Don't know if you'll be back to check but you gave me some intelligent responses so I'll try to do the same. You're correct in pointing out some places that I could have been more specific; also I was thinking mainly in regard to creationism due to another comment.
As much as I'd accept that religious ideas might not be as scientifically valid as scientific ideas, universally less valid is a pretty big claim to make without first proving something about religion.
I had thought about the issue of scientific validity vs just validity, but then I couldn't think of any other framework for evaluating the validity of an idea. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about alternative methods for making objective and/or reasoned assessments, or an argument in favor of a non-objective method. Also, religions are typically the ones making the extraordinary claims, which leaves them with the burden of proof. This is part of why I referred to it as fiction, though 'inspired by actual events' may be a slightly fairer characterization.
When you're advocating scientific methods, you shouldn't try to prove things by saying "we can all see." I think that attempting to find/create such a list that would be (fairly) universally accepted (and proving that acceptance, of course) might help you see how non-monolithic science is.
Fair enough. I guess my point was simply that science reveals its inner workings (not the usual "everyone knows that's true"), as opposed to religion which I see as very intolerant of inspection and criticism. But, for your review, here are the principles I was thinking of
Falsifiability - there must be some conceivable event that would prove the idea incorrect.
Simplicity - Doesn't assert any more than is necessary to explain the observations
Predictive power - must give some insight into how things work thereby allowing us to predict how they will work in the future. Without this the idea has no real (scientific?) value.
These points seem so simple and straightforward that I'm unable to imagine a rational thought process that *isn't* based on them. The closest thing religions have to an equivalent tenet that I'm aware of is 'it says so here in this book'.
Re: science not being monolithic -- I'll certainly grant you that; however I think this is a major strength of science. Virtually every idea as at least one detractor. Everything from the wildest new theory the fundamental tenets are constantly being reassessed. This ensures that nothing is being overlooked or taken for granted. Incidentally, it really irritates me when I see people such as the creationists claiming that the handful of dissenting scientists either proves their side (while ignoring the opinion of the other 95%) or shows that science doesn't know what it's talking about and should be summarily dismissed. Certainly no idea can be proven as absolute fact, because the number of test cases is infinite. However, this doesn't make it any less irrational to treat well-researched science as if it were random speculation.
Sure, but for most of it, I don't do studying and experimenting. I just take most scientific conclusions on "faith." For example: Does oxygen (that lifegiving gas that sustains regular combustion) exist in the way that modern science claims? I believe so, but I'll never do an experiment to prove it. I just accept it.
Clearly we don't all go out and independently verify every finding we're told. However, I don't think this is the same as taking it on faith. I think we come to trust science because we're surrounded by results which match the predictions of scientific theories. I can't see how something similar could happen with religion because I'm not aware of any religions making testable predictions. Also, maybe you could elaborate on your reference to non-scientific evidence. Maybe this ties into your statement that your religion doesn't expect you to believe
All through this thread you keep saying religious ideas are just as valid as scientific ones, but that's simply not the case. Ideas based on facts are superior to fiction and superstition.
Science isn't true because it says so. It lays out a set of principles designed for making objective, logical assessments of the observable world. If you disagree with any of those basic tenets, feel free to enlighten us; but we can all see what they are and judge whether or not they achieve their goal of objectivity. On top of this foundation is a mountain of research. You're free to read reports, examine evidence, and conduct experiments yourself if there's anything you're skeptical of. If you *do* manage to find counter-evidence or come up with a better explanation for something, other scientists will be eager to verify and learn from your findings.
With religion, you're expected to believe what they say simply because they said it, which is exactly the opposite of science. By definition there isn't any evidence to examine, because it's all about faith. Preachers just grab whatever parts of the bible support their preconceived notions. A lot of the time those are good notions, but it's still based on fiction. That doesn't mean everyone has to stop going to church, but I think all the worthwhile parts of religion can be had without the superstition and dogma.
The main thing they're upset about is the Pope's condoning of Galileo's treatment way back when. At the time his views were... unconventional and destabilising, to say the least, and societies' tolerance for such was much lower than now. It's unfortunate, but that's human nature.
What the hell is with these attempts to excuse imprisoning someone for life and threatening them with death because you disagree with their theory? You say society's tolerance was much lower like that makes it all better. People in today's society should recognize that that kind of action is completely unacceptable and goes against the basic freedoms our society is founded on. For the pope to suggest that it wasn't a big deal shows that he is sympathetic toward that level of ignorance and intolerance.
It's not as if science is particularly tolerant of differing points of view. Even ignoring obvious things like the huge outcry over the teaching of creationism theory alongside evolution theory, any radical scientific theory and its proponents will be criticised heavily and unfairly until it's finally accepted. And then once it becomes accepted, anyone who still disagrees with it will be criticised and called irrational. It's unfortunate and not something to strive for, but again it's just human nature. I'd expect educated people to be aware of this.
It's absolutely offensive and astonishing that people keep trying to cast scientists as intolerant. You're really comparing science's rejection of bull with religion's rejection of facts? Scientists reject ideas that don't pass scientific muster -- not because they're intolerant, but because that's how being logical and rational works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; if you can't back up your crazy new claim with some sort of evidence, they're not interested. Unfortunately, the religious crowd has tricked a number of people (such as yourself) into talking about their bullshit as if it's on par with any other scientific theory. They take advantage of the way many people equate 'theory' with 'total speculation'. Gravity is a theory, even though it's tested trillions of times a day on our planet. Evolution is a theory based on a vast body of evidence, and predictions based on that theory have been proven correct (fish with limbs, dinosaurs with feathers). Discussing creationism in church is fine, but scientists *must* object when religious beliefs are passed off as facts, or even as being of equal merit; especially in educational settings.
Creationism is simply what some religious people *want* to believe is true. It has no body of evidence, and is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable and has no predictive power. Counter-evidence is simply dismissed as 'a test of faith'. It has no business being discussed in the same context as science. Creationism also doesn't answer anything; if you believe god did it, then you're left to answer 'where did god come from?" which is really the same question with an extra, unnecessary step. Similarly, if you believe god has always existed, why not believe the universe has always existed?
WTF do your links have to do with science? Maybe you've confused 'science' with 'marketing'. The last two, at least, are just gimmicks that take advantage of unquestioning gullability of the same type that religion likes to cultivate.
For that matter, what the heck was your point?
That 'whoosh' you heard was the entire concept of science going over your head. Nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but science can prove things to 99% certainty. Religion cannot prove anything to any degree of certainty. That's because scientific theories are derived by examining evidence. They are continuously refined as new discoveries are made. After a period with no contradictory evidence, they come to be 'fact', until we find need to refine them further.
In contrast, religious theories are pulled out of someones ass to support some preconceived notion, contradictory evidence is ignored, and criticism is discouraged. Religous types like to point to disagreement among scientists as a weakness of science when in reality it is its greatest strength. Science is constantly examining alternatives to ensure it has the correct answer, while religion shuns alternatives and simply *asserts* that it has the correct answer.
There's a big difference between ignoring that last 1% uncertainty of science to treat something as fact, and accepting some religious bozo's 100% unfounded claim as fact. Any attempt to equate the two is woefully misguided. Some 'assumptions' are in fact better than others.
You seem to have been misled. While many liberals want the government to make healthcare *available* to all, I'm not aware of any that want it to start making decisions about patient care. It's entirely possible for the government to pay for healthcare, or ensure private groups pay for it, without dictating terms to those who use it.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So unless you can argue that preventing the poisoning of citizens isn't providing for the general welfare of the US, congress clearly has the authority to create bodies such as the EPA.
How did it end up 180B light years across in only 16B years? Doesn't this imply that stuff was moving at least (180/2)/16=5.6 times the speed of light? What am I missing?
And why read the instructions if they don't have to? If it works right out of the box, why spend time reading the damn booklet? This means that the majority of unsecured wireless connections are likely that way because people don't know any better, not because they're Just Like You(tm) and want to share.
I think we just discovered why you should read the instructions. If you install this device and have it configured to offer up your bandwidth, don't be offended when people take you up on the offer. There are people who deliberately share their connections, and it's not the rest of the world's responsibility to determine if you're sharing on purpose. I'm sick of everything being designed around whoever has the most ignorance. Now, if you've set up any sort of access control that indicates that it's not public, and prevents connections from being made automatically, feel free to report trespassers.
By using their connection, whether they want you to or not, you are aiding them in breaking their TOS.
Again, not anyone else's problem. I didn't enter into an agreement with their ISP.
No, seriously, get it through your thick skull - that network isn't open because the guy who owns it reads slashdot and agrees with you. It's open because the guy doesn't know any better. However, his "stupidity" (reality: lack of interest in technology to the degree of yours) does not give you the "right" to steal.
No, Seriously. When you don't have the knowledge or inclination to do something yourself, you hire someone else to do it, or you live with the results. Give the kid down the street a couple bucks to spend 5 minutes setting up your connection if you're so worried that your neighbors might check their email.
If you were to win the argument that people should be free to share their connections with the world, you would kill ISPs as a business. It's tantamount to arguing that it should be perfectly legal for one guy at the top of an apartment building to pay for cable internet, and for every resident of that building to mod a Linksys router and get the whole building on a WDS mesh through one connection. I'm no fan of the cable company, believe me, but doing this is still not fair to business.
This is your worst argument yet. Why on earth would there be anything wrong with that? You're paying for a fixed amount of bandwidth, and if everyone's happy with 1/nth of it, that's their right. The costs the ISP incurs are based on the bandwidth, not the number of people sharing it. For the record, I've never had any reason to use anyone else's open access points whether intentional or not, but I have an open access point in my house.
Maybe this would be obvious if I understood real stocks better, but how do they determine the share price for imaginary stocks? As I read it, the 'idea stocks' use imaginary money, and only the people who implement the good ideas get real money bonuses. I also couldn't tell if they're locked at $10,000 or if they earn more monopoly money for backing ideas that turn out well, thereby giving them a bigger say in subsequent ideas.
My duty to my pregnant wife and four year old girl are more important to me than what you think of my manners.
Ah, so you're the only person in the world with a spouse, kids, or friends? You don't sound self-absorbed at all. Who exactly do you think manners are for if we're excluding everyone that meets those criteria?
And quit acting like you'd be unable to care for your family without all these gadgets. None of our parents had them.
Any one of us could have 2000 email accounts created by the end of the DAY, assuming they've got an electronic list of the people who need them. If this is any indication of their effectiveness, we may as well terminate the agency.
You might even find a useful ally within the customer's management hierarchy if you can provide sorely needed information without coming across like a condescending prick.
Sorry man, you're the only prick in this conversation. We're not talking about formatting a partition, or configuring a proxy server, or even USING email. Being unaware of the EXISTENCE of email is a pretty strong sign that you've been living in a shack in the mountains, or possibly under a bridge like you. Furthermore, hearing a word you don't know and repeatedly pretending it wasn't there is complete mental sloth.
I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder.
Claiming that a fertilized egg is the same as a human being is ridiculous. Claiming that a fetus at 8 months and three weeks is nothing like a living baby is ridiculous. What if, instead of taking an extremist stance, we go for a middle ground. First trimester, abortions are legal, no questions asked. After that, if the mother's health is in danger, then she gets the choice. I think something along these lines could get broad support, but both parties are taking absolute stances for partisan benefit.
And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution.
I think you're looking at this wrong. Where in the Constitution is the government given the right to restrict marraige? And how do you justify discriminating against a group of people just because they make you uncomfortable?
The republicans are using gay marriage to distract people from the real issues that actually affect all Americans, and to get support from the far right. Even if you're disgusted by gays and think they're all going to hell, hopefully you consider the handling of the Iraq war, the Katrina relief, the national debt, etc more important issues. The secrecy and invasiveness of this administration are incredible, and if you're not concerned about it, you probably haven't been paying attention.
I think we're best off when we have a divided congress, or a President with a hostile congress. Overall things are pretty good in the US, so if both parties can't come to an agreement, that tells me that the status quo is currently the best option for the country
I think you're right that too many footnotes would get in the way. Maybe a separate stylesheet that includes some notes for non-native english speakers or the less tech-savvy would be worth trying?
If you're worried about heat, pick up a 4U rack-mountable case on Ebay for $50-100 dollars, and skip the rack-mounting part. They usually have a 120mm fan in front of the drives, and 2-3 80mm fans in the middle of the case. And they can hold 8-12 drives.
I prefer to reward speed over quality. But that is a flexible rule too.
Great. Now people are going to abandon proof-reading altogether in an effort to submit their stories as quickly as possible. That hardly seems like a winning plan.
I'll wait the 30 seconds for the literate version, please.
(Some people do hide behind satire) as a way of expressing their political opinions.
but I'd say
Some people do hide behind (satire as a way of expressing their political opinions).
would be more accurate. Satire is a perfectly reasonable way to expess opinions, political or otherwise, and is worthy of being protected speech. It's only libel if you try to pass your opinions off as facts.
Slashdot Mirror
I had thought about the issue of scientific validity vs just validity, but then I couldn't think of any other framework for evaluating the validity of an idea. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about alternative methods for making objective and/or reasoned assessments, or an argument in favor of a non-objective method. Also, religions are typically the ones making the extraordinary claims, which leaves them with the burden of proof. This is part of why I referred to it as fiction, though 'inspired by actual events' may be a slightly fairer characterization.
Fair enough. I guess my point was simply that science reveals its inner workings (not the usual "everyone knows that's true"), as opposed to religion which I see as very intolerant of inspection and criticism. But, for your review, here are the principles I was thinking of
These points seem so simple and straightforward that I'm unable to imagine a rational thought process that *isn't* based on them. The closest thing religions have to an equivalent tenet that I'm aware of is 'it says so here in this book'.
Re: science not being monolithic -- I'll certainly grant you that; however I think this is a major strength of science. Virtually every idea as at least one detractor. Everything from the wildest new theory the fundamental tenets are constantly being reassessed. This ensures that nothing is being overlooked or taken for granted. Incidentally, it really irritates me when I see people such as the creationists claiming that the handful of dissenting scientists either proves their side (while ignoring the opinion of the other 95%) or shows that science doesn't know what it's talking about and should be summarily dismissed. Certainly no idea can be proven as absolute fact, because the number of test cases is infinite. However, this doesn't make it any less irrational to treat well-researched science as if it were random speculation.
Clearly we don't all go out and independently verify every finding we're told. However, I don't think this is the same as taking it on faith. I think we come to trust science because we're surrounded by results which match the predictions of scientific theories. I can't see how something similar could happen with religion because I'm not aware of any religions making testable predictions. Also, maybe you could elaborate on your reference to non-scientific evidence. Maybe this ties into your statement that your religion doesn't expect you to believe
So are you denying the existence of irrational nutcases or saying we should waste our time listening to them?
Science isn't true because it says so. It lays out a set of principles designed for making objective, logical assessments of the observable world. If you disagree with any of those basic tenets, feel free to enlighten us; but we can all see what they are and judge whether or not they achieve their goal of objectivity. On top of this foundation is a mountain of research. You're free to read reports, examine evidence, and conduct experiments yourself if there's anything you're skeptical of. If you *do* manage to find counter-evidence or come up with a better explanation for something, other scientists will be eager to verify and learn from your findings.
With religion, you're expected to believe what they say simply because they said it, which is exactly the opposite of science. By definition there isn't any evidence to examine, because it's all about faith. Preachers just grab whatever parts of the bible support their preconceived notions. A lot of the time those are good notions, but it's still based on fiction. That doesn't mean everyone has to stop going to church, but I think all the worthwhile parts of religion can be had without the superstition and dogma.
It's absolutely offensive and astonishing that people keep trying to cast scientists as intolerant. You're really comparing science's rejection of bull with religion's rejection of facts? Scientists reject ideas that don't pass scientific muster -- not because they're intolerant, but because that's how being logical and rational works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; if you can't back up your crazy new claim with some sort of evidence, they're not interested. Unfortunately, the religious crowd has tricked a number of people (such as yourself) into talking about their bullshit as if it's on par with any other scientific theory. They take advantage of the way many people equate 'theory' with 'total speculation'. Gravity is a theory, even though it's tested trillions of times a day on our planet. Evolution is a theory based on a vast body of evidence, and predictions based on that theory have been proven correct (fish with limbs, dinosaurs with feathers). Discussing creationism in church is fine, but scientists *must* object when religious beliefs are passed off as facts, or even as being of equal merit; especially in educational settings.
Creationism is simply what some religious people *want* to believe is true. It has no body of evidence, and is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable and has no predictive power. Counter-evidence is simply dismissed as 'a test of faith'. It has no business being discussed in the same context as science. Creationism also doesn't answer anything; if you believe god did it, then you're left to answer 'where did god come from?" which is really the same question with an extra, unnecessary step. Similarly, if you believe god has always existed, why not believe the universe has always existed?
WTF do your links have to do with science? Maybe you've confused 'science' with 'marketing'. The last two, at least, are just gimmicks that take advantage of unquestioning gullability of the same type that religion likes to cultivate. For that matter, what the heck was your point?
In contrast, religious theories are pulled out of someones ass to support some preconceived notion, contradictory evidence is ignored, and criticism is discouraged. Religous types like to point to disagreement among scientists as a weakness of science when in reality it is its greatest strength. Science is constantly examining alternatives to ensure it has the correct answer, while religion shuns alternatives and simply *asserts* that it has the correct answer.
There's a big difference between ignoring that last 1% uncertainty of science to treat something as fact, and accepting some religious bozo's 100% unfounded claim as fact. Any attempt to equate the two is woefully misguided. Some 'assumptions' are in fact better than others.
You seem to have been misled. While many liberals want the government to make healthcare *available* to all, I'm not aware of any that want it to start making decisions about patient care. It's entirely possible for the government to pay for healthcare, or ensure private groups pay for it, without dictating terms to those who use it.
How did it end up 180B light years across in only 16B years? Doesn't this imply that stuff was moving at least (180/2)/16=5.6 times the speed of light? What am I missing?
I think we just discovered why you should read the instructions. If you install this device and have it configured to offer up your bandwidth, don't be offended when people take you up on the offer. There are people who deliberately share their connections, and it's not the rest of the world's responsibility to determine if you're sharing on purpose. I'm sick of everything being designed around whoever has the most ignorance. Now, if you've set up any sort of access control that indicates that it's not public, and prevents connections from being made automatically, feel free to report trespassers.
Again, not anyone else's problem. I didn't enter into an agreement with their ISP.
No, Seriously. When you don't have the knowledge or inclination to do something yourself, you hire someone else to do it, or you live with the results. Give the kid down the street a couple bucks to spend 5 minutes setting up your connection if you're so worried that your neighbors might check their email.
This is your worst argument yet. Why on earth would there be anything wrong with that? You're paying for a fixed amount of bandwidth, and if everyone's happy with 1/nth of it, that's their right. The costs the ISP incurs are based on the bandwidth, not the number of people sharing it. For the record, I've never had any reason to use anyone else's open access points whether intentional or not, but I have an open access point in my house.
Let's set so double the killer! I guess all that left to do is point and go "Haa Haa!"
I see you're also using the trial version
Maybe this would be obvious if I understood real stocks better, but how do they determine the share price for imaginary stocks? As I read it, the 'idea stocks' use imaginary money, and only the people who implement the good ideas get real money bonuses. I also couldn't tell if they're locked at $10,000 or if they earn more monopoly money for backing ideas that turn out well, thereby giving them a bigger say in subsequent ideas.
Ah, so you're the only person in the world with a spouse, kids, or friends? You don't sound self-absorbed at all. Who exactly do you think manners are for if we're excluding everyone that meets those criteria? And quit acting like you'd be unable to care for your family without all these gadgets. None of our parents had them.
Any one of us could have 2000 email accounts created by the end of the DAY, assuming they've got an electronic list of the people who need them. If this is any indication of their effectiveness, we may as well terminate the agency.
Sorry man, you're the only prick in this conversation. We're not talking about formatting a partition, or configuring a proxy server, or even USING email. Being unaware of the EXISTENCE of email is a pretty strong sign that you've been living in a shack in the mountains, or possibly under a bridge like you. Furthermore, hearing a word you don't know and repeatedly pretending it wasn't there is complete mental sloth.
I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder. Claiming that a fertilized egg is the same as a human being is ridiculous. Claiming that a fetus at 8 months and three weeks is nothing like a living baby is ridiculous. What if, instead of taking an extremist stance, we go for a middle ground. First trimester, abortions are legal, no questions asked. After that, if the mother's health is in danger, then she gets the choice. I think something along these lines could get broad support, but both parties are taking absolute stances for partisan benefit.
And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. I think you're looking at this wrong. Where in the Constitution is the government given the right to restrict marraige? And how do you justify discriminating against a group of people just because they make you uncomfortable?
The republicans are using gay marriage to distract people from the real issues that actually affect all Americans, and to get support from the far right. Even if you're disgusted by gays and think they're all going to hell, hopefully you consider the handling of the Iraq war, the Katrina relief, the national debt, etc more important issues. The secrecy and invasiveness of this administration are incredible, and if you're not concerned about it, you probably haven't been paying attention.
I think we're best off when we have a divided congress, or a President with a hostile congress. Overall things are pretty good in the US, so if both parties can't come to an agreement, that tells me that the status quo is currently the best option for the country
.Maybe you're not familiar with what SSH stands for?
I think you meant "competitors"
I think you're right that too many footnotes would get in the way. Maybe a separate stylesheet that includes some notes for non-native english speakers or the less tech-savvy would be worth trying?
If you're worried about heat, pick up a 4U rack-mountable case on Ebay for $50-100 dollars, and skip the rack-mounting part. They usually have a 120mm fan in front of the drives, and 2-3 80mm fans in the middle of the case. And they can hold 8-12 drives.