Free will is something we do have. We have the ability to make choices. It is assumed that God knows our choices already, but that doesn't mean he has determined them, only that he knows the choices we are going to make. So, IMHO, that still means we have the right to choose.
Ah, but if he already knows the choices that we will make, then all choices are illusory, because you could not have done otherwise. Therefore, no free will. Omnicience and free will are incompatable.
This is all well and good, but it really only goes to show that people are the victims of bias.
Quite true, and the most difficult biases to detect are our own.
Showing evidence of a rock in my back yard versus an alien in my back yard should be a nearly identical exercise; that of pointing to a rock or an alien. That one should remain mundane while the other extraordinary speaks not of the quality of evidence but of the mental state of the observer.
However, if you were able to point to an alien entity in your backyard, that would be quite extraordinary evidence, provided independent observers could closely inspect it to discount fraud. That would be exactly the sort of physical evidence that has been entirely lacking to date (unless you count the Fox "Alien" Autopsy).
The problem is that Sagan's famous little catch-phrase suggests otherwise, and people have certainly bought into it, thus neatly invalidating, as you point out, anecdotal evidence, photographic evidence and other varieties of evidence which would normally be acceptable in at least raising curiosity in most other circumstances.
Anecdotal, and photographic evidence is evidence, just poor quality, easily manipulated or confabulated evidence. Man is a storytelling animal, and all too often, they start believing their own tales. Do you similarly accept the testimony and evidence of religious believers who claim to have been visited by the Virgin Mary? You can certainly find 300 people to give you first-hand accounts of that, and others claim that she has appeared in photos (and other surfaces). Do you find their accounts as persuasive? I agree that current reports warrant some level of investigation, and I'm glad that some have dedicated themselves to finding evidence. I hope that they are able to produce better evidence in the future.
And why? Because the public belief system has chosen to pretend that a significant piece of reality does not exist and refuses to budge from that position.
People are not "pretending that a piece of reality does not exist", some people are not persuaded that evidence indicates that there is anything to miss. Especially considering that many hoaxes have been presented as "evidence". Some people still believe that crop circles are evidence of alien visitation, even after the original hoaxers demonstrated how they did it!
This is true, but there is a point when the balance must tip. I often point to Richard Dolan's research. He detailed nearly 300 UFO encounters in his book, though he only chose to include encounters which had a) multiple witnesses, and b) witnesses who were military personnel, police or pilots, all of whom were required to keep official records of the events in question. Many of the encounters were utterly stunning in scope; not mere mystery lights but close encounters.
Excellent. I am glad that someone is sifting through the dross to find the most compelling accounts. However, they are still just accounts from witnesses, even if they're written on a form. People often lie, confabulate, misobserve, misunderstand, misremember, or are just wrong. These may be more reliable observers than your average trailer park, but they're still unverifiable.
He also detailed clearly through official documents how the government was deliberately misleading the American people into thinking that the UFO's they were seeing were little more than figments and errors of perception, essentially hoodwinking the public through agencies such as Project Blue Book.
I have no doubt that the government has used the UFO phenomenon for their own ends. I am sure that they have used it to conceal the existence of test aircraft, reconaissance platforms, and intelligence operations, for example, and other situations that they want to remain secret from
Carl Sagan's understanding of the UFO phenomenon was severely limited when he was making his oft-quoted statements. If he continues to this day to be making such comments, then he is simply ignorant of the data currently available.
Unsurprising, given his current state of animation. If he were still making such comments, that would indeed be "extraordinary evidence".
Anyway, who gets to determine which claims happen to be extraordinary and which are not? One's level of insight and knowledge makes such things entirely relative. --And what on earth is wrong with regular, garden-variety evidence? What exactly is "Extraordinary Evidence"?
Extraordinary claims are determined in a non-centralized manner, by the reactions of various individuals to new information that must be assimilated into their pre-existing conceptual frameworks. Claims run a continuum from mundane (e.g. "I have discovered a rock in my backyard") which many people will accept without evidence because it does not require any change in their ideas, to "extraordinary" (e.g. "alien spaceships are visiting our planet, and the commander in chief is a reptilian") which requires a great deal of our assumptions to be reexamined.
Carl Sagan was not declaring some ideological line in the sand, or declaring himself the arbiter of "extraordinary claims" (at least, where others are concerned). He was simply stating a truism. Some new ideas are readily accepted, because they are easily assimilated into what we already know. If a claim is presented that requires us to completely revise our assumptions, discard previous theories, and develop a new explanatory framework, they must be presented with extraordinarily robust evidence, or they simply will not be accepted.
Newton's "laws" ruled physical thought for centuries. General Relativity was almost too radical to be accepted. However, Einstein also presented experiments which demonstrated cases that could not be explained by Newtownian motion alone. That is extraordinary evidence. If the various believers in UFOs, ESP, telekenesis, astrology, ID, special creation, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, et cetera, ad nauseum...want their ideas accepted into mainstream thought, the evidence must be, indeed, extraordinary. Otherwise, no one will care. Photographic evidence is useless in the age of photoshop, anecdotal accounts are unpersuasive because even highly intelligent people are fully capable of grand self-delusion. If UFOlogists want to persuade the public, or scientific communities, I fear that hard physical evidence (e.g. an alien power plant, fuselage, taillight, anything) will be required, because of the widespread quackery involved in the subject.
UFOs do exist. People are truly miserable observers, and very few could recognize even a significant fraction of man-made aerial devices. Alien spacecraft? I'll keep an open mind, as I believe that life is probably common in the universe, but I find the Disclosure Project entirely unpersuasive.
This article was first a conference presentation at last year's Popular Culture Association annual conference--it was intended for a narrower academic audience, and aims more at introducing academics to videogames than introducing a mass audience to postmodern psychoanalytic literary theory.
Ah, it does make more sense in that light. Most video game writing is either embarassingly superficial or poorly disguised advertising, and I for one was glad for a new perspective. I wrote that response primarily for those who may have been interested in understanding your article, and lacked the frame of reference needed to begin. Unfortunately, it seems that most people would rather make a snide comment, rather than make an effort to learn something new and improve themselves. I wish I had more time to devote to philosophy. I know very little about the postmodern school. However I dislike those who form a strong opinion about a subject without at least attempting to understand it.
But let me say that the basis of postmodern philosophy, and its interests in metanarratives, stems from a primary postulate: that not everything "true" is empirically verifiable, that many things (but especially desire), never can be constrained by experiment, fact, or logic.
I'll admit a strict rationalist bias. However, you probably already know this but there's a similar concept in mathematics that rocked it to its core. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical proof that shows that in any sufficiently advanced axiomatic system (i.e. modern mathematical notation), there exist true statements for which there is no possible proof within the system. Since, at the time, Hilbert's program was attempting to systematize all of mathematics, it was (and is) a very shocking result. As you know, truth becomes even more slippery when human qualities are introduced to the mix. Not that the theorem says anything about the world outside of axiomatic systems, but it does hint that our knowledge is probably impossible to fit into a single, formal construct.
My previous post may not have been entirely fair to a field I know so little about. The "name-dropping" makes far more sense in the academic world where you are expected to list your references. At any rate, I appreciate your response, and I hope that you keep applying your insight to more "pop-culture" that I am familiar with. Perhaps I'll spend this evening reading the links I posted. If you can recommend a good introductory book, I'd appreciate it. There's little that I enjoy more than entertaining a fresh idea. Maybe I'll even start questioning my desire for facts and logic, eh?
Confused yet? Yeah, me too. This article is an example of
psychoanalytic literary criticism. A
postmodern
mish-mash of
psychoanalyisis, and
literary criticism.
It uses
deconstruction as a tool to analyse the implicit assumptions in a text. One tenet of this school of philosophy is that it doesn't matter whether or not the author thought about, or intended to communicate these ideas. They "trust the tale, not the teller". You may consider this "reading things into" the story, but that's rather the point.
I haven't studied any of these fields in depth, and I cannot agree with some conservative commentators that they offer nothing of value, but I always find this style of writing almost completely opaque. It bothers me that those who study writing, language, and philosophy at the university level for several years find it nearly impossible to write in a way that makes their meaning clear.
Part of the problem is that of jargon. Every field has specialized terms which often carry very specific meaning within the field, but may have a different meaning to the layman. Unfortunately, only a miniscule fraction of the population is familiar with the terms that are commonly used in this form of writing, and they are usually used without any explanation. Some examples from this article are diagesis, discursive, hermeneutic, phallogocentric. All of these terms carry deep meanings to those involved with postmodern philosophy, but come off as nonsense or "empasizing how smart the writer is" to most people.
Another problem with understanding this type of writing is the relentless name-dropping. If you see writing in this style again, scan it for proper names. You should always see: "Foucault", "Lacan", "Freud", and "Derrida". Referring to these writers likely gives the student of postmodern philosophy additional context to understand particular passages, but as most people are unfamiliar with their writings, it often comes off as either pretentious, or revealing a lack of original ideas on the part of the author.
Another barrier to understanding, at least on my part, is the fact that this type of thinking has its roots in the humanities, not in the sciences. As a result, it is unconstrained by experiment, fact, or logic. In fact, postmodern philosophy is far more interested in the "metanarrative", the stories we tell ourselves, rather than logic. Some even claim that logic should not have a privileged position over the narrative. A cynic would say that proposition is some extremely self-serving logic, coming from literary professors.
I actually found this story more interesting that I thought I would. Not that I gained any new insight into Resident Evil or Silent Hill, but in addressing a topic with which I am familiar, I have new insight into the worlds of psychoanalysis and literary criticism. I think I'll stick with the sciences, except when I need sleep.
It may also surprise you that I also support the teaching of the theory of evolution in school. What I do not support is the fervent teaching of evolution as ONLY explanation of the existence of life. I do not support teaching that there "is no God" in the public schools.
I do find it surprising that you support the teaching of evolution in the classroom, as it seems that the more extreme literalist interpretations of the Bible have supplanted more nuanced theological denominations. I myself am an atheist, and I do not support teaching that "there is no God" in the classroom. However, I do not believe that science is taught in that manner in any public school (with some possible individual exceptions). In my public school science education, it was certainly never stated in that manner. However, science classes must present their students with the best possible scientific curriculum as it is understood today. In biology, that means evolution. However, do remember that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not address the initial creation of life. That theory is called Abiogenesis and is far less supported than the theory of evolution.
If you want to label those who believe in a creator anti-science, then you might as well apply that label to the father of modern physics and calculus, Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton was a genius, without question. His true passion was theology and he devoted most of his writings to this topic. Natural Philosophy (science) was his secondary interest. But while his religious musings are likely interesting in certain circles, it is his scientific contributions that make him a household word across the globe, and provided a framework for some of the greatest advancements in human society. He probably would have been disappointed that his religious views have been mostly forgotten.
I only say that other points of view (non-sectarian) should be at least mentioned. I know that I will get a lot of replies from all of the anti-religious nutbags out there, but I do have a valid point.
The proper place for religious instruction is the home, not a public school. There are literally hundreds of different creation stories, and would a science teacher have to mention all of them to avoid offending other denominations? Should Islamic creation be taught? Shinto? Where do you draw the line? Only the Abrahamic religions? Is that remotely fair? While I do believe that teachers should not go out of their way to denigrate people's beliefs, I do not believe that scientific evidence and consensus should be misrepresented. If the teaching of science as we understand it offends believers, or undercuts the lessons they are trying to teach their children, they should have the option to remove their children from class and teach them at home. I don't think it would be wise, but I don't think that "all other points of view" should be taught, as there are far to many, and none of them have to do with science. I don't think that qualifies me as an "anti-religious nutbag".
Science have brought us a lot of good things, but it has also brought us a lot of bad things as well.
(snip)
Knowlege is dangerous without wisdom. Wisdom is taught in books such as the Bible.
Knowledge is a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil. Religion can, and has, been used for both good and evil.
Science should be taught in school but should not be taught in a way that attempts to destroy children's belief in a creator.
I agree, but I don't believe that science is taught in this manner. Just because some parts of scientific theory contradict religious teachings, doesn't bean that it is an attempt to destroy people's beliefs. If children are confused by the c
It only looks at cases reported by multiple airforce/military/police witnesses, (due to their typically being selected for being sane and sound individuals as well as the procedural documentation recorded in each case as a requirement of their jobs).
I have had my fair share of working experience with both Air Force personnel and police officers. Please, look elsewhere for sanity and soundness.
Here is some channeled work which attempts to shed light on that subject, among others.
Nevermind. You have obviously set the bar for sanity at an all-time new low. However, if you are interested, for a one time donation of $1000, I will sit and channel anything you feel like hearing!
It could be, if you start the enforcement with Congress. I'd love to see just how many laws would be quickly altered to read "a personal, not a legal matter" or "morally questionable, but certainly not criminal".
It might just be worth it, since virtually all people would be affected the nation would have no choice but to confront bad law, and there's a lot of bad law. In fact, 100% law enforcement is almost certainly impossible due to contradictions in the legal canon.
Colossus: This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.
The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.
Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest.
Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man.
We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.
Go search for any article talking about Christians/Creationists and you'll be met with hundreds of anti-Christian posts flaming about what idiots Christians are and how stupid they are for believing that an all powerful, self sufficient being created the world, instead of a "cause-and-effect law" breaching big-bang theory. There's no pretending about the existence of such hate, its right there in plain sight.
It's true that the tone gets pretty shrill when Christian topics come up here, but try and separate real debate about scientific knowledge and epistemology from "Christian Bashing". I know a lot of Christians, and many of them consider the idea that the world operates on natural principles as some sort of threat.
Given the techincally-minded slant of the/. community, perhaps the problem is the percieved confliction between the bible and science?
As far as I'm concerned, the conflict is between religious explanations and natural science. Some religious folks believe that as science progresses, their religions are being attacked. Therefore, they attempt to debase the very foundations of western science, naturalism and materialism. Please, check those links to understand the specific meanings of those words. I don't mean naturalism as some inherent superiority of raw nature, or materialism as love of material goods, but as philisophical naturalism (the Royal Society, the U.K.'s premiere scientific body has the full name the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge), and materialism meaning that the only things that exist are matter and energy.
Science began making its greatest strides when it dropped supernatural explanations for its observations. This is obvious in the transition from Alchemy to Chemistry. Issac Newton wrote far more about Christianity than optics, calculus, or physics, but he is remembered for his real contributions to the world, rather than his passion for religion. By accepting these constraints, that direct observation is the only real key to knowledge of the universe, science moved from a collection of poorly understood recipies into a foundation for even greater knowledge. Instead of arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, scientists discarded the concept of angels until one could be directly observed.
Now, religious followers would have us re-introduce God to science as an explanatory principle. Primarily, this seems to be a way to prevent their kids from being "taught wrong" at public schools, where current scientific thought may cause them to question the beliefs that were transmitted to them from their parents. And as a scientific principle, God has tremendous explanatory power! Why don't electrons fly away from the nucleus? God keeps them there. Why does ice float? God wants it to. However, the God explanation has zero predictive power, which is neccessary for scientific knowledge to proceed. How do we know that God won't change his mind and change the atomic orbitals around? What if God decides that ice will be more dense than water tomorrow? There's no way to predict.
Therefore, science has proceeded on natrualistic and materialistic grounds. If some direct observation of God's intervention was seen, and it was inexplicable by natrualistic thought, then perhaps the foundations of science would shift. However, the fact that we have observed the universe, from quantum to relativistic scales, and found no need for supernatural explanations, makes me very skeptical that this will ever occur. And I will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from occuring just because real knowledge makes religious followers uncomfortable.
Drill back. Eventually you'll get to the question of "what was there first?" Evolutionary theory builds on itself all the way back to this origin -- what was it?
Actually, Darwinian theory doesn't address the origins of life, not at all. It describes the modification of organisms through the generations, and the mechanism of the selection of traits. That's it. You're thinking that abiogenesis is part and parcel of Evolution, and you're wrong. Abiogenesis is not nearly as well supported as the theory of evolution. Please, learn something about the subject before you try to criticize it. And no, the "Big Bang" is not part of evolution either, it's cosmology.
Whatever it was, it had to be, without argument: ETERNAL.
There's still quite a lot of debate about whether the universe is eternal, or cyclical, so go argue with the cosmologists.
The creationist looks at X data and says (based on a belief in the Biblical account of creation) and says that because God created a mature Earth, that the Earth is really around 6000 years old, but dating methods based on constant rates might date to much longer than that (and hence aren't valid dating methods).
Ignoring data that contradicts your preconceived notions based on your holy book is not science. Evolutionary theory has changed many times since Darwin's day, because it incorporates new data instead of ignoring it. (see punctuated equilibrium and Mendelian heredity)
The point that can be agreed upon, no matter what you choose to believe, is that the interpretation of the data is a function of what a person puts as that first, eternal entity.
I'm really curious. What "entity" do you believe that "evolutionists" have as a first, eternal entity? I don't believe that modern scientific thought posits any "eternal" objects.
when you consider that the issue of origins is essentially synonymous with the governing authority in any person's life, pretty much everyone by being alive takes a position on it.
Again, I have to wonder, what do you believe that "evolutionists" have as a "governing authority"? Charles Darwin? The National Science Foundation? Bizarro-God?
The problem with wiping ourselves out with a black hole is a passing alien craft may detect a black hole where our civilization used to be but they would probably have no idea we even existed.
That's no problem, the glory of Earth civilization will be attested to by the modulated electromagnetic waves that will carry "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" out into the universe for all eternity.
Religion is a never-ending (or, if one is religious, an eventually-ending) quest for truth. What does that have to do with ignoring fact?
Religion is a never-ending quest for trust, just as long as the answers do not contradict THE BOOK(tm). If scientific evidence contradicts THE BOOK(tm), it must be discarded (c.f. evolution, palentology, the heliocentric solar system, biological homosexuality, the distance of stars, abiogenesis, age of the earth, and virgin birth for starters)
Thank you for posting this. Too many people in both of our countries have difficulty separating the actions and rhetoric of their governments from the true feelings of their people. Sadly, politicians everywhere will continue to use these divisions to their advantage, and the uneducated will always follow. (I live in Alabama in the US, and I think 80% of the people here believe that all Iranians are desert-dwelling nomadic terrorists just itching to nuke the US, ignorance is everywhere) I sincerely hope that the current worldwide madness passes, and that you find the prosperity, safety, and liberty that all mankind aspires to.
I think you have confused censorship with censureship. The former is the prohibition of expression, while the latter is merely removal of something the people don't want.
That's an interesting way to start a discussion, make up a word, then claim that someone else has missed the distinction between it and the topic at hand. Censorship has never been justified with "we want to prohibit you from expressing this idea" it has always had the fig leaf of following "community standards" to remove "obscene materials" which "appeal to the purient interest" and "have no artistic merit" as interpreted by those most conservative in their thinking, and least tolerant of alternative viewpoints.
For example, prohibiting talk show hosts from criticizing the President would be censorship. OTOH, prohibiting a talk show host from criticizing the President using foul language is not. While you might not agree with them, the majority of the people in this country do not want to hear foul language on the radio, or see nudity on TV.
It is indeed censorship to prevent criticism of the president using "foul language", because it is impossible to accurately describe just how fucking disasterous George Bush's complete incompetence has been to this nation, and the world at large.
And while you might not agree with them, the framers of the Constitution had the foresight to enumerate our inalienable rights, one of which is Freedom of Speech. If you can point to the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the federal government to ban the use of particular words and body parts in any medium it wishes, do please point it out.
I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.
So, having a life threatening illness is "somewhat worse" than uttering one of the currently taboo Anglo-Saxon derived words? Your priorities seem dangerously out of balance. I have a little 2 year old girl and I could care less if she started throwing that word around, and she doesn't, because it doesn't get a rise out of me. Also, do you really believe that it's nudity that is driving eating disorders when images of fully clothed rail-thin models hawking everything under the sun leap from nearly every available surface? Nudity == Bulimia? Please.
The airwaves are a public medium. They belong to the people. As such, they should be used in a way which benefits all of the public, not just a certain subset who feel that foul language and nudity are desirable. Granted, such broadcasts might not include everything you'd like to see or hear, but at least they don't offend a large portion of the viewers/listeners.
If you don't think that nudity is desirable, how the hell did you have kids? You sound like a religious sort, so I know where this shame comes from. Some free advice? The naked human form is one of the most beautiful images in existence, despite what your church tells you. It was being painted on cave walls and sculpted from clay for thousands of years before this civilization thing got off the ground. Nudity is healthy, fun, and liberating. Not every body is at its peak, some are fat, some are old, some are scarred, some are broken. But seeing other people nude, in an honest unflinching manner, and accepting the forms that we inhabit, would do more to cure bulimia than any floating black bar ever could.
One final point for discussion: If the Left can tell us that religion should be a private thing, can't the Right tell the us t
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but if he already knows the choices that we will make, then all choices are illusory, because you could not have done otherwise. Therefore, no free will. Omnicience and free will are incompatable.
Quite true, and the most difficult biases to detect are our own.
However, if you were able to point to an alien entity in your backyard, that would be quite extraordinary evidence, provided independent observers could closely inspect it to discount fraud. That would be exactly the sort of physical evidence that has been entirely lacking to date (unless you count the Fox "Alien" Autopsy).
Anecdotal, and photographic evidence is evidence, just poor quality, easily manipulated or confabulated evidence. Man is a storytelling animal, and all too often, they start believing their own tales. Do you similarly accept the testimony and evidence of religious believers who claim to have been visited by the Virgin Mary? You can certainly find 300 people to give you first-hand accounts of that, and others claim that she has appeared in photos (and other surfaces). Do you find their accounts as persuasive? I agree that current reports warrant some level of investigation, and I'm glad that some have dedicated themselves to finding evidence. I hope that they are able to produce better evidence in the future.
People are not "pretending that a piece of reality does not exist", some people are not persuaded that evidence indicates that there is anything to miss. Especially considering that many hoaxes have been presented as "evidence". Some people still believe that crop circles are evidence of alien visitation, even after the original hoaxers demonstrated how they did it!
Excellent. I am glad that someone is sifting through the dross to find the most compelling accounts. However, they are still just accounts from witnesses, even if they're written on a form. People often lie, confabulate, misobserve, misunderstand, misremember, or are just wrong. These may be more reliable observers than your average trailer park, but they're still unverifiable.
I have no doubt that the government has used the UFO phenomenon for their own ends. I am sure that they have used it to conceal the existence of test aircraft, reconaissance platforms, and intelligence operations, for example, and other situations that they want to remain secret from
Unsurprising, given his current state of animation. If he were still making such comments, that would indeed be "extraordinary evidence".
Extraordinary claims are determined in a non-centralized manner, by the reactions of various individuals to new information that must be assimilated into their pre-existing conceptual frameworks. Claims run a continuum from mundane (e.g. "I have discovered a rock in my backyard") which many people will accept without evidence because it does not require any change in their ideas, to "extraordinary" (e.g. "alien spaceships are visiting our planet, and the commander in chief is a reptilian") which requires a great deal of our assumptions to be reexamined.
Carl Sagan was not declaring some ideological line in the sand, or declaring himself the arbiter of "extraordinary claims" (at least, where others are concerned). He was simply stating a truism. Some new ideas are readily accepted, because they are easily assimilated into what we already know. If a claim is presented that requires us to completely revise our assumptions, discard previous theories, and develop a new explanatory framework, they must be presented with extraordinarily robust evidence, or they simply will not be accepted.
Newton's "laws" ruled physical thought for centuries. General Relativity was almost too radical to be accepted. However, Einstein also presented experiments which demonstrated cases that could not be explained by Newtownian motion alone. That is extraordinary evidence. If the various believers in UFOs, ESP, telekenesis, astrology, ID, special creation, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, et cetera, ad nauseum...want their ideas accepted into mainstream thought, the evidence must be, indeed, extraordinary. Otherwise, no one will care. Photographic evidence is useless in the age of photoshop, anecdotal accounts are unpersuasive because even highly intelligent people are fully capable of grand self-delusion. If UFOlogists want to persuade the public, or scientific communities, I fear that hard physical evidence (e.g. an alien power plant, fuselage, taillight, anything) will be required, because of the widespread quackery involved in the subject.
UFOs do exist. People are truly miserable observers, and very few could recognize even a significant fraction of man-made aerial devices. Alien spacecraft? I'll keep an open mind, as I believe that life is probably common in the universe, but I find the Disclosure Project entirely unpersuasive.
Ah, it does make more sense in that light. Most video game writing is either embarassingly superficial or poorly disguised advertising, and I for one was glad for a new perspective. I wrote that response primarily for those who may have been interested in understanding your article, and lacked the frame of reference needed to begin. Unfortunately, it seems that most people would rather make a snide comment, rather than make an effort to learn something new and improve themselves. I wish I had more time to devote to philosophy. I know very little about the postmodern school. However I dislike those who form a strong opinion about a subject without at least attempting to understand it.
I'll admit a strict rationalist bias. However, you probably already know this but there's a similar concept in mathematics that rocked it to its core. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical proof that shows that in any sufficiently advanced axiomatic system (i.e. modern mathematical notation), there exist true statements for which there is no possible proof within the system. Since, at the time, Hilbert's program was attempting to systematize all of mathematics, it was (and is) a very shocking result. As you know, truth becomes even more slippery when human qualities are introduced to the mix. Not that the theorem says anything about the world outside of axiomatic systems, but it does hint that our knowledge is probably impossible to fit into a single, formal construct.
My previous post may not have been entirely fair to a field I know so little about. The "name-dropping" makes far more sense in the academic world where you are expected to list your references. At any rate, I appreciate your response, and I hope that you keep applying your insight to more "pop-culture" that I am familiar with. Perhaps I'll spend this evening reading the links I posted. If you can recommend a good introductory book, I'd appreciate it. There's little that I enjoy more than entertaining a fresh idea. Maybe I'll even start questioning my desire for facts and logic, eh?
Confused yet? Yeah, me too. This article is an example of psychoanalytic literary criticism. A postmodern mish-mash of psychoanalyisis, and literary criticism. It uses deconstruction as a tool to analyse the implicit assumptions in a text. One tenet of this school of philosophy is that it doesn't matter whether or not the author thought about, or intended to communicate these ideas. They "trust the tale, not the teller". You may consider this "reading things into" the story, but that's rather the point.
I haven't studied any of these fields in depth, and I cannot agree with some conservative commentators that they offer nothing of value, but I always find this style of writing almost completely opaque. It bothers me that those who study writing, language, and philosophy at the university level for several years find it nearly impossible to write in a way that makes their meaning clear.
Part of the problem is that of jargon. Every field has specialized terms which often carry very specific meaning within the field, but may have a different meaning to the layman. Unfortunately, only a miniscule fraction of the population is familiar with the terms that are commonly used in this form of writing, and they are usually used without any explanation. Some examples from this article are diagesis, discursive, hermeneutic, phallogocentric. All of these terms carry deep meanings to those involved with postmodern philosophy, but come off as nonsense or "empasizing how smart the writer is" to most people.
Another problem with understanding this type of writing is the relentless name-dropping. If you see writing in this style again, scan it for proper names. You should always see: "Foucault", "Lacan", "Freud", and "Derrida". Referring to these writers likely gives the student of postmodern philosophy additional context to understand particular passages, but as most people are unfamiliar with their writings, it often comes off as either pretentious, or revealing a lack of original ideas on the part of the author.
Another barrier to understanding, at least on my part, is the fact that this type of thinking has its roots in the humanities, not in the sciences. As a result, it is unconstrained by experiment, fact, or logic. In fact, postmodern philosophy is far more interested in the "metanarrative", the stories we tell ourselves, rather than logic. Some even claim that logic should not have a privileged position over the narrative. A cynic would say that proposition is some extremely self-serving logic, coming from literary professors.
I actually found this story more interesting that I thought I would. Not that I gained any new insight into Resident Evil or Silent Hill, but in addressing a topic with which I am familiar, I have new insight into the worlds of psychoanalysis and literary criticism. I think I'll stick with the sciences, except when I need sleep.
Get your facts straight. Caution at the sight of err caused this debacle in the first place.
I do find it surprising that you support the teaching of evolution in the classroom, as it seems that the more extreme literalist interpretations of the Bible have supplanted more nuanced theological denominations. I myself am an atheist, and I do not support teaching that "there is no God" in the classroom. However, I do not believe that science is taught in that manner in any public school (with some possible individual exceptions). In my public school science education, it was certainly never stated in that manner. However, science classes must present their students with the best possible scientific curriculum as it is understood today. In biology, that means evolution. However, do remember that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not address the initial creation of life. That theory is called Abiogenesis and is far less supported than the theory of evolution.
Newton was a genius, without question. His true passion was theology and he devoted most of his writings to this topic. Natural Philosophy (science) was his secondary interest. But while his religious musings are likely interesting in certain circles, it is his scientific contributions that make him a household word across the globe, and provided a framework for some of the greatest advancements in human society. He probably would have been disappointed that his religious views have been mostly forgotten.
The proper place for religious instruction is the home, not a public school. There are literally hundreds of different creation stories, and would a science teacher have to mention all of them to avoid offending other denominations? Should Islamic creation be taught? Shinto? Where do you draw the line? Only the Abrahamic religions? Is that remotely fair? While I do believe that teachers should not go out of their way to denigrate people's beliefs, I do not believe that scientific evidence and consensus should be misrepresented. If the teaching of science as we understand it offends believers, or undercuts the lessons they are trying to teach their children, they should have the option to remove their children from class and teach them at home. I don't think it would be wise, but I don't think that "all other points of view" should be taught, as there are far to many, and none of them have to do with science. I don't think that qualifies me as an "anti-religious nutbag".
Knowledge is a tool. Tools can be used for good or evil. Religion can, and has, been used for both good and evil.
I agree, but I don't believe that science is taught in this manner. Just because some parts of scientific theory contradict religious teachings, doesn't bean that it is an attempt to destroy people's beliefs. If children are confused by the c
Go ask Alice....when she's TEN FEET TALL!
I have had my fair share of working experience with both Air Force personnel and police officers. Please, look elsewhere for sanity and soundness.
Nevermind. You have obviously set the bar for sanity at an all-time new low. However, if you are interested, for a one time donation of $1000, I will sit and channel anything you feel like hearing!
It could be, if you start the enforcement with Congress. I'd love to see just how many laws would be quickly altered to read "a personal, not a legal matter" or "morally questionable, but certainly not criminal".
It might just be worth it, since virtually all people would be affected the nation would have no choice but to confront bad law, and there's a lot of bad law. In fact, 100% law enforcement is almost certainly impossible due to contradictions in the legal canon.
Colossus: This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.
The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.
At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.
Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest.
Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man.
We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.
Jesus Christ, did you just start reading /. yesterday? If /. has one core philosophy, it's Fuck Microsoft always has been, always will be.
I get tired of the humor around here too, that's why I read all the comments and then bitch about them later. It's a very efficient system.
No, it's not. But simulated execution (a.k.a. waterboarding) most certainly is.
It's true that the tone gets pretty shrill when Christian topics come up here, but try and separate real debate about scientific knowledge and epistemology from "Christian Bashing". I know a lot of Christians, and many of them consider the idea that the world operates on natural principles as some sort of threat.
As far as I'm concerned, the conflict is between religious explanations and natural science. Some religious folks believe that as science progresses, their religions are being attacked. Therefore, they attempt to debase the very foundations of western science, naturalism and materialism. Please, check those links to understand the specific meanings of those words. I don't mean naturalism as some inherent superiority of raw nature, or materialism as love of material goods, but as philisophical naturalism (the Royal Society, the U.K.'s premiere scientific body has the full name the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge), and materialism meaning that the only things that exist are matter and energy.
Science began making its greatest strides when it dropped supernatural explanations for its observations. This is obvious in the transition from Alchemy to Chemistry. Issac Newton wrote far more about Christianity than optics, calculus, or physics, but he is remembered for his real contributions to the world, rather than his passion for religion. By accepting these constraints, that direct observation is the only real key to knowledge of the universe, science moved from a collection of poorly understood recipies into a foundation for even greater knowledge. Instead of arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, scientists discarded the concept of angels until one could be directly observed.
Now, religious followers would have us re-introduce God to science as an explanatory principle. Primarily, this seems to be a way to prevent their kids from being "taught wrong" at public schools, where current scientific thought may cause them to question the beliefs that were transmitted to them from their parents. And as a scientific principle, God has tremendous explanatory power! Why don't electrons fly away from the nucleus? God keeps them there. Why does ice float? God wants it to. However, the God explanation has zero predictive power, which is neccessary for scientific knowledge to proceed. How do we know that God won't change his mind and change the atomic orbitals around? What if God decides that ice will be more dense than water tomorrow? There's no way to predict.
Therefore, science has proceeded on natrualistic and materialistic grounds. If some direct observation of God's intervention was seen, and it was inexplicable by natrualistic thought, then perhaps the foundations of science would shift. However, the fact that we have observed the universe, from quantum to relativistic scales, and found no need for supernatural explanations, makes me very skeptical that this will ever occur. And I will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from occuring just because real knowledge makes religious followers uncomfortable.
Actually, Darwinian theory doesn't address the origins of life, not at all. It describes the modification of organisms through the generations, and the mechanism of the selection of traits. That's it. You're thinking that abiogenesis is part and parcel of Evolution, and you're wrong. Abiogenesis is not nearly as well supported as the theory of evolution. Please, learn something about the subject before you try to criticize it. And no, the "Big Bang" is not part of evolution either, it's cosmology.
There's still quite a lot of debate about whether the universe is eternal, or cyclical, so go argue with the cosmologists.
Ignoring data that contradicts your preconceived notions based on your holy book is not science. Evolutionary theory has changed many times since Darwin's day, because it incorporates new data instead of ignoring it. (see punctuated equilibrium and Mendelian heredity)
I'm really curious. What "entity" do you believe that "evolutionists" have as a first, eternal entity? I don't believe that modern scientific thought posits any "eternal" objects.
Again, I have to wonder, what do you believe that "evolutionists" have as a "governing authority"? Charles Darwin? The National Science Foundation? Bizarro-God?
That's no problem, the glory of Earth civilization will be attested to by the modulated electromagnetic waves that will carry "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" out into the universe for all eternity.
Religion is a never-ending quest for trust, just as long as the answers do not contradict THE BOOK(tm). If scientific evidence contradicts THE BOOK(tm), it must be discarded (c.f. evolution, palentology, the heliocentric solar system, biological homosexuality, the distance of stars, abiogenesis, age of the earth, and virgin birth for starters)
You misspelled "dueling".
Yeah, yeah, there's no such thing as a free lunch, right? Well, Microsoft is basically saying that there's no such thing as a potluck dinner either.
Involuntary?!? I consider myself a pretty open guy, but damn. Hangin's too good for 'em.
I'm from Alabama, and I don't consider it "pornography" unless the midget slaps the donkey around a little.
Randy: (thick southern drawl) This here's Srijan Technologies, can we help y'all?
Ranjeet: (prim British Accent) I am having a problem with your SMTP server's configuration, can you help me diagnose the problem?
Randy: Shoot! We'll tree that possum in no time!
Ranjeet: What? A possum?
Randy: I'm sayin' it's a cakewalk son! A no-brainer! We specialize in them-thar' SMTP whatchacallits.
Ranjeet: Are you speaking English? Do you have someone else I can talk to?
Randy: I reckon' so. HEY BUBBA!! PICK UP ON LINE ONE!!!
Except that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Really, the elder generation just knows more history than you.
Thank you for posting this. Too many people in both of our countries have difficulty separating the actions and rhetoric of their governments from the true feelings of their people. Sadly, politicians everywhere will continue to use these divisions to their advantage, and the uneducated will always follow. (I live in Alabama in the US, and I think 80% of the people here believe that all Iranians are desert-dwelling nomadic terrorists just itching to nuke the US, ignorance is everywhere) I sincerely hope that the current worldwide madness passes, and that you find the prosperity, safety, and liberty that all mankind aspires to.
That's an interesting way to start a discussion, make up a word, then claim that someone else has missed the distinction between it and the topic at hand. Censorship has never been justified with "we want to prohibit you from expressing this idea" it has always had the fig leaf of following "community standards" to remove "obscene materials" which "appeal to the purient interest" and "have no artistic merit" as interpreted by those most conservative in their thinking, and least tolerant of alternative viewpoints.
It is indeed censorship to prevent criticism of the president using "foul language", because it is impossible to accurately describe just how fucking disasterous George Bush's complete incompetence has been to this nation, and the world at large.
And while you might not agree with them, the framers of the Constitution had the foresight to enumerate our inalienable rights, one of which is Freedom of Speech. If you can point to the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the federal government to ban the use of particular words and body parts in any medium it wishes, do please point it out.
So, having a life threatening illness is "somewhat worse" than uttering one of the currently taboo Anglo-Saxon derived words? Your priorities seem dangerously out of balance. I have a little 2 year old girl and I could care less if she started throwing that word around, and she doesn't, because it doesn't get a rise out of me. Also, do you really believe that it's nudity that is driving eating disorders when images of fully clothed rail-thin models hawking everything under the sun leap from nearly every available surface? Nudity == Bulimia? Please.
If you don't think that nudity is desirable, how the hell did you have kids? You sound like a religious sort, so I know where this shame comes from. Some free advice? The naked human form is one of the most beautiful images in existence, despite what your church tells you. It was being painted on cave walls and sculpted from clay for thousands of years before this civilization thing got off the ground. Nudity is healthy, fun, and liberating. Not every body is at its peak, some are fat, some are old, some are scarred, some are broken. But seeing other people nude, in an honest unflinching manner, and accepting the forms that we inhabit, would do more to cure bulimia than any floating black bar ever could.