' means?" and stuff like that. Mostly existential. Useful to a modern thinker, but rubbish to a post-modern thinker. My math logic 101 teacher taught me that systematic theology essentially says, "assume God... now, let us prove God." In my later reading I discovered this claim to be false. While the theological proofs of such figures as Descartes have holes, the holes do not lie with the presuppositions, and modern theologians have greatly improved on them.
I'm not saying that faith is based on ignorance. I'm saying that the ignorant man (or child) can have as much faith as the knowledgeable man. The nature of faith is belief in things not seen (something children do readily), not deductive reasoning. That is not to say I think deductive reasoning has no place in religion (systematic theology, for example).
If I had children, I would make sure that they know about all the major world religions. I'd also tell them the truth about sex as soon as they're old enough to ask. I don't believe in "shielding" anyone from knowledge, especially not children.
Attributing a faith to people too young to consciously make such a decision is just wrong.
I disagree. I don't see how children are unthinking automatons, or how they display a lack of having an opinion about something. We can argue about how informed their opinions may be, but informativeness has little to do with the nature of faith.
You lure the kids in with the fun factor, and put stuff into their brain that they're not yet able to judge properly. To me, that's psychological child abuse.
I take it, then, that when you have children, you will refrain from subjecting them to your anti-religious screed so you don't inadvertently "brainwash" them? Hardly.
Those church events cater to children that are already Christian. The real reason that "isn't all selfless" is mostly that churches cater to families, and "getaways" are fun for kids. A good church engages children in a community of their peers, which promotes sociability and good self-esteem. There's no conspiracy.
I will agree with you on NCLB contravening restrictions on federal power. I will disagree, however, that NCLB had any effect on the content of regional school curricula, since teachers are encouraged to handle NCLB standardized tests as separate curricula (by rote memorization to improve test scores for more funding). It certainly has had no effect on those states still pushing for teaching creationism in school.
Now, the bonus question: when was the last time the US senate imposed curriculum requirements on states in contravention to a US Supreme Court ruling on said curriculum?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
Like what?
I'm sorry, but I happen to think a misunderstanding of economic theory is vastly more devastating to a country's public policy than a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be using Gentoo Death Camp. I suggest a prepackaged distro. Don't even think about Death Camp From Scratch; you have to make the chain-link fence yourself from metal wire.
DOES IT hart yuor FEELINGS WHEN i HAVE A missspelllings IN mie posts?? DOES it MAKES yuo WANT to crie????? I DONT WANT yuor am 2 crie litttle ac because i KNOW im teh onlee friend yuo HAF!
I play too much WOW. I read "Blacksmither" and "Death Knight".
Same here. Pwn fail.
Which is, in its own right, pwnage of a sort...
Bob's my brother's name. Look, there's something I need to tell you. It's about your mother...
All sciences seek to explain relationships in terms of a system of logic and reasoning. The difference is what kind of relationships they are trying to explain. The relationship between mass and energy; the relationship between recreational drugs and the human brain; the relationship between a buttress and gravity; the relationship between two people; the relationship between a sphere's surface area and its radius. All these things are modeled by their respective fields of science to organize, explain, and predict. In this manner, mathematics is no different that other fields of science.
I disagree. Mathematics, like all other sciences, is the study of a collection of models that are built methodologically. Hypothesis, testing, and proof are used to create and verify these models, just like physics, biology, or chemistry. That those models may or may not have concrete operational representation makes no difference. Furthermore, Computer Science is also the study of a subset of these models that do, in fact, have real-life representation.
Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your statistics/psychology analogy. Are you suggesting one or both of these are not sciences?
Mathematics is science. CS is mathematics. Apply transitivity, and Bob's your uncle.
One thing I disagree with in your post is the insinuation that mathematics and science are separate entities. I should hope that anyone who's taken upper-level mathematics and upper-level physics knows there are significant points of convergence. When you have distinct fields that are both utilizing the same mathematical principles, there's a fairly strong indication that those disciplines belong together.
But that's not all. CS (and mathematics as a whole) rely not only tie into physics (and biology, and chemistry), but also into philosophy, linguistics, and a host of other seemingly completely unrelated fields. CS is not only a true science, it is in fact the single point of convergence for almost every other field of science out there, even social sciences.
This time around, it only took a beta before it was stable.
I know, I was shocked, too.
Which is why American kooks are twice as smart as European kooks... because they're right twice as often.
And just how much better do you think RI and NC's local e-commerce retailers are doing now after this stupid game of chicken? All these states have done is ensure that when I buy books at Amazon, they won't be coming from RI or NC.
And I've never understood why pro-tax forces love to cause cancer in puppies. Ludicrous presuppositions precede a lack of understanding; sounds about right to me.
Well, there are a lot them.
I'll bite. What's the correct English pronunciation for "chauvinism"?
You're pointing five feet to the left of me. Take the plank out and you'll see better.
Even as someone who does plan on indoctrinating my children, I fully agree with this statement. Furthermore, I will go to long lengths not to shield my children from counterarguments. I have been a strong proponent in my church groups of reading up on atheist philosophy, and understanding its arguments. It's the same reason I encouraged all my friends to have their children read "The Golden Compass". If a man thinks he's right, then his belief ought to withstand criticism, no?
It's an enormous monetary investment, but the first volume of Norman Giesler's "Systematic Theology" has a review in the first few chapters of a number of historical proof models. Giesler does the reader a great service by pointing out possible holes in them, and positing alternatives. The first few chapters are probably the most interesting to the casual reader, so I would recommend skimming it in a book store, rather than plopping down the $100+ of the cover price.
Disclaimer: I am not entirely convinced that systematic theology actually constitutes a "proof" of God (by "not entirely", I mean "not at all"), since such proof would contradict the definition of "faith" you posted above (and I agree with). That said, it is a fascinating mental exercise, and I am thankful that at least there are people thinking intelligently about their faith (given that I also know a great many people who do not).
...but it's close enough for government work!
*ducks*
*runs*
This is what I meant by "unseen." I was trying to be brief. In essence, we agree on this point.
But who defines what is silly or not? Suppose I come to believe that your political philosophy is based on false assumptions and faulty logic, and I have the authority to tell you that you can't teach your children that particular philosophy? It's a slippery slope when we begin saying "we can give children these ideas, but we can't expose them to those. In my opinion, it's just a reverse of the fundamentalist "think of the children" argument. I'm equally against it.
Actually, it is. There's a pretty wide diversity of base presuppositions in systematic theology, and each school of thought derives the same conclusions by different models. These basic presuppositions usually deal with philosophical concepts such as "can we agree on what 'existing' means?" and stuff like that. Mostly existential. Useful to a modern thinker, but rubbish to a post-modern thinker. My math logic 101 teacher taught me that systematic theology essentially says, "assume God... now, let us prove God." In my later reading I discovered this claim to be false. While the theological proofs of such figures as Descartes have holes, the holes do not lie with the presuppositions, and modern theologians have greatly improved on them.
I'm not saying that faith is based on ignorance. I'm saying that the ignorant man (or child) can have as much faith as the knowledgeable man. The nature of faith is belief in things not seen (something children do readily), not deductive reasoning. That is not to say I think deductive reasoning has no place in religion (systematic theology, for example).
I agree.
I disagree. I don't see how children are unthinking automatons, or how they display a lack of having an opinion about something. We can argue about how informed their opinions may be, but informativeness has little to do with the nature of faith.
I take it, then, that when you have children, you will refrain from subjecting them to your anti-religious screed so you don't inadvertently "brainwash" them? Hardly.
Those church events cater to children that are already Christian. The real reason that "isn't all selfless" is mostly that churches cater to families, and "getaways" are fun for kids. A good church engages children in a community of their peers, which promotes sociability and good self-esteem. There's no conspiracy.
I've been a Presbyterian for 10 years, and I've never seen this. Flat out, I don't believe the GP.
I will agree with you on NCLB contravening restrictions on federal power. I will disagree, however, that NCLB had any effect on the content of regional school curricula, since teachers are encouraged to handle NCLB standardized tests as separate curricula (by rote memorization to improve test scores for more funding). It certainly has had no effect on those states still pushing for teaching creationism in school.
Hey! That's pretty good.
Now, the bonus question: when was the last time the US senate imposed curriculum requirements on states in contravention to a US Supreme Court ruling on said curriculum?
Like what?
I'm sorry, but I happen to think a misunderstanding of economic theory is vastly more devastating to a country's public policy than a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Citation, please. Name one significant school curriculum issue the US Supreme Court has ruled on.