Ok, first of all, we're talking about textbooks. The ones usually at issue are the ones for a science class, so the definition of science is relevant. Think about it -- even mixing traditional disciplines would be ugly. Do you want art appreciation showing up in a math class?
Also, you're strawmanning. I do care about truth -- as Matt Dillahunty says, "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible." It's just that science is, and historically has been, the most reliable way to discover truth.
However, your argument fails on so many levels it's absurd. It starts out with a classic God-of-the-gaps argument -- we don't understand, therefore, God did it. Once upon a time, we believed a bright glowing god rode a chariot across the sky every day, chasing the moon, and that's why the sun rises and sets -- now we know differently. Can you really not see why it makes sense to withhold belief until there's further evidence? There's no shame in saying "I don't know," especially when it can lead to "Let's find out."
You also seem to entirely lack a basic understanding of what rationality is. Yes, the ability to understand something is precisely what makes it rational -- that's what "rational" means.
The Bible does include some interesting details, like one calculation which suggests that Pi is 3, unless you read very carefully -- you just about have to invent some details to make the Bible not fail basic trigonometry. More than that, though, details are one way we can distinguish something truly remarkable from a mere lucky guess, or perhaps confirmation bias on the part of the reader.
As an example, the Bible calls the Earth a "Circle", and I've heard differing reports about whether the original word used translates merely as "Circle" or "Disk", or whether it's "Sphere" or "Ball". The problem is that if you're reading it as a skeptic, looking for things to doubt, you see "Circle" and you immediately laugh at the idea of the Earth as a flat disc. If you're reading it as a believer, looking for things to confirm what you already believe, you see it as a poetic way of writing "Sphere".
The problem is that without details, examples like this are useless at proving the veracity of the Bible -- and the fewer details they provide, the more possible views of the Universe they could fit, meaning any connection to things we know through modern science is coincidental. Trying to reconcile the two becomes extremely difficult, but if you apply Occam's Razor and view it as a set of fables passed among shepherds, it suddenly makes sense.
This is also the kind of thing you might think of automatically if you had training in the scientific method, or even in philosophy (like basic epistemology). If a set of entirely fictional fables passed among shepherds could read like the Bible does, then we can't use the Bible itself to prove that it's anything more than that.
It's also related to falsifiability -- the vaguer the details, the harder it is for you to come up with a situation where your theory would be proven wrong. If your theory can't be proven wrong, you have no way to test it, and you've lost that edge science has for finding truth -- because if you can test reliably, you can discover truth even when it isn't what you expected or wanted to find. Without that test, it's incredibly difficult and likely not humanly possible to escape your own biases.
So, really, I dare you. Tell me again that I don't care about truth.
while some kids will follow right up to the goody two shoes path
That's a caricature, and not terribly close to what's going on. I'm not suggesting these kids do everything exactly the way their parents want all the time. I'm suggesting they generally grow up to be good, well-rounded people, without their parents having to watch their every move.
It isn't that people are inherently evil. I believe that it is easier to be bad and/or difficult without reason, at the very least it is easier to be selfish...
Easier in the short term, but not in the long term, which is one of the many lessons you teach your kids when you teach them why to be good. "Because I said so" isn't going to cut it.
Hardly anyone actively tries to turn (their own) children in to their own definition of evil, because it generally doesn't take much effort.
Hardly anyone tries, so I doubt you have any evidence on which to base that... And no, anyone could turn their kid into an asshole. I would think it takes talent to make someone evil.
If it turns out to be "Climate Change" instead, and specifically "Global Cooling", that would indeed falsify Global Warming.
Also worth mentioning: Most of the actions we could take to reduce Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway. Fossil fuels won't last forever, and corn ethanol is actually taking food out of people's mouths.
Yes, exactly that. If he'd had an iPhone, he wouldn't have seen the message without at least opening an app, and he'd have better things to do than check Facebook.
will do anything and everything you don't want them to do. They can sense it like sharks sense blood.
Sorry, but no. Read GP again.
Yes, if you become the "bad guy" and are constantly on their case and giving them reasons to rebel, then yes, they will try to do things just because you don't want them to. However, that most likely means you fucked up.
After all, if your theory were correct, we'd be seeing a lot more suicides -- the ultimate thing you're not allowed to do, the ultimate way to get back at your parents.
Well, here's the thing, your kids will rebel unless it's a bad habit; then they wanna be just like you Dad.
So, what, they consciously go after things that are your bad habits, and things you don't want them to do? How does that make sense? Are you suggesting they want to be bad for the sole reason of being bad?
They only good think about children is making them.
Well, if you're right, the battle is already lost. You cannot control your kids 24/7, and the more you try, especially if it's just "because I said so," the more they're going to fight back.
There is an alternative, and contrary to your claim, I've seen that "Disney movie" approach work several times, including on myself.
I'm not an authority on this. Please scroll up and see some of the people who have replied to me -- in particular, this guy.
Keep in mind, I was replying to someone who claimed, without evidence, that Global Warming was a farce. If they can assert something without evidence, so can I.
However, both you and kimvette are asserting things without evidence, so I think I can, too. If you don't want this to be a shouting match, bring evidence.
Or read this; as recently as 2008, an updated paper (and peer-reviewed, too) reports similar results. Again, you are assuming that there is one single data source on which the entire theory hinges, without which it would fall like a house of cards -- and that just doesn't seem to be the case.
In response to your signature, you should make the data available because you wish to discover the truth. If there is something wrong with it, wouldn't you want to know?
So you assert that things exist of which you don't know?
I assert that there are currently thousands of people living in this building. I don't know all of them by name. Does that help?
I am not making a claim to absolute knowledge. It could turn out that only the people on my floor and a few nearby floors actually live here, and the rest of the building is abandoned. However, it seems like a reasonable assumption that it's mostly occupied, based on other observations. Even if I were to come across an abandoned room, I wouldn't immediately assume the rest of the building is abandoned -- it takes more than one to establish a trend.
You may also be conflating this with my "responding in kind" comment -- I was responding to someone who provided absolutely no evidence, so I didn't feel the need to provide any evidence. That doesn't mean I have none, only that I didn't provide it -- mostly because I'm lazy, but also because the burden is on the original poster.
Apparently, they didn't even try. The fastest compressor I know, lzop -1, shaves off almost 40 megs. The best one I know that we could reasonably expect people to have is lzma (included by default on Debian systems), and that cuts the file in half -- more than -- from 262 megs to 111 megs.
I hope the university has gzip compression enabled, but either way, whoever did this is wasting more than double bandwidth of their university in a slashdotting because they couldn't be bothered to compress files. WTF?
liar, you don't know of "thousands of other studies"
I never claimed to, so how does that make me a liar? I only asserted that they exist.
the truth is...
Liar, you're simply making assertions with no citations to back them up.
It may seem hypocritical, but you know what? You guys started it. The original post I was replying to asserted it was a "farce", yet provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. I'm simply responding in kind -- if you can assert something without evidence, so can I, and we can have a shouting match.
Or maybe, just maybe, someone will start bringing some facts into the discussion. Scroll up a bit, you'll find some actual intelligence (not mine) involved.
Your last source just links to your second-to-last source, in a convoluted way.
They also all seem to be talking about the same event, so I think I can safely drop this down to a single source (Raj Pachauri) you've managed to discredit.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken about the sheer number of other sources, I don't think this helps your case much.
now that global warming is proving to be a farce and the numbers are skewed,
Citation needed.
If you're talking about Climategate, sorry, I know it sounds like a cop-out, but that was an isolated incident. Thousands of other studies have confirmed that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible.
I'm not Christian, but it seems to me that many Christians don't even believe in original sin. Rather, they believe that God holds humans to an unreasonably high standard, such that pretty much every time you touch yourself -- probably every time you so much as pick your nose -- you've done something worthy of Hell, and only Jesus can save you.
More likely the gene to do this already existed but was disabled long ago by a mutation.
Do you have any evidence for that?
I'm too lazy right now, but it seems like you're ascribing to the "no new information" theory of Creationism. Go look up DonExodus on YouTube for a quick education.
Gravity is testable and repeatable on the trivial scales we can measure here on Earth. We can make predictions that extend out farther than that, and test them with telescopes.
The same is true of Evolution -- we can test it with small-scale experiments, but we can also predict what kinds of fossils we will find, and where we will find them -- and so far, it has held up.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't care about truth, just science.
Ok, first of all, we're talking about textbooks. The ones usually at issue are the ones for a science class, so the definition of science is relevant. Think about it -- even mixing traditional disciplines would be ugly. Do you want art appreciation showing up in a math class?
Also, you're strawmanning. I do care about truth -- as Matt Dillahunty says, "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible." It's just that science is, and historically has been, the most reliable way to discover truth.
However, your argument fails on so many levels it's absurd. It starts out with a classic God-of-the-gaps argument -- we don't understand, therefore, God did it. Once upon a time, we believed a bright glowing god rode a chariot across the sky every day, chasing the moon, and that's why the sun rises and sets -- now we know differently. Can you really not see why it makes sense to withhold belief until there's further evidence? There's no shame in saying "I don't know," especially when it can lead to "Let's find out."
You also seem to entirely lack a basic understanding of what rationality is. Yes, the ability to understand something is precisely what makes it rational -- that's what "rational" means.
The Bible does include some interesting details, like one calculation which suggests that Pi is 3, unless you read very carefully -- you just about have to invent some details to make the Bible not fail basic trigonometry. More than that, though, details are one way we can distinguish something truly remarkable from a mere lucky guess, or perhaps confirmation bias on the part of the reader.
As an example, the Bible calls the Earth a "Circle", and I've heard differing reports about whether the original word used translates merely as "Circle" or "Disk", or whether it's "Sphere" or "Ball". The problem is that if you're reading it as a skeptic, looking for things to doubt, you see "Circle" and you immediately laugh at the idea of the Earth as a flat disc. If you're reading it as a believer, looking for things to confirm what you already believe, you see it as a poetic way of writing "Sphere".
The problem is that without details, examples like this are useless at proving the veracity of the Bible -- and the fewer details they provide, the more possible views of the Universe they could fit, meaning any connection to things we know through modern science is coincidental. Trying to reconcile the two becomes extremely difficult, but if you apply Occam's Razor and view it as a set of fables passed among shepherds, it suddenly makes sense.
This is also the kind of thing you might think of automatically if you had training in the scientific method, or even in philosophy (like basic epistemology). If a set of entirely fictional fables passed among shepherds could read like the Bible does, then we can't use the Bible itself to prove that it's anything more than that.
It's also related to falsifiability -- the vaguer the details, the harder it is for you to come up with a situation where your theory would be proven wrong. If your theory can't be proven wrong, you have no way to test it, and you've lost that edge science has for finding truth -- because if you can test reliably, you can discover truth even when it isn't what you expected or wanted to find. Without that test, it's incredibly difficult and likely not humanly possible to escape your own biases.
So, really, I dare you. Tell me again that I don't care about truth.
while some kids will follow right up to the goody two shoes path
That's a caricature, and not terribly close to what's going on. I'm not suggesting these kids do everything exactly the way their parents want all the time. I'm suggesting they generally grow up to be good, well-rounded people, without their parents having to watch their every move.
It isn't that people are inherently evil. I believe that it is easier to be bad and/or difficult without reason, at the very least it is easier to be selfish...
Easier in the short term, but not in the long term, which is one of the many lessons you teach your kids when you teach them why to be good. "Because I said so" isn't going to cut it.
Hardly anyone actively tries to turn (their own) children in to their own definition of evil, because it generally doesn't take much effort.
Hardly anyone tries, so I doubt you have any evidence on which to base that... And no, anyone could turn their kid into an asshole. I would think it takes talent to make someone evil.
And also, unfortunately, yet another walled garden. Where's the XFN support?
If it turns out to be "Climate Change" instead, and specifically "Global Cooling", that would indeed falsify Global Warming.
Also worth mentioning: Most of the actions we could take to reduce Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway. Fossil fuels won't last forever, and corn ethanol is actually taking food out of people's mouths.
How about any that are at all related to what GP mentioned?
Yes, exactly that. If he'd had an iPhone, he wouldn't have seen the message without at least opening an app, and he'd have better things to do than check Facebook.
I suppose, in networking terms, it is a broadcast message instead of unicast or multicast.
In that case, a blog and an RSS reader would've accomplished the same thing.
will do anything and everything you don't want them to do. They can sense it like sharks sense blood.
Sorry, but no. Read GP again.
Yes, if you become the "bad guy" and are constantly on their case and giving them reasons to rebel, then yes, they will try to do things just because you don't want them to. However, that most likely means you fucked up.
After all, if your theory were correct, we'd be seeing a lot more suicides -- the ultimate thing you're not allowed to do, the ultimate way to get back at your parents.
Well, here's the thing, your kids will rebel unless it's a bad habit; then they wanna be just like you Dad.
So, what, they consciously go after things that are your bad habits, and things you don't want them to do? How does that make sense? Are you suggesting they want to be bad for the sole reason of being bad?
They only good think about children is making them.
Well, if you're right, the battle is already lost. You cannot control your kids 24/7, and the more you try, especially if it's just "because I said so," the more they're going to fight back.
There is an alternative, and contrary to your claim, I've seen that "Disney movie" approach work several times, including on myself.
Like what, exactly?
I'm not an authority on this. Please scroll up and see some of the people who have replied to me -- in particular, this guy.
Keep in mind, I was replying to someone who claimed, without evidence, that Global Warming was a farce. If they can assert something without evidence, so can I.
So the AGW camp is reduced to quoting from wikipedia?
So you ignored my second link to an abstract in PNAS. Thanks for that.
As for the signature, it is a quote from your hero, Dr. Jones.
I'll Paypal you $20 if you can find me saying, once, that Dr. Jones is my hero, or even that I have any respect for him at all.
Nice strawman, though.
Because the numbers do seem to back me up.
However, both you and kimvette are asserting things without evidence, so I think I can, too. If you don't want this to be a shouting match, bring evidence.
Or read this; as recently as 2008, an updated paper (and peer-reviewed, too) reports similar results. Again, you are assuming that there is one single data source on which the entire theory hinges, without which it would fall like a house of cards -- and that just doesn't seem to be the case.
In response to your signature, you should make the data available because you wish to discover the truth. If there is something wrong with it, wouldn't you want to know?
So you assert that things exist of which you don't know?
I assert that there are currently thousands of people living in this building. I don't know all of them by name. Does that help?
I am not making a claim to absolute knowledge. It could turn out that only the people on my floor and a few nearby floors actually live here, and the rest of the building is abandoned. However, it seems like a reasonable assumption that it's mostly occupied, based on other observations. Even if I were to come across an abandoned room, I wouldn't immediately assume the rest of the building is abandoned -- it takes more than one to establish a trend.
You may also be conflating this with my "responding in kind" comment -- I was responding to someone who provided absolutely no evidence, so I didn't feel the need to provide any evidence. That doesn't mean I have none, only that I didn't provide it -- mostly because I'm lazy, but also because the burden is on the original poster.
Apparently, they didn't even try. The fastest compressor I know, lzop -1, shaves off almost 40 megs. The best one I know that we could reasonably expect people to have is lzma (included by default on Debian systems), and that cuts the file in half -- more than -- from 262 megs to 111 megs.
I hope the university has gzip compression enabled, but either way, whoever did this is wasting more than double bandwidth of their university in a slashdotting because they couldn't be bothered to compress files. WTF?
The original server isn't doing too badly, so I'm using it as a webseed. I don't know how hard that would be to bake into the torrent itself...
...wow. Is it really not compressible, or did they not even try?
liar, you don't know of "thousands of other studies"
I never claimed to, so how does that make me a liar? I only asserted that they exist.
the truth is...
Liar, you're simply making assertions with no citations to back them up.
It may seem hypocritical, but you know what? You guys started it. The original post I was replying to asserted it was a "farce", yet provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. I'm simply responding in kind -- if you can assert something without evidence, so can I, and we can have a shouting match.
Or maybe, just maybe, someone will start bringing some facts into the discussion. Scroll up a bit, you'll find some actual intelligence (not mine) involved.
Your last source just links to your second-to-last source, in a convoluted way.
They also all seem to be talking about the same event, so I think I can safely drop this down to a single source (Raj Pachauri) you've managed to discredit.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken about the sheer number of other sources, I don't think this helps your case much.
now that global warming is proving to be a farce and the numbers are skewed,
Citation needed.
If you're talking about Climategate, sorry, I know it sounds like a cop-out, but that was an isolated incident. Thousands of other studies have confirmed that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible.
there was a time when they didn't understand the processes involved, and would have made the same argument.
So when you do understand, come back and let us know. Until you do, guess what? Not science.
The more relevant issue at hand is not whether creationism is true, the issue is whether or not it is science, and it's clearly not.
I'm not Christian, but it seems to me that many Christians don't even believe in original sin. Rather, they believe that God holds humans to an unreasonably high standard, such that pretty much every time you touch yourself -- probably every time you so much as pick your nose -- you've done something worthy of Hell, and only Jesus can save you.
More likely the gene to do this already existed but was disabled long ago by a mutation.
Do you have any evidence for that?
I'm too lazy right now, but it seems like you're ascribing to the "no new information" theory of Creationism. Go look up DonExodus on YouTube for a quick education.
Gravity is testable and repeatable on the trivial scales we can measure here on Earth. We can make predictions that extend out farther than that, and test them with telescopes.
The same is true of Evolution -- we can test it with small-scale experiments, but we can also predict what kinds of fossils we will find, and where we will find them -- and so far, it has held up.
So I'll echo GP here -- please, educate yourself.
...they just don't both belong in a science schoolbook. Put it in a religion class, maybe even a psychology class.