I have not been personally involved in any detailed models of neurons, but there are models out there of single neurons with thousands of compartments. These definitely don't fit the "black box" description, IMO, and I think they do quite a good job of modeling the behavior of the neurons they're designed to model. I don't know if one has been worked out for a cortical pyramidal cell, but I do know they work quite well for hippocampal pyramidal cells, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't been worked out for their cortical brethren.
One strategy we've explored is a merging of those detailed models with our simplified models. We've created a rudimentary interface that allows our neural network software package to write out data such that a Neuron script can read it in, thus allowing comparisons between the two levels of detail. We can also reverse the process (have our software package read in input from a Neuron simulation). What I could envision happening is that one uses GAs (or some other approach) to iron out some of the details of the detailed model (as the GP experimentalist admits there is unfortunately still a lot of unknowns about the in vivo behavior), and then use another GA (or Evolutionary Algorithm) to find a suitable simplified model of the detailed model - one that is simple enough to be run in a simulation of 100,000 neurons.
No, no, no. They aren't faith! They are based on experience. They can be questioned, and challenged. If they don't work, they can be abandoned.
I'm sure you can find quite a few Christians who are more than willing to share their own experiences that support their faith, too. Sure, skeptics can point out one-in-a-billion things happen all the time, but that doesn't detract from the power of the "whoa" when you have one of those experiences.
But seriously, you don't believe that there are a small handful of basic axioms in science that are absolute? Without these axioms, how do you question or challenge? How do you define "don't work"? Such axioms include such things as causality, reproducibility, the modern version of Occam's razor (as stated by Einstein - the explanation should be the simplest one that explains the phenomenon, but no simpler), etc. Just like with Euclidean or even non-Euclidean geometry, there must be a core set of unchanging axioms. These axioms have served us very well, but you can't prove them because they are axioms. Perhaps the best that can be said is that where these axioms are explicitly stated (e.g., causality) scientists (and/or philosophers) actually are willing to imagine the consequences of dropping that axiom. Still, we need a foundation of axioms upon which to build anything. It's true for geometry, set theory, and, yes, science.
If you want to come up with an explanation of why our "faith" is better, I'd recommend prediction. Unlike many other faiths, we are actively encouraged to test it (as you do mention, of course). We can make predictions about things that have not yet been observed (AKA "the future") with a far better track record than most.
They might actually have some advantage when it comes to early research with using GAs to reproduce NNs. Is the Drosophila nervous system consistent, or is there a certain amount of randomness to it? (For example, the human brain is far too large and complex to be fully specified by the genome. To a certain degree the genome must be coding something like, "grow a few tens of thousands of neurons here, and send the axons in this general direction and the dendrites in that general direction" - and by "coding" I'm not really being that literal, I realize that physics is also quite relevant, but that evolution takes advantage of that physics to code the "message". We model the CA3 region of the hippocampus on a small scale - 100,000 neurons or less - as being totally randomly connected - not that we believe that it's really 100% random, just that's our best first approximation.)
Although we're not there yet, we're currently in the process of trying to get a grant from NIH to work with experimentalists in using our GA tools. It's not necessarily germane, but what region of the brain do you study? We mainly model the hippocampus, although we've had a little experience with PFC, visual cortex, and neocortex in general. Our lab has done models from levels of abstraction down to ion channels (H-H variants mainly) up to models of a dozen or so brain regions (at very abstract levels), although most of my research has focused on models of Izhikevich-type neurons in the hippocampus. (Izhikevich neurons are about as computationally fast as integrate-and-fire neurons, but have been shown by Izhikevich (in his 2007 book) to map to H-H type models.)
Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.
Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is presented carefully. However, it would be very easy for either a Christian or a non-Christian (Jew, atheist, etc.) to slip up when discussing this, so I'd make sure I had a script to go by when discussing it, I'd make sure that I had discussed the script with the principle, and I certainly wouldn't deny mentioning it if asked by a child's parent.
I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience:), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)
If you want to argue about contradictions within a belief system (which IMO necessarily include the physical world), then fine. But don't deny that believing in concepts such as causality, reproducibility, etc., are still beliefs. They may be beliefs of an arguably different nature, but still beliefs. Science is, in fact, based on a set of axioms. Those axioms are the cornerstones of the "faith".
The most common example is that free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w
No, but you do see teachers ridiculing and berating students to *do* have religious beliefs. Wanna try it out? Try stating in open class that you don't believe the theory of evolution is valid and watch the profs at your average University lay into you for being an idiot (or gullible, confused, brainwashed, etc...).
I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the professor has disagreed with the student, but did not "lay into" him. It was basically a "you're entitled to your beliefs, but if this comes up on a test..." type of response. I'm guessing the average professor is too smart to take up class time (or his own) on what will no doubt be a pointless exercise. (I know a couple people who have gone from being Creationists to believing in evolution, but in both cases it involved letting that person come to their own conclusion. Trying to "preach" to them is very unlikely to do any good.)
Now in no way are my few experiences proof that it never happens, or really even that it doesn't often happen - I admit they are just a few case studies. Still, my belief is that it doesn't happen at your average University.
Although your wiggle phrase "up to" gives you plenty of leeway, I want to point out that firing a "government" teacher is governed by local school district policies. Granted, many (if not most) of these make it way too difficult to fire a public school teacher. In Dekalb County, Georgia, where I was a public school teacher for two years, part of our orientation was the policy on firing. IIRC, the only thing that would get you fired was fairly horrible stuff (stabbing a student would probably do it). What stuck out in my mind was a discussion about what would happen if you failed 3 of the 5 possible evaluations in a school year. If you did it one year, not much (maybe they called it "probation", but it had no consequences). Two years, ditto. After 3 years of failing 3 of the 5 possible evaluations, you would no longer get the pay raises that went along with gaining experience. However, if you eventually did manage to pass 3 of the 5, then your pay rate would immediately jump to what it would have been if you hadn't ever failed any. FWIW, I didn't know of any teachers who failed even one observation, so for our school at least this was more of a problem in theory than in practice, but still...
Well, as a theoretician in computational neuroscience, I concur (on all of your points). One step I've taken along this path is to use genetic algorithms to augment my search through parameter space. It still requires quite a few answers from experimentalists to usefully reduce parameter space, though, as well as verification.
OK, I'll admit vegetarian might not be the best example, but think about it: why do we even need the word "vegetarian"? Can't we just say "people who don't eat animals"?
Now, see whether that comes closer to "atheist" than "aquinist" or "adentite". Is there a reason to use the word "vegetarian" rather than "people who don't eat animals"? Yes, because it comes up often enough that the shorthand is useful. Is there a reason to use "atheist" rather than "people who believe there is no god"? Yes, because it comes up often enough that the shorthand is useful. Is there a reason to use "aquinist" or "adentite"? (Ignoring the fact that they have no meaning to anyone else - that's presumably not the point here, because if there was a reason to use them, then they'd have that meaning.)
The word "atheist" exists because it is a useful shorthand. If you want words that might be a better example, how about aperiodic or anaerobic?
You can use any word you want to mean anything you want, but when it conflicts with the common useage of the word, then there will be problems with communication.
Then we mostly agree. From Random House:
"Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
From American Heritage:
"Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
"Agnostic: 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."
Notice that second definition highlights the distinction from atheism. So, we agree that usage is important. I was obviously basing my usage off of how people around me use it, and the first two dictionaries I looked in support my usage. Perhaps you're the one with the "usage" problem? (You'll notice that I'm not very militant about usage, because I realize that there are regional and cultural differences in usage, which unfortunately do lead to misunderstandings. That's why I was very careful to make the statement that this is how *I* use the words and wasn't trying to "correct" others.)
"I believe there are no pink unicorns. I can state that with utmost certainty. That does not mean that I have to assume there is some valid basis for believing there are pink unicorns."
Then why would you even bother establishing that belief system?
Heck, I don't believe that there are pink unicorns (visible or otherwise). That's a lack of belief. To go that extra mile to set up a belief is just silly and a waste of effort.
I never said I'd establish a belief system. You said:
First this isn't using "atheist to mean "agnostic". Second, there is pretty much nobody who "believes" there is no god. For that to be a reasonable position, you would already have to assume that there is some valid basis for believing there is one which is putting the cart before the horse.
Now, read my statement again. Really try to understand what I'm saying instead of just trying to figure out how you can restate it to make it fit your preconceived notions. What I'm saying, and I don't think it's very hard to understand, is that I believe that pink unicorns don't exist. I don't merely believe that they might not exist, I actually believe they don't exist. I don't have to go an "extra mile to set up a belief". Every statement you make automatically engenders in me some state of belief about it. I might believe it to be true, I might believe it to be false, or I might not be sure what to believe. It's really not that hard to create a belief. A belief system requires more work, but a belief is really quite simple and as automatic as breathing in many cases.
Of course, you still conveniently dodged my question about what 'word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god' by making the false claim that such people pretty much don't exist."
I didn't dodge anything.
What word do you use to describe people who are 12 feet tall, have 3 arms and hate basketball?
So, you really don't believe such people exist? Hm. It seems you've formed a belief there. I hope it didn't put you out. Oh, sure, you're now going to go some great lengths to mention that you didn't use the word "belief" (as if that matters some how), but you clearly have this (rather irrational) belief that people don't exist who actually believe that there is no god (as opposed to people who just aren't sure). What is the basis for this belief system you've created? I've met several such people, so you must believe that either (a) I'm delusional, (b) the people I've met were lying to me, or (c) I'm lying. Which is it?
You make some good arguments (and appeal to authority:) ), and I respect your desire to call yourself an atheist. In some ways, perhaps, this is similar to gays calling themselves "queer" and blacks using the "n" word to describe themselves. The argument is that if you call yourself by the label your enemies use on you, you take away some of the power of that label.
However, I suspect where one falls in this debate might depend somewhat on the types of people you find yourself in the company of. I know quite a few "kooks" (your term, not mine:) ), who believe in God, and I know quite a few "kooks" who are sure there is no god. Personally, I've struggled a lot with my faith, and I still have a lot of respect for those who do believe what I once believed. I'm not convinced that God does not exist, but it seems more likely to me that He doesn't than that He does. The point is, however, that when I have conversations with my "atheist" friends (those "kooks" who are quite sure there is no god), the distinction between their belief and mine is useful.
Your description of soft and hard agnostics makes me realize there's really even more categories here. There's people who are quite sure there is no god (A_0, where A can stand for agnostic or atheist, your choice), then there's people who are quite sure we can't know if there is no god (A_1), then there's people who aren't sure if we can know if there is a god (A_2). (Yes, I'm just making up these A_0, etc., labels.) And, of course, like your -9 to 9 scale there's who ranges of uncertainty involved in all of these. I'm mainly an A_2, whatever you want to call that.
Maybe you didn't intend it, but your post seems quite harsh. I'm talking about what those words mean _to me_. I thought I was quite clear about that when I used the phrase "for me" in the above quoted text.
First this isn't using "atheist to mean "agnostic". Second, there is pretty much nobody who "believes" there is no god. For that to be a reasonable position, you would already have to assume that there is some valid basis for believing there is one which is putting the cart before the horse.
Funny, because I know quite a few. (And how do _you_ define agnostic, anyway?) And your last sentence really makes no sense at all. I believe there are no pink unicorns. I can state that with utmost certainty. That does not mean that I have to assume there is some valid basis for believing there are pink unicorns.
Your entire argument skips the most important fact which is that atheism is the default position of every person who has ever lived.
And that is a non-sequitor. (A) I made no argument, I talked about how *I* define two words. (B) How is that statement the slightest bit relevant to those two definitions? (Except for if I were to argue that my definitions would replace the word "agnosticism" for your word "atheism".)
If you really want to argue definitions, have at it. You're entitled to define the words the way you see fit. Of course, you still conveniently dodged my question about what "word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god" by making the false claim that such people pretty much don't exist.
That argument would only make sense if a sizeable number of people actually believed in unicorns or tooth fairies. I could just as easily argue that the word "vegetarian" doesn't make sense since (most) non-vegetarians also eat vegetables. It's a label, and it is useful to the extent that it helps support an idea.
Are you in favor of getting rid of ALL words that can be described by other words? Perhaps we should just reduce the dictionary to about 1,000 words and just replace all other words with some descriptive combination of those 1,000. Why wouldn't we? Because it's efficient to use words as shorthand for deeper concepts. Atheism and agnosticism clearly fill that bill. If you never (or at least very, very rarely) see the need to distinguish such people from others (as I don't with aquinist or adentite) than you have no need for that word, but I would submit that a lot has been written about atheism and agnosticism as it contrasts with various forms of theism, whereas one cannot say that about your words.
7 states amended their state constitutions to ensure their already existing laws against same-sex marriage could not be struck down by state courts as being unconstitutional IN THE LAST ELECTION. That brings the total number of states to have done so to the number 27. Only 1 state (Arizona) that has had the amendment on the ballot has voted against it. On the bright side, that was also in the 2006 election, so maybe it suggests a very slow change towards rationality.
I'm not trying to argue about who's "right" about our definitions as we obviously use these words slightly differently, but for me, "atheist" means you're 100% convinced that there's no god, and "agnostic" implies you're somewhere between being a "complete agnostic" (50/50) and being a "complete atheist" (which emphasizes the 100%). If someone were quite certain (well over 99% probability) that there were no god, but not quite willing to go to the 100% level, I'd still consider them to be a weak "atheist" (emphasis on "atheist", not "weak"). On the other hand, I doubt you'll ever find a "complete agnostic" (or "agnostic" in your terminology). You'll find people who might be 30/70 (god/no god) who describe themselves as agnostic, and you'll find people who might be 70/30 who describe themselves as, for example, a Christian with doubts, but I doubt you'll find anyone who is truly 50/50 on that question - but, hey, I've been wrong about a lot of things before.
What a revelation! See how I did that? I just set aside the key features of beer (it's brown, it gets you drunk, etc) and all of a sudden everything is just like beer! Wow!
I'd describe "Apple sauce, coca-cola and honey" as all being brown (at least for some versions of apple sauce and honey and/or perhaps somewhat liberal meanings of the word brown), and fermented apple sauce and honey (mead) can definitely get you drunk (perhaps Coke ferments, too?), so I think you're just strenghening the arguments that they are, in fact, beer.
Peraps "containing hops" might be more of a key feature, but I'm no beerologist. (Whatever you do, do NOT put that word into google search and click on I'm feeling lucky. Hey, I warned you... OK, seriously, if you DO, then at least turn off the volume of your computer first or do it in the safety of your own home.)
I know there are a lot of self-professed atheists who use that word (much as you do) the way I use the word agnostic, but for me an atheist has always been someone who believes there is no god (a religious belief), and an agnostic is someone who merely doesn't believe there is a god, but allows it as a possibility. Many of these self-professed atheists then talk about etymologies and what not, but my reply is simple, if you want to use the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" what word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god?
I couldn't tell for sure whether you are being facetious/cynical, but I'm going to assume that you're not. A lot of things that are "necessary and proper" don't happen or are subverted due to greater evils. During (and prior to) the civil rights era many southern states were quite content to actively discriminate against minorities (although the 14th amendment does prevent most of that), and to passively allow their citizens to do the same. Unfortunately, the constitution does not prevent the latter from happening - at least not due to the ICC. I wouldn't have any problem if the courts found some way to apply the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence (although that's not the constitution), but the ICC clause is so *reaching* and has such wide-spread consequence.
Basically, I don't always trust our government to always know what is "necessary and proper", even though they got this one right.
My problem with the use of the ICC was that it basically granted Congress the right to pass legislations about your company if you got even one product (e.g., paper napkins) from across state lines. Since virtually all companies got at least something from across state lines at that point (and from then on, of course), it basically gave Congress a way to subvert the 10th amendment. Again, I feel I must stress that I have _no_ problem with what they were wanting to accomplish, it just seems that it opened a floodgate through with possible abuses could flow later.
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article that partially describes what I'm referring to:
In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly intrastate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate Ollie's Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
A more careful reading of that article (by me) made me realize that the start of the abuse of the ICC was evidently begun during the New Deal era:
In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, stating that the act of growing wheat on one's own land, for one's own consumption, affected interstate commerce, and therefore under the Commerce Clause was subject to federal regulation.
I suppose there's some irony (historical, at least) in the fact that I'm an ardent supporter of civil rights and yet also a strong believer in states' rights.
I suppose what you're overlooking (with respect to the ICC) is that this clause was used to apply federal law to *private* companies and not states. Laws were written that required private companies to serve minorities, etc., and for most of these, the consitution (10th amendment) is quite clear that it is the state's position to make such laws. Again, I want to stress that I fully support the intent of these laws, but I don't understand how one can argue with a straight face that they're actually constitutional.
The 14th amendment required that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", but it did not require the completion of this sentiment - i.e., that states actively PASS laws which prevent others from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
"Whites Only" signs were, for the most part, at places of business. Constitutionally, it is the state's responsibilities to pass laws telling those businesses to ship up. You want a more creative solution - how about what the federal government did to get all states to raise the drinking age to 21? That one at least seems constitutional to me.
(I don't disagree at all about Dred Scott being a bad decision, but the Dred Scott case stated that Dred Scott was still a slave even when his "master" traveled with him through free states. I've just reviewed the Dred Scott case - very quickly, mind you - and don't find reference to a 2/5 (or 3/5) person. Of course, IANAL.)
My point was that the ICC was an example of twisting the words of law (or clause) to change its intent. Of course, this example might be better described as the logical dual of that - emphasis on the intent of the law at the expense of the actual words.
I was NOT claiming that the ICC was relevant to this case. Of course, as you mention, since it involves the internet, it might be, but I sincerely doubt any lawyer will bring it up.
First off, I agree that this doesn't sound bad to me, either. However, using the argument that this is a "logical extension" of something else as a supporting argument is the logical dual to the "slippery slope" argument. In neither case do I find it any way a complete argument. I would say I don't even find it a supporting statement, but the latter argument is at least that if only for the reason that the former argument is often made.
Slashdot Mirror
I have not been personally involved in any detailed models of neurons, but there are models out there of single neurons with thousands of compartments. These definitely don't fit the "black box" description, IMO, and I think they do quite a good job of modeling the behavior of the neurons they're designed to model. I don't know if one has been worked out for a cortical pyramidal cell, but I do know they work quite well for hippocampal pyramidal cells, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't been worked out for their cortical brethren.
One strategy we've explored is a merging of those detailed models with our simplified models. We've created a rudimentary interface that allows our neural network software package to write out data such that a Neuron script can read it in, thus allowing comparisons between the two levels of detail. We can also reverse the process (have our software package read in input from a Neuron simulation). What I could envision happening is that one uses GAs (or some other approach) to iron out some of the details of the detailed model (as the GP experimentalist admits there is unfortunately still a lot of unknowns about the in vivo behavior), and then use another GA (or Evolutionary Algorithm) to find a suitable simplified model of the detailed model - one that is simple enough to be run in a simulation of 100,000 neurons.
I'm sure you can find quite a few Christians who are more than willing to share their own experiences that support their faith, too. Sure, skeptics can point out one-in-a-billion things happen all the time, but that doesn't detract from the power of the "whoa" when you have one of those experiences.
But seriously, you don't believe that there are a small handful of basic axioms in science that are absolute? Without these axioms, how do you question or challenge? How do you define "don't work"? Such axioms include such things as causality, reproducibility, the modern version of Occam's razor (as stated by Einstein - the explanation should be the simplest one that explains the phenomenon, but no simpler), etc. Just like with Euclidean or even non-Euclidean geometry, there must be a core set of unchanging axioms. These axioms have served us very well, but you can't prove them because they are axioms. Perhaps the best that can be said is that where these axioms are explicitly stated (e.g., causality) scientists (and/or philosophers) actually are willing to imagine the consequences of dropping that axiom. Still, we need a foundation of axioms upon which to build anything. It's true for geometry, set theory, and, yes, science.
If you want to come up with an explanation of why our "faith" is better, I'd recommend prediction. Unlike many other faiths, we are actively encouraged to test it (as you do mention, of course). We can make predictions about things that have not yet been observed (AKA "the future") with a far better track record than most.
They might actually have some advantage when it comes to early research with using GAs to reproduce NNs. Is the Drosophila nervous system consistent, or is there a certain amount of randomness to it? (For example, the human brain is far too large and complex to be fully specified by the genome. To a certain degree the genome must be coding something like, "grow a few tens of thousands of neurons here, and send the axons in this general direction and the dendrites in that general direction" - and by "coding" I'm not really being that literal, I realize that physics is also quite relevant, but that evolution takes advantage of that physics to code the "message". We model the CA3 region of the hippocampus on a small scale - 100,000 neurons or less - as being totally randomly connected - not that we believe that it's really 100% random, just that's our best first approximation.)
Although we're not there yet, we're currently in the process of trying to get a grant from NIH to work with experimentalists in using our GA tools. It's not necessarily germane, but what region of the brain do you study? We mainly model the hippocampus, although we've had a little experience with PFC, visual cortex, and neocortex in general. Our lab has done models from levels of abstraction down to ion channels (H-H variants mainly) up to models of a dozen or so brain regions (at very abstract levels), although most of my research has focused on models of Izhikevich-type neurons in the hippocampus. (Izhikevich neurons are about as computationally fast as integrate-and-fire neurons, but have been shown by Izhikevich (in his 2007 book) to map to H-H type models.)
Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.
Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is presented carefully. However, it would be very easy for either a Christian or a non-Christian (Jew, atheist, etc.) to slip up when discussing this, so I'd make sure I had a script to go by when discussing it, I'd make sure that I had discussed the script with the principle, and I certainly wouldn't deny mentioning it if asked by a child's parent.
I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience :), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)
If you want to argue about contradictions within a belief system (which IMO necessarily include the physical world), then fine. But don't deny that believing in concepts such as causality, reproducibility, etc., are still beliefs. They may be beliefs of an arguably different nature, but still beliefs. Science is, in fact, based on a set of axioms. Those axioms are the cornerstones of the "faith".
The most common example is that free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w
I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the professor has disagreed with the student, but did not "lay into" him. It was basically a "you're entitled to your beliefs, but if this comes up on a test..." type of response. I'm guessing the average professor is too smart to take up class time (or his own) on what will no doubt be a pointless exercise. (I know a couple people who have gone from being Creationists to believing in evolution, but in both cases it involved letting that person come to their own conclusion. Trying to "preach" to them is very unlikely to do any good.)
Now in no way are my few experiences proof that it never happens, or really even that it doesn't often happen - I admit they are just a few case studies. Still, my belief is that it doesn't happen at your average University.
Although your wiggle phrase "up to" gives you plenty of leeway, I want to point out that firing a "government" teacher is governed by local school district policies. Granted, many (if not most) of these make it way too difficult to fire a public school teacher. In Dekalb County, Georgia, where I was a public school teacher for two years, part of our orientation was the policy on firing. IIRC, the only thing that would get you fired was fairly horrible stuff (stabbing a student would probably do it). What stuck out in my mind was a discussion about what would happen if you failed 3 of the 5 possible evaluations in a school year. If you did it one year, not much (maybe they called it "probation", but it had no consequences). Two years, ditto. After 3 years of failing 3 of the 5 possible evaluations, you would no longer get the pay raises that went along with gaining experience. However, if you eventually did manage to pass 3 of the 5, then your pay rate would immediately jump to what it would have been if you hadn't ever failed any. FWIW, I didn't know of any teachers who failed even one observation, so for our school at least this was more of a problem in theory than in practice, but still...
Well, as a theoretician in computational neuroscience, I concur (on all of your points). One step I've taken along this path is to use genetic algorithms to augment my search through parameter space. It still requires quite a few answers from experimentalists to usefully reduce parameter space, though, as well as verification.
OK, I'll admit vegetarian might not be the best example, but think about it: why do we even need the word "vegetarian"? Can't we just say "people who don't eat animals"?
Now, see whether that comes closer to "atheist" than "aquinist" or "adentite". Is there a reason to use the word "vegetarian" rather than "people who don't eat animals"? Yes, because it comes up often enough that the shorthand is useful. Is there a reason to use "atheist" rather than "people who believe there is no god"? Yes, because it comes up often enough that the shorthand is useful. Is there a reason to use "aquinist" or "adentite"? (Ignoring the fact that they have no meaning to anyone else - that's presumably not the point here, because if there was a reason to use them, then they'd have that meaning.)
The word "atheist" exists because it is a useful shorthand. If you want words that might be a better example, how about aperiodic or anaerobic?
"Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
"Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
From American Heritage:
"Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
"Agnostic: 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."
Notice that second definition highlights the distinction from atheism. So, we agree that usage is important. I was obviously basing my usage off of how people around me use it, and the first two dictionaries I looked in support my usage. Perhaps you're the one with the "usage" problem? (You'll notice that I'm not very militant about usage, because I realize that there are regional and cultural differences in usage, which unfortunately do lead to misunderstandings. That's why I was very careful to make the statement that this is how *I* use the words and wasn't trying to "correct" others.)
I never said I'd establish a belief system. You said:
Now, read my statement again. Really try to understand what I'm saying instead of just trying to figure out how you can restate it to make it fit your preconceived notions. What I'm saying, and I don't think it's very hard to understand, is that I believe that pink unicorns don't exist. I don't merely believe that they might not exist, I actually believe they don't exist. I don't have to go an "extra mile to set up a belief". Every statement you make automatically engenders in me some state of belief about it. I might believe it to be true, I might believe it to be false, or I might not be sure what to believe. It's really not that hard to create a belief. A belief system requires more work, but a belief is really quite simple and as automatic as breathing in many cases.So, you really don't believe such people exist? Hm. It seems you've formed a belief there. I hope it didn't put you out. Oh, sure, you're now going to go some great lengths to mention that you didn't use the word "belief" (as if that matters some how), but you clearly have this (rather irrational) belief that people don't exist who actually believe that there is no god (as opposed to people who just aren't sure). What is the basis for this belief system you've created? I've met several such people, so you must believe that either (a) I'm delusional, (b) the people I've met were lying to me, or (c) I'm lying. Which is it?
You make some good arguments (and appeal to authority :) ), and I respect your desire to call yourself an atheist. In some ways, perhaps, this is similar to gays calling themselves "queer" and blacks using the "n" word to describe themselves. The argument is that if you call yourself by the label your enemies use on you, you take away some of the power of that label.
However, I suspect where one falls in this debate might depend somewhat on the types of people you find yourself in the company of. I know quite a few "kooks" (your term, not mine :) ), who believe in God, and I know quite a few "kooks" who are sure there is no god. Personally, I've struggled a lot with my faith, and I still have a lot of respect for those who do believe what I once believed. I'm not convinced that God does not exist, but it seems more likely to me that He doesn't than that He does. The point is, however, that when I have conversations with my "atheist" friends (those "kooks" who are quite sure there is no god), the distinction between their belief and mine is useful.
Your description of soft and hard agnostics makes me realize there's really even more categories here. There's people who are quite sure there is no god (A_0, where A can stand for agnostic or atheist, your choice), then there's people who are quite sure we can't know if there is no god (A_1), then there's people who aren't sure if we can know if there is a god (A_2). (Yes, I'm just making up these A_0, etc., labels.) And, of course, like your -9 to 9 scale there's who ranges of uncertainty involved in all of these. I'm mainly an A_2, whatever you want to call that.
Maybe you didn't intend it, but your post seems quite harsh. I'm talking about what those words mean _to me_. I thought I was quite clear about that when I used the phrase "for me" in the above quoted text.
Funny, because I know quite a few. (And how do _you_ define agnostic, anyway?) And your last sentence really makes no sense at all. I believe there are no pink unicorns. I can state that with utmost certainty. That does not mean that I have to assume there is some valid basis for believing there are pink unicorns.
And that is a non-sequitor. (A) I made no argument, I talked about how *I* define two words. (B) How is that statement the slightest bit relevant to those two definitions? (Except for if I were to argue that my definitions would replace the word "agnosticism" for your word "atheism".)
If you really want to argue definitions, have at it. You're entitled to define the words the way you see fit. Of course, you still conveniently dodged my question about what "word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god" by making the false claim that such people pretty much don't exist.
That argument would only make sense if a sizeable number of people actually believed in unicorns or tooth fairies. I could just as easily argue that the word "vegetarian" doesn't make sense since (most) non-vegetarians also eat vegetables. It's a label, and it is useful to the extent that it helps support an idea.
Are you in favor of getting rid of ALL words that can be described by other words? Perhaps we should just reduce the dictionary to about 1,000 words and just replace all other words with some descriptive combination of those 1,000. Why wouldn't we? Because it's efficient to use words as shorthand for deeper concepts. Atheism and agnosticism clearly fill that bill. If you never (or at least very, very rarely) see the need to distinguish such people from others (as I don't with aquinist or adentite) than you have no need for that word, but I would submit that a lot has been written about atheism and agnosticism as it contrasts with various forms of theism, whereas one cannot say that about your words.
7 states amended their state constitutions to ensure their already existing laws against same-sex marriage could not be struck down by state courts as being unconstitutional IN THE LAST ELECTION. That brings the total number of states to have done so to the number 27. Only 1 state (Arizona) that has had the amendment on the ballot has voted against it. On the bright side, that was also in the 2006 election, so maybe it suggests a very slow change towards rationality.
I'm not trying to argue about who's "right" about our definitions as we obviously use these words slightly differently, but for me, "atheist" means you're 100% convinced that there's no god, and "agnostic" implies you're somewhere between being a "complete agnostic" (50/50) and being a "complete atheist" (which emphasizes the 100%). If someone were quite certain (well over 99% probability) that there were no god, but not quite willing to go to the 100% level, I'd still consider them to be a weak "atheist" (emphasis on "atheist", not "weak"). On the other hand, I doubt you'll ever find a "complete agnostic" (or "agnostic" in your terminology). You'll find people who might be 30/70 (god/no god) who describe themselves as agnostic, and you'll find people who might be 70/30 who describe themselves as, for example, a Christian with doubts, but I doubt you'll find anyone who is truly 50/50 on that question - but, hey, I've been wrong about a lot of things before.
I'd describe "Apple sauce, coca-cola and honey" as all being brown (at least for some versions of apple sauce and honey and/or perhaps somewhat liberal meanings of the word brown), and fermented apple sauce and honey (mead) can definitely get you drunk (perhaps Coke ferments, too?), so I think you're just strenghening the arguments that they are, in fact, beer.
Peraps "containing hops" might be more of a key feature, but I'm no beerologist. (Whatever you do, do NOT put that word into google search and click on I'm feeling lucky. Hey, I warned you... OK, seriously, if you DO, then at least turn off the volume of your computer first or do it in the safety of your own home.)
I know there are a lot of self-professed atheists who use that word (much as you do) the way I use the word agnostic, but for me an atheist has always been someone who believes there is no god (a religious belief), and an agnostic is someone who merely doesn't believe there is a god, but allows it as a possibility. Many of these self-professed atheists then talk about etymologies and what not, but my reply is simple, if you want to use the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" what word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god?
Acts 4:32, which is no doubt a basis for the Hutterite beliefs, and predates Marx by well over a millennium.
I couldn't tell for sure whether you are being facetious/cynical, but I'm going to assume that you're not. A lot of things that are "necessary and proper" don't happen or are subverted due to greater evils. During (and prior to) the civil rights era many southern states were quite content to actively discriminate against minorities (although the 14th amendment does prevent most of that), and to passively allow their citizens to do the same. Unfortunately, the constitution does not prevent the latter from happening - at least not due to the ICC. I wouldn't have any problem if the courts found some way to apply the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence (although that's not the constitution), but the ICC clause is so *reaching* and has such wide-spread consequence.
Basically, I don't always trust our government to always know what is "necessary and proper", even though they got this one right.
My problem with the use of the ICC was that it basically granted Congress the right to pass legislations about your company if you got even one product (e.g., paper napkins) from across state lines. Since virtually all companies got at least something from across state lines at that point (and from then on, of course), it basically gave Congress a way to subvert the 10th amendment. Again, I feel I must stress that I have _no_ problem with what they were wanting to accomplish, it just seems that it opened a floodgate through with possible abuses could flow later.
Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article that partially describes what I'm referring to:
A more careful reading of that article (by me) made me realize that the start of the abuse of the ICC was evidently begun during the New Deal era:I suppose there's some irony (historical, at least) in the fact that I'm an ardent supporter of civil rights and yet also a strong believer in states' rights.
I suppose what you're overlooking (with respect to the ICC) is that this clause was used to apply federal law to *private* companies and not states. Laws were written that required private companies to serve minorities, etc., and for most of these, the consitution (10th amendment) is quite clear that it is the state's position to make such laws. Again, I want to stress that I fully support the intent of these laws, but I don't understand how one can argue with a straight face that they're actually constitutional.
The 14th amendment required that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", but it did not require the completion of this sentiment - i.e., that states actively PASS laws which prevent others from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
"Whites Only" signs were, for the most part, at places of business. Constitutionally, it is the state's responsibilities to pass laws telling those businesses to ship up. You want a more creative solution - how about what the federal government did to get all states to raise the drinking age to 21? That one at least seems constitutional to me.
(I don't disagree at all about Dred Scott being a bad decision, but the Dred Scott case stated that Dred Scott was still a slave even when his "master" traveled with him through free states. I've just reviewed the Dred Scott case - very quickly, mind you - and don't find reference to a 2/5 (or 3/5) person. Of course, IANAL.)
My point was that the ICC was an example of twisting the words of law (or clause) to change its intent. Of course, this example might be better described as the logical dual of that - emphasis on the intent of the law at the expense of the actual words.
I was NOT claiming that the ICC was relevant to this case. Of course, as you mention, since it involves the internet, it might be, but I sincerely doubt any lawyer will bring it up.
First off, I agree that this doesn't sound bad to me, either. However, using the argument that this is a "logical extension" of something else as a supporting argument is the logical dual to the "slippery slope" argument. In neither case do I find it any way a complete argument. I would say I don't even find it a supporting statement, but the latter argument is at least that if only for the reason that the former argument is often made.