Someone suggested to me the other day that analytical thinkers (usually the people considered "smart") do comparatively poorly in high pressure situations like timed tests because they require the test taker to either go with their first answer or waste time going back over their work. This drives analytical thinkers nuts because they tend to trust their creativity/intuition less than other people and *need* to double-check, but are also conscious of the seconds going by as they do so.
I took the GRE twice recently and observed this first hand. I don't know how I did the first time because I canceled the scores after being unable to finish the quantitative part. The second time around, I forced myself to loosen up and only go back over the problems I really had a concern about, and I aced it.
No freaking kidding. I've been at my current job since I got out of college a little over 2 years ago. After working for a couple of months, I had to go to the first session of some bogus training for young engineers, set up so the new blood from all over the company could mingle and network. I was *shocked* when one of the multiple-session veterans talked about how they'd just about destroyed a rental car on another trip. He condescendingly explained that another time he'd told that story, someone had freaked out a little, because they were too inexperienced to understand that the cars were insured and it couldn't come back on you.
When kids are 12 years old, I can see it a little, but 22-25? Cripes. I wanted to punch him in the head and it wasn't even my car.
but which can also be tested experimentally in the not-too-distant-future (or else it wouldn't be science)
There are plenty of events and areas of study which aren't directly experimentally verifiable but which are considered science. Like evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology. Science is not as easy to define as most people (including most/.ers) like to imagine. If it were, the philosophy of science wouldn't be a very interesting discipline.
Only insightful to people who also don't know what they're talking about.
My dad is an independent farmer with a medium sized operation. When it comes to corn and cotton, all he plants is genetically engineered seed. It just so happens that pest resistant seed is a lot cheaper in the final analysis than "natural" seed + chemical pesticide application. Yes, even taking into consideration the fact that he has to buy the seed every year.
If we're going to play that fast and loose with logic, it's easy. Atheistic communism, by a long shot. But I think you know that you're full of shit, or you wouldn't post AC.
The people really changing the culture are the people whose culture it is. They aren't spotted owls, and they are perfectly capable of making choices. Insinuating that they need your protection from the big, bad religious organizations is extremely arrogant.
I've only read one of Green's books (Elegant Universe), and it may very well be the case that he papers over the cracks in string theory. I'm certainly in no position to know.:) But to be fair, he does mention more than once that it hasn't been experimentally verified. IIRC, he also talks a bit about why it's likely that it will never be experimentally verified.
Your statements represent the scientific bias I was talking about. The scientific method itself contains certain assumptions, but more important (and what I was really talking about) are the biases in people's thinking ABOUT science (and religion). Most modern people naively assume that science, instead of being a useful tool, is an ultimately objective and unbiased way of looking at the world.
Like most myths, the one the parent told reveals as much (more in this case) about what he wants to be true as what actually is. We like the notion that science has come riding to the rescue, saving us from all the thickskulled and ignorant religious people with their religious thoughts. We feel that it vindicates our own way of thinking.
Ironically, you are more guilty of the mindset you're making fun of here than any real, live religious people. The history of religion and science is complex, but it serves our modern (scientifically biased) prejudices to believe simplistic myths like the one you've apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think the $50,000 price tag is really an obstacle. I mean, think of all the average people driving $40,000 SUVs and $100,000 motor homes. I think there are a lot of middle-class weirdos out there who would be willing to make payments for the rest of their lives to get a cat or dog back.
Often people touting dependency hell have never actually tried to go beyond the basic.i586.rpm available from different distros.
There's probably some truth to what you say, but it really just goes to prove the point. It's like saying, "People who say that playing with rattle snakes is dangerous just don't own thick enough gloves and boots."
There's a compelling, if naive, argument to be made for open sourcing all pharma research. It proceeds along the same lines as the "If everyone would just throw their guns in the ocean, we'd have world peace!" argument. Or, in different terms, "If wishes were wings, pigs could fly."
The barrier is human nature. People who do things for selfless reasons are few and far between. Most people who think they do things for selfless reasons are self-deluded. It's also really easy to give other people's money away. The same people who think that they'd give all their money away if they were Bill Gates are probably giving little to none of what they do have.
Right. Assertions are easy to make, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm sure there are similarities between Jesus and Gilgamesh/Bilgamesh and Hercules/Heracles, but are there any that are more than merely superficial?
Anyway, you mistook my point. I don't care that Asimov "copied" Jesus. Originals are few and far between. The real point is, if the parent was correct and Asimov was trying to criticize Christianity by way of criticizing the Ten Commandments for their thoughtless rigidity, he is in effect attacking a straw man. Jesus attacked the same viewpoint a long time ago.
The three laws are essentially a parody of the Ten Commandments intended to illustrate the folly of trying to sustitute iron-clad rules for rational thought by reasonable, ethical people.
I've never heard that before. It's interesting, but derivative. Jesus did something similar a couple thousand years ago.
Thanks for pointing this out. If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. Most people here seem to get their ideas about what real engineers do from Star Trek or McGuyver.
I find it interesting and encouraging that you felt the need to specify what you were talking about. Hopefully many more people don't make the mistake of simply equating these two things.
I think you are unfortunately correct about the thinking of some people, particularly most modern skeptics (like you, it appears) and "fundamentalists."
The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and our understanding of what they say isn't perfect. Christians should listen to scientists (who "read" God's "other book") when considering topics about which scientists may legitimately speak.
I would also like to point out that scripture is mum on the mechanics of how God worked, and continues to work.
One important thing for both Christians and others to understand about "creationism" is that the "common sense" or "literalistic" interpretation many/most modern day conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists apply to the creation narrative is a newcomer to Christianity.
Prior to the early 1900s, many conservative theologians (most notably, B.B. Warfield) had no problem with evolution.
See "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds" by Os Guiness or "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll for examinations of when and why American Christians took a turn in this direction.
I tip my hat to you for at least admitting this only as a possibility. This tiny similarly between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism is not shared by any largish Protestant group. I would leave out the "largish," but then someone would pipe up and insist that the Branch Davidians are Protestants.
From the Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution:
"Article IV. Authority: While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or convention."
And in case there is any confusion about what the Convention's "own sphere" is, read Article III.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone suggested to me the other day that analytical thinkers (usually the people considered "smart") do comparatively poorly in high pressure situations like timed tests because they require the test taker to either go with their first answer or waste time going back over their work. This drives analytical thinkers nuts because they tend to trust their creativity/intuition less than other people and *need* to double-check, but are also conscious of the seconds going by as they do so.
I took the GRE twice recently and observed this first hand. I don't know how I did the first time because I canceled the scores after being unable to finish the quantitative part. The second time around, I forced myself to loosen up and only go back over the problems I really had a concern about, and I aced it.
Yes, I must not have made that clear. They intentionally messed the car up just because they could get away with it.
No freaking kidding. I've been at my current job since I got out of college a little over 2 years ago. After working for a couple of months, I had to go to the first session of some bogus training for young engineers, set up so the new blood from all over the company could mingle and network. I was *shocked* when one of the multiple-session veterans talked about how they'd just about destroyed a rental car on another trip. He condescendingly explained that another time he'd told that story, someone had freaked out a little, because they were too inexperienced to understand that the cars were insured and it couldn't come back on you.
When kids are 12 years old, I can see it a little, but 22-25? Cripes. I wanted to punch him in the head and it wasn't even my car.
Did you even read my post before hitting the reply button?
( I know in my time I've nabbed a few pairs of panties from very hot friends/friends mothers, it's nothing too bad).
Ah, yes. The "I've done it, and I'm not bad, so it must not be a bad thing" theory of ethics.
Or is it simply, "It's ok, because I didn't get caught." ?
Because it's actually kind of sick. If you had been caught, I'm sure the women would have been pretty upset by it.
but which can also be tested experimentally in the not-too-distant-future (or else it wouldn't be science)
/.ers) like to imagine. If it were, the philosophy of science wouldn't be a very interesting discipline.
There are plenty of events and areas of study which aren't directly experimentally verifiable but which are considered science. Like evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology. Science is not as easy to define as most people (including most
Only insightful to people who also don't know what they're talking about.
My dad is an independent farmer with a medium sized operation. When it comes to corn and cotton, all he plants is genetically engineered seed. It just so happens that pest resistant seed is a lot cheaper in the final analysis than "natural" seed + chemical pesticide application. Yes, even taking into consideration the fact that he has to buy the seed every year.
If we're going to play that fast and loose with logic, it's easy. Atheistic communism, by a long shot. But I think you know that you're full of shit, or you wouldn't post AC.
The people really changing the culture are the people whose culture it is. They aren't spotted owls, and they are perfectly capable of making choices. Insinuating that they need your protection from the big, bad religious organizations is extremely arrogant.
I've only read one of Green's books (Elegant Universe), and it may very well be the case that he papers over the cracks in string theory. I'm certainly in no position to know. :) But to be fair, he does mention more than once that it hasn't been experimentally verified. IIRC, he also talks a bit about why it's likely that it will never be experimentally verified.
Your statements represent the scientific bias I was talking about. The scientific method itself contains certain assumptions, but more important (and what I was really talking about) are the biases in people's thinking ABOUT science (and religion). Most modern people naively assume that science, instead of being a useful tool, is an ultimately objective and unbiased way of looking at the world.
Like most myths, the one the parent told reveals as much (more in this case) about what he wants to be true as what actually is. We like the notion that science has come riding to the rescue, saving us from all the thickskulled and ignorant religious people with their religious thoughts. We feel that it vindicates our own way of thinking.
Ironically, you are more guilty of the mindset you're making fun of here than any real, live religious people. The history of religion and science is complex, but it serves our modern (scientifically biased) prejudices to believe simplistic myths like the one you've apparently swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
I don't think the $50,000 price tag is really an obstacle. I mean, think of all the average people driving $40,000 SUVs and $100,000 motor homes. I think there are a lot of middle-class weirdos out there who would be willing to make payments for the rest of their lives to get a cat or dog back.
Doubtful. The more likely explanation is that zealous /. expectations of irrationality or stupidity have (once again) been stymied by reality.
Often people touting dependency hell have never actually tried to go beyond the basic .i586.rpm available from different distros.
There's probably some truth to what you say, but it really just goes to prove the point. It's like saying, "People who say that playing with rattle snakes is dangerous just don't own thick enough gloves and boots."
If only I had mod points...
There's a compelling, if naive, argument to be made for open sourcing all pharma research. It proceeds along the same lines as the "If everyone would just throw their guns in the ocean, we'd have world peace!" argument. Or, in different terms, "If wishes were wings, pigs could fly."
The barrier is human nature. People who do things for selfless reasons are few and far between. Most people who think they do things for selfless reasons are self-deluded. It's also really easy to give other people's money away. The same people who think that they'd give all their money away if they were Bill Gates are probably giving little to none of what they do have.
Facts bad! Faith good!
it's a little ironic that in a list of straw men, you criticize the willingness/ability of people to appreciate facts.
You realize, of course, that Kerry invoked the name of God many more times than Bush, right?
Right. Assertions are easy to make, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm sure there are similarities between Jesus and Gilgamesh/Bilgamesh and Hercules/Heracles, but are there any that are more than merely superficial?
Anyway, you mistook my point. I don't care that Asimov "copied" Jesus. Originals are few and far between. The real point is, if the parent was correct and Asimov was trying to criticize Christianity by way of criticizing the Ten Commandments for their thoughtless rigidity, he is in effect attacking a straw man. Jesus attacked the same viewpoint a long time ago.
The three laws are essentially a parody of the Ten Commandments intended to illustrate the folly of trying to sustitute iron-clad rules for rational thought by reasonable, ethical people.
I've never heard that before. It's interesting, but derivative. Jesus did something similar a couple thousand years ago.
Thanks for pointing this out. If I had mod points, you'd get 'em. Most people here seem to get their ideas about what real engineers do from Star Trek or McGuyver.
Personal choice in medical care (abortion) bad.
I find it interesting and encouraging that you felt the need to specify what you were talking about. Hopefully many more people don't make the mistake of simply equating these two things.
I think you are unfortunately correct about the thinking of some people, particularly most modern skeptics (like you, it appears) and "fundamentalists."
The more traditional (and superior, imo) view acknowledges God as the creator of the universe as well as the author of the scriptures. The scriptures are the ultimate authority, but they don't speak exhaustively, and our understanding of what they say isn't perfect. Christians should listen to scientists (who "read" God's "other book") when considering topics about which scientists may legitimately speak.
P.S. You probably mean "theist," not "deist."
I would also like to point out that scripture is mum on the mechanics of how God worked, and continues to work.
One important thing for both Christians and others to understand about "creationism" is that the "common sense" or "literalistic" interpretation many/most modern day conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists apply to the creation narrative is a newcomer to Christianity.
Prior to the early 1900s, many conservative theologians (most notably, B.B. Warfield) had no problem with evolution.
See "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds" by Os Guiness or "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll for examinations of when and why American Christians took a turn in this direction.
possibly Southern Baptists
I tip my hat to you for at least admitting this only as a possibility. This tiny similarly between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism is not shared by any largish Protestant group. I would leave out the "largish," but then someone would pipe up and insist that the Branch Davidians are Protestants.
From the Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution:
"Article IV. Authority: While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or convention."
And in case there is any confusion about what the Convention's "own sphere" is, read Article III.