I have never heard of philosophy being applied to computer science, but I'm interested. I was going to ask you for links, but I found this one, which seems like a decently broad introduction. Honestly, many of the questions in the summary list there strike me as pointless navel-gazing (What are the differences between programs and algorithms?) and others as foolish (Should programs be considered as scientific theories?), lending some weight to the nonsense called out by your parent troll, but there are a few good ones as well (Can the notion of computational thinking withstand philosophical scrutiny?).
I should also note that your list of the most significant philosophers is incomplete without the American philosopher William James, whose definition of truth as a process has had a very significant effect on most later philosophers; in it we also find the seeds of that modern virtue, pluralism. His desire to keep philosophy useful instead of merely academic was also very admirable, even if this view was ultimately discarded by others in favor of quibbling academic arguments couched in obtuse language and of no use to the vast majority of people interested in finding one to live by.
If James had had his way, you probably wouldn't have had to contend with your parent troll, but then again you probably wouldn't have forgotten that there is an American on the most significant philosophers list, either, negating your original post AND the troll's response:)
The model is not the reality. What current Quantum Mechanics describes as random could very well be deterministic in a later, more accurate model.
...or not. Unless and until it's shown to be deterministic, there's no point in treating it as such. It's fun to think about future models, but the reality is that we can currently see no determinism there, so for us it is functionally, meaning truly, random.
Didn't QM experiments show that nonlocal effects exist? And don't nonlocal effects violate causality, throwing universal determinism out the window? Or is this a falsifiability thing?
Nope. With a complete mapping of the brains of every person on Earth (including current status) and a sufficient simulator, the posts could be predicted.
I believe the Greeks called such a system Deus Ex Machina =p
This is, of course, a matter of opinion. The rest of your comment (talented, successful, made an impact, etc.) I can agree with, but the three or four stories of his I have read all displayed a mediocre writing style. That's not to say that he should stop writing stories; there are obviously a lot of geeks out there who enjoy them. I myself had fun with his strange tale of the son of a mountain and a dishwasher, but there's a big difference between "spinning a good yarn" and "writing well," and the ability to do one never guarantees the ability to do the other. William Gibson is a good example of the latter eclipsing the former, while Gene Wolfe unquestionably possesses mastery of both story and style. Cory Doctorow is a very readable writer and tells entertaining (and sometimes poignant) stories. Just don't expect to encounter something where every sentence is carefully crafted and a pleasure to read regardless of the context in which it sits.
The old model Scion xB (2004-2006, the one that's good ugly instead of bad ugly, though if you drove an Aztek it might not matter to you =p) would probably work well for you. I'm a little guy, but friends of mine at 6'4" can sit quite comfortably in both the front and back seats. I swear this car is a bit like the TARDIS in that respect. Its EPA MPG rating is 31 city 34 highway, and my napkin calculations show that it gets ~32 MPG with my driving habits.
Unfortunately, they screwed up the fuel efficiency when they went to the new design as well, but if you don't mind buying used it's definitely worth a test drive.
The flaw in your response is that poor spelling doesn't always equate to poor communication. Your use of "thru" is poor spelling, yet I knew exactly what you meant. Your use of "off" in "mode off communication" was poor spelling AND poor communication, and slowed down my parsing of the sentence. I don't think anyone would mistake "potatoe" for an unrelated word.
Now, you can argue that poor spelling reflects poorly on a person, because in certain circles that is the case, but it's not as simple to nail down as you have implied. Also, one highly publicized spelling error does not make one a poor speller unfit for his chosen profession.
(Not that I'm in the habit of defending Quayle either. I could care less about the individual...but only a little bit. It's people's perceptions that interest me.)
because outside of some fabricated scandals, so far, smooth sailing.
I take it that in "fabricated scandals" you're including the tax problems of appointees (including Secretary of the Treasury, for pete's sake) and the broken campaign promises including telecom immunity?
I assure you that these are genuine issues for people who care about integrity.
I know I've read about more on/. but they don't matter so much to me in comparison to the continued mishandling of the money supply - it's literally the biggest scam in the world, but that shit won't hit the fan until the Federal Reserve gets audited.
It's been building for a hell of a lot longer than when Bush (jr or sr) was in office. But by all means keep spreading FUD so that you can believe that your precious party is squeaky clean.
First of all, I am not an atheistic naturalist. I do, however, understand the limits of scientific inquiry, and my statements about those limits haven't made me very popular - see this recent thread for evidence (though you'll have to crank down your threshold - someone went back yesterday and unjustly modded most of my posts flamebait). It should be noted that one need not be a theist to recognize that science has limits, either.
Second, and related to the above, while science is a pursuit of knowledge the two terms are not at all synonymous. Otherwise the fields of history, literature, ethics, etc. would have disappeared long ago. There are great depths of meaning that cannot be gained scientifically to be found in Rabelais, Milton, Thoreau, and countless others. Can the words of Jesus be understood through science? Then do not tell me that science has exclusive rights to knowledge.
Third, there is no context other than naturalism in which science can be pursued. How do you propose to experiment with magic or miracles? A miracle is by its definition something that does not happen in the natural order of things. Science is powerless to make a statement about such an occurrence unless it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship. If it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship, then the event becomes part of the natural order of things, hence naturalism.
Don't accuse me of pushing my beliefs on you (as if you were forced to read this in the first place) when you are working from false premises in the first place. Once you get rid of those, you'll see that what I am saying supports your worldview better than an improper modification of science, and it causes less unhelpful friction (though still a considerable amount in some cases) with the "purely scientific" mindset. Virtually any atheistic naturalist on this board will agree fully with my third point, and any theistic supernaturalist (or whatever) who has seriously looked into the epistemology of science instead of simply trying to shoehorn it into their worldview will also. It is the second point that you should be fighting for, as that is the one under serious contention in this age, and you've gone and bulldozed it in favor of putting up a flimsy squatter's shack around a shabby definition that deserves to die of exposure.
The fact that we have shown that it can happen tends to support the hypothesis that it did happen, because we know that RNA is a part of all living things on Earth and we know that it had to come from somewhere.
Unless you have a better explanation, one that fits into a naturalistic framework as that is the framework within which science exists.
If I remember correctly the invisibility cloak that exists (how strange to write that) is for the infrared spectrum. Visible light may be harder because the range is broader, or I could be way off base. It's a gamble!
It's not domain-wide. Scribd is notorious (at least to me) for pushing irrelevant results to the top by generating a frame populated with recent searches to land on that page. I x the little bastards whenever I see them, but it only works on a per-search basis.
You can apparently perform domain blocking through Google's Custom Search Engine by tweaking the settings after initial setup, but I have never played with CSE to vouch for certain.
That was an excellent critique of my post, and I thank you for it.
Liberalism came later and was a rejection of *both* the left and the right. Left and right are both about using the power of the state to screw people for your benefit. Liberalism is the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals. ... So, you, by pretending that the right stands for liberalism and the actual right doesn't even exist aren't helping to promote a more honest dialog, you're helping promote a redefinition which removes the terms necessary to accurately describe the political landscape.
In my defense, there was a reason that I put "left" and "right" in quotes--I understand that they are shorthand labels that no longer accurately reflect today's political landscape (and haven't for decades). I didn't think about the extent to which this confuses the dialog and the consequences of doing so.
You say that a properly regulated market can approximate a free market; can you clarify the type of regulation you are talking about? Is it along the lines of what I wrote about--laws regarding fraud and negligence--or something else entirely?
The recent bailout is a right wing initiative.
I realize this is correct within the context of your other statements, but I am compelled to clarify that the bailouts received a staggering amount of bipartisan support, making it clear that you are not referring only to Republicans.
My intent is to be an advocate of the liberalism you wrote about, "the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals." Thanks for giving me pointers on making that position clearer in the future.
Both posts above should be highly modded because people need to realize that even if you are a single-issue voter, there is no such thing as a single-issue politician.
What the "left," or at least presumed "left" member nomadic, also needs to realize is that just because the "right" doesn't like government regulation doesn't mean that they all believe corporate power should be unlimited. Neocons, sure, but the growing number of pre-2000 party platform republicans (I had to restrain myself from writing "real republicans" (and still included it parenthetically!)) think that government regulation gives corporations more chances to skew regulations in their favor, and that a free market adhering to existing laws against fraud and negligence would do the same job better by getting rid of costs of compliance (i.e. mountains of paperwork).
Of course, you are welcome to disagree that this will work because neither regulation nor free markets have a pristine track record, hence the continued debate, but claiming that the "right" wants to be ruled by powerful corporations because of deregulation is like claiming that the "left" likes to kill babies because they want to allow the choice of abortion. Some fanatics do indeed claim this, but returning specious vitriol with more specious vitriol only results in more of what osgeek was lamenting.
The more honest dialog we have, the more the non-partisan corruption in congress will begin to stick out. You have to see it before you can excise it.
in the nicest way possible: What waffle. There's not one rational argument in there.
LOL, thanks for the candor!
You're trying to imply there are limits to what understandings can be reached through the scientific method and hence (presumably) that there is certain understanding which can only come to us via belief in a divinity.
I must not be writing clearly because this is what people keep taking me to mean. Yes, I am stating that there are limits to what understandings can be reached through the scientific method, but the bit about divinity does not necessarily follow and I am not trying to sneak God in through the back door.
Where exactly do you see scientists arguing against any of the above endeavours? [meaning politics, art, history]
When they claim to possess the only path to understanding. Not everybody appreciates art, yet art leads some minds to a greater understanding of the world around them. Politics sits in the uncomfortable spot between ideals and real situations, and its problems (balancing the needs and wants of communities and individuals) cannot be perfected--though by action based on proper statistical studies individual situations may be improved. Even so there will always be diverging viewpoints because rational conclusions can be drawn in dozens of directions just by weighing each datum's importance differently, which each person is bound to do according to his tastes. History is a collection of experiences, often contradictory, and its haphazard nature defies classification without over-generalization, yet when one has taken in enough of it truths about the human condition emerge though they are rarely tagged with the adjectives "always" and "never." Not everything that is experienced can be quantified, and as science's role is one of quantification it makes perfect sense that it would not hold sway in these areas.
It may simply be that the point is subtle and people keep looking for more than what's there--entirely plausible since my thoughts are largely based on reading William James, whose pragmatism continually suffers for that same reason. To end with some of his words on the topic, "Science must constantly be reminded that her purposes are not the only purposes and that the order of uniform causation which she has use for, and is therefore right in postulating, may be enveloped in a wider order, on which she has no claim at all."
And indeed you sound like a typical pompous ass. =)
The truth is that although we have made rudimentary steps in brain scanning, there are people who have the ability to recognize microexpressions, involuntary flashes of your true feelings that break through the expression you wear as a mask. First Google result has some details and also appears to be written by a pompous ass, so you should check it out.
This is by no means perfect, but it is light years ahead of any fancy-pants brain scanner that exists right now, and considering that this ability has presumably been present in humans since we learned the art of deception, I'd say it's pretty well-tested--we can all probably point to someone who can tell when we're not happy despite all outward appearances.
As opposed to...what? Does the new Id engine have real sky or something? How does that work? Does it require leaving the house? If so, you've been had.
He wasn't talking about engine tech, he was talking about level design and I agree completely.
Man, I'm glad that we have Anonymous Coward to explain these letter substitutions for us. The funny thing is that in the two ACs here were probably the same guy.
I expected nothing less, nor am I disappointed by it! I enter into debates (arguments, conversations, whatever) with the goal of making things clearer. I hope that there will be people out there who agree with me or are persuaded by my words, but I don't set out to make converts. I'd usually rather talk to people with differing viewpoints because then we actually have something to discuss.
For this reason, I am not sure that I have much else to offer on the topic. There comes a point where we will either end up talking in circles (which I am in danger of beginning if I respond to you about ethics) or simply proselytizing. I have a few final comments, though I won't be making any more arguments below.
Religion is ultimately about power, control over others, even if the practitioners don't realize it in themselves
Certainly there is an aspect of organized religion that is about power. Some of the less hierarchical religions like Buddhism do not suffer from this problem, so I cannot lump them all together as you have. Interestingly, even in Christianity there has been a slow, unsteady march away from hierarchy: a rebellion against the rigorous Catholic Church hierarchy gave rise to the Reformation and Protestantism while even more recently there has been a reaction to Protestant hierarchies through the emergent church movement. This is to say that while I acknowledge the power structures in place and that they tend to do more harm than good, they are not central to what a religion is. A religious hierarchy is much like the power structure you mentioned that pushes for cures over preventions: it isn't really science but it influences science, and in this case not in a good way.
On the topic of sums and wholes: here again I think we are at an impasse. Let me use a chunk of your text:
Consider a hydro dam. The river, by itself, won't generate electricity. Neither will the dam, nor the generators. However, put them all together, and you have something new - electrical power from gravity acting on water.
From my perspective, I take your words at face value when you say "you have something new." I think that all of the constituent parts plus a certain configuration expresses a new whole that cannot be understood except for in and of itself. That is, it is a hydroelectric dam only when it is fully assembled and operational (and yes, I see a "broken hyrdro dam" as being a wholly different yet related thing). Unfortunately I haven't thought about the topic long enough or clearly enough to be able to articulate what I mean other than a sense of wonder that here is this thing that was not here before yet is now. That same wonder drives inventors, scientists, thinkers, and others by leaps and bounds to bring more originality to the world, so I don't plan on giving it up.
I recently discovered a wonderful radio show called Radiolab, and the episode I heard most recently was about emergence (unrelated to the emergent church I linked above, but oddly enough this is what gave me the idea to include that in my response and not the other way around). The whole show can be listened to or downloaded from that link and there is a good summary as well; a hypersummary would be "Ants, neurons, cities: who is in charge and how do they solve problems? Nobody and we're not really sure." It's certainly not required listening, but it touches on what we have been discussing, it evokes in me the sense of wonder I mentioned above, and you may find it interesting (the same goes for anyone else who is still reading through this thread).
I am glad that we were able to have a discussion because although we still disagree, I sense that you don't think I'm as much of an idiot as you did when we started, and I definitely think more highly of you for your willingness to hear me out and understand the position I take, especially as it is one that isn't easy to pin down even for me.
Just so we're clear, scientism isn't some word I made up, so you can stop inflecting finger-quotes every time you type it =) Its use dates back to at least 1980 and probably further--certainly the concept has been around since William James' writings around the turn of the 20th century.
Scientism is extreme in the sense that it has a healthy skepticism about everything except for its own ability to make true, complete statements about reality. There is little more than lip service paid to the truth that science does not dictate reality but models it, meaning that in practice any suggestion that there are domains not covered by science is seen as a failure of weak minds instead of a respect for the limits of science. To tweak a quote often lobbed at monotheists: we are both skeptics, I just take it one belief further than you do.
(One sad consequence of scientism is that it is now looked down upon in certain circles to use the words "faith" and "belief" without attempting to say-it-without-saying-it as you did above. If you didn't mean the word "belief" then use something else, but remember too that they are not dirty words--don't avoid using them for fear of guilt by association!)
The things I have mentioned elsewhere--politics, art, history--are not scientific pursuits nor can they be studied in a scientific manner, and their value is disputed only by extremists of one stripe or another and those who have too little knowledge of those topics to make meaningful statements about them.
I submit that there is a certain type of person who feels threatened by a lack of ability to understand everything about the world in which he lives. He can take comfort in a belief that science will explain everything eventually, but in doing so he misses the purpose of scientific pursuit, namely to make more sense of the world around us. In this way he is very much like the man who follows a religion out of fear of death, completely missing its affirmation of life.
"In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit"
I am having a hard time reading this without the "In Soviet Russia..." meme inflection. Or was that infliction? At any rate, it leaves me oddly dissatisfied that there is no joke there. Sort of like most of the real memes.
Yes, God forbid I ask a question of someone who appears knowledgeable and interested in a related topic, also giving a chance to some other interested party to respond. Nope, I should take whatever pre-packaged info already exists provided I tweak the query enough to get something relevant.
I prefer my information to be organic, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never heard of philosophy being applied to computer science, but I'm interested. I was going to ask you for links, but I found this one, which seems like a decently broad introduction. Honestly, many of the questions in the summary list there strike me as pointless navel-gazing (What are the differences between programs and algorithms?) and others as foolish (Should programs be considered as scientific theories?), lending some weight to the nonsense called out by your parent troll, but there are a few good ones as well (Can the notion of computational thinking withstand philosophical scrutiny?).
I should also note that your list of the most significant philosophers is incomplete without the American philosopher William James, whose definition of truth as a process has had a very significant effect on most later philosophers; in it we also find the seeds of that modern virtue, pluralism. His desire to keep philosophy useful instead of merely academic was also very admirable, even if this view was ultimately discarded by others in favor of quibbling academic arguments couched in obtuse language and of no use to the vast majority of people interested in finding one to live by.
If James had had his way, you probably wouldn't have had to contend with your parent troll, but then again you probably wouldn't have forgotten that there is an American on the most significant philosophers list, either, negating your original post AND the troll's response :)
The model is not the reality. What current Quantum Mechanics describes as random could very well be deterministic in a later, more accurate model.
...or not. Unless and until it's shown to be deterministic, there's no point in treating it as such. It's fun to think about future models, but the reality is that we can currently see no determinism there, so for us it is functionally, meaning truly, random.
Didn't QM experiments show that nonlocal effects exist? And don't nonlocal effects violate causality, throwing universal determinism out the window? Or is this a falsifiability thing?
Nope. With a complete mapping of the brains of every person on Earth (including current status) and a sufficient simulator, the posts could be predicted.
I believe the Greeks called such a system Deus Ex Machina =p
publishes earnest, well-written science fiction
This is, of course, a matter of opinion. The rest of your comment (talented, successful, made an impact, etc.) I can agree with, but the three or four stories of his I have read all displayed a mediocre writing style. That's not to say that he should stop writing stories; there are obviously a lot of geeks out there who enjoy them. I myself had fun with his strange tale of the son of a mountain and a dishwasher, but there's a big difference between "spinning a good yarn" and "writing well," and the ability to do one never guarantees the ability to do the other. William Gibson is a good example of the latter eclipsing the former, while Gene Wolfe unquestionably possesses mastery of both story and style. Cory Doctorow is a very readable writer and tells entertaining (and sometimes poignant) stories. Just don't expect to encounter something where every sentence is carefully crafted and a pleasure to read regardless of the context in which it sits.
The old model Scion xB (2004-2006, the one that's good ugly instead of bad ugly, though if you drove an Aztek it might not matter to you =p) would probably work well for you. I'm a little guy, but friends of mine at 6'4" can sit quite comfortably in both the front and back seats. I swear this car is a bit like the TARDIS in that respect. Its EPA MPG rating is 31 city 34 highway, and my napkin calculations show that it gets ~32 MPG with my driving habits.
Unfortunately, they screwed up the fuel efficiency when they went to the new design as well, but if you don't mind buying used it's definitely worth a test drive.
The flaw in your response is that poor spelling doesn't always equate to poor communication. Your use of "thru" is poor spelling, yet I knew exactly what you meant. Your use of "off" in "mode off communication" was poor spelling AND poor communication, and slowed down my parsing of the sentence. I don't think anyone would mistake "potatoe" for an unrelated word.
Now, you can argue that poor spelling reflects poorly on a person, because in certain circles that is the case, but it's not as simple to nail down as you have implied. Also, one highly publicized spelling error does not make one a poor speller unfit for his chosen profession.
(Not that I'm in the habit of defending Quayle either. I could care less about the individual...but only a little bit. It's people's perceptions that interest me.)
because outside of some fabricated scandals, so far, smooth sailing.
I take it that in "fabricated scandals" you're including the tax problems of appointees (including Secretary of the Treasury, for pete's sake) and the broken campaign promises including telecom immunity?
I assure you that these are genuine issues for people who care about integrity.
I know I've read about more on /. but they don't matter so much to me in comparison to the continued mishandling of the money supply - it's literally the biggest scam in the world, but that shit won't hit the fan until the Federal Reserve gets audited.
It's been building for a hell of a lot longer than when Bush (jr or sr) was in office. But by all means keep spreading FUD so that you can believe that your precious party is squeaky clean.
You've got it all wrong.
First of all, I am not an atheistic naturalist. I do, however, understand the limits of scientific inquiry, and my statements about those limits haven't made me very popular - see this recent thread for evidence (though you'll have to crank down your threshold - someone went back yesterday and unjustly modded most of my posts flamebait). It should be noted that one need not be a theist to recognize that science has limits, either.
Second, and related to the above, while science is a pursuit of knowledge the two terms are not at all synonymous. Otherwise the fields of history, literature, ethics, etc. would have disappeared long ago. There are great depths of meaning that cannot be gained scientifically to be found in Rabelais, Milton, Thoreau, and countless others. Can the words of Jesus be understood through science? Then do not tell me that science has exclusive rights to knowledge.
Third, there is no context other than naturalism in which science can be pursued. How do you propose to experiment with magic or miracles? A miracle is by its definition something that does not happen in the natural order of things. Science is powerless to make a statement about such an occurrence unless it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship. If it is able to determine a cause and effect relationship, then the event becomes part of the natural order of things, hence naturalism.
Don't accuse me of pushing my beliefs on you (as if you were forced to read this in the first place) when you are working from false premises in the first place. Once you get rid of those, you'll see that what I am saying supports your worldview better than an improper modification of science, and it causes less unhelpful friction (though still a considerable amount in some cases) with the "purely scientific" mindset. Virtually any atheistic naturalist on this board will agree fully with my third point, and any theistic supernaturalist (or whatever) who has seriously looked into the epistemology of science instead of simply trying to shoehorn it into their worldview will also. It is the second point that you should be fighting for, as that is the one under serious contention in this age, and you've gone and bulldozed it in favor of putting up a flimsy squatter's shack around a shabby definition that deserves to die of exposure.
Now THAT'S flamebait! =)
The fact that we have shown that it can happen tends to support the hypothesis that it did happen, because we know that RNA is a part of all living things on Earth and we know that it had to come from somewhere.
Unless you have a better explanation, one that fits into a naturalistic framework as that is the framework within which science exists.
If I remember correctly the invisibility cloak that exists (how strange to write that) is for the infrared spectrum. Visible light may be harder because the range is broader, or I could be way off base. It's a gamble!
Are you really all that amazed by "Wow! That guy bought a product and used it! On stage!"?!?
I don't know...does it run Linux?
It's not domain-wide. Scribd is notorious (at least to me) for pushing irrelevant results to the top by generating a frame populated with recent searches to land on that page. I x the little bastards whenever I see them, but it only works on a per-search basis.
You can apparently perform domain blocking through Google's Custom Search Engine by tweaking the settings after initial setup, but I have never played with CSE to vouch for certain.
That was an excellent critique of my post, and I thank you for it.
Liberalism came later and was a rejection of *both* the left and the right. Left and right are both about using the power of the state to screw people for your benefit. Liberalism is the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals.
...
So, you, by pretending that the right stands for liberalism and the actual right doesn't even exist aren't helping to promote a more honest dialog, you're helping promote a redefinition which removes the terms necessary to accurately describe the political landscape.
In my defense, there was a reason that I put "left" and "right" in quotes--I understand that they are shorthand labels that no longer accurately reflect today's political landscape (and haven't for decades). I didn't think about the extent to which this confuses the dialog and the consequences of doing so.
You say that a properly regulated market can approximate a free market; can you clarify the type of regulation you are talking about? Is it along the lines of what I wrote about--laws regarding fraud and negligence--or something else entirely?
The recent bailout is a right wing initiative.
I realize this is correct within the context of your other statements, but I am compelled to clarify that the bailouts received a staggering amount of bipartisan support, making it clear that you are not referring only to Republicans.
My intent is to be an advocate of the liberalism you wrote about, "the philosophy that nobody or group should be able to use the power of the state for the purpose of screwing individuals." Thanks for giving me pointers on making that position clearer in the future.
Both posts above should be highly modded because people need to realize that even if you are a single-issue voter, there is no such thing as a single-issue politician.
What the "left," or at least presumed "left" member nomadic, also needs to realize is that just because the "right" doesn't like government regulation doesn't mean that they all believe corporate power should be unlimited. Neocons, sure, but the growing number of pre-2000 party platform republicans (I had to restrain myself from writing "real republicans" (and still included it parenthetically!)) think that government regulation gives corporations more chances to skew regulations in their favor, and that a free market adhering to existing laws against fraud and negligence would do the same job better by getting rid of costs of compliance (i.e. mountains of paperwork).
Of course, you are welcome to disagree that this will work because neither regulation nor free markets have a pristine track record, hence the continued debate, but claiming that the "right" wants to be ruled by powerful corporations because of deregulation is like claiming that the "left" likes to kill babies because they want to allow the choice of abortion. Some fanatics do indeed claim this, but returning specious vitriol with more specious vitriol only results in more of what osgeek was lamenting.
The more honest dialog we have, the more the non-partisan corruption in congress will begin to stick out. You have to see it before you can excise it.
Another logical fallacy would be criticizing GP's post without looking at who the author of the post is.
Nec hominem fallacy?
in the nicest way possible: What waffle. There's not one rational argument in there.
LOL, thanks for the candor!
You're trying to imply there are limits to what understandings can be reached through the scientific method and hence (presumably) that there is certain understanding which can only come to us via belief in a divinity.
I must not be writing clearly because this is what people keep taking me to mean. Yes, I am stating that there are limits to what understandings can be reached through the scientific method, but the bit about divinity does not necessarily follow and I am not trying to sneak God in through the back door.
Where exactly do you see scientists arguing against any of the above endeavours? [meaning politics, art, history]
When they claim to possess the only path to understanding. Not everybody appreciates art, yet art leads some minds to a greater understanding of the world around them. Politics sits in the uncomfortable spot between ideals and real situations, and its problems (balancing the needs and wants of communities and individuals) cannot be perfected--though by action based on proper statistical studies individual situations may be improved. Even so there will always be diverging viewpoints because rational conclusions can be drawn in dozens of directions just by weighing each datum's importance differently, which each person is bound to do according to his tastes. History is a collection of experiences, often contradictory, and its haphazard nature defies classification without over-generalization, yet when one has taken in enough of it truths about the human condition emerge though they are rarely tagged with the adjectives "always" and "never." Not everything that is experienced can be quantified, and as science's role is one of quantification it makes perfect sense that it would not hold sway in these areas.
It may simply be that the point is subtle and people keep looking for more than what's there--entirely plausible since my thoughts are largely based on reading William James, whose pragmatism continually suffers for that same reason. To end with some of his words on the topic, "Science must constantly be reminded that her purposes are not the only purposes and that the order of uniform causation which she has use for, and is therefore right in postulating, may be enveloped in a wider order, on which she has no claim at all."
And indeed you sound like a typical pompous ass. =)
The truth is that although we have made rudimentary steps in brain scanning, there are people who have the ability to recognize microexpressions, involuntary flashes of your true feelings that break through the expression you wear as a mask. First Google result has some details and also appears to be written by a pompous ass, so you should check it out.
This is by no means perfect, but it is light years ahead of any fancy-pants brain scanner that exists right now, and considering that this ability has presumably been present in humans since we learned the art of deception, I'd say it's pretty well-tested--we can all probably point to someone who can tell when we're not happy despite all outward appearances.
As opposed to...what? Does the new Id engine have real sky or something? How does that work? Does it require leaving the house? If so, you've been had.
He wasn't talking about engine tech, he was talking about level design and I agree completely.
Man, I'm glad that we have Anonymous Coward to explain these letter substitutions for us. The funny thing is that in the two ACs here were probably the same guy.
Fair enough, but I would still disagree :-)
I expected nothing less, nor am I disappointed by it! I enter into debates (arguments, conversations, whatever) with the goal of making things clearer. I hope that there will be people out there who agree with me or are persuaded by my words, but I don't set out to make converts. I'd usually rather talk to people with differing viewpoints because then we actually have something to discuss.
For this reason, I am not sure that I have much else to offer on the topic. There comes a point where we will either end up talking in circles (which I am in danger of beginning if I respond to you about ethics) or simply proselytizing. I have a few final comments, though I won't be making any more arguments below.
Religion is ultimately about power, control over others, even if the practitioners don't realize it in themselves
Certainly there is an aspect of organized religion that is about power. Some of the less hierarchical religions like Buddhism do not suffer from this problem, so I cannot lump them all together as you have. Interestingly, even in Christianity there has been a slow, unsteady march away from hierarchy: a rebellion against the rigorous Catholic Church hierarchy gave rise to the Reformation and Protestantism while even more recently there has been a reaction to Protestant hierarchies through the emergent church movement. This is to say that while I acknowledge the power structures in place and that they tend to do more harm than good, they are not central to what a religion is. A religious hierarchy is much like the power structure you mentioned that pushes for cures over preventions: it isn't really science but it influences science, and in this case not in a good way.
On the topic of sums and wholes: here again I think we are at an impasse. Let me use a chunk of your text:
Consider a hydro dam. The river, by itself, won't generate electricity. Neither will the dam, nor the generators. However, put them all together, and you have something new - electrical power from gravity acting on water.
From my perspective, I take your words at face value when you say "you have something new." I think that all of the constituent parts plus a certain configuration expresses a new whole that cannot be understood except for in and of itself. That is, it is a hydroelectric dam only when it is fully assembled and operational (and yes, I see a "broken hyrdro dam" as being a wholly different yet related thing). Unfortunately I haven't thought about the topic long enough or clearly enough to be able to articulate what I mean other than a sense of wonder that here is this thing that was not here before yet is now. That same wonder drives inventors, scientists, thinkers, and others by leaps and bounds to bring more originality to the world, so I don't plan on giving it up.
I recently discovered a wonderful radio show called Radiolab, and the episode I heard most recently was about emergence (unrelated to the emergent church I linked above, but oddly enough this is what gave me the idea to include that in my response and not the other way around). The whole show can be listened to or downloaded from that link and there is a good summary as well; a hypersummary would be "Ants, neurons, cities: who is in charge and how do they solve problems? Nobody and we're not really sure." It's certainly not required listening, but it touches on what we have been discussing, it evokes in me the sense of wonder I mentioned above, and you may find it interesting (the same goes for anyone else who is still reading through this thread).
I am glad that we were able to have a discussion because although we still disagree, I sense that you don't think I'm as much of an idiot as you did when we started, and I definitely think more highly of you for your willingness to hear me out and understand the position I take, especially as it is one that isn't easy to pin down even for me.
Just so we're clear, scientism isn't some word I made up, so you can stop inflecting finger-quotes every time you type it =) Its use dates back to at least 1980 and probably further--certainly the concept has been around since William James' writings around the turn of the 20th century.
Scientism is extreme in the sense that it has a healthy skepticism about everything except for its own ability to make true, complete statements about reality. There is little more than lip service paid to the truth that science does not dictate reality but models it, meaning that in practice any suggestion that there are domains not covered by science is seen as a failure of weak minds instead of a respect for the limits of science. To tweak a quote often lobbed at monotheists: we are both skeptics, I just take it one belief further than you do.
(One sad consequence of scientism is that it is now looked down upon in certain circles to use the words "faith" and "belief" without attempting to say-it-without-saying-it as you did above. If you didn't mean the word "belief" then use something else, but remember too that they are not dirty words--don't avoid using them for fear of guilt by association!)
The things I have mentioned elsewhere--politics, art, history--are not scientific pursuits nor can they be studied in a scientific manner, and their value is disputed only by extremists of one stripe or another and those who have too little knowledge of those topics to make meaningful statements about them.
I submit that there is a certain type of person who feels threatened by a lack of ability to understand everything about the world in which he lives. He can take comfort in a belief that science will explain everything eventually, but in doing so he misses the purpose of scientific pursuit, namely to make more sense of the world around us. In this way he is very much like the man who follows a religion out of fear of death, completely missing its affirmation of life.
"In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit"
I am having a hard time reading this without the "In Soviet Russia..." meme inflection. Or was that infliction? At any rate, it leaves me oddly dissatisfied that there is no joke there. Sort of like most of the real memes.
Yes, God forbid I ask a question of someone who appears knowledgeable and interested in a related topic, also giving a chance to some other interested party to respond. Nope, I should take whatever pre-packaged info already exists provided I tweak the query enough to get something relevant.
I prefer my information to be organic, thank you very much.