Oh, I dunno. How about something generally agreed upon to be random so far as we're concerned, like turbulence or radioactive decay? Or we could make up clever experiments involving phenomena which are fundamentally understood but too complex in practice for us to predict, and therefore couldn't be wholly designed.
If something like that managed to exhibit specified complexity, we'd have something.
Well, let's take the Bohr model as an example. Was it shown to be superflous? No, it was proven to be wrong. Unnecessery but possible is far from impossible.
Yes, but what's required to falsify ID? ID says that a designer is necessary to explain some of what we observe. If it turns out that there are reasonable naturalistic accounts for those things, ID is wrong.
If I had a theory that coyotes were stealing babies that had gone missing, it wouldn't be necessary to prove that coyotes don't exist or that it is imposssible for a coyote to steal a baby for me to be wrong.
William Dembski, who is probably the most recognized figure in ID, has provided mathematical backing to the notion of specified complexity, which is a test for design. This filter can be applied to a wide variety of things, not just biological complexity. If Dembski's filter indicated that something was designed that we knew in advance wasn't, it would cast serious doubts on his ideas.
If at worst it gets superflous it is already invalid.
We can use the word "God" only so long as we are clear that it's short hand, and that we aren't necessarily talking about God in any normal, theistic sense. The entity postulated by ID has only those qualities demanded by the evidence. I think that statement by itself addresses most of your post. But to elaborate..
Wibbles. As I said to the other guy, criticisms of ID intended to show that it isn't scientific usually fail because they prove too much. That's exactly how this thread got started, and now that's what it's wound it's way back to. Electrons are the wibbles in your argument here. Scientists invent theoretical entities which are not directly observable (even in principle) to explain observations all the time.
You're dragging God in where ID doesn't and you're clouding the discussion as a result. ID theorists are not obliged or inclined to believe in mysterious magical forces in any way, nor in God. Accordingly, your claim that there is nothing to suggest that the gaps in naturalistic evolution require an explanation worthy of worship is moot. I never said it did, and I would join you in disagreeing with anyone who does.
Saying that the gaps don't demand an intelligence begs the question. ID theorists (as I understand it) say that it isn't any coincidence that these gaps exist. They exhibit characteristics only explainable by appealing to intelligence. The nature of the gaps precludes naturalistic explanation.
Prediction. I'm thieving this from the philosopher J.P. Moreland who summarized one argument against prediction being a necessary part of science by saying:
"Epistemic or logical relations that obtain between a law or theory and the facts it seeks to explain are not temporal in nature. There is an emotional commitment to the prediction of new data, because if it is verified it is surprising and exciting. New predictions can also help insure (though not guarantee) that a given law or theory was not formulated in an inappropriately ad hoc manner. Nevertheless, the main feature of a scientific theory is explanation, not prediction, and explanation involves logical, analogical, and epistemic relationships that are not temporal."
He gives a few examples of scientific claims that illustrate this principle. It may be observed that dinosaurs abruptly disappear from the fossil record at a certain time, and so it is claimed that a cataclysmic event caused their demise. That claim has practically no predictive power, except in very general terms, such as "Any other evidence we discover will tend to confirm that the extinction of dinosaurs was caused by a cataclysmic event." Or, two scientists may be studying the orbit of a planet. One scientist observes 50 orbits, formulates a theory, and accurately predicts the 51st. The other scientist observes 51 orbits, then formulates a theory. Before the 52nd orbit, the planet explodes. Both scientists' explained the facts, but the second scientist can obviously never make predictions about the orbit of the planet. Is his theory less scientific?
Let's be careful to distinguish between God (as conceived of by Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or whatever) and the entity required by ID. They are not necessarily the same. (Though they might be. Christians and other theists are excited about ID for obvious reasons, but that's not important as far as the science is concerned.) I point you again to the article linked to in my sig.
ID (as I understand it) says that naturalistic evolution cannot account for all the data, and that explanations incorporating a designer can. So two (difficult) ways to falsify ID are readily apparent.
1. By showing how ID doesn't account for the data either
2. By showing how naturalistic evolution does account for all the data without appeal to a designer, making it superfluous as an explanation.
Exatly, he Bohr model was subject to disproof, hence a valid scientific theory. A creator(besides me) in not.
I've already posted about this elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
Scientific theories have different levels of generality. The more general they are, the harder they are to falsify. But that doesn't necessarily make them unscientific, because (for one thing) they provide a useful framework for more specific ideas which can be falsified.
A good example, since it's what the story is about, is naturalistic evolution.
It's easy to think of how ideas embedded in naturalistic evolution, like the notion of gradualistic change, can be falsified. Some biologists believe that gradualistic change is not true, even though it was the the primary way of understanding evolution for many, many decades. They say that because of the evidence, punctuated equilibrium is the way to go. So, even though they've changed naturalistic evolution entirely, evolution as a whole has not been falsified.
Outside of a visit from something like the designer conceived of by ID theorists, it's pretty difficult to think of how naturalistic evolution could be directly falsified in one fell swoop. (And even then, nothing would prevent a few people from coming up with explanations to the contrary.) But I don't think that most people would say that evolution is unscientific because it would be hard to disprove.
The same is true of ID. I admit that it would be difficult to prove that ID is entirely false. But ID theorists have nonetheless put forward more specific claims (supported by the broad framework of ID) which are subject to falsification.
(This is really a case in point in the discussion about whether falsifiability is central to the definition of science.)
At the end of the day, ID may be a bad scientific theory, but it is scientific. People who would say otherwise always end up throwing the baby out with the bath water because other well-established scientific ideas don't meet the criteria that ID must supposedly be measured against to be considered scientific.
Consider the Bohr model of the atom, in which "electrons" orbit a nucleus the same way we now think planets orbit the sun.
Ideas like quantum mechanics and particle-wave duality overthrew the Bohr model. We still talk about electrons, though, because it's commonly thought that we didn't throw out the concept of electrons, we merely refined it. However, it might be more sensible to say that electrons, in the sense meant by Bohr, never actually existed.
Now consider the possibility that tomorrow our concept of "electron" could be overthrown in favor of a new theoretical entity. Suppose it is also called an electron.
So, what is an electron? Is it the now-defunct Bohr concept? Is it our present concept? Is it tomorrow's?
What this exercise illustrates is that even though you say "electrons are quite easy to measure," it is really no more obvious that electrons ACTUALLY exist than an intelligent designer.
The parent seemed alarmed that scientists might logically conclude that an intelligent designer exists on the basis of evidence. But it's very hard for me to understand how this is any different from what scientists do all the time. If it is philosophically acceptable for you to say "electrons are easy to measure" and to assume that you are measuring something that actually exists, there's no good reason to disallow a theoretical entity like an intelligent designer.
Your argument that "You'd end up calling the laws of physics that but the difference is that people jump to a bunch of other psychotic conclutions regarding unrelated propertis." is misguided because what some people might believe in addition to what may be rationally inferred from the scientific data doesn't matter. Some people might believe that electrons are actually tiny pink elephants. That doesn't prevent scientists from using electrons to guide research and understand other phenomena. Also, please read the article linked to in my sig. It's about a famous British philosopher who, on the basis of scientific and philosophical arguments, "converted" from atheism to a relatively non-specific belief in God.
Creationism and Intelligent design moves ultimate responsibility for the creation of the universe completely outside of human ken, and as such is impossible to falsify (just like you can't prove the door behind you exists without directly or indirectly observing it.
Creationism and ID are both general systems of approaching science in the same way that naturalistic evolution is a general way to approach science. It's extremely hard to think of a way to really falsify naturalistic evolution, short of aliens or God coming down and claiming responsibility for life on earth.
Smaller ideas with greater specificity within the general framework of naturalistic evolution are falsifiable to a much greater extent. So, some modern biologists have replaced the traditional Darwinian view of gradual change with punctuated equilibrium.
Creationists and ID theorists have made and make falsifiable claims. It may be difficult to think of a good way to overthrow the broader idea that an intelligence is behind life, but that doesn't automatically mean it isn't science. At least, it doesn't mean that if we are going to go on believing that other broad research programs like "naturalistic evolution" are science.
You actually have to prove your premises are real.
And the premises/evidence in the arguments used to prove these premises must also be proven. And so we are embroiled in an infinite regress. By this logic, not only is it impossible to prove something supernatural, it's impossible to prove anything except perhaps a slim category of ideas which follow from self-evident premises.
By definition you cannot prove something supernatural. Supernatural things (being outside the realm of the natural) cannot be observed, tested, measured, or proved to exist.
If I asserted that you can't prove things by observing, testing, or measuring, there's precious little you could say in response. So again, our problems aren't limited to the supernatural.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that observing, testing, and measuring are somehow valid methods of proof, I don't know how you leapt to the conclusion that they are the only valid methods of proof. Mathematical ideas are a good example of things that don't pass your test. Your test itself is a good example of something that doesn't pass your test.
Science is unavoidably tied closely to philosophy. Try substituting "particle physicists" for "ID proponents" and "electrons" for "supreme being" in your second paragraph.
That's not to say they're all xenophobic extremist zealots, but the majority are.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's my anecdotal evidence against yours.
My experience has been, homeschooled kids are different.
For starters, they have been without exception more polite than other kids their age.
In spite of the stereotype, they've actually been more socially well-adjusted, both around other people their age and adults. Yes, in spite of having less practice at interacting (Please look back on your public school days and think about how much good it actually did you in this regard, especially if you are a geek.)
Frequently, they're less selfish because they are necessarily from single-income homes.
They exhibit much greater self-confidence (not arrogance) because they have been able to nuture interests and work more at their own pace without stress or fear of being made fun of.
Some would call this a negative. I think of it as neutral or slightly positive. They tend to care less about fashion and generally what's "cool." (This, imo, is probably at the root of many stereotypes. Homeschooled kids are dweebs. Nevermind whether that's actually important a year after you get out of high school.)
They are high achievers. One of my best friends was homeschooled, and is working on his PhD in chemical engineering at MIT right now.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment about them being "xenophobic extremist zealots." Those are charges that cut both ways and only stick to the minority.
It's possible that a monopoly on internet access exists in a few places, but I've never seen one for more than a few months, and I've lived in some small places.
I grew up on a farm, for example, and the nearest town was 15 miles away. In 1996 or 1997, we could choose between 3 different dialup providers. My parents now have wireless for cheaper than what we were paying for dialup.
Right now I live in a town with around 12,000 people and 10 baptist churches, and I have a choice between dialup, cable, dsl, and wireless.
Anyway, we have laws to deal with monopolies, if that's really the problem.
"What I'm saying is, unless there's a very good reason (public health, national defense, clear boost to the economy..something along those lines) the government should keep its grubby hands off. The situation is particularly tricky when you already have businesses equitably (for the most part) providing the service in question. The negative response I've received to that opinion is really surprising. I thought most of/. was probably libertarian leaning, paranoid of government involvment, etc. It seems that people here are really inclined to think in conspiratorial terms except when the government wants to help OSS or do something "cool" like provide internet access. Very confusing."
My attitude is just different from yours, I think. I don't ask "why shouldn't" the government do something. I think the government should have a darn good reason.. something genuinely compelling, and in the best case, constitutionally mandated. Not just, "because it would be cool and it can."
Having said that, yeah, you're right, it is a democracy. If folks in a particular city want their city to provide them with wi-fi, then I suppose they can have at it, so long as it's legal. But if I were in one of those cities, I'd vote against it, and I'd encourage others to do so as well.
Actually, I grew up on a farm, and right now I live on the outskirts of a town of 12,000. On the farm, which was 15 miles from the nearest town (of 20k), we had dialup internet access by 1996 or so, which is really nothing to sneeze at. My parents currently pay about $40 a month for wireless, which if you toss in the extra phone line, is not drastically more than they'd be paying for dialup. This is all totally beside the point, though, because if you live in a rural area, municipal wi-fi won't help you.
I think in the case of roads and water, there's really a compelling argument for government involvement. Libraries are a little tougher, I have to admit. The only thing I can say about that is, a free borrowing service is not in direct competition with a book-selling business. I am a book-worm, and I don't even have a library card.
What I'm saying is, unless there's a very good reason (public health, national defense, clear boost to the economy..something along those lines) the government should keep its grubby hands off. The situation is particularly tricky when you already have businesses equitably (for the most part) providing the service in question. The negative response I've received to that opinion is really surprising. I thought most of/. was probably libertarian leaning, paranoid of government involvment, etc. It seems that people here are really inclined to think in conspiratorial terms except when the government wants to help OSS or do something "cool" like provide internet access. Very confusing.
That's a little different. If a co-op or something like that offered city-wide wi-fi, there would be more of a similarity. But it's the government that's providing the service.
Incidentally, I'd probably complain, too, if I owned an ISP. In what nanny-state, commie pipe dream is it the government's responsibility to provide internet access to people who can almost certainly get it cheapy from commercial ISPs?
I'm not going to lie and claim that I totally understand the second paragraph. But I understand enough of it to recognize that it was not randomly generated and that it does have a meaning.
It seems like nerdy sorts of people nearly always reason this way when confronted with Dilbert-esque speech:
1. I am a smart person, and I understand everything. 2. I do not understand this. 3. Therefore, it is nonsense.
Or perhaps like this:
1. Ideas that can't be stated with mathematical precision are crap. 2. This statement is not specific enough to make a good programming specification. 3. Therefore, this statement is worthless.
Is it possible that the problem is not that the second paragraph is pointless, but that nerdy people have a harder time "getting" the point because of how they are accustomed to thinking?
I really have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not just saying that to be disagreeable. I assume the article you're talking about is the one on Christianity Today's website, the one linked to in my sig. The article makes it very plain that Flew's belief in God is most accurately described as deism, and a good portion of it is about why he is not a Christian and doesn't plan to become one.
If I am guilty of any intellectual dishonesty, it's in negligently assuming that people (typically, adult nerds) are able to read and understand a non-technical article with minimal philosophical jargon.
If I'm guilty of something else, like enjoying watching a few people squirm.. then.. well, it's not a very Christian thing to say, but after routinely reading utterly off-topic things like, "Why not? His entire belief structure is predicated on pushing a big lie to as many people as possible. What's a little one?" on a website that's ostensibly news for nerds, I have a hard time feeling any shame.
Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll quote from the most recent one on infidels.org.
"Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell."
If I were lying, it would of course be knowingly, because there is no other way to lie. But to the best of my understanding, I'm neither lying nor wrong. Would you care to further explain?
Er, oops. I see now that the only capitalized words in the title are the first one and the word God. Well, anyway, I still won't change it because, as I pointed out, infidels.org doesn't seem to feel a great deal of compunction about it.
I would direct you once again to the article you linked to. "God" is capitalized over and over again, and not just in reference to the God conceived of by Christianity.
I strongly suspect this is because it's the grammatically sensible thing to do, because in a sentence like this:
"I believe in God."
The word functions as a proper noun. This is clearer when you look at this sentence:
"I believe in a god."
But I'm really just guessing about all of that. I really have no idea why a source as antagonistic toward theism as infidels.org would capitalize the word God.
Anyway, with respect to my sig, it's the title of the article. The normal convention is to capitalize "uncommon" words in titles, that is, words besides the, an, a, of, and so on. I admitted that it's a hair misleading, but it is not a "wilful deception." Particularly if one bothers to read the article, which makes Flew's views about the Gods of Christianity and Islam pretty clear. I really don't feel responsible for people going off half-cocked when presented with this information.
Please see my response to the other reply. And thank you for confirming what I suspected would be the response to my sig - prejudice and bias so inflated that even when the documentation provided to refute it grudgingly admits that it's true, it's still attacked.
Um, did you happen to get a look at when the article you directed me to was published? The note at the top even says:
"[Editor's note: This article no longer represents Flew's current position. For the most recent information, see Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.]"
So, I will not amend my signature. I admit it is a little misleading, because what Flew appears to believe in is not "God" with all the normal connotations that word carries, but it is certainly more accurate than, "Anthony Flew is still an atheist."
After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...
I understand the origin of a few of the popular myths on/., but this one continues to baffle me (Although my working theory is that folks want to think of Americans as war-mongering, self-righteous Puritans, and this idea plays nicely into that stereotype). Do I need to find a/. story or two about parent groups trying to ban or restrict violent video games to convince you that this is far from being universally accepted in real life, particularly among the same types of people who complained the most about the nipple?
Slashdot Mirror
How?
Oh, I dunno. How about something generally agreed upon to be random so far as we're concerned, like turbulence or radioactive decay? Or we could make up clever experiments involving phenomena which are fundamentally understood but too complex in practice for us to predict, and therefore couldn't be wholly designed.
If something like that managed to exhibit specified complexity, we'd have something.
Well, let's take the Bohr model as an example. Was it shown to be superflous? No, it was proven to be wrong. Unnecessery but possible is far from impossible.
Yes, but what's required to falsify ID? ID says that a designer is necessary to explain some of what we observe. If it turns out that there are reasonable naturalistic accounts for those things, ID is wrong.
If I had a theory that coyotes were stealing babies that had gone missing, it wouldn't be necessary to prove that coyotes don't exist or that it is imposssible for a coyote to steal a baby for me to be wrong.
How does something become proovenly undesigned?
William Dembski, who is probably the most recognized figure in ID, has provided mathematical backing to the notion of specified complexity, which is a test for design. This filter can be applied to a wide variety of things, not just biological complexity. If Dembski's filter indicated that something was designed that we knew in advance wasn't, it would cast serious doubts on his ideas.
If at worst it gets superflous it is already invalid.
How?
Thanks for replying.
We can use the word "God" only so long as we are clear that it's short hand, and that we aren't necessarily talking about God in any normal, theistic sense. The entity postulated by ID has only those qualities demanded by the evidence. I think that statement by itself addresses most of your post. But to elaborate..
Wibbles. As I said to the other guy, criticisms of ID intended to show that it isn't scientific usually fail because they prove too much. That's exactly how this thread got started, and now that's what it's wound it's way back to. Electrons are the wibbles in your argument here. Scientists invent theoretical entities which are not directly observable (even in principle) to explain observations all the time.
You're dragging God in where ID doesn't and you're clouding the discussion as a result. ID theorists are not obliged or inclined to believe in mysterious magical forces in any way, nor in God. Accordingly, your claim that there is nothing to suggest that the gaps in naturalistic evolution require an explanation worthy of worship is moot. I never said it did, and I would join you in disagreeing with anyone who does.
Saying that the gaps don't demand an intelligence begs the question. ID theorists (as I understand it) say that it isn't any coincidence that these gaps exist. They exhibit characteristics only explainable by appealing to intelligence. The nature of the gaps precludes naturalistic explanation.
Prediction. I'm thieving this from the philosopher J.P. Moreland who summarized one argument against prediction being a necessary part of science by saying:
"Epistemic or logical relations that obtain between a law or theory and the facts it seeks to explain are not temporal in nature. There is an emotional commitment to the prediction of new data, because if it is verified it is surprising and exciting. New predictions can also help insure (though not guarantee) that a given law or theory was not formulated in an inappropriately ad hoc manner. Nevertheless, the main feature of a scientific theory is explanation, not prediction, and explanation involves logical, analogical, and epistemic relationships that are not temporal."
He gives a few examples of scientific claims that illustrate this principle. It may be observed that dinosaurs abruptly disappear from the fossil record at a certain time, and so it is claimed that a cataclysmic event caused their demise. That claim has practically no predictive power, except in very general terms, such as "Any other evidence we discover will tend to confirm that the extinction of dinosaurs was caused by a cataclysmic event." Or, two scientists may be studying the orbit of a planet. One scientist observes 50 orbits, formulates a theory, and accurately predicts the 51st. The other scientist observes 51 orbits, then formulates a theory. Before the 52nd orbit, the planet explodes. Both scientists' explained the facts, but the second scientist can obviously never make predictions about the orbit of the planet. Is his theory less scientific?
Let's be careful to distinguish between God (as conceived of by Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or whatever) and the entity required by ID. They are not necessarily the same. (Though they might be. Christians and other theists are excited about ID for obvious reasons, but that's not important as far as the science is concerned.) I point you again to the article linked to in my sig.
ID (as I understand it) says that naturalistic evolution cannot account for all the data, and that explanations incorporating a designer can. So two (difficult) ways to falsify ID are readily apparent.
1. By showing how ID doesn't account for the data either
2. By showing how naturalistic evolution does account for all the data without appeal to a designer, making it superfluous as an explanation.
Exatly, he Bohr model was subject to disproof, hence a valid scientific theory. A creator(besides me) in not.
I've already posted about this elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
Scientific theories have different levels of generality. The more general they are, the harder they are to falsify. But that doesn't necessarily make them unscientific, because (for one thing) they provide a useful framework for more specific ideas which can be falsified.
A good example, since it's what the story is about, is naturalistic evolution.
It's easy to think of how ideas embedded in naturalistic evolution, like the notion of gradualistic change, can be falsified. Some biologists believe that gradualistic change is not true, even though it was the the primary way of understanding evolution for many, many decades. They say that because of the evidence, punctuated equilibrium is the way to go. So, even though they've changed naturalistic evolution entirely, evolution as a whole has not been falsified.
Outside of a visit from something like the designer conceived of by ID theorists, it's pretty difficult to think of how naturalistic evolution could be directly falsified in one fell swoop. (And even then, nothing would prevent a few people from coming up with explanations to the contrary.) But I don't think that most people would say that evolution is unscientific because it would be hard to disprove.
The same is true of ID. I admit that it would be difficult to prove that ID is entirely false. But ID theorists have nonetheless put forward more specific claims (supported by the broad framework of ID) which are subject to falsification.
(This is really a case in point in the discussion about whether falsifiability is central to the definition of science.)
At the end of the day, ID may be a bad scientific theory, but it is scientific. People who would say otherwise always end up throwing the baby out with the bath water because other well-established scientific ideas don't meet the criteria that ID must supposedly be measured against to be considered scientific.
Consider the Bohr model of the atom, in which "electrons" orbit a nucleus the same way we now think planets orbit the sun.
Ideas like quantum mechanics and particle-wave duality overthrew the Bohr model. We still talk about electrons, though, because it's commonly thought that we didn't throw out the concept of electrons, we merely refined it. However, it might be more sensible to say that electrons, in the sense meant by Bohr, never actually existed.
Now consider the possibility that tomorrow our concept of "electron" could be overthrown in favor of a new theoretical entity. Suppose it is also called an electron.
So, what is an electron? Is it the now-defunct Bohr concept? Is it our present concept? Is it tomorrow's?
What this exercise illustrates is that even though you say "electrons are quite easy to measure," it is really no more obvious that electrons ACTUALLY exist than an intelligent designer.
The parent seemed alarmed that scientists might logically conclude that an intelligent designer exists on the basis of evidence. But it's very hard for me to understand how this is any different from what scientists do all the time. If it is philosophically acceptable for you to say "electrons are easy to measure" and to assume that you are measuring something that actually exists, there's no good reason to disallow a theoretical entity like an intelligent designer.
Your argument that "You'd end up calling the laws of physics that but the difference is that people jump to a bunch of other psychotic conclutions regarding unrelated propertis." is misguided because what some people might believe in addition to what may be rationally inferred from the scientific data doesn't matter. Some people might believe that electrons are actually tiny pink elephants. That doesn't prevent scientists from using electrons to guide research and understand other phenomena. Also, please read the article linked to in my sig. It's about a famous British philosopher who, on the basis of scientific and philosophical arguments, "converted" from atheism to a relatively non-specific belief in God.
Creationism and Intelligent design moves ultimate responsibility for the creation of the universe completely outside of human ken, and as such is impossible to falsify (just like you can't prove the door behind you exists without directly or indirectly observing it.
Creationism and ID are both general systems of approaching science in the same way that naturalistic evolution is a general way to approach science. It's extremely hard to think of a way to really falsify naturalistic evolution, short of aliens or God coming down and claiming responsibility for life on earth.
Smaller ideas with greater specificity within the general framework of naturalistic evolution are falsifiable to a much greater extent. So, some modern biologists have replaced the traditional Darwinian view of gradual change with punctuated equilibrium.
Creationists and ID theorists have made and make falsifiable claims. It may be difficult to think of a good way to overthrow the broader idea that an intelligence is behind life, but that doesn't automatically mean it isn't science. At least, it doesn't mean that if we are going to go on believing that other broad research programs like "naturalistic evolution" are science.
You actually have to prove your premises are real.
And the premises/evidence in the arguments used to prove these premises must also be proven. And so we are embroiled in an infinite regress. By this logic, not only is it impossible to prove something supernatural, it's impossible to prove anything except perhaps a slim category of ideas which follow from self-evident premises.
By definition you cannot prove something supernatural. Supernatural things (being outside the realm of the natural) cannot be observed, tested, measured, or proved to exist.
If I asserted that you can't prove things by observing, testing, or measuring, there's precious little you could say in response. So again, our problems aren't limited to the supernatural.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that observing, testing, and measuring are somehow valid methods of proof, I don't know how you leapt to the conclusion that they are the only valid methods of proof. Mathematical ideas are a good example of things that don't pass your test. Your test itself is a good example of something that doesn't pass your test.
Science is unavoidably tied closely to philosophy. Try substituting "particle physicists" for "ID proponents" and "electrons" for "supreme being" in your second paragraph.
That's not to say they're all xenophobic extremist zealots, but the majority are.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's my anecdotal evidence against yours.
My experience has been, homeschooled kids are different.
For starters, they have been without exception more polite than other kids their age.
In spite of the stereotype, they've actually been more socially well-adjusted, both around other people their age and adults. Yes, in spite of having less practice at interacting (Please look back on your public school days and think about how much good it actually did you in this regard, especially if you are a geek.)
Frequently, they're less selfish because they are necessarily from single-income homes.
They exhibit much greater self-confidence (not arrogance) because they have been able to nuture interests and work more at their own pace without stress or fear of being made fun of.
Some would call this a negative. I think of it as neutral or slightly positive. They tend to care less about fashion and generally what's "cool." (This, imo, is probably at the root of many stereotypes. Homeschooled kids are dweebs. Nevermind whether that's actually important a year after you get out of high school.)
They are high achievers. One of my best friends was homeschooled, and is working on his PhD in chemical engineering at MIT right now.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment about them being "xenophobic extremist zealots." Those are charges that cut both ways and only stick to the minority.
It's possible that a monopoly on internet access exists in a few places, but I've never seen one for more than a few months, and I've lived in some small places.
I grew up on a farm, for example, and the nearest town was 15 miles away. In 1996 or 1997, we could choose between 3 different dialup providers. My parents now have wireless for cheaper than what we were paying for dialup.
Right now I live in a town with around 12,000 people and 10 baptist churches, and I have a choice between dialup, cable, dsl, and wireless.
Anyway, we have laws to deal with monopolies, if that's really the problem.
Just copying and pasting this from another reply:
/. was probably libertarian leaning, paranoid of government involvment, etc. It seems that people here are really inclined to think in conspiratorial terms except when the government wants to help OSS or do something "cool" like provide internet access. Very confusing."
"What I'm saying is, unless there's a very good reason (public health, national defense, clear boost to the economy..something along those lines) the government should keep its grubby hands off. The situation is particularly tricky when you already have businesses equitably (for the most part) providing the service in question. The negative response I've received to that opinion is really surprising. I thought most of
My attitude is just different from yours, I think. I don't ask "why shouldn't" the government do something. I think the government should have a darn good reason.. something genuinely compelling, and in the best case, constitutionally mandated. Not just, "because it would be cool and it can."
Having said that, yeah, you're right, it is a democracy. If folks in a particular city want their city to provide them with wi-fi, then I suppose they can have at it, so long as it's legal. But if I were in one of those cities, I'd vote against it, and I'd encourage others to do so as well.
I don't think you've ever lived in a rural area.
/. was probably libertarian leaning, paranoid of government involvment, etc. It seems that people here are really inclined to think in conspiratorial terms except when the government wants to help OSS or do something "cool" like provide internet access. Very confusing.
Actually, I grew up on a farm, and right now I live on the outskirts of a town of 12,000. On the farm, which was 15 miles from the nearest town (of 20k), we had dialup internet access by 1996 or so, which is really nothing to sneeze at. My parents currently pay about $40 a month for wireless, which if you toss in the extra phone line, is not drastically more than they'd be paying for dialup. This is all totally beside the point, though, because if you live in a rural area, municipal wi-fi won't help you.
I think in the case of roads and water, there's really a compelling argument for government involvement. Libraries are a little tougher, I have to admit. The only thing I can say about that is, a free borrowing service is not in direct competition with a book-selling business. I am a book-worm, and I don't even have a library card.
What I'm saying is, unless there's a very good reason (public health, national defense, clear boost to the economy..something along those lines) the government should keep its grubby hands off. The situation is particularly tricky when you already have businesses equitably (for the most part) providing the service in question. The negative response I've received to that opinion is really surprising. I thought most of
That's a little different. If a co-op or something like that offered city-wide wi-fi, there would be more of a similarity. But it's the government that's providing the service.
Incidentally, I'd probably complain, too, if I owned an ISP. In what nanny-state, commie pipe dream is it the government's responsibility to provide internet access to people who can almost certainly get it cheapy from commercial ISPs?
Now that Bush has made the political (rather than scientific) decision to limit stem cell lines
Isn't it possible that there are more than two sets of criteria upon which to base a decision such as this? Ethical, perhaps?
it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that this move will come back to bite them in the ass just as soon as there is a non-Republican majority...
Isn't that precisely the reason it's called the "nuclear option"? You know, mutual assured destruction, and all.
Are you sure you aren't trolling? :)
/.'s purpose, perhaps. It is "News for Nerds" after all, and nerd-dom is not limited to computers.
Difference in opinion about
I'm not going to lie and claim that I totally understand the second paragraph. But I understand enough of it to recognize that it was not randomly generated and that it does have a meaning.
It seems like nerdy sorts of people nearly always reason this way when confronted with Dilbert-esque speech:
1. I am a smart person, and I understand everything.
2. I do not understand this.
3. Therefore, it is nonsense.
Or perhaps like this:
1. Ideas that can't be stated with mathematical precision are crap.
2. This statement is not specific enough to make a good programming specification.
3. Therefore, this statement is worthless.
Is it possible that the problem is not that the second paragraph is pointless, but that nerdy people have a harder time "getting" the point because of how they are accustomed to thinking?
I really have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not just saying that to be disagreeable. I assume the article you're talking about is the one on Christianity Today's website, the one linked to in my sig. The article makes it very plain that Flew's belief in God is most accurately described as deism, and a good portion of it is about why he is not a Christian and doesn't plan to become one.
If I am guilty of any intellectual dishonesty, it's in negligently assuming that people (typically, adult nerds) are able to read and understand a non-technical article with minimal philosophical jargon.
If I'm guilty of something else, like enjoying watching a few people squirm.. then.. well, it's not a very Christian thing to say, but after routinely reading utterly off-topic things like, "Why not? His entire belief structure is predicated on pushing a big lie to as many people as possible. What's a little one?" on a website that's ostensibly news for nerds, I have a hard time feeling any shame.
All I can say is, read the articles.
Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll quote from the most recent one on infidels.org.
"Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell."
If I were lying, it would of course be knowingly, because there is no other way to lie. But to the best of my understanding, I'm neither lying nor wrong. Would you care to further explain?
Er, oops. I see now that the only capitalized words in the title are the first one and the word God. Well, anyway, I still won't change it because, as I pointed out, infidels.org doesn't seem to feel a great deal of compunction about it.
I would direct you once again to the article you linked to. "God" is capitalized over and over again, and not just in reference to the God conceived of by Christianity.
I strongly suspect this is because it's the grammatically sensible thing to do, because in a sentence like this:
"I believe in God."
The word functions as a proper noun. This is clearer when you look at this sentence:
"I believe in a god."
But I'm really just guessing about all of that. I really have no idea why a source as antagonistic toward theism as infidels.org would capitalize the word God.
Anyway, with respect to my sig, it's the title of the article. The normal convention is to capitalize "uncommon" words in titles, that is, words besides the, an, a, of, and so on. I admitted that it's a hair misleading, but it is not a "wilful deception." Particularly if one bothers to read the article, which makes Flew's views about the Gods of Christianity and Islam pretty clear. I really don't feel responsible for people going off half-cocked when presented with this information.
Please see my response to the other reply. And thank you for confirming what I suspected would be the response to my sig - prejudice and bias so inflated that even when the documentation provided to refute it grudgingly admits that it's true, it's still attacked.
Um, did you happen to get a look at when the article you directed me to was published? The note at the top even says:
"[Editor's note: This article no longer represents Flew's current position. For the most recent information, see Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.]"
See also this interview.
So, I will not amend my signature. I admit it is a little misleading, because what Flew appears to believe in is not "God" with all the normal connotations that word carries, but it is certainly more accurate than, "Anthony Flew is still an atheist."
After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...
/., but this one continues to baffle me (Although my working theory is that folks want to think of Americans as war-mongering, self-righteous Puritans, and this idea plays nicely into that stereotype). Do I need to find a /. story or two about parent groups trying to ban or restrict violent video games to convince you that this is far from being universally accepted in real life, particularly among the same types of people who complained the most about the nipple?
I understand the origin of a few of the popular myths on