There is a line of thought that says that if something can't be observed, measured or defined scientifically then it doesn't exist. I think that way of thinking closes the mind.
Are you referring to anything or anyone specific here? The closest scientific principle I know to this is Occam's razor: do not multiply entities beyond that which is necessary. in other words, we cannot say that a thing does not or could not possibly exist, but we can say that to discuss such a thing without evidence is pointless unless you are discussing a hypothesis and how to test it. I'll believe in a god or gods when evidence gives me a reason to do so, and not before.
There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say. Science and the scientific method have enabled us to understand a lot of the world around us. Its value is self-evident. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.
There certainly is much we don't know. (Job security for those in the sciences!) That does not, however, mean that it is reasonable to believe a proposition for which there is no reliable supporting evidence. It is a natural part of human nature to believe such things, but this is not the same as being reasonable. Science is demonstrably the most beneficial tool for understanding the world we inhabit, checking that knowledge against new information, and revising it when needed. I don't see religion as a tool for knowledge, rather as one used to cope with what is often a hostile existence, to find meaning where there is none given, and to provide certainty where little can be found. It is a tool I will avoid using. I won't look down on those who do, but it is perfectly justifiable to criticize the ideas that result from it.
I can't and won't defend the parent post(good god, what a mess!) but i will add to your point and say this about theology. Insofar as it is the study of religious practices and beliefs, it has significant value. But much of theology is the study of the nature of God or gods. Most Christian sects will claim that the mind and perhaps even the nature of god is unknowable. The products of this effort to speculate about the unknowable are often severely at odds with what the people whose butts are in the pews actually believe. Theistic theologians often describe god as a "ground of being", a phrase so meaningless that it cannot be parsed.
The SCOTUS ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, in 1961, overturned all of these laws. The do remain on the books, and some times it is a lot of effort to get around them, but in the end they are unenforceable.
The survey sample seems to small to be informative. Political polls, as inaccurate as they are, usually have much larger sample sizes. I would have thought a sample of at least 300 would be needed. Also, why are there an uneven numbers of responses for each photo?
And for the trolls who did post on the white woman's photo, their natural inclination would be to make some immature comment about b00bs; whereas for the trolls posting on the black woman's photo, the easiest cheap shot would be to make it about race. But that doesn't mean that there is actually a racially motivated difference in people's reactions to the photos.
If race were not a factor, then the "easiest cheap shot" would have been the same or similar for both photos. The fact that racial attitudes are baked into us by american culture, and are terrifically difficult to overcome, means that those attitudes are in play in any social situation.
So in Facebook, if you said "I will be your neighbor in farmville if you kill her"
I thought it had to be something of value.
Re:Idle's the right place for this...
on
Happy Towel Day
·
· Score: 1
I propose the first manned ship to the asteroid belt be loaded up with a large supply of tea. That way, if the Teapot is there, we'll have what we need to make tea. If there is no Teapot, we'll have sacrificed little except some wasted fuel.
My mind is open to the possibility that a god exists, and to the possibility that any holy text may hold some truth. However, my mind is closed to the possibility that any "revealed" text is the inerrant word of an all knowing, omnipotent creator. There to many inherent contradictions for this to be true.
Religion does not seek, it claims to know the answer. This is pure arrogance, as it offers little proof other than some text that it claims is written by god.
as according to Libs the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, not the states.
You are confusing conservatives with libertarians. The whole point of the bill of rights is the preservation if individual rights, as the rest of the constitution is meant to enumerate the rights of the government in order to limit those rights. Can you point me to a libertarian who holds the view you speak of?
What a genuinely dishonest mischaracterization of libertarianism. Those who want to limit the powers of government don't want to limit it because they want to apply some sort of twisted social darwinism as you imply. They simply don't see the government as the best tool to accomplish goals best left to NGOs and private parties. At the heart of libertarian philosophy is the idea that government accomplishes objectives by use of force. This makes government inherently dangerous, so its legitimate uses must be limited. Nature may indeed be red in tooth and claw, but as humans operating in what we hope is a civilized society, we have the power to help our neighbors when they fall on hard times. This should not automatically mean that a government takes that role.
Libertarians are not opposed to helping out those who need it, but we are opposed to using force so that the politically favored are given a boost.
We will probably never be able to prove that all life came from a SINGLE cellular parent (probably because it didn't).
The last thing I read on the subject was Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale, which seems to indicate that it probably did. Either that or I've misread it, which is entirely possible. If i remember correctly the fact that all life known on earth uses the same DNA code, it almost had to have evolved from a common ancestor. Do you have another source that indicates otherwise?
several deleted scenes included... one that depicts General Grievous actually dispatching a Jedi Knight (something we didn't even see in the theatrical release)
You mean there's a deleted scene we didn't see in the theatre? I'm stunned. What's next? A director's cut with scenes that weren't in the movie?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a line of thought that says that if something can't be observed, measured or defined scientifically then it doesn't exist. I think that way of thinking closes the mind.
Are you referring to anything or anyone specific here? The closest scientific principle I know to this is Occam's razor: do not multiply entities beyond that which is necessary. in other words, we cannot say that a thing does not or could not possibly exist, but we can say that to discuss such a thing without evidence is pointless unless you are discussing a hypothesis and how to test it. I'll believe in a god or gods when evidence gives me a reason to do so, and not before.
There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.
Science and the scientific method have enabled us to understand a lot of the world around us. Its value is self-evident. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.
There certainly is much we don't know. (Job security for those in the sciences!) That does not, however, mean that it is reasonable to believe a proposition for which there is no reliable supporting evidence. It is a natural part of human nature to believe such things, but this is not the same as being reasonable. Science is demonstrably the most beneficial tool for understanding the world we inhabit, checking that knowledge against new information, and revising it when needed. I don't see religion as a tool for knowledge, rather as one used to cope with what is often a hostile existence, to find meaning where there is none given, and to provide certainty where little can be found. It is a tool I will avoid using. I won't look down on those who do, but it is perfectly justifiable to criticize the ideas that result from it.
well said!
I can't and won't defend the parent post(good god, what a mess!) but i will add to your point and say this about theology. Insofar as it is the study of religious practices and beliefs, it has significant value. But much of theology is the study of the nature of God or gods. Most Christian sects will claim that the mind and perhaps even the nature of god is unknowable. The products of this effort to speculate about the unknowable are often severely at odds with what the people whose butts are in the pews actually believe. Theistic theologians often describe god as a "ground of being", a phrase so meaningless that it cannot be parsed.
Hell is separation from God.
I'll take it. Can I have it now, please?
The SCOTUS ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, in 1961, overturned all of these laws. The do remain on the books, and some times it is a lot of effort to get around them, but in the end they are unenforceable.
Oh geez, somebody just apologized on /.! Prepare yourselves for the end times everyone!
If race were not a factor, then the "easiest cheap shot" would have been the same or similar for both photos. The fact that racial attitudes are baked into us by american culture, and are terrifically difficult to overcome, means that those attitudes are in play in any social situation.
You would say that, as part of that clique. :)
So in Facebook, if you said "I will be your neighbor in farmville if you kill her"
I thought it had to be something of value.
I propose the first manned ship to the asteroid belt be loaded up with a large supply of tea. That way, if the Teapot is there, we'll have what we need to make tea. If there is no Teapot, we'll have sacrificed little except some wasted fuel.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Not because I agree with you, but because you spelled "definitely" correctly.
Lilly Tomlin is not late, except perhaps for dinner.
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel now and then
or: differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
My mind is open to the possibility that a god exists, and to the possibility that any holy text may hold some truth. However, my mind is closed to the possibility that any "revealed" text is the inerrant word of an all knowing, omnipotent creator. There to many inherent contradictions for this to be true.
Put down the duckie, leave that duckie alone.
Religion does not seek, it claims to know the answer. This is pure arrogance, as it offers little proof other than some text that it claims is written by god.
You are confusing conservatives with libertarians. The whole point of the bill of rights is the preservation if individual rights, as the rest of the constitution is meant to enumerate the rights of the government in order to limit those rights. Can you point me to a libertarian who holds the view you speak of?
What a genuinely dishonest mischaracterization of libertarianism. Those who want to limit the powers of government don't want to limit it because they want to apply some sort of twisted social darwinism as you imply. They simply don't see the government as the best tool to accomplish goals best left to NGOs and private parties. At the heart of libertarian philosophy is the idea that government accomplishes objectives by use of force. This makes government inherently dangerous, so its legitimate uses must be limited. Nature may indeed be red in tooth and claw, but as humans operating in what we hope is a civilized society, we have the power to help our neighbors when they fall on hard times. This should not automatically mean that a government takes that role. Libertarians are not opposed to helping out those who need it, but we are opposed to using force so that the politically favored are given a boost.
We will probably never be able to prove that all life came from a SINGLE cellular parent (probably because it didn't).
The last thing I read on the subject was Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale, which seems to indicate that it probably did. Either that or I've misread it, which is entirely possible. If i remember correctly the fact that all life known on earth uses the same DNA code, it almost had to have evolved from a common ancestor. Do you have another source that indicates otherwise?
several deleted scenes included ... one that depicts General Grievous actually dispatching a Jedi Knight (something we didn't even see in the theatrical release)
You mean there's a deleted scene we didn't see in the theatre? I'm stunned. What's next? A director's cut with scenes that weren't in the movie?
buggy whip manufacturers report record low sales for 2004
but is there a NIC card?
satlletit
Freudian slip?
It landed on Fox News? Damn, I hope E.D. Hill is ok, but if O'reilly is hurt, I won't cry.