If you have come to your decision about god from careful observation and logic, then it is science. Or, at least, the aspects that you observed.
Faith is blind. I think you see that repeated pretty often in a lot of religions. Faith is having an idea about something without being able to observe it directly. In a sense, scientific issues for a lot of people are actually faith, because we need to believe that other people are performing experiments and drawing correct conclusions. But that belief is not science. Going back to the point, even granted that faith is blind, I do not think such belief is illogical, because it has a number of psychological and societal benefits. In addition, there is no way to falsify competing theories, either, so it's as illogical to believe in any of them. You could claim agnostic is superior in that situation, but I'm not convinced.
Also, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining: "When we say we have faith in God, it is because we have observed God's consistency in being faithful to His promises. It is like having faith in your parents, or having faith in your children. It does not mean believing that he exists." I am not sure how you can believe something is being consistent in its promises without believing that it exists. Or, at least, how that can be anything but vacuously true.
"I think the people of the first century that heard Jesus speak and ate with him and lived with him would disagree."
Why's that? They observed that Jesus ate with them. If they saw some miracles performed, then they observed that as well. These issues ceased to be faith the moment that they observed them happening. Their faith was that he was the son of god, and his message to the world was Truth in the uppercase sense. Modern christian faith is in his non-contemporaries believing or disbelieving in what he did or didn't do, or even in his existence, plus his message.
"So I guess Dark Matter (see recent Slashdot article) is not science. And neither was the ether. The notion of the ether was wrong. But it was still science."
Indirect observations are still observations. If adding dark matter to our current scientific theories makes them more accurate, then it is science until a better theory comes along.
It is possible to have faith in something that is falsifiable, but it's not really part of a scientific process. By rigidly choosing one axiomatic set, you have strayed from the realm of science to faith. The science is the testing of the hypotheses, the faith is your belief in them.
I don't believe in gravity, but it's a good theory to explain what most of us perceive. I believe there's a good chance that a man named Jesus existed, but that's not a predictive claim. It's not something that I can test for myself in any situation. If you were alive at the time, Jesus rising from the dead could be scientifically observed, but not for anyone else. Really, the existence of anything that can't be observed by a large number of contemporaries is not science, and that includes historical "fact." In case this is confusing, what I'm saying is that an issue that is initially science can become faith.
To use an example from the grandparent, I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but it has been mathematically demonstrated that if you start with certain logical axioms and define the numbers in the correct way, 1 + 1 = 2. There's nothing to say that our axioms of logic are superior to others or are any closer to "reality" than other axiom sets.
I think rather than my definition of faith being too narrow, your definition of science is too broad.
You selectively quoted, but you did not understand. I was saying as a logical tautology that the only thing that differentiates between correct and incorrect observations is majority consensus.
To rephrase it more simply: 1. Science is observation. 2. Observation is based on human perception, which is subjective. 3. Whether you believe in objective reality or not, our scientific reality is subjective.
If I come up with a scientific theory that's consistent and predictive of my perception, even if it is not predictive of your perception, there is no way to refute it except majority rules consensus.
"Consensus *can* be harmful, especially at the level of "everybody knows", where the underlying assumptions are not questioned."
I'm not saying blind consensus. I mean consensus in the sense of informed scientists who follow logical processes using the current research. I'm not saying don't question consensus. But when contradictory theories are proposed, they only become accepted science after the consensus agrees. How do you know that the bacteria which *really* causes ulcers was identified? Because this man came up with research and the consensus agreed that his research was valid. For those of us who aren't experts in the field, would you agree with the handful saying relativity is a sham (no matter how compelling his evidence may seem to the layman) or the larger community of physicists? It's not until the community accepts the argument, or at least fractures the consensus, that we can really formulate an opinion.
"Look two hundred years ago, the consensus among what passed for doctors was that bleeding was good for all kinds of things, and that washing one's hands was for the squeemish. Now we know better."
A failing of science, not consensus.
"And, no, we don't have to go with what most people perceive. We have to go with what science objectively can observe, over time."
This is the heart of my central point. We do not deal in some abstract Universal Truth named science, we deal in human perception. Truth with a capital T might exist, but we do not have access to it. When push comes to shove, the only thing that differentiates between correct and incorrect observations is majority rules perception.
"A consensus can change - they do all the time in the scientific world, as new facts are learned. And as history has proved, a consensus is not necessarily a good thing to base policy on."
They most certainly do change, and that's not a bad thing. Our collective understanding of science changes no matter what model you're using. I'm not sure how this is a blow to consensus, or what other model you propose for discovering The Truth About Science.
"Why is every competent biologist so worried about H5N1?"
I have absolutely no idea, but I'd love for you to enlighten me. Biology isn't my area of expertise, but I've been lead to believe that macroevolution isn't something you can really get your hands on and nail down.
"No its not, its based on empirical repeatable accurate measurements, not on whimsy."
You are assuming that it is possible for humans to determine what is absolutely accurate and that empirical measurements will be the same for everyone. Repeatable by its nature implies a majority-rules decision-making process. When is a measurement verified to be accurate? When a lot of people agree that it is. Even if you think that objective reality exists, you cannot presume that humans can perceive it. Your fundamental assumptions can neither be verified or disproven, and thus we can only rule out people whose experience is fundamentally divergent by overwhelming them with the number of people who view reality the way that we do.
Furthermore, you get into an area like mathematics, where you can theoretically sit down and verify every result on your own (except for a handful of distrusted computer results), and there are still a ton of papers that slip through with logical fallacies. In a scientific field, verifying results is tougher, and thus scientific truth varies subjectively with whose results you believe, the determination of which is a collective process.
I agree and disagree. To begin with, college is flexible. If you've learned your stuff in twelve years of public education and demonstrated it via AP or IB exams, you generally get a free pass on credits, which lets you move on to more complicated things.
Many of the people I know in college, including myself, have career paths that depend on that college education. A lot of engineers (materials, ceramics, etc). Art restoration. Law. Medicine. Teaching. I'm heading onto graduate work in mathematics.
That said, I know a lot of aimless people with degrees in business or liberal arts that don't really have any idea what they're doing. From previous experience, many of them end up working low-level white collar jobs that they should've been able to land without the degree. Note that I'm not picking on certain majors, just that they tend to attract the less focused. And there's a lot of people that just have no business being in college: third tier football players whose education is unimportant and whose sports aren't going to get them anywhere, people late to cash in on the comp sci boat that don't really understand what they're getting themselves into (my intro comp sci class had to teach basic computer use), and even some who seek to be academics but just don't have the brains for it.
I'm not sure what my overall message is, but I agree that we should back off the higher education craze a little bit.
"Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't."
Not really. I can do personal experiments with electricity and gravity. Math takes place entirely in the mind. I've experienced the curative power of medicine, I've used mobile phones and radios (and can build a rudimentary radio with an instruction manual and some supplies). Evolution is somewhat shakier, as it's something we can't directly observe and predictive tests are long-term.
"Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better."
Ah, but science is a democracy. Who says that your perceptions and my perceptions are the same? Our two experiments came out differently, which one is correct? Good science is a theory that predicts the perceptions of the majority of scientists. If you want to claim that this is Truth with a capital T, that's outside of the realm of science.
You are a pure evolutionist, in the sense that evolution as a science would not be able to tell whether the hand of an extrasensory being was involved or not. Science talks about what we can perceive, faith discusses what we can't.
But you have people on both extremes claiming one can dominate the other, when they are, in fact, not capable of influencing each other *by definition*. Faith that is observable is not faith. Science that is not observable is not science.
To answer your question, I don't really see a need to categorize yourself. Identifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality, and to a lot of needless problems when two people can't see past the groups they identify themselves with to realize that their beliefs are really very similar.
"What I am interested in, is what do people who think that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old, think when they pick up a National Geographic magazine, or turn on The Discovery Channel? Is all this information a big lie to them?"
It's a little tricky. My roommate, for example, is... somewhat of a creationist in the strict biblical sense, but he's also a very intelligent, logical person. He admits that it doesn't really add up with his scientific reasoning. Either way, he's not suggesting that it be added to a biology course.
Furthermore, a lot of the real zealots don't really watch Discovery Channel or pay attention to National Geographic. When you get your science from your minister and some ancient Romans, there's not much call for it. It's also not hard to make the leap to a giant scientific conspiracy, where everyone's just trying to keep their godless jobs -- people do the same kind of things with political factions and other beliefs that don't involve going to hell forever.
"It appears that everywhere around us we are exposed to information about the Earth being millions/billions of years old, and yet half of America does not believe this to be true? I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm just really confused about why/how people belive these things."
Another thing to be wary of, as pointed out, is that no one can agree about the nature of intelligent design. A lot of people simply observe the religious parts of intelligent design -- evolution might be the what and the how, but intelligent design is the why. And I'm fine with that. I think it's a perfectly valid religious belief. I'm fine with it being taught in schools alongside other religious beliefs -- in fact, it was part of my high school curriculum, in history class. This survey doesn't really tell us how the respondents defined intelligent design.
Also, consensus is all we have. Even if you buy into absolute truth, there's no way to be sure that you've discovered it. Someone that we've locked up in a psych ward might be seeing crazy lights flashing around and hear voices talking to him -- and who knows, they might be real! But we just have to go with what most people perceive.
"If taught correctly, creationism does not necessarily imply one religion. It implies intelligent design meaning God, gods or advanced aliens. And why shouldn't it be taught? If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it? Or are you worried that *gasp* some people might prefer to continue to adhere to their faith?"
Exactamundo. Except science and faith are two completely different things. Science is descriptive and predictive based on a sort of majority rules perception, faith is belief in something that exists beyond our perception. Once something exists in our perception, that aspect passes into the realm of the scientific. What makes evolution science is that tangible things that exist in perceptive reality have been discovered that support the theory. ID is presented as a faith issue, because (and feel free to correct me if you think I've overlooked something) the arguments for it are either purely abstract exercises with dubious logic or attacks against evolution. I mean dubious in a purely logical sense, and I freely admit that logic does not necessarily apply to faith. But it's the cornerstone of science.
"Growing up in America, I could never decide who had a greater missionary zeal: the Southern Baptists or the evolutionists, most of whom were not even fit to be called amateur biologists."
Here's where I may agree with you. How many that scoff at non-evolutionary beliefs actually know a real justification for evolution? However, most people can understand the two theories well enough to understand that one is faith and the other science.
S'true, but in a lot of neighborhoods it's tough to find people to get together and play without some sort of league. Plunking down money makes them actually show up.
Anyway, the main point was supposed to be that a working copy of DDR that can be used by two people simultaneously is about on par with what most people pay to play organized sports or work out. You're not shelling out extreme amounts of money for technogear any more than with a lot of other physical activities, and you don't see too many people bitching at hockey players, catchers, golfers, tennis players, football players, gym members, etc, etc, for spending too much money on their gear.
It's definitely much less humiliating than being the last guy running around the track, because everyone's partaking in a pretty humiliating activity. This is coming from a multitude of experience. In fact, after four years of sitting on my fat ass, I'm taking a college PE class, and it's pretty damaging to the ego, even in an environment were people are pretty supportive.
That said, I don't know if it's a great idea. In gym class you should be getting people exposed to team sports and outside on the field running around. It's once they get home or out of school that DDR becomes a better option.
On the nutrition point, much better to get kids active than give them advice that'll go in one ear and out the other. Being active is separate from your weight, and both are pretty key to your being healthy. You can be obese and still have decent stamina and some muscle. I'm about as heavy now as I was in high school, but I'm in much, much worse shape, because I just plain haven't been active. Better to keep the kids moving around and give them the resources for nutritional advice if they're into it, or maybe devote a semester's elective to it alongside gym class.
It's not really laziness, it's boredom. Like it or not, DDR is a very valid way to get lots and lots of people exercising that otherwise wouldn't.
And the equipment for two people to play simultaneously can be a PS1/PS2 ($20-$60 used, probably), a copy of one of the DDR games ($20), two dance pads (about $20 each on the cheap end). I daresay this is less than I spent on any of my team sports in terms of cleats, sneakers, uniforms, a baseball bat, a tennis racquet, sign-ups for a league... even weights, a bike, etc, etc.
Wow. They had a bunch of categories, but they made a poor decision about where to draw the "heavy" line. Let's see who's a heavy gamer:
My mom, who works twelve hour hospital shifts and hasn't touched a console since pong, plays a puzzle game on her computer a little bit every day.
I spend half my waking life on the computer playing some game or another.
My roommate spends about as much time as me on MMOs.
My friend down the hall picks up an RTS for an hour or two every week.
My sister whips out her cell phone at least once a week for some of those little puzzle things.
My uncle boots up a DOS space shooter for an hour or two every week.
Heavy usage should be more than once a week, and it'd be better based on raw hours than number of times. Someone screwing around with solitaire a couple times a week is different from someone devoting entire weekends to MMOs.
"Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that Archimedes came close, but other (more informed) sources say that he wasn't close and used geometry as everyone else did."
Well, define close to calculus. I've heard the claim based on his... I believe it was the area under... oh, I forget which curve. Either way, he was dealing with a method that at least suggested the idea of integration, but considered it a bit wacky to be playing with infinities and infinitesimals, so he turned back to geometry in the end. Newton actually had similar reservations and used geometry where he could.
"Well placed shots are not any more difficult in this realm than it is in existing spectator sport. It's all about having a good director who can frame up the right shot at the right time."
I tend to disagree. In most sports, you have a wide open arena, and a ball that's pretty much the center of all the action. In an FPS, you can have people fighting everywhere, and who knows where the exciting fights are going to be? Plus, it's easier to track and frame a relatively slow moving ball than a player circle strafing and bunny hopping like a jack rabbit while firing grenades or rockets down a couple different hallways at a threat you can't necessarily see.
Hence, my suggestion about not having live games. You can do some very interesting and even cinematic things with a capped demo if you know what's going to happen ahead of time. To wit, where exactly are the advantages of having a live game versus replaying it a day later with commentary from the players themselves? It seems like the presentation and the depth would both be far superior.
That said, there are certainly games and modes that could be done live, don't get me wrong. Most RTS could definitely be compelling, and certain FPS (like 2v2 Counter-Strike that was mentioned above, though I think that'd be boring as dirt to watch for almost everyone).
"Seriously, just because YOU do not understand the game, do not underestimate it.. It has plenty of dimensions.."
I don't think I was talking about a specific game. I understand plenty of them, thanks.
"Btw, the prime method for watching a Counter-Strike game is via HLTV - Halflife TV, there you are the producer and can do picture in picture, follow the player you like, or just roam around the map..."
Exactly. This is something you can't do on TV. See downloaded replays are much more interactive. Hence delaying it so that someone can edit together the highlights, giving it at least one advantage over just sitting down with it yourself.
Furthermore, maps in most FPS are much more complicated than a football field. How easy is it to always get a great angle to give people the live perspective? How much would that benefit from delaying it?
"So, live games can be broadcasted for sure, succesfully for anyone who knows the game, like with any other sport really."
And I point you to: there are a lot of people that are well-versed in it that can keep up with the game compellingly on live TV. Not so with video games. How many people do you honestly think know the game and its strategy well enough that can also articulate it compellingly off the cuff on live television?
First, it can't be live. There's no way to intelligently comment on a live video game, and essentially commentary is why people are watching. In most sports you can see displays of athletic prowess. Other sports (just using it as a term, don't want to debate what's a sport), like poker, you need interesting commentary. Poker is slow enough and widespread enough that there are a lot of people that are well-versed in it that can keep up with the game compellingly on live TV. Not so with video games. People aren't going to sit there watching someone else playing video games unless they're very dedicated, and downloaded replays are much more interactive.
So what do you do? Save the replay. Let both sides walk you through the game afterward and explain the problems they had at key steps, and how they lost the game. Explain their strategies for gamers that are interested in the specific game. This isn't going to be terribly compelling except in small chunks, but then again, it has almost no production cost.
Secondly, get someone that has some authenticity. People that obviously don't know what they're talking about discussing games just makes me angry. And I know a lot of my friends that feel the same way. MTV-style gaming shows don't really appeal to anyone, because gamers who aren't hardcore don't really want to watch gaming television, and people who are hardcore just despise it.
Third, fuck the cheat codes. No one, no one, no one watches TV to get cheat codes. I don't even buy strategy guides anymore unless they're very well made. Cheat Code TV is a shitty, shitty idea.
Fourth, as for content, how about interviews with industry leaders? People showing clips from upcoming games. Even spotlights on independent games, or mods. Or documentaries on the game-making process. Hell, I'm nerdy enough that I'd watch gaming news: suchandsuch a clan opened up dungeon X in WoW, patch Z was released for MMO_flavor_of_the_week with suchandsuch changes, soandso art designer quit company Q.
Finally, there could even be room for a debate-style show. Get industry "pundits" *shudder* together to discuss stuff that will at least inspire interesting flame wars. Are video games art? Is storyline important? Which console is shaping up to be the best? Do graphics matter? What's the best fighting game? Did Blizzard ruin balance in WoW with the latest patch? Is Jack Thompson a lunatic? Hell, bring Jack Thompson on to defend himself! Shit like that.
I think reviews, themselves, are becoming outmoded. I can go to a message board and get opinions from hundreds of other players that I know share similar interests with me. They know what I'm going to care about in a video game more than some random shlomo.
Video game magazines tend to be targeted at a different audience than me, and I'm not entirely sure what that audience is: maybe younger gamers, or those who aren't quite as involved. You get the opinions of one or two people, max, and possibly short scores from a handful of others that I don't know from Fatal1ty (Adam for the less hardk0re:P).
Finally, before I plunk down money on a game I try the demo. Even a lot of console games now have computer versions with demos. They might lag behind, but I usually stay a year or two behind the console trend because the pricing on their games are ridiculous (some computer games are guilty of this as well, but they tend to be more reasonable).
I still find some of the same idiots in college, mostly in the "areas of knowledge" requirement classes. It's annoying as hell to be sitting near a group of people who won't stop bitching about the course material. A couple times I fully expected the instructor to tell a couple kids to pack out of the class if they couldn't stop talking in the midst of lecture, but he was a bit too polite for that. In college you should be at the point where a meaningful glance from an instructor will shame you into finishing up your chattering.
The other thing is that there were still kids whining about the workload to the professor when it was fairly reasonable. I felt shame on their behalf for not being able to ante up to a couple pages worth of essay a week or a couple hundred pages of reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you separate faith in evolution from the science of evolution? Faith in science is not itself science.
If you have come to your decision about god from careful observation and logic, then it is science. Or, at least, the aspects that you observed.
Faith is blind. I think you see that repeated pretty often in a lot of religions. Faith is having an idea about something without being able to observe it directly. In a sense, scientific issues for a lot of people are actually faith, because we need to believe that other people are performing experiments and drawing correct conclusions. But that belief is not science. Going back to the point, even granted that faith is blind, I do not think such belief is illogical, because it has a number of psychological and societal benefits. In addition, there is no way to falsify competing theories, either, so it's as illogical to believe in any of them. You could claim agnostic is superior in that situation, but I'm not convinced.
Also, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining: "When we say we have faith in God, it is because we have observed God's consistency in being faithful to His promises. It is like having faith in your parents, or having faith in your children. It does not mean believing that he exists." I am not sure how you can believe something is being consistent in its promises without believing that it exists. Or, at least, how that can be anything but vacuously true.
"I think the people of the first century that heard Jesus speak and ate with him and lived with him would disagree."
Why's that? They observed that Jesus ate with them. If they saw some miracles performed, then they observed that as well. These issues ceased to be faith the moment that they observed them happening. Their faith was that he was the son of god, and his message to the world was Truth in the uppercase sense. Modern christian faith is in his non-contemporaries believing or disbelieving in what he did or didn't do, or even in his existence, plus his message.
"So I guess Dark Matter (see recent Slashdot article) is not science. And neither was the ether. The notion of the ether was wrong. But it was still science."
Indirect observations are still observations. If adding dark matter to our current scientific theories makes them more accurate, then it is science until a better theory comes along.
It is possible to have faith in something that is falsifiable, but it's not really part of a scientific process. By rigidly choosing one axiomatic set, you have strayed from the realm of science to faith. The science is the testing of the hypotheses, the faith is your belief in them.
I don't believe in gravity, but it's a good theory to explain what most of us perceive. I believe there's a good chance that a man named Jesus existed, but that's not a predictive claim. It's not something that I can test for myself in any situation. If you were alive at the time, Jesus rising from the dead could be scientifically observed, but not for anyone else. Really, the existence of anything that can't be observed by a large number of contemporaries is not science, and that includes historical "fact." In case this is confusing, what I'm saying is that an issue that is initially science can become faith.
To use an example from the grandparent, I don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but it has been mathematically demonstrated that if you start with certain logical axioms and define the numbers in the correct way, 1 + 1 = 2. There's nothing to say that our axioms of logic are superior to others or are any closer to "reality" than other axiom sets.
I think rather than my definition of faith being too narrow, your definition of science is too broad.
You selectively quoted, but you did not understand. I was saying as a logical tautology that the only thing that differentiates between correct and incorrect observations is majority consensus.
To rephrase it more simply:
1. Science is observation.
2. Observation is based on human perception, which is subjective.
3. Whether you believe in objective reality or not, our scientific reality is subjective.
If I come up with a scientific theory that's consistent and predictive of my perception, even if it is not predictive of your perception, there is no way to refute it except majority rules consensus.
"Consensus *can* be harmful, especially at the level of "everybody knows", where the underlying assumptions are not questioned."
I'm not saying blind consensus. I mean consensus in the sense of informed scientists who follow logical processes using the current research. I'm not saying don't question consensus. But when contradictory theories are proposed, they only become accepted science after the consensus agrees. How do you know that the bacteria which *really* causes ulcers was identified? Because this man came up with research and the consensus agreed that his research was valid. For those of us who aren't experts in the field, would you agree with the handful saying relativity is a sham (no matter how compelling his evidence may seem to the layman) or the larger community of physicists? It's not until the community accepts the argument, or at least fractures the consensus, that we can really formulate an opinion.
"Yeah, consensus! It's gotta be the best!"
The best that we have.
"Look two hundred years ago, the consensus among what passed for doctors was that bleeding was good for all kinds of things, and that washing one's hands was for the squeemish. Now we know better."
A failing of science, not consensus.
"And, no, we don't have to go with what most people perceive. We have to go with what science objectively can observe, over time."
This is the heart of my central point. We do not deal in some abstract Universal Truth named science, we deal in human perception. Truth with a capital T might exist, but we do not have access to it. When push comes to shove, the only thing that differentiates between correct and incorrect observations is majority rules perception.
"A consensus can change - they do all the time in the scientific world, as new facts are learned. And as history has proved, a consensus is not necessarily a good thing to base policy on."
They most certainly do change, and that's not a bad thing. Our collective understanding of science changes no matter what model you're using. I'm not sure how this is a blow to consensus, or what other model you propose for discovering The Truth About Science.
"Why is every competent biologist so worried about H5N1?"
I have absolutely no idea, but I'd love for you to enlighten me. Biology isn't my area of expertise, but I've been lead to believe that macroevolution isn't something you can really get your hands on and nail down.
"No its not, its based on empirical repeatable accurate measurements, not on whimsy."
You are assuming that it is possible for humans to determine what is absolutely accurate and that empirical measurements will be the same for everyone. Repeatable by its nature implies a majority-rules decision-making process. When is a measurement verified to be accurate? When a lot of people agree that it is. Even if you think that objective reality exists, you cannot presume that humans can perceive it. Your fundamental assumptions can neither be verified or disproven, and thus we can only rule out people whose experience is fundamentally divergent by overwhelming them with the number of people who view reality the way that we do.
Furthermore, you get into an area like mathematics, where you can theoretically sit down and verify every result on your own (except for a handful of distrusted computer results), and there are still a ton of papers that slip through with logical fallacies. In a scientific field, verifying results is tougher, and thus scientific truth varies subjectively with whose results you believe, the determination of which is a collective process.
I agree and disagree. To begin with, college is flexible. If you've learned your stuff in twelve years of public education and demonstrated it via AP or IB exams, you generally get a free pass on credits, which lets you move on to more complicated things.
Many of the people I know in college, including myself, have career paths that depend on that college education. A lot of engineers (materials, ceramics, etc). Art restoration. Law. Medicine. Teaching. I'm heading onto graduate work in mathematics.
That said, I know a lot of aimless people with degrees in business or liberal arts that don't really have any idea what they're doing. From previous experience, many of them end up working low-level white collar jobs that they should've been able to land without the degree. Note that I'm not picking on certain majors, just that they tend to attract the less focused. And there's a lot of people that just have no business being in college: third tier football players whose education is unimportant and whose sports aren't going to get them anywhere, people late to cash in on the comp sci boat that don't really understand what they're getting themselves into (my intro comp sci class had to teach basic computer use), and even some who seek to be academics but just don't have the brains for it.
I'm not sure what my overall message is, but I agree that we should back off the higher education craze a little bit.
"Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't."
Not really. I can do personal experiments with electricity and gravity. Math takes place entirely in the mind. I've experienced the curative power of medicine, I've used mobile phones and radios (and can build a rudimentary radio with an instruction manual and some supplies). Evolution is somewhat shakier, as it's something we can't directly observe and predictive tests are long-term.
"Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better."
Ah, but science is a democracy. Who says that your perceptions and my perceptions are the same? Our two experiments came out differently, which one is correct? Good science is a theory that predicts the perceptions of the majority of scientists. If you want to claim that this is Truth with a capital T, that's outside of the realm of science.
You are a pure evolutionist, in the sense that evolution as a science would not be able to tell whether the hand of an extrasensory being was involved or not. Science talks about what we can perceive, faith discusses what we can't.
But you have people on both extremes claiming one can dominate the other, when they are, in fact, not capable of influencing each other *by definition*. Faith that is observable is not faith. Science that is not observable is not science.
To answer your question, I don't really see a need to categorize yourself. Identifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality, and to a lot of needless problems when two people can't see past the groups they identify themselves with to realize that their beliefs are really very similar.
"What I am interested in, is what do people who think that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old, think when they pick up a National Geographic magazine, or turn on The Discovery Channel? Is all this information a big lie to them?"
It's a little tricky. My roommate, for example, is... somewhat of a creationist in the strict biblical sense, but he's also a very intelligent, logical person. He admits that it doesn't really add up with his scientific reasoning. Either way, he's not suggesting that it be added to a biology course.
Furthermore, a lot of the real zealots don't really watch Discovery Channel or pay attention to National Geographic. When you get your science from your minister and some ancient Romans, there's not much call for it. It's also not hard to make the leap to a giant scientific conspiracy, where everyone's just trying to keep their godless jobs -- people do the same kind of things with political factions and other beliefs that don't involve going to hell forever.
"It appears that everywhere around us we are exposed to information about the Earth being millions/billions of years old, and yet half of America does not believe this to be true? I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm just really confused about why/how people belive these things."
Another thing to be wary of, as pointed out, is that no one can agree about the nature of intelligent design. A lot of people simply observe the religious parts of intelligent design -- evolution might be the what and the how, but intelligent design is the why. And I'm fine with that. I think it's a perfectly valid religious belief. I'm fine with it being taught in schools alongside other religious beliefs -- in fact, it was part of my high school curriculum, in history class. This survey doesn't really tell us how the respondents defined intelligent design.
Also, consensus is all we have. Even if you buy into absolute truth, there's no way to be sure that you've discovered it. Someone that we've locked up in a psych ward might be seeing crazy lights flashing around and hear voices talking to him -- and who knows, they might be real! But we just have to go with what most people perceive.
"If taught correctly, creationism does not necessarily imply one religion. It implies intelligent design meaning God, gods or advanced aliens. And why shouldn't it be taught? If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it? Or are you worried that *gasp* some people might prefer to continue to adhere to their faith?"
Exactamundo. Except science and faith are two completely different things. Science is descriptive and predictive based on a sort of majority rules perception, faith is belief in something that exists beyond our perception. Once something exists in our perception, that aspect passes into the realm of the scientific. What makes evolution science is that tangible things that exist in perceptive reality have been discovered that support the theory. ID is presented as a faith issue, because (and feel free to correct me if you think I've overlooked something) the arguments for it are either purely abstract exercises with dubious logic or attacks against evolution. I mean dubious in a purely logical sense, and I freely admit that logic does not necessarily apply to faith. But it's the cornerstone of science.
"Growing up in America, I could never decide who had a greater missionary zeal: the Southern Baptists or the evolutionists, most of whom were not even fit to be called amateur biologists."
Here's where I may agree with you. How many that scoff at non-evolutionary beliefs actually know a real justification for evolution? However, most people can understand the two theories well enough to understand that one is faith and the other science.
S'true, but in a lot of neighborhoods it's tough to find people to get together and play without some sort of league. Plunking down money makes them actually show up.
Anyway, the main point was supposed to be that a working copy of DDR that can be used by two people simultaneously is about on par with what most people pay to play organized sports or work out. You're not shelling out extreme amounts of money for technogear any more than with a lot of other physical activities, and you don't see too many people bitching at hockey players, catchers, golfers, tennis players, football players, gym members, etc, etc, for spending too much money on their gear.
It's definitely much less humiliating than being the last guy running around the track, because everyone's partaking in a pretty humiliating activity. This is coming from a multitude of experience. In fact, after four years of sitting on my fat ass, I'm taking a college PE class, and it's pretty damaging to the ego, even in an environment were people are pretty supportive.
That said, I don't know if it's a great idea. In gym class you should be getting people exposed to team sports and outside on the field running around. It's once they get home or out of school that DDR becomes a better option.
On the nutrition point, much better to get kids active than give them advice that'll go in one ear and out the other. Being active is separate from your weight, and both are pretty key to your being healthy. You can be obese and still have decent stamina and some muscle. I'm about as heavy now as I was in high school, but I'm in much, much worse shape, because I just plain haven't been active. Better to keep the kids moving around and give them the resources for nutritional advice if they're into it, or maybe devote a semester's elective to it alongside gym class.
It's not really laziness, it's boredom. Like it or not, DDR is a very valid way to get lots and lots of people exercising that otherwise wouldn't.
And the equipment for two people to play simultaneously can be a PS1/PS2 ($20-$60 used, probably), a copy of one of the DDR games ($20), two dance pads (about $20 each on the cheap end). I daresay this is less than I spent on any of my team sports in terms of cleats, sneakers, uniforms, a baseball bat, a tennis racquet, sign-ups for a league... even weights, a bike, etc, etc.
Wow. They had a bunch of categories, but they made a poor decision about where to draw the "heavy" line. Let's see who's a heavy gamer:
My mom, who works twelve hour hospital shifts and hasn't touched a console since pong, plays a puzzle game on her computer a little bit every day.
I spend half my waking life on the computer playing some game or another.
My roommate spends about as much time as me on MMOs.
My friend down the hall picks up an RTS for an hour or two every week.
My sister whips out her cell phone at least once a week for some of those little puzzle things.
My uncle boots up a DOS space shooter for an hour or two every week.
Heavy usage should be more than once a week, and it'd be better based on raw hours than number of times. Someone screwing around with solitaire a couple times a week is different from someone devoting entire weekends to MMOs.
"Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that Archimedes came close, but other (more informed) sources say that he wasn't close and used geometry as everyone else did."
... I believe it was the area under... oh, I forget which curve. Either way, he was dealing with a method that at least suggested the idea of integration, but considered it a bit wacky to be playing with infinities and infinitesimals, so he turned back to geometry in the end. Newton actually had similar reservations and used geometry where he could.
Well, define close to calculus. I've heard the claim based on his
"Well placed shots are not any more difficult in this realm than it is in existing spectator sport. It's all about having a good director who can frame up the right shot at the right time."
I tend to disagree. In most sports, you have a wide open arena, and a ball that's pretty much the center of all the action. In an FPS, you can have people fighting everywhere, and who knows where the exciting fights are going to be? Plus, it's easier to track and frame a relatively slow moving ball than a player circle strafing and bunny hopping like a jack rabbit while firing grenades or rockets down a couple different hallways at a threat you can't necessarily see.
Hence, my suggestion about not having live games. You can do some very interesting and even cinematic things with a capped demo if you know what's going to happen ahead of time. To wit, where exactly are the advantages of having a live game versus replaying it a day later with commentary from the players themselves? It seems like the presentation and the depth would both be far superior.
That said, there are certainly games and modes that could be done live, don't get me wrong. Most RTS could definitely be compelling, and certain FPS (like 2v2 Counter-Strike that was mentioned above, though I think that'd be boring as dirt to watch for almost everyone).
"Seriously, just because YOU do not understand the game, do not underestimate it.. It has plenty of dimensions.."
I don't think I was talking about a specific game. I understand plenty of them, thanks.
"Btw, the prime method for watching a Counter-Strike game is via HLTV - Halflife TV, there you are the producer and can do picture in picture, follow the player you like, or just roam around the map..."
Exactly. This is something you can't do on TV. See downloaded replays are much more interactive. Hence delaying it so that someone can edit together the highlights, giving it at least one advantage over just sitting down with it yourself.
Furthermore, maps in most FPS are much more complicated than a football field. How easy is it to always get a great angle to give people the live perspective? How much would that benefit from delaying it?
"So, live games can be broadcasted for sure, succesfully for anyone who knows the game, like with any other sport really."
And I point you to: there are a lot of people that are well-versed in it that can keep up with the game compellingly on live TV. Not so with video games. How many people do you honestly think know the game and its strategy well enough that can also articulate it compellingly off the cuff on live television?
First, it can't be live. There's no way to intelligently comment on a live video game, and essentially commentary is why people are watching. In most sports you can see displays of athletic prowess. Other sports (just using it as a term, don't want to debate what's a sport), like poker, you need interesting commentary. Poker is slow enough and widespread enough that there are a lot of people that are well-versed in it that can keep up with the game compellingly on live TV. Not so with video games. People aren't going to sit there watching someone else playing video games unless they're very dedicated, and downloaded replays are much more interactive.
So what do you do? Save the replay. Let both sides walk you through the game afterward and explain the problems they had at key steps, and how they lost the game. Explain their strategies for gamers that are interested in the specific game. This isn't going to be terribly compelling except in small chunks, but then again, it has almost no production cost.
Secondly, get someone that has some authenticity. People that obviously don't know what they're talking about discussing games just makes me angry. And I know a lot of my friends that feel the same way. MTV-style gaming shows don't really appeal to anyone, because gamers who aren't hardcore don't really want to watch gaming television, and people who are hardcore just despise it.
Third, fuck the cheat codes. No one, no one, no one watches TV to get cheat codes. I don't even buy strategy guides anymore unless they're very well made. Cheat Code TV is a shitty, shitty idea.
Fourth, as for content, how about interviews with industry leaders? People showing clips from upcoming games. Even spotlights on independent games, or mods. Or documentaries on the game-making process. Hell, I'm nerdy enough that I'd watch gaming news: suchandsuch a clan opened up dungeon X in WoW, patch Z was released for MMO_flavor_of_the_week with suchandsuch changes, soandso art designer quit company Q.
Finally, there could even be room for a debate-style show. Get industry "pundits" *shudder* together to discuss stuff that will at least inspire interesting flame wars. Are video games art? Is storyline important? Which console is shaping up to be the best? Do graphics matter? What's the best fighting game? Did Blizzard ruin balance in WoW with the latest patch? Is Jack Thompson a lunatic? Hell, bring Jack Thompson on to defend himself! Shit like that.
I think reviews, themselves, are becoming outmoded. I can go to a message board and get opinions from hundreds of other players that I know share similar interests with me. They know what I'm going to care about in a video game more than some random shlomo.
:P).
Video game magazines tend to be targeted at a different audience than me, and I'm not entirely sure what that audience is: maybe younger gamers, or those who aren't quite as involved. You get the opinions of one or two people, max, and possibly short scores from a handful of others that I don't know from Fatal1ty (Adam for the less hardk0re
Finally, before I plunk down money on a game I try the demo. Even a lot of console games now have computer versions with demos. They might lag behind, but I usually stay a year or two behind the console trend because the pricing on their games are ridiculous (some computer games are guilty of this as well, but they tend to be more reasonable).
I still find some of the same idiots in college, mostly in the "areas of knowledge" requirement classes. It's annoying as hell to be sitting near a group of people who won't stop bitching about the course material. A couple times I fully expected the instructor to tell a couple kids to pack out of the class if they couldn't stop talking in the midst of lecture, but he was a bit too polite for that. In college you should be at the point where a meaningful glance from an instructor will shame you into finishing up your chattering.
The other thing is that there were still kids whining about the workload to the professor when it was fairly reasonable. I felt shame on their behalf for not being able to ante up to a couple pages worth of essay a week or a couple hundred pages of reading.