"Their use of religious exemptions aren't subject to any sort of empirical validation."
They are subject to a level of empirical validation of referencing the religion's defining documents. If someone was a Marxist, and they claimed "Marxism says X is true", I would expect them to show me where Marx actually said that. Or, at minimum, a direct logical inference to the claim from something else that was said by him, or by someone else making a similarly strict logical connection to his words or actions.
No such presentation can be made against vaccination, by reference to anything in scripture. If someone is claiming a vague association to something else entirely within scripture, they should be called on it. The rules of inferential logic don't change for theists or atheists.
Nobody needs to prove that antivax started way before people thought they caused autism and that they did so claiming religious freedom.
No, it isn't me that requires reading comprehension skills. You can't even read your own sentence. Per the standard practice of stringing together multiple dependent points of inappropriate generalization, irrelevant aspects to the question, and dropping historical context, so long as they make one specific unsupportable conclusion against the "target", you do the predictable. The history here is a clear case of anti-vaxxers all being theists, claiming a historically inapplicable "religious freedom", and on the other side, the non-religious who were clear on the science, universally on the "right side" despite the fact 99.9% of them didn't know what a virus even was?
You string vagaries and fallacious reasoning together to make a predetermined "point", which you consider fine as long as the conclusion is something you like. This is the essence of intellectual dishonesty. That is all you are proving. The realities of differing opinions within an overall context of limited scientific knowledge, by the population in general, is the actual characterizing situation. That is what the timeline shows.
Amusing. Your argument is "some people consider it" as useful for what is true.
Too broken to fix. I'll wait for evolution to take you out, while you play around the edges of vaccination with no rational coeherence and no beneficial intent or result for anyone.
I can only read per your bizarre logic. You claim it was within "the religious context", providing no evidence, and the vast, vast majority of religious people will never have heard anything whatsoever anti-vaxx within their community or church. Further, the popularization of this notion has mainly come through celebrities, through secular channels and without religious backing of their arguments (naturally, since there is none).
So, I deny that part has any validity. Then you name somebody (presumably someone who claimed to be religious himself) who faked some studies. Does the fact that scientific studies are faked on a vastly greater scale (as frequently discussed here on Slashdot), somehow invalidate science?
There is, quite simply nothing in scripture that argues against vaccination, therefore there is zero connection with the principles of religion, and your whole line of argument, which seems to have no intent to address "what is true" or "what should be objectively done" (i.e. anything useful) is a logically fallacious pathetic attempt at a smear, and nothing else.
What is the religious issue? How do vaccines relate to anything in the Bible? What is immoral about them?
a) there isn't one
b) they don't
c) nothing
With the overwhelming amount of evidence for their benefit, the Bible would advocate for them--under the basic directive to "love your neighbor as yourself", including not spreading diseases to them.
The secular direction on this would be, naturally, a pointless projection of erroneous guilt toward religion, and having -absolutely no- basis for this or any other moral direction. What right do you have to kill viruses? Are you saying people are somehow "special" as DNA permutations? On what basis would you make such a claim, other than by stealing -our- justification? Evolution certainly won't provide you with one.
The idea this is a "religious" issue is just a pathetic attempt at guilt-by-association by the Left.
The irrationality of this is all yours. There is no supportable religious principle to not vaccinate, and the people stirring up this controversy are not doing so on a supposed religious basis.
That aside, per basic epistemology (e.g. Aristotle), there is a justification for a separate category for an entity when there's a unique characteristic differentiating that entity from all other entities.
I'm going with "I have a soul" as my non-optional differentiating characteristic, as the most cursory analysis demonstrates there is no biological differentiator for the arbitrary distinctions between "hominids". Regardless of how many scientists subscribe to an arbitrary DNA division naming, and regardless if they try to non-sequitur philosophical gravitas by mimicking Latin naming conventions.
The rest of you hominids and general animals who reject "soul", can propose your own.
Spoiler alert: There isn't one, and if you claim you have, say, "rights" and Koko the gorilla doesn't, your stance is philosophically incoherent and you are deeply irrational on a profoundly fundamental level. At least you have a lot of company--with the rest of the secular Left.
Evolution will fix you when you inevitably get naturally deselected though. Keep the "faith"!
There are no permutations of your usages of "theory" or "model" which meet the exact scoping necessary to forward your irrational criteria.
No resolution to your definitional presentation/argumentation of these terms will stretch to address what you want it to. And your evasion of every question on what specific criteria you used to consider something "settled science" or not isn't helping your case.
Name off more pragmatic models. Doing so addresses no relevant point of the discussion. You have no way of knowing today's "settled science" isn't tomorrow's Luminiferous Ether. Even for the topics that send you into your spastically repetitive robot simulation. Period.
No, time didn't handle it yet. You're still here, evolution hasn't yet eliminated you (which it will).
You continue to goalpost-shift and equivocate.
There are no permutations of your usages of "theory" or "model" which meet the exact scoping necessary to forward your irrational criteria--that there are any theories, or models derived from, or conceptually overlapping them, which are in any sense "final" and curiously exclude the particular subjects of inquiry your bias wants them to.
To rephrase a question among those you continue to evade, at what -exact point- does a hypothesis become "settled science" and thus not subject to revision? I do not fail to understand peer review, or falsifiability criteria, or the standard mechanisms by which theories, and models, are -vetted- and thus pragmatically useful. However, these -never- transmute to "permanent fact", and to suggest so is to deny science. Even if you really, really feel you want to do so in a few particular cases, and imagine your hypocrisy isn't transparent every time you acknowledge there are multiple models for your daily weather, or, acknowledge multiple models exist, as provisional and pragmatic constructs, in any form of scientific work you may, supposedly, be involved in.
You're in the quite tedious false dichotomy camp of "science versus religion" which is perfectly willing to misrepresent science, in particular, hypocritical cases, because you have a line of inquiry you don't personally like. You won't damage your target, you -will- damage science, and that is why you should be opposed, for, as stated, the very short term which is the only timeframe relevant to anything regarding you.
ID is, arguably, falsified when -all- proposable IC structures are explained. The candidate biological structures haven't even all been enumerated, much less analyzed. That will happen only with the ongoing science of biology.
"Here's a way this particular thing might have happened, maybe" does not remotely falsify IC. It may show an error in Behe's reasoning about a particular plausible example case, it does nothing to refute ID per se.
Nor does a particular evolutionary pathway to the outcome falsify ID per se any more than looking at a car, and arguing, "look, there's a factory making it!" falsify that the car was designed.
Never thought deeply about it, and consequently I think he broke when confronted with that.
I now have a dozen AC post responses, regurgitating the same things in the same style, suspiciously like the repetitive spasms of a malfunctioning mind.
You are conflating "testability" with, well, whatever scientific status you feel like rhetorically arguing against. Irrationally.
QM Interpretations are obviously "models" of what reality is like. I'd feel mildly concerned now that you are overtly stupid, if -your- conflation and evasion weren't so painfully obvious.
Ah well, I'm sure you'll get your Darwin Award eventually.
You cannot "debunk" any of them based on testability. They are all testable in terms of not being demonstrably overtly false, but not in a manner that differentiates one as scientifically preferred. And the model of reality that results from each of them is vastly different.
Everything I've said regarding theories applies in exactly the same way to models. Dodge semantically all you like, but the very reason they are called models is that they are provisional with respect to how we are interacting with the subject matter. They are also fully revisable based on new data, and rarely will you find a single "perfect" model for a given domain, or one that fits "all" the data. We use multiple models, take weather models if you're ignorant of everything in the domain of, say, engineering. Your methodology is nonsense, as is your conceptualization of "science".
"It's a non-scientific theory meant to explain away an impetus for cosmology/evolution we don't fully understand, as a place-holder."
I suppose you feel that "random" is a causally-explainable and scientific concept, and not a "placeholder" then.
Okay, go ahead. Show me the specific underlying scientific steps of causality deterministically causing the "random" outcome. Otherwise, of course, "random mutation and natural selection" should be stricken from all textbooks as pseudoscience. No?
Supported by "all" empirical data? How do you test for that condition?
Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. Currently we have a half-dozen Interpretations of QM that are equally supported by "all" empirical data. And most of science maintains theories based on a preponderance of data. You are constricting to a very limited domain of science, and as in QM, your restriction does not hold. Then you irrationally generalize it to all of science, in a manner that not only does not represent science, but any of reality in general.
How do you propose science advances, if in order to be "science", a hypothesis has to be supported by "all" empirical data before it is even conceptualized?
Slashdot Mirror
"He doesn't care at all about politics. If you want something say what you want and what you're offering for it."
Okay, theology then. More of an esoteric principle than an exoteric one, but, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not sure that Stallman is fully versed in the relevant politics...
"Their use of religious exemptions aren't subject to any sort of empirical validation."
They are subject to a level of empirical validation of referencing the religion's defining documents. If someone was a Marxist, and they claimed "Marxism says X is true", I would expect them to show me where Marx actually said that. Or, at minimum, a direct logical inference to the claim from something else that was said by him, or by someone else making a similarly strict logical connection to his words or actions.
No such presentation can be made against vaccination, by reference to anything in scripture. If someone is claiming a vague association to something else entirely within scripture, they should be called on it. The rules of inferential logic don't change for theists or atheists.
Nobody needs to prove that antivax started way before people thought they caused autism and that they did so claiming religious freedom.
No, it isn't me that requires reading comprehension skills. You can't even read your own sentence. Per the standard practice of stringing together multiple dependent points of inappropriate generalization, irrelevant aspects to the question, and dropping historical context, so long as they make one specific unsupportable conclusion against the "target", you do the predictable. The history here is a clear case of anti-vaxxers all being theists, claiming a historically inapplicable "religious freedom", and on the other side, the non-religious who were clear on the science, universally on the "right side" despite the fact 99.9% of them didn't know what a virus even was?
You string vagaries and fallacious reasoning together to make a predetermined "point", which you consider fine as long as the conclusion is something you like. This is the essence of intellectual dishonesty. That is all you are proving. The realities of differing opinions within an overall context of limited scientific knowledge, by the population in general, is the actual characterizing situation. That is what the timeline shows.
For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men".
--Clement of Alexandria
Nobody needs to prove it, good, because it's directly false per the timeline I just posted from the quite-objective Measles and Rubella initiative.
Here it is again for you.
https://measlesrubellainitiati...
Hope it having pictures helps you. And don't get defensive about my "real life" because you demand yours end.
Amusing. Your argument is "some people consider it" as useful for what is true.
Too broken to fix. I'll wait for evolution to take you out, while you play around the edges of vaccination with no rational coeherence and no beneficial intent or result for anyone.
I'm not going to address such people who understand neither science nor their own religion.
A starting point for them.
I can only read per your bizarre logic. You claim it was within "the religious context", providing no evidence, and the vast, vast majority of religious people will never have heard anything whatsoever anti-vaxx within their community or church. Further, the popularization of this notion has mainly come through celebrities, through secular channels and without religious backing of their arguments (naturally, since there is none).
So, I deny that part has any validity. Then you name somebody (presumably someone who claimed to be religious himself) who faked some studies. Does the fact that scientific studies are faked on a vastly greater scale (as frequently discussed here on Slashdot), somehow invalidate science?
There is, quite simply nothing in scripture that argues against vaccination, therefore there is zero connection with the principles of religion, and your whole line of argument, which seems to have no intent to address "what is true" or "what should be objectively done" (i.e. anything useful) is a logically fallacious pathetic attempt at a smear, and nothing else.
What is the religious issue? How do vaccines relate to anything in the Bible? What is immoral about them?
a) there isn't one
b) they don't
c) nothing
With the overwhelming amount of evidence for their benefit, the Bible would advocate for them--under the basic directive to "love your neighbor as yourself", including not spreading diseases to them.
The secular direction on this would be, naturally, a pointless projection of erroneous guilt toward religion, and having -absolutely no- basis for this or any other moral direction. What right do you have to kill viruses? Are you saying people are somehow "special" as DNA permutations? On what basis would you make such a claim, other than by stealing -our- justification? Evolution certainly won't provide you with one.
I see in your sentence that somebody faked some studies. That doesn't connect it to religion anywhere but in Logical Fallacy Land.
In the interest of the actual topic at hand, though, here's a comprehensive timeline.
The idea this is a "religious" issue is just a pathetic attempt at guilt-by-association by the Left.
The irrationality of this is all yours. There is no supportable religious principle to not vaccinate, and the people stirring up this controversy are not doing so on a supposed religious basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
No, they don't.
That aside, per basic epistemology (e.g. Aristotle), there is a justification for a separate category for an entity when there's a unique characteristic differentiating that entity from all other entities.
I'm going with "I have a soul" as my non-optional differentiating characteristic, as the most cursory analysis demonstrates there is no biological differentiator for the arbitrary distinctions between "hominids". Regardless of how many scientists subscribe to an arbitrary DNA division naming, and regardless if they try to non-sequitur philosophical gravitas by mimicking Latin naming conventions.
The rest of you hominids and general animals who reject "soul", can propose your own.
Spoiler alert: There isn't one, and if you claim you have, say, "rights" and Koko the gorilla doesn't, your stance is philosophically incoherent and you are deeply irrational on a profoundly fundamental level. At least you have a lot of company--with the rest of the secular Left.
Evolution will fix you when you inevitably get naturally deselected though. Keep the "faith"!
There are no permutations of your usages of "theory" or "model" which meet the exact scoping necessary to forward your irrational criteria.
No resolution to your definitional presentation/argumentation of these terms will stretch to address what you want it to. And your evasion of every question on what specific criteria you used to consider something "settled science" or not isn't helping your case.
Name off more pragmatic models. Doing so addresses no relevant point of the discussion. You have no way of knowing today's "settled science" isn't tomorrow's Luminiferous Ether. Even for the topics that send you into your spastically repetitive robot simulation. Period.
No, time didn't handle it yet. You're still here, evolution hasn't yet eliminated you (which it will).
You continue to goalpost-shift and equivocate.
There are no permutations of your usages of "theory" or "model" which meet the exact scoping necessary to forward your irrational criteria--that there are any theories, or models derived from, or conceptually overlapping them, which are in any sense "final" and curiously exclude the particular subjects of inquiry your bias wants them to.
To rephrase a question among those you continue to evade, at what -exact point- does a hypothesis become "settled science" and thus not subject to revision? I do not fail to understand peer review, or falsifiability criteria, or the standard mechanisms by which theories, and models, are -vetted- and thus pragmatically useful. However, these -never- transmute to "permanent fact", and to suggest so is to deny science. Even if you really, really feel you want to do so in a few particular cases, and imagine your hypocrisy isn't transparent every time you acknowledge there are multiple models for your daily weather, or, acknowledge multiple models exist, as provisional and pragmatic constructs, in any form of scientific work you may, supposedly, be involved in.
You're in the quite tedious false dichotomy camp of "science versus religion" which is perfectly willing to misrepresent science, in particular, hypocritical cases, because you have a line of inquiry you don't personally like. You won't damage your target, you -will- damage science, and that is why you should be opposed, for, as stated, the very short term which is the only timeframe relevant to anything regarding you.
ID is, arguably, falsified when -all- proposable IC structures are explained. The candidate biological structures haven't even all been enumerated, much less analyzed. That will happen only with the ongoing science of biology.
"Here's a way this particular thing might have happened, maybe" does not remotely falsify IC. It may show an error in Behe's reasoning about a particular plausible example case, it does nothing to refute ID per se.
Nor does a particular evolutionary pathway to the outcome falsify ID per se any more than looking at a car, and arguing, "look, there's a factory making it!" falsify that the car was designed.
Never thought deeply about it, and consequently I think he broke when confronted with that.
I now have a dozen AC post responses, regurgitating the same things in the same style, suspiciously like the repetitive spasms of a malfunctioning mind.
I'll leave it there. Time will handle the rest.
Answer the question. The specific, scientifically verifiable steps that causally produce "random" outcomes.
It is only "useless" to you, who neither understand science nor it's demarcation.
"They're not complete models unless they address all data, including new data. If not, the model is revised until it does."
And now you've devolved into complete fantasy.
How do you know, right now, worldwide, that no new discoveries were made today that will modify any of your impervious-to-fact models?
You are conflating "testability" with, well, whatever scientific status you feel like rhetorically arguing against. Irrationally.
QM Interpretations are obviously "models" of what reality is like. I'd feel mildly concerned now that you are overtly stupid, if -your- conflation and evasion weren't so painfully obvious.
Ah well, I'm sure you'll get your Darwin Award eventually.
Hmm... you really are clueless about science.
Interpretations of QM
You cannot "debunk" any of them based on testability. They are all testable in terms of not being demonstrably overtly false, but not in a manner that differentiates one as scientifically preferred. And the model of reality that results from each of them is vastly different.
Everything I've said regarding theories applies in exactly the same way to models. Dodge semantically all you like, but the very reason they are called models is that they are provisional with respect to how we are interacting with the subject matter. They are also fully revisable based on new data, and rarely will you find a single "perfect" model for a given domain, or one that fits "all" the data. We use multiple models, take weather models if you're ignorant of everything in the domain of, say, engineering. Your methodology is nonsense, as is your conceptualization of "science".
"Random" is more of a "miracle" than "design" will ever be, scientifically speaking.
But as you were, and no need to apologize. Just stay useful.
"It's a non-scientific theory meant to explain away an impetus for cosmology/evolution we don't fully understand, as a place-holder."
I suppose you feel that "random" is a causally-explainable and scientific concept, and not a "placeholder" then.
Okay, go ahead. Show me the specific underlying scientific steps of causality deterministically causing the "random" outcome. Otherwise, of course, "random mutation and natural selection" should be stricken from all textbooks as pseudoscience. No?
You've done nothing resembling "calling me on my bullshit". You haven't even generated a single coherent argument.
Ah well, evolution will take you out for me.
Supported by "all" empirical data? How do you test for that condition?
Of course, that's a vast oversimplification. Currently we have a half-dozen Interpretations of QM that are equally supported by "all" empirical data. And most of science maintains theories based on a preponderance of data. You are constricting to a very limited domain of science, and as in QM, your restriction does not hold. Then you irrationally generalize it to all of science, in a manner that not only does not represent science, but any of reality in general.
How do you propose science advances, if in order to be "science", a hypothesis has to be supported by "all" empirical data before it is even conceptualized?