Why is it that, supposing that there is one true faith with a set of predetermined moral values that do not change, just hypothetically, this faith is not the clear winner? Does God, often depicted as being omnipotent and all knowing, merely have the worst PR department in history? He has the opportunity to rig the greatest advertising campaign in the history of the universe, and still there are hundreds of copycats, knock offs, and competitors that are doing just as well, if not better?
To me, a much easier explanation would be that people rarely question the beliefs imposed on them in their adolescence, which would also explain why, up until globalization, faith was almost always easily determined by location.
The same thing could be said with remarkable (yet not complete) accuracy about systems of government. Hmm.
Religions...don't give you anything above blank state. For starters, which dogmas should you follow? Surely "my parents followed it" isn't ANY indicator of corectness of this one particular myth, right?
Have you ever watched a film or read a book and encountered a character whose every action mirrors exactly what you thought he should do, or wished that you had thought he should do?
Except it may not be a good answer. There is more to life than what you can prove scientifically.
As of now, yes - but who knows what will be possible in 1-5-10-50-100 etc. years.
"Science...begins by excluding what it cannot measure or classify. No scientist has ever chosen a wife or bought a house by scientific methods, nor does he laugh or applaud a musical work on scientific grounds. Two-thirds of his life is totally remote from science. To speak of belief, free will, or faith of any kind as 'smuggled in' would mean that natural science offered a complete account of experience. What it offers--too readily--is the promise to do so in future, coupled with the command to sit and wait."
- Jacques Barzun
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
You, like everybody else, believe thousands of things on little or no evidence--for example, whatever you know, or think you know, about your family and friends; and you act on faith whenever you say with no quiver of doubt "I'll see you next Monday."
"Our passional nature not only may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say under such circumstances, 'Do not decide but leave the question open,' is itself a passional decision and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth."
- Paraphrased and quoted from William James
You may argue that a decision against belief in God is made on intellectual grounds due to a lack of evidence, but that defense falls apart for many people when the very topic of this story is brought up: alien life. Lots and lots of Slashdotters will agree that alien life, and even more improbably intelligent alien life, is out there somewhere, despite not a shred of empirical evidence. How is that qualitatively different from belief in God? Neither one of them has proof, yet few say to people who believe in aliens "Okay, where are they?"
I'm not Catholic, but even when I was active in the Protestant church I had resolved two of these issues.
Among other things, extremely alien-looking aliens would be hard to fit with the idea that God 'made man in his own image'
Perhaps Catholics interpret that statement differently. I was always taught that "in God's image" didn't mean a head, two legs, two arms, and presumably a penis since they always call God a "he." Instead, God's image means the ability for cognition, rational thought, compassion, love, and free will. Aliens, no matter their shape, would be made in God's image as well if they were intelligent. Of course the probability that there would be mutual comprehension is very small, so it's just as likely that they would be seen as the spawn of Satan.
Jesus Christ's role as savior would be confused; would other worlds have their own Christ-figures, or would Earth's Christ be universal?
This strikes me as a false dichotomy. C. S. Lewis in his Space trilogy hypothesized aliens that had no need of a Christ figure because they never "fell." In that series, the aliens all know of Christ and have a sense of fear and wonder about our planet, so mired in bad deeds yet the site of the lorious incarnation.
Robert Heinlein too gave a wonderful description of aliens (and one human) who did not need redemption in Stranger in a Strange Land. Those who strictly follow the rules laid out in the Bible might disagree, but I believe that Valentine Michael Smith exemplifies Jesus' teachings so well that he met the same fate for the same reasons: the world at large is not ready for such a radical way of life.
Aren't most sociological and psychiatric experiments designed to do precisely this? You give the subjects a highly controlled set of inputs and study the reaction in order to perceive some aspect of their internal state or mental process. Yes, people tend to drag around quite a lot of extraneous baggage that ends up getting introduced into almost any conceivable problem they encounter, and this makes them very difficult to analyze, but they aren't nearly as random as some people (the GP, for instance) seem to think.
True. I think there are (at least) two ways to look at this.
1) The fact that we can isolate a particular trend by controlling inputs and looking at reactions (in aggregate) shows some level of deterministic behavior. 2) The fact that results can only be determined in aggregate and rarely offer a 100% correspondence with the selected inputs shows some level of non-deterministic behavior. Or, to be completely fair, some level of behavior that cannot be determined with our current technology.
Both statements look equally valid to me. I am of the opinion that we'll never have technology advanced enough to predict someone's every move, and if it is in practice impossible to determine, then it qualifies as non-deterministic. I recognize that this is an opinion based on interpretation of meager evidence. I also have no problem with having some level of deterministic behavior--reflex is an obvious example. It will be interesting to see what kinds of new info come out over the years, and if it all points to determinism, how much trouble I'll have modifying my belief. It seems like it would be very hard to believe concretely in pure determinism, given this feeling of free will, even with airtight proof that it doesn't exist.
And my, we'd be in for some major ethical nightmares!
When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time. Computers think determensitically. Which is why we know they have no free will. Humans think via probabilities, not certanties. When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100% certain they know the answer. When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain. We know we might be wrong. The machines don't know that.
I also believe that the human mind is not deterministic, but that's a weak argument. You are very close to insight when you say "our answers change merely based on time." Computers generally have very limited input, and it is carefully filtered out in most applications. You don't want your answer to a math question to be affected by mouse movements or keyboard input or what is in front of the webcam. But that's what happens with humans. We can subvert it to an extent, through concentration, but our "inputs" consist of our sense organs, including skin, our internal state (hunger, drunkenness), and maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting. It can be argued that we are very complex machines, and that even though we don't have the computing technology to predict human behavior it is nonetheless deterministic.
As I said, I reject that statement, but disproving it is a lot harder than saying "our answers change over time."
A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine. "Assurance behavior" such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents’ lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums.
So it seems to me that there are quite a lot of unnecessary procedures, wasting a significant amount of money. With tort reform, fewer doctors would be inclined to practice defensive medicine, the term given to procedures performed to cover the doctor's ass instead of giving any benefit for the patient. More alarming to me, and an issue I hadn't encountered before now, is doctors' avoidance of risky procedures and patients with "complex medical problems." So yes, tort reform would have a meaningful, positive impact on medical care as a whole, far more of an impact than the "saving pennies" you originally stated.
It's a pity that what's actually good for the patient seems to come a distant third.
My sarcasm did not shine through. I agree with you. I was highlighting the self-contradiction in those who are in seeming agreement with your statement, but who also support the passed bill's provisions disallowing higher premiums for pre-existing conditions.
Or tell your congressmen to support the Read the Bills Act, which would ensure by law that those who vote "yes" on a bill have read it in its entirety.
If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
But God forbid you be denied coverage or pay higher premiums because you have a pre-existing condition that guarantees you'll be using $10K/month.
Jesus, the amount of bullshit that is getting high mods in this discussion is ludicrous. This is the worst example I've seen yet, but I'm only halfway through.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
You're not looking deep enough. How many unnecessary procedures are performed because the patient thinks he needs it and the doctor, who knows there is a 99% chance he doesn't need it, is nonetheless worried that that 1% chance could bankrupt him?
Want evidence that women seek abortions out of poverty? Let me Google that for you.
Those sites are all talking about reasons for considering abortion, but none of them mention the third trimester in relation to them. Most women will have known that they're pregnant months before then, so the question "Will the financial burden of having a child be so great that the mother starves, therefore warranting a third trimester abortion to save the life of the mother?" doesn't come up.
You've also neglected adoption, which, at that late stage, if the mother really just doesn't want the child, seems to me like the most ethical route to follow.
Everyone knows it's messed up, but if a fix is applied based on false premises, as the 2,000 page monstrosity wending its way through Congress is, it is only going to create more and bigger problems. I corrected some misinformation and pointed to resources that have an in-depth review of some of the complexities of the issue. The fact that the resource comes from a respected NPR program ought to lend it some credence with the Slashdot crowd.
My hope is that if enough people get a rudimentary yet accurate view of the problem at hand, they will realize that the current health bill fixes some areas by breaking others even further, and that it should be rejected. I realize that this is a pipe dream, but I do what I can.
Incidentally, and closer to on-topic, the fact that the health bill is 2,000 pages and will not be available to the public (or to Congress) in its final form before a vote is called should raise similar concerns to this secret copyright treaty. One is overtly secret while the other is obscured through process, but the opportunity for evil edicts in both of them is the same.
I read this and substituted "inside of your post" for "inside of your a tag." I was chuckling at the AC's cleverness, having an unmatched quote in a comment claiming that posts with unmatched quotes are ignored, and then I realized that I am, forsooth, an idiot. Now you do too.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the universe is so fucking huge that the probability of aliens visiting Earth or humans visiting Rsdflkjasd is zero.
Rsdflkjasd is in Iceland. My grandmother is from there. Thanks for calling her inuman. :'(
Why is it that, supposing that there is one true faith with a set of predetermined moral values that do not change, just hypothetically, this faith is not the clear winner? Does God, often depicted as being omnipotent and all knowing, merely have the worst PR department in history? He has the opportunity to rig the greatest advertising campaign in the history of the universe, and still there are hundreds of copycats, knock offs, and competitors that are doing just as well, if not better?
To me, a much easier explanation would be that people rarely question the beliefs imposed on them in their adolescence, which would also explain why, up until globalization, faith was almost always easily determined by location.
The same thing could be said with remarkable (yet not complete) accuracy about systems of government. Hmm.
Religions...don't give you anything above blank state. For starters, which dogmas should you follow? Surely "my parents followed it" isn't ANY indicator of corectness of this one particular myth, right?
Have you ever watched a film or read a book and encountered a character whose every action mirrors exactly what you thought he should do, or wished that you had thought he should do?
That is the proper way to find a religion.
Except it may not be a good answer. There is more to life than what you can prove scientifically.
As of now, yes - but who knows what will be possible in 1-5-10-50-100 etc. years.
"Science...begins by excluding what it cannot measure or classify. No scientist has ever chosen a wife or bought a house by scientific methods, nor does he laugh or applaud a musical work on scientific grounds. Two-thirds of his life is totally remote from science. To speak of belief, free will, or faith of any kind as 'smuggled in' would mean that natural science offered a complete account of experience. What it offers--too readily--is the promise to do so in future, coupled with the command to sit and wait."
- Jacques Barzun
However, it is the person who makes the claim that should prove it. So that there's a deity is up to the church to prove, and not for the science to disprove.
You, like everybody else, believe thousands of things on little or no evidence--for example, whatever you know, or think you know, about your family and friends; and you act on faith whenever you say with no quiver of doubt "I'll see you next Monday."
"Our passional nature not only may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say under such circumstances, 'Do not decide but leave the question open,' is itself a passional decision and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth."
- Paraphrased and quoted from William James
You may argue that a decision against belief in God is made on intellectual grounds due to a lack of evidence, but that defense falls apart for many people when the very topic of this story is brought up: alien life. Lots and lots of Slashdotters will agree that alien life, and even more improbably intelligent alien life, is out there somewhere, despite not a shred of empirical evidence. How is that qualitatively different from belief in God? Neither one of them has proof, yet few say to people who believe in aliens "Okay, where are they?"
I'm not Catholic, but even when I was active in the Protestant church I had resolved two of these issues.
Among other things, extremely alien-looking aliens would be hard to fit with the idea that God 'made man in his own image'
Perhaps Catholics interpret that statement differently. I was always taught that "in God's image" didn't mean a head, two legs, two arms, and presumably a penis since they always call God a "he." Instead, God's image means the ability for cognition, rational thought, compassion, love, and free will. Aliens, no matter their shape, would be made in God's image as well if they were intelligent. Of course the probability that there would be mutual comprehension is very small, so it's just as likely that they would be seen as the spawn of Satan.
Jesus Christ's role as savior would be confused; would other worlds have their own Christ-figures, or would Earth's Christ be universal?
This strikes me as a false dichotomy. C. S. Lewis in his Space trilogy hypothesized aliens that had no need of a Christ figure because they never "fell." In that series, the aliens all know of Christ and have a sense of fear and wonder about our planet, so mired in bad deeds yet the site of the lorious incarnation.
Robert Heinlein too gave a wonderful description of aliens (and one human) who did not need redemption in Stranger in a Strange Land. Those who strictly follow the rules laid out in the Bible might disagree, but I believe that Valentine Michael Smith exemplifies Jesus' teachings so well that he met the same fate for the same reasons: the world at large is not ready for such a radical way of life.
A lot of people applaud OS X for it's great interface, and these same people then bash MS for admitting that they let it influence their design!
I have no problem with OS X influencing Windows design. I just wish they would copy it a little more accurately.
come back to \ .
You have given yourself away, Microsoft Fanboi!
No, they were too tight.
Personally, I'd prefer Reality A or Reality C to Reality B, so eldavojohn's point still stands: releasing information is better than withholding it.
Aren't most sociological and psychiatric experiments designed to do precisely this? You give the subjects a highly controlled set of inputs and study the reaction in order to perceive some aspect of their internal state or mental process. Yes, people tend to drag around quite a lot of extraneous baggage that ends up getting introduced into almost any conceivable problem they encounter, and this makes them very difficult to analyze, but they aren't nearly as random as some people (the GP, for instance) seem to think.
True. I think there are (at least) two ways to look at this.
1) The fact that we can isolate a particular trend by controlling inputs and looking at reactions (in aggregate) shows some level of deterministic behavior.
2) The fact that results can only be determined in aggregate and rarely offer a 100% correspondence with the selected inputs shows some level of non-deterministic behavior. Or, to be completely fair, some level of behavior that cannot be determined with our current technology.
Both statements look equally valid to me. I am of the opinion that we'll never have technology advanced enough to predict someone's every move, and if it is in practice impossible to determine, then it qualifies as non-deterministic. I recognize that this is an opinion based on interpretation of meager evidence. I also have no problem with having some level of deterministic behavior--reflex is an obvious example. It will be interesting to see what kinds of new info come out over the years, and if it all points to determinism, how much trouble I'll have modifying my belief. It seems like it would be very hard to believe concretely in pure determinism, given this feeling of free will, even with airtight proof that it doesn't exist.
And my, we'd be in for some major ethical nightmares!
When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time. Computers think determensitically. Which is why we know they have no free will. Humans think via probabilities, not certanties. When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100% certain they know the answer. When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain. We know we might be wrong. The machines don't know that.
I also believe that the human mind is not deterministic, but that's a weak argument. You are very close to insight when you say "our answers change merely based on time." Computers generally have very limited input, and it is carefully filtered out in most applications. You don't want your answer to a math question to be affected by mouse movements or keyboard input or what is in front of the webcam. But that's what happens with humans. We can subvert it to an extent, through concentration, but our "inputs" consist of our sense organs, including skin, our internal state (hunger, drunkenness), and maybe some other stuff I'm forgetting. It can be argued that we are very complex machines, and that even though we don't have the computing technology to predict human behavior it is nonetheless deterministic.
As I said, I reject that statement, but disproving it is a lot harder than saying "our answers change over time."
This is from a paper in the Journal of the AMA:
A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine. "Assurance behavior" such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents’ lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums.
So it seems to me that there are quite a lot of unnecessary procedures, wasting a significant amount of money. With tort reform, fewer doctors would be inclined to practice defensive medicine, the term given to procedures performed to cover the doctor's ass instead of giving any benefit for the patient. More alarming to me, and an issue I hadn't encountered before now, is doctors' avoidance of risky procedures and patients with "complex medical problems." So yes, tort reform would have a meaningful, positive impact on medical care as a whole, far more of an impact than the "saving pennies" you originally stated.
It's a pity that what's actually good for the patient seems to come a distant third.
Agreed.
My sarcasm did not shine through. I agree with you. I was highlighting the self-contradiction in those who are in seeming agreement with your statement, but who also support the passed bill's provisions disallowing higher premiums for pre-existing conditions.
Or tell your congressmen to support the Read the Bills Act, which would ensure by law that those who vote "yes" on a bill have read it in its entirety.
If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
But God forbid you be denied coverage or pay higher premiums because you have a pre-existing condition that guarantees you'll be using $10K/month.
When asked this exact question, the response of Nanci Pelosi was, "Are you serious? Are you serious!?"
Jesus, the amount of bullshit that is getting high mods in this discussion is ludicrous. This is the worst example I've seen yet, but I'm only halfway through.
This is why the whole system is fucked.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
You're not looking deep enough. How many unnecessary procedures are performed because the patient thinks he needs it and the doctor, who knows there is a 99% chance he doesn't need it, is nonetheless worried that that 1% chance could bankrupt him?
An even better answer is to develop a form of contraception which is inexpensive, permanent, free of side effects, and easily reversible
It's kind of like engineering! "Pick any one."
Want evidence that women seek abortions out of poverty? Let me Google that for you.
Those sites are all talking about reasons for considering abortion, but none of them mention the third trimester in relation to them. Most women will have known that they're pregnant months before then, so the question "Will the financial burden of having a child be so great that the mother starves, therefore warranting a third trimester abortion to save the life of the mother?" doesn't come up.
You've also neglected adoption, which, at that late stage, if the mother really just doesn't want the child, seems to me like the most ethical route to follow.
Not really. Try it. It's about as cumbersome as scratching your face in the spot behind where the button is--that is to say, not cumbersome at all.
"This is Unix! I know this!"
making the issue of getting out of our atmosphere a relatively dull process
...until someone creates space elevator music. Then it will become a dull, agonizing process.
A certain level of smart-assery is also assumed. You have the assery down, but you need to work on the smart.
Everyone knows it's messed up, but if a fix is applied based on false premises, as the 2,000 page monstrosity wending its way through Congress is, it is only going to create more and bigger problems. I corrected some misinformation and pointed to resources that have an in-depth review of some of the complexities of the issue. The fact that the resource comes from a respected NPR program ought to lend it some credence with the Slashdot crowd.
My hope is that if enough people get a rudimentary yet accurate view of the problem at hand, they will realize that the current health bill fixes some areas by breaking others even further, and that it should be rejected. I realize that this is a pipe dream, but I do what I can.
Incidentally, and closer to on-topic, the fact that the health bill is 2,000 pages and will not be available to the public (or to Congress) in its final form before a vote is called should raise similar concerns to this secret copyright treaty. One is overtly secret while the other is obscured through process, but the opportunity for evil edicts in both of them is the same.
I read this and substituted "inside of your post" for "inside of your a tag." I was chuckling at the AC's cleverness, having an unmatched quote in a comment claiming that posts with unmatched quotes are ignored, and then I realized that I am, forsooth, an idiot. Now you do too.