It appears to be a state of delusion.
Could be a state of euphoria if A/C pulls it off.
The patent application, however, is certainly not state of the art.
Divine intervention is untestable because it is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is a criteria developed by philosopher Karl Popper to determine if a proposition is scientific. If there is no way, even in principal, to disaprove a theory then that theory is not scientific.
No matter what the evidence, you can not prove that divine intervention did not occur. Since God is assumed omnipotent, there is always an escape hatch.
For example, if someone suggests that God created the world 6000 years old, and you point out the existence of fossils whose carbon dating shows them to be millions of years old, that person can say "oh, well, God placed those seemingly old fossils there 6000 years ago with those carbon isotopes like that to test our faith".
Thus the proposition that God created the world 6000 years ago can never be proven wrong even if it's not true, and therefore the proposition is not scientific.
The same holds true with the conjecture that God guided evolution.
I mentioned evolution because that happens to be the topic du jour. Hope you noticed.
Outright refusal to study any valid scientific theory on the basis that it involves a divine being is teaching atheism.
If we accept this proposition then all of science is atheism, for science is specifically concerned with finding natural, not supernatural, explanations for the universe.
In other words, seeking divine explanations is pretty well by definition not science.
However, as you point out, it is perfectly possible for religious people to do science - that is, to seek naturalistic causes - without sacrificing their faith. I never said they couldn't.
To claim that I did is indeed a straw man.
And when, pray tell, has atheism ever been taught in the science classroom?
Teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Indeed. science specifically avoids the question of the
existance of a divine being. It is left as an excercise for the reader.
As I understand it, they refer to the same being.
The word Jehovah was adopted by 17'th century religious scholars as the ancient name for God, probably incorrectly (or so the omniscient wikipedia says.)
I guess I could have used the more correct Yahweh (if I had thought of it), but most people would not have recognized it as the name for the Jewish-Christian god.
What's unacceptable is the intolerance you embrace so wholeheartedly. You can make fun of whatever you want, but your intolerance is tantamount to hatred.
It's disgusting.
True scientists understand this. You don't.
So this is really all about your hatred of religion and your paranoia about the motivations of people of faith.
You disgust me. You're a bigot and a fool.
And people say the Spanish Inquisition is dead.
Where is your Christian charity?
I take it you think making fun of religion is not funny or acceptable. I disagree. There are times when religion thoroughly deserves it, and this is one of them.
The FSM was invented for a purpose. The people pushing intelligent design claim to want to show that both facts and logic require us to conclude some supernatural force is necessary to bring about evolution.
Which force is usually left unsaid, for that would clearly expose the motivations behind ID. But we all know which force ID proponents have in mind - namely Jehovah, the god of Moses.
With the introduction of the inflammatory FSM, ID proponents are forced to show themselves for what they are - that
is, supporters of a Christian, not a scientific, agenda. In other words, cards on the table.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not intolerant. It's an all-loving, all-forgiving being who reaches out to all of humanity with its al dente arms, preferably with a little parmesan and a good bottle of red wine.
Well, you have to define "2" somehow. It doesn't just magically appear. One way is define it as 1 + 1. Then you define "3" as 2 + 1, and so on.
I'm familiar with the set theory approach, where zero is
defined as the null set, 1 is defined as set the containing the null set plus the set containing 0, 2 is defined as the set containing the null set plus the set containing 1, and so on.
Scientists do indeed want control of the minds of the students - in the science classroom. If students are taught creationism in church or a religious studies class, well most scientists are fine with that.
I suppose you can dismiss the whole thing as "just political". I suppose you can dismiss almost anything, even plain questions of fact, as "just political." I can't see where it achieves much though.
"nedit" (http://www.nedit.org/) is my fave. Very easy to learn, quite straightforward to customize, nearly as powerful as emacs (for the most common things), and runs everwhere.
It was perfect for us because many of our users were using
clunky old "textedit" on Sun boxes. The adaption time was instantaneous.
Under the GPL, it's also free, anyway you define it.
The attacks on science do not just come from the right. The left also has being undermining support for science.
I speak of postmodernism, and its contention that truth is relative, that "local ways of knowing" are as valid as science, that E = M C-squared is a "sexed" equation", that Principia Mathematica is a rape manual, that science is just a tool of oppression by white, European males.
Grotesque stupidity to be sure, but this stuff is being spewed forth by leftist, sometimes Marxist, university professors.
I heard (and it was briefly mentioned in one of the articles) that hybrid cars don't work well in the cold. Is this true?
Where I live it gets a bit nippy in the winter. Hell, it gets a bit nippy in the summer. There's nothing like a good ol' fashion 28%-efficient infernal combustion engine to keep the warm air blasting through the vents. I wonder how well a hybrid vehicle would do?
And if you think that's a minor point, you don't understand what a real winter is.
It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.
No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.
Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?
Re:Blowing my mod points to clear up FUD
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
Let me settle this - you're both wrong.
The moon is extraterrestrial, is it not?
Well, the Soviets crashed into the moon on September 12, 1959.
Happily, no dogs were harmed in the making of this moon shot. Least none that lived to tell of it.
Actually, Kennedy probably initiated the space program for military reasons rather than to prove humanities worth. Going to the moon wasn't a priority before Sputnik.
The best reason for going into space now is scientific, and making it more dangerous and expensive than it need be jeopardizes the whole program. Gotta use our brains, not our balls.
As willing as that person might be, it would not be ethical for NASA to send them, especially since a robot could do the job cheaper and (probably) better.
And NASA would lose a lot of public support.
You don't send someone into a reactor core for the T.V. ratings.
Slashdot Mirror
Could be a state of euphoria if A/C pulls it off.
The patent application, however, is certainly not state of the art.
No matter what the evidence, you can not prove that divine intervention did not occur. Since God is assumed omnipotent, there is always an escape hatch.
For example, if someone suggests that God created the world 6000 years old, and you point out the existence of fossils whose carbon dating shows them to be millions of years old, that person can say "oh, well, God placed those seemingly old fossils there 6000 years ago with those carbon isotopes like that to test our faith".
Thus the proposition that God created the world 6000 years ago can never be proven wrong even if it's not true, and therefore the proposition is not scientific.
The same holds true with the conjecture that God guided evolution.
In other words, seeking divine explanations is pretty well by definition not science.
However, as you point out, it is perfectly possible for religious people to do science - that is, to seek naturalistic causes - without sacrificing their faith. I never said they couldn't. To claim that I did is indeed a straw man.
So what precisely do you find bigoted about my comments? Please quote the passage precisely.
And do you not find it hypocritical that someone who accuses me of hatred should make comments so seething with vitriol?
Teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Indeed. science specifically avoids the question of the existance of a divine being. It is left as an excercise for the reader.
I guess I could have used the more correct Yahweh (if I had thought of it), but most people would not have recognized it as the name for the Jewish-Christian god.
And people say the Spanish Inquisition is dead. Where is your Christian charity?
The FSM was invented for a purpose. The people pushing intelligent design claim to want to show that both facts and logic require us to conclude some supernatural force is necessary to bring about evolution.
Which force is usually left unsaid, for that would clearly expose the motivations behind ID. But we all know which force ID proponents have in mind - namely Jehovah, the god of Moses.
With the introduction of the inflammatory FSM, ID proponents are forced to show themselves for what they are - that is, supporters of a Christian, not a scientific, agenda. In other words, cards on the table.
Agreed. You (or someone) just seemed to be confused about why 1 + 1 = 2. Reason: Cause it's defined that way.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not intolerant. It's an all-loving, all-forgiving being who reaches out to all of humanity with its al dente arms, preferably with a little parmesan and a good bottle of red wine.
I'm familiar with the set theory approach, where zero is defined as the null set, 1 is defined as set the containing the null set plus the set containing 0, 2 is defined as the set containing the null set plus the set containing 1, and so on.
Confused yet?
I suppose you can dismiss the whole thing as "just political". I suppose you can dismiss almost anything, even plain questions of fact, as "just political." I can't see where it achieves much though.
It is possible to miss the subtle humour behind somebody beating the crap out of an old man while singing "Singin' In The Rain".
It was perfect for us because many of our users were using clunky old "textedit" on Sun boxes. The adaption time was instantaneous.
Under the GPL, it's also free, anyway you define it.
Like Canada and Finland?
I speak of postmodernism, and its contention that truth is relative, that "local ways of knowing" are as valid as science, that E = M C-squared is a "sexed" equation", that Principia Mathematica is a rape manual, that science is just a tool of oppression by white, European males.
Grotesque stupidity to be sure, but this stuff is being spewed forth by leftist, sometimes Marxist, university professors.
I would gladly give the egregiously misnamed Microsoft the patent, especially if they sued all unlicensed practitioners.
Where I live it gets a bit nippy in the winter. Hell, it gets a bit nippy in the summer. There's nothing like a good ol' fashion 28%-efficient infernal combustion engine to keep the warm air blasting through the vents. I wonder how well a hybrid vehicle would do?
And if you think that's a minor point, you don't understand what a real winter is.
Muslims also don't touch pork. If the U.S. elects only Jews and Muslims then pork will be eliminated, and politics should run much smoother.
It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.
No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.
Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?
The moon is extraterrestrial, is it not? Well, the Soviets crashed into the moon on September 12, 1959.
Happily, no dogs were harmed in the making of this moon shot. Least none that lived to tell of it.
The best reason for going into space now is scientific, and making it more dangerous and expensive than it need be jeopardizes the whole program. Gotta use our brains, not our balls.
And NASA would lose a lot of public support.
You don't send someone into a reactor core for the T.V. ratings.