The concept that religion is unfalsifiable is relatively modern. The Christian bible makes many falsifiable claims and predictions. Centuries of heavy spin control have worked around most of the problems with that. But there's major hand-waving involved.
You may be able to disprove various claims of the Bible. But if you do, most believers are probably going to ignore you, or find a way around that (it was allegorical, you need to interpret the Bible through the filter of the time it was written in, etc). But the claim that "There is an omnipotent being who is in control of all things" - that claim is the unfalsifiable bit I was talking about, and that is common to most religions, whereas picking apart holy texts is not (not all religions are based on a book, or even on factual knowledge).
You can falsify some claims of religion, but you cannot falsify the concept of God. Which was what some of the more enthusiastic proponents of evolution claimed it did - prove that God did not exist.
So you are saying that it is by definition part of religion that faith healers won't guarantee results. This is a very weird claim.
Not at all; the conditions you set up for your claim were that "God can do anything, and he'll do anything I ask him". Most faith healers don't claim this. They claim that they can heal someone God/mother earth/the spirits/whatever willing. That was an aside to discuss your specific claim about faith healing, it wasn't a general statement about religion.
Pick up a Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, Diamond Sutra, or Rig Veda. Start at the beginning and work your way through to the end. Tell me how many times you see "physical law" mentioned in them. You have a very bizarre 'definition' of religion.
I can tell you already; none. But I can tell you most definately I'll find stuff along the lines of "God is great; no deed is too hard for him", "The impossible is made possible by God", "Through God all things are possible". I'll find miracles, and claims of supernatural intervention. I'm using modern technical terminology, but the concepts are there in the books, even if the jargon is not. All religions have something supernatural in them - something that is "outside" the physical universe, whether that's God, karma, the essence of mother earth, whatever, and that intervenes in the physical world through supernatural means - that is, they can interfere in the world supernaturally, disregarding physical laws.
You have a claim: the creator of the universe can do anything and he'll do what you want if you pray. Deduction: if you pray for healing you will be healed. Falsifiable claim: Test a bunch of people who pray agains a control group to see who's healed better. Where's the "unfalsifiable by definition"?
Most faith healers wouldn't guarantee results. They'd add a little extra about the process depending on the repentance of the recipient, or something like that. When the faith healing fails, they can say the patient wasn't holy/faithful/repentant enough.
But I wasn't talking about individual claims of religion. I was talking about the basis of religion - the existance of a God. You can never prove God does not exist - because if he is omnipotent, he's better at hiding than you are at finding:P
You can disprove aspects of God - e.g. You can disprove an omnipotent God whose overriding desire is that all life should be purple elephants, simply because all life isn't purple elephants. As you outlined above, you can disprove specific claims of religion. But you can't disprove religion, the existance of a force that does not follow physical laws, simply because science is entirely dependant on physical laws. Anything that posits interference in these natural laws in a way that cannot be scientifically determined cannot be disproved.
When evolutionary theory was first published, it caused an immense reaction in religious circles. The reason for this was that evolution was the first explanation of a way life may have come about without resorting to a divine being. It gave all those people who didn't want to believe in God a logical alternative.
Since then, people have come to say that evolution has "killed" God, or "disproved" Christianity. These comments fail to understand exactly why science tends not to like religion. One of the basic tenets of science is that for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. Because religion's basic premise is the existence of an omnipotent force not governed by physical laws, it is by definition unfalsifiable. That does not mean it is scientifically false, or scientifically true, it means that science cannot be applied to religion. Religion cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Every objection a scientist raises to religion could be countered by "But God could temporarily suspend that natural law, and act in violation of it".
Creationism is logical, in that it is internally consistent. If you accept the basic premise of a divine being, then it follows on logically that that being could then create life. Evolution was radical, not because it contradicted this, but because it created a logical alternative that did not involve God. It's not a replacement for creationism, it's a scientific explanation, much as creationism is a religious explanation.
Saying that, the very notion of evolution changes over time. Darwin originally didn't comment on abiogensis - his theory was about environmental conditions causing changes in organisms in such a way that diversity was created. His theory took as a premise the existance of life before the evolutionary process begins.
Even now, there are various components to evolution that some people believe and some don't. Some believe in the "punctuated equilibrium" model. Some don't. Some believe in "macro" evolution, some don't. Some believe in abiogenesis. Some don't. Some theists argue for "directed" evolution. Some argue that animal diversity evolved from a few common ancestors, as per Darwin, but that man was created directly by God, outside of evolutionary forces.
Saying "I believe in evolution" is almost as meaningless these days as saying "I believe in Christianity". There are so many different theories, sub-theories, movements, interpretations and denominations that just saying "evolution" doesn't actually describe much.
The whole point of their setup is that these people are NOT agents of the state. The state gives them permission to licence TV sets able to receive broadcasts, in order to fund themselves, so that they don't draw on tax money from the state, and are free from the possibility of state pressure on their funding.
They don't have the right to force entry into your house. They are, however, allowed to knock on the door and request entry. You can refuse them if you like, in which case they will probably have to start legal procedings, claiming that you are not paying the license fee you owe them. It would all be sorted out in the end but it would take a lot of time, and probably money.
That's sort of what I was saying. You may not know what an adverb is, but you understand the concept of one, because you have seen examples of them in the languages you have learnt. Learning two languages won't give you an understanding of grammar jargon, but if taught grammar, you'll pick it up quicker than a monolinguist because you already know the concepts, you just need to assosciate concept to name. A monolinguist, however, would probably need to be taught both concept and name.
I'm a monolinguist who has just started looking at another language's grammar, and I find it amazing how seeing different grammatical formations really shows the structure of your native language so much clearer.
I think it's because when you know only one language, it's hard to actually figure out what grammar is. When you learn to speak, you don't learn vocabulary, grammar and enunciation separately. You learn them all mixed together.
When you learn a second language, you are able to more easily identify the structural components of language (ie: grammar) when comparing the two side-by-side. A monolinguist will be more likely to assume that the grammar of his language is universal; a polylinguist will understand that grammar is subordinate to language.
Which is why the FTC in Australia has warned ISPs about advertising their services as "unlimited" if they do any rate-limiting or shaping (which pretty much all Australian ISPs do).
But what is the trade-off? What is the downside of using an FMV as opposed to a set piece using the games built-in engine? As far as I can tell, the only downsides are production time (which users don't really give a stuff about) and continuity (jumping to an FMV can sometimes break the illusion of the game). The upside for an FMV is, as you say, a much higher quality of animation. And also as you say, as technology progresses, the gap between FMV and in-game engine will decrease. But in the mean time, if you have the production time and budget to do it properly, FMVs are a better choice for those scenes, if you don't mind the slight break in continuuity.
I was talking about FF7's non-combat graphics engine, not the combat one, which was fairly decent. I've played every FF in the direct line up to 9, so I've seen the FF3 engine, but I think you missed my point.
It is possible to communicate plot and emotional characters without using FMVs or high-quality in-game engines. But FMVs (properly used) make your set pieces even better than they would be without them.
Yes, the old FF engines work. But if you added FMVs to them (in the right places, at the right times, for the right duration, with the right quality) they would work better.
Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.
It would have to me. FF7's non-combat graphics engine really sucked. There are naunces that you could not get with FF7s engine - The look of shock on Aeris' face, the way Cloud moved when he released her body at the funeral scene, Sephiroth's insanity in some of his scenes. You simply can't show those things without either an FMV, or a better graphics engine.
FF6's graphic system allowed much more flexibility of expression than FF7's, and people's expectations were lower. So it could get through things like the Opera House scene using just it's in-game engine.
Good games, with strong storylines and emotionally-involving plots can be done without FMV. But well-done, appropriately-placed FMVs can make good games better. Of course, it goes without saying that poorly-done, inappropriately-placed FMVs can make good games worse.
That's just stupid. Analysts have a lot more influence on the stock market than meterologists have on the weather.
If some stock analyst makes predications, and people believe him, they will then go and buy/sell stock based on his predictions, which will alter the stock market in such a way that his predicitons are more likely to be true. If an analyst is well-trusted and his statements are acted upon, his predictions are more likely to be true because more people will act in such a way as to make them true.
IANAL, but I do believe that the DoD could file a "friend of the court" thingy, mention National Security nad put a big Top Secret stamp on everything anyway. The government's not going to let you get away with exposing ostensible national secrets just because you file a civil suit.
The likely reason they decided not to bother even trying for use in criminal cases is because they know it'll get knocked back. Because criminal cases rely on a higher standard of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, and such a machine cannot be proved to be accurate beyond reasonable doubt, it's unlikely to be accepted as evidence.
However, a civil court is generally based on a preponderance of evidence. Whoever has the most compelling evidence wins. So, chuck in polygraphs and MRIs and whatever you want. Even if half of it is chucked out, the more that sticks, the better your chances.
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit."
Aristotle
$90000 / 9 = $1000 per song, and $4,500 / 9 = $500 per song
The RIAA is only suing over 9 songs. That is, they only have evidence that she uploaded 9 songs. The 600 on her computer may not even be illegal; they may have been CD rips, iTunes downloads, who knows. $15 per song makes the penalty seem almost reasonable:P
Which means that you actually can't really tell wether something's in the public domain or not. You can make an educated guess, based on its release date, but never be absolutely certain unless it notifies you one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The concept that religion is unfalsifiable is relatively modern. The Christian bible makes many falsifiable claims and predictions. Centuries of heavy spin control have worked around most of the problems with that. But there's major hand-waving involved.
You may be able to disprove various claims of the Bible. But if you do, most believers are probably going to ignore you, or find a way around that (it was allegorical, you need to interpret the Bible through the filter of the time it was written in, etc). But the claim that "There is an omnipotent being who is in control of all things" - that claim is the unfalsifiable bit I was talking about, and that is common to most religions, whereas picking apart holy texts is not (not all religions are based on a book, or even on factual knowledge).
You can falsify some claims of religion, but you cannot falsify the concept of God. Which was what some of the more enthusiastic proponents of evolution claimed it did - prove that God did not exist.
So you are saying that it is by definition part of religion that faith healers won't guarantee results. This is a very weird claim.
Not at all; the conditions you set up for your claim were that "God can do anything, and he'll do anything I ask him". Most faith healers don't claim this. They claim that they can heal someone God/mother earth/the spirits/whatever willing. That was an aside to discuss your specific claim about faith healing, it wasn't a general statement about religion.
Pick up a Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, Tao Te Ching, Diamond Sutra, or Rig Veda. Start at the beginning and work your way through to the end. Tell me how many times you see "physical law" mentioned in them. You have a very bizarre 'definition' of religion.
I can tell you already; none. But I can tell you most definately I'll find stuff along the lines of "God is great; no deed is too hard for him", "The impossible is made possible by God", "Through God all things are possible". I'll find miracles, and claims of supernatural intervention. I'm using modern technical terminology, but the concepts are there in the books, even if the jargon is not. All religions have something supernatural in them - something that is "outside" the physical universe, whether that's God, karma, the essence of mother earth, whatever, and that intervenes in the physical world through supernatural means - that is, they can interfere in the world supernaturally, disregarding physical laws.
Faith is believing without proof, not demanding that what you believe be unproven.
But then in my experience, anyone posting as an anonymous coward is a moronic troll from the start, so I'm hardly surprised.
You have a claim: the creator of the universe can do anything and he'll do what you want if you pray. Deduction: if you pray for healing you will be healed. Falsifiable claim: Test a bunch of people who pray agains a control group to see who's healed better. Where's the "unfalsifiable by definition"?
:P
Most faith healers wouldn't guarantee results. They'd add a little extra about the process depending on the repentance of the recipient, or something like that. When the faith healing fails, they can say the patient wasn't holy/faithful/repentant enough.
But I wasn't talking about individual claims of religion. I was talking about the basis of religion - the existance of a God. You can never prove God does not exist - because if he is omnipotent, he's better at hiding than you are at finding
You can disprove aspects of God - e.g. You can disprove an omnipotent God whose overriding desire is that all life should be purple elephants, simply because all life isn't purple elephants. As you outlined above, you can disprove specific claims of religion. But you can't disprove religion, the existance of a force that does not follow physical laws, simply because science is entirely dependant on physical laws. Anything that posits interference in these natural laws in a way that cannot be scientifically determined cannot be disproved.
When evolutionary theory was first published, it caused an immense reaction in religious circles. The reason for this was that evolution was the first explanation of a way life may have come about without resorting to a divine being. It gave all those people who didn't want to believe in God a logical alternative.
Since then, people have come to say that evolution has "killed" God, or "disproved" Christianity. These comments fail to understand exactly why science tends not to like religion. One of the basic tenets of science is that for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. Because religion's basic premise is the existence of an omnipotent force not governed by physical laws, it is by definition unfalsifiable. That does not mean it is scientifically false, or scientifically true, it means that science cannot be applied to religion. Religion cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Every objection a scientist raises to religion could be countered by "But God could temporarily suspend that natural law, and act in violation of it".
Creationism is logical, in that it is internally consistent. If you accept the basic premise of a divine being, then it follows on logically that that being could then create life. Evolution was radical, not because it contradicted this, but because it created a logical alternative that did not involve God. It's not a replacement for creationism, it's a scientific explanation, much as creationism is a religious explanation.
Saying that, the very notion of evolution changes over time. Darwin originally didn't comment on abiogensis - his theory was about environmental conditions causing changes in organisms in such a way that diversity was created. His theory took as a premise the existance of life before the evolutionary process begins.
Even now, there are various components to evolution that some people believe and some don't. Some believe in the "punctuated equilibrium" model. Some don't. Some believe in "macro" evolution, some don't. Some believe in abiogenesis. Some don't. Some theists argue for "directed" evolution. Some argue that animal diversity evolved from a few common ancestors, as per Darwin, but that man was created directly by God, outside of evolutionary forces.
Saying "I believe in evolution" is almost as meaningless these days as saying "I believe in Christianity". There are so many different theories, sub-theories, movements, interpretations and denominations that just saying "evolution" doesn't actually describe much.
Do you have a source for the premise of religion? Because I've been religious all my life, and never heard that one.
The whole point of their setup is that these people are NOT agents of the state. The state gives them permission to licence TV sets able to receive broadcasts, in order to fund themselves, so that they don't draw on tax money from the state, and are free from the possibility of state pressure on their funding.
They don't have the right to force entry into your house. They are, however, allowed to knock on the door and request entry. You can refuse them if you like, in which case they will probably have to start legal procedings, claiming that you are not paying the license fee you owe them. It would all be sorted out in the end but it would take a lot of time, and probably money.
That's sort of what I was saying. You may not know what an adverb is, but you understand the concept of one, because you have seen examples of them in the languages you have learnt. Learning two languages won't give you an understanding of grammar jargon, but if taught grammar, you'll pick it up quicker than a monolinguist because you already know the concepts, you just need to assosciate concept to name. A monolinguist, however, would probably need to be taught both concept and name.
I'm a monolinguist who has just started looking at another language's grammar, and I find it amazing how seeing different grammatical formations really shows the structure of your native language so much clearer.
I think it's because when you know only one language, it's hard to actually figure out what grammar is. When you learn to speak, you don't learn vocabulary, grammar and enunciation separately. You learn them all mixed together.
When you learn a second language, you are able to more easily identify the structural components of language (ie: grammar) when comparing the two side-by-side. A monolinguist will be more likely to assume that the grammar of his language is universal; a polylinguist will understand that grammar is subordinate to language.
It's the magic formula in every world
Which is why the FTC in Australia has warned ISPs about advertising their services as "unlimited" if they do any rate-limiting or shaping (which pretty much all Australian ISPs do).
Perfect carry-case for this mod
Cool, find me a link about the BC equivelant, and I'll concede your point :P
Yeah, ice-skating is popular in Egypt I hear.
But what is the trade-off? What is the downside of using an FMV as opposed to a set piece using the games built-in engine? As far as I can tell, the only downsides are production time (which users don't really give a stuff about) and continuity (jumping to an FMV can sometimes break the illusion of the game). The upside for an FMV is, as you say, a much higher quality of animation. And also as you say, as technology progresses, the gap between FMV and in-game engine will decrease. But in the mean time, if you have the production time and budget to do it properly, FMVs are a better choice for those scenes, if you don't mind the slight break in continuuity.
I was talking about FF7's non-combat graphics engine, not the combat one, which was fairly decent. I've played every FF in the direct line up to 9, so I've seen the FF3 engine, but I think you missed my point.
It is possible to communicate plot and emotional characters without using FMVs or high-quality in-game engines. But FMVs (properly used) make your set pieces even better than they would be without them.
Yes, the old FF engines work. But if you added FMVs to them (in the right places, at the right times, for the right duration, with the right quality) they would work better.
Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.
It would have to me. FF7's non-combat graphics engine really sucked. There are naunces that you could not get with FF7s engine - The look of shock on Aeris' face, the way Cloud moved when he released her body at the funeral scene, Sephiroth's insanity in some of his scenes. You simply can't show those things without either an FMV, or a better graphics engine.
FF6's graphic system allowed much more flexibility of expression than FF7's, and people's expectations were lower. So it could get through things like the Opera House scene using just it's in-game engine.
Good games, with strong storylines and emotionally-involving plots can be done without FMV. But well-done, appropriately-placed FMVs can make good games better. Of course, it goes without saying that poorly-done, inappropriately-placed FMVs can make good games worse.
That's just stupid. Analysts have a lot more influence on the stock market than meterologists have on the weather.
If some stock analyst makes predications, and people believe him, they will then go and buy/sell stock based on his predictions, which will alter the stock market in such a way that his predicitons are more likely to be true. If an analyst is well-trusted and his statements are acted upon, his predictions are more likely to be true because more people will act in such a way as to make them true.
Keep a careful track of that breakfast you just regurgitated. Float it around in the ocean for 10 years, and someone may pay big money for it.
IANAL, but I do believe that the DoD could file a "friend of the court" thingy, mention National Security nad put a big Top Secret stamp on everything anyway. The government's not going to let you get away with exposing ostensible national secrets just because you file a civil suit.
Not in criminal case, note, but civil.
The likely reason they decided not to bother even trying for use in criminal cases is because they know it'll get knocked back. Because criminal cases rely on a higher standard of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, and such a machine cannot be proved to be accurate beyond reasonable doubt, it's unlikely to be accepted as evidence.
However, a civil court is generally based on a preponderance of evidence. Whoever has the most compelling evidence wins. So, chuck in polygraphs and MRIs and whatever you want. Even if half of it is chucked out, the more that sticks, the better your chances.
"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit." Aristotle
$90000 / 9 = $1000 per song, and $4,500 / 9 = $500 per song
:P
The RIAA is only suing over 9 songs. That is, they only have evidence that she uploaded 9 songs. The 600 on her computer may not even be illegal; they may have been CD rips, iTunes downloads, who knows. $15 per song makes the penalty seem almost reasonable
Mod me down, I really don't give a shit.
Ok
Which means that you actually can't really tell wether something's in the public domain or not. You can make an educated guess, based on its release date, but never be absolutely certain unless it notifies you one way or the other.