I'd venture to say that QM has come too far to be "disproved"
Apparently, there is a conflict between QM and relativity... so one of them is wrong. However, I suspect you mean that it will never be completely obsolete, much like Newtonian mechanics. This may be true, but only if the successor theory is more complex/harder to understand. Otherwise, it will be completely obsoleted.
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster moves the electrons into a closer orbit, releasing vast amounts of energy," said Mills. When asked why such deenergized hydrogen atoms were not found in nature, despite the fact that changing back to regular hydrogen would require massive amounts of energy, Mills changed the subject.
I would just like to add that malaria causes mosquitoes to be more attracted to you than usual. Also, that malaria will kill the mosquito, so this malaria-resistance gene should be a survival advantage to them. I think that I would agree with the GP, though. Spraying DDT may be a reccurring cost, but so is treating (or not treating!) malaria.
I'll go one further - I don't believe that people are even really capable of truly selfless behavior. Every gift however magnanimous, holy, or other-serving, is truly and only done for self - feeling good, satisfying a feeling of guilt, impressing the ole' lady so you get some tonight, whatever. No, I'll go two further - I believe that once you do away with the silly idea of "pure" giving, it's much easier to appreciate and love people for who and what they are! And, this doesn't detract from the positive effects caused by the selfish behavior.
While it may be true that people always act in 'selfish' ways (esp. according to psychologists), I think that there is some value to distinguishing between the different kinds of 'selfish' behavior. As an example, you could apply the same argument to God and Satan. Since God is good (either by definition of good, or by dogma) and Satan evil, perhaps we should say that godlike 'selfish' behavior is good and satanlike behavior evil? Then if someone feels good when he makes others happy, we can say he is good, as well as selfishly making himself feel warm inside, and if someone else likes to hurt people, we can say he is evil, as well as selfishly making himself feel warm inside.
Anyhow, looks like my sig is about as on-topic as it will ever get.
No, your logic is flawed. It doesn't imply that God does not exist; only that he didn't directly create every species. It still allows the possiblilty that he created the rules which govern the Universe, and therefore caused evolution to happen.
That may logically be true, but scientists must abide by Occam's Razor.
Allow me to explain my reasoning: First, we'll accept the axiom "treat others as you wish to be treated." If we assume that I don't want others to kill me, rob me, etc., then it follows that I shouldn't to it to them. Simple, isn't it? The only thing that's required for morality is to recognize the social contract that holds civilization together, and see value in abiding by it.
Why should I accept "treat others as you wish to be treated" as an axiom? How about "an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth"? Or "maximize the number of my surviving offspring"? Evolution doesn't care how you want to be treated, so why should you?
No, it doesn't. Science never says anything about "purpose." It only exists to explain how things are, not why they are that way. For that, you have to move outside the realm of science and into philosophy.
Not per se, but the only reason you are not chemical soup is because you are better at surviving and reproducing than chemical soup, right? Inasmuch as anything created by natural selection has a purpose, it is to reproduce.
What you say is true, however, this isn't really the greatest timing for a story to break on the fact that scientists sometimes fabricate their data.
Why? Because it casts a little doubt on the credibility of proponents on both sides of the debate? Everyone but an absolute moron knows that scientists occasionally fabricate (or fudge) data, either for personal glory, or to please their sponsors.
If you think this is bad press for scientists, wait till you see what happens to this guy.
Given a system of axioms and basic rules, one can prove the non-existence of infinitely many things, in that system. The problem is that we do not know the axioms this 'reality' thing we observe around us is based on. And it's likely we will never fully know them.
True. I appologize for not being clear on this, in math I can logically prove the non-existance of things. In the real world I can scientifically show the non-existance of things, by showing it contradicts accepted scientific facts (which we scientifically know are true).
>>> Real evolutionists get their morals from their biology textbooks.
How so? If you get your morals from society, or you construct them logically from the axiom "treat others as you wish to be treated," does that make you not a "real evolutionist?"
The theory of evolution, to any scientist, implies that God does not exist. Hence there is no "absolute" morals (I'm presuming you can't deduce morals from logic). Thus you should choose morals that benefit you personally (or your genes).
Also, the theory of evolution says that the purpose you were "designed" for is spreading your genes, since that is the only thing natural selection can "design."
that's what most people call a trump card. as I've told people before, if you encapsulate yourself in those arguments, you will never lose because you cannot be argued with.
Right... I stated a fact supported by every logician in the world. It is quite hard to argue with that.
Sure, you can suppose [God] does exist.
Thanks, but I did not assume that. I was just explaining that if God has always existed, he was not caused and does not need something to have caused him as the GP claimed. So if you say God exists you don't need to say what created God.
"Mutations and natural selection" IS "actual evolution"
So the fact that we observe mutations, and that "bad" mutants die off, is exactly equivalent to saying a single celled creature evolved into us? You seem to have a very bad understanding of evolution or of logic. Evolution implies mutations and natural selection does not mean that mutations and natural selection imply evolution.
the "higher creator" introduces additional, unneeded, complexity to the system and simply begs the question of "Where did we come from" because additional complexity must be explained.
Allow me to educate you on cause and effect. Things that are not effects do not need a cause. We know that we were "created" (that is, we did not exist before but we do now), and so we need to explain how we came to be. An eternal god was not created, and hence does not need a cause.
I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.
and therefore saying that the probability that God exists is approximately zero. And that God has never interacted with the world in any observable form. And if religion and science conflict, science wins. So basically they are saying that God doesn't exist or is powerless/unwilling to use his power.
Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.
As a mathematician, I can prove the non-existance of infinitely many things, thank you very much. In the real world, it is much harder to do but can still be done if it creates a contradiction.
Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory
Ignoring the fact that you just said ID is not a theory and then called it a theory, ID is not much different from archeologists claiming that an artifact was made by humans. It can be shown that something was designed by showing it is sufficiently unlikely to have arisen by natural means. This is harder for ID than for archeology because people know humans exist but don't know of any intelligence capable of creating life a few billion years ago. However, anyone who claims to know anything about the intelligent designer but doesn't prove it is an unscientific asshole.
OK, I'll bite. Which of these rely on actual evolution, as opposed to with mutations and natural selection? (If anyone thinks mutations and natural selection don't occur, they deserve to be beaten to death with a lead pipe.) How many examples actually depend on organisms being able to change from one family to another?
I can't believe this got modded +5; moderators, shame on you. This post is the oldest logical fallacy in the book: Argumentum ad Hominem . Rather than attacking the source, you're supposed to attack the argument! And quite frankly, the tests look rock solid and statistically accurate.
From Wikipedia: Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.
Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments (emphasis mine)
So if this is the guy who did the tests, an "ad hominem" argument can be to call him a rotten liar and wonder whether his data is accurate. Any argument based on such data relies on doubtful premises and is therefore invalid.
Wonder how good he is... Now that he's beginning his new career as a black hat...
This guy just lost his job, and will have more trouble getting another job in the security industry (depending on what they charge him with). Also, he will be very pissed off at the government and the law. Hence, the logical solution is to solve both problems by becoming a black hat -- or where else did you think he would apply his skills as a security expert if no one will hire him? (Not that I think he is a bad guy, donating to Tsunami relief and all)
As I understand it, carbon dating gives wildly wrong dates for things that are still alive, and different dates for different parts of the same animal. And isn't accurate past a few tens of thousands of years. But maybe I am just partial because a pig that was supposed to be extinct for over 20 million years was found alive and kicking in my home country (Paraguay).
You make a very good point. Now let me point out that Google would be banned from China if they did not comply -- and hence would be able to do nothing for the Chinese people. This way at least people can search for code words.
While I admire your going the extra mile to help your users, you are openning the possibility that you will be used as a scapegoat if there is a sexual harassment problem in your office. I don't know anything about where you work, but I think the "training" is just a way for the managers to cover their asses if there is a scandal. Now they can't cover their asses except by pointing the finger at you.
Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.
Not so much pedophilia... It incredibly commonplace for any hunting animal to target the young or the weak, those who cannot fight back or run. In this case it seems most unfair. As others have pointed out, minors do not have credit cards and thus cannot buy music online, and the parents are often quite clueless. Anyhow, this doesn't help the prejudice that lawyers == sharks.
Looks like you really don't know how linux works (or computers in general). Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to force programs to be installed by a single installer? You'd basically need an "antivirus" that detects any programs which have'nt been officially installed and prevents them from running. How would you prevent someone from downloading solitary.exe and running it (essentially a manual install)?. On the bright side, if someone does manage to do as you suggest, it would become that much easier to implement forced DRM:-)
Ah, but it's really speakers and other music playing hardware that encourage music piracy. I mean, people have always been copying music, even if they didn't have a computer, and it's all because of music-playing hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Theories are just that: theories. It's perfectly fine to disprove them. In fact, that's what science is all about.
Crackpots are just that: crackpots. It's perfectly fine to disprove them. In fact, that's what science is all about.
This guy flunked his thermodynamics course, nevermind QM. Hint: things tend toward their lowest energy state, and stay there
I'd venture to say that QM has come too far to be "disproved"
... so one of them is wrong. However, I suspect you mean that it will never be completely obsolete, much like Newtonian mechanics. This may be true, but only if the successor theory is more complex/harder to understand. Otherwise, it will be completely obsoleted.
Apparently, there is a conflict between QM and relativity
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster moves the electrons into a closer orbit, releasing vast amounts of energy," said Mills. When asked why such deenergized hydrogen atoms were not found in nature, despite the fact that changing back to regular hydrogen would require massive amounts of energy, Mills changed the subject.
I would just like to add that malaria causes mosquitoes to be more attracted to you than usual. Also, that malaria will kill the mosquito, so this malaria-resistance gene should be a survival advantage to them. I think that I would agree with the GP, though. Spraying DDT may be a reccurring cost, but so is treating (or not treating!) malaria.
I'll go one further - I don't believe that people are even really capable of truly selfless behavior. Every gift however magnanimous, holy, or other-serving, is truly and only done for self - feeling good, satisfying a feeling of guilt, impressing the ole' lady so you get some tonight, whatever. No, I'll go two further - I believe that once you do away with the silly idea of "pure" giving, it's much easier to appreciate and love people for who and what they are! And, this doesn't detract from the positive effects caused by the selfish behavior.
While it may be true that people always act in 'selfish' ways (esp. according to psychologists), I think that there is some value to distinguishing between the different kinds of 'selfish' behavior. As an example, you could apply the same argument to God and Satan. Since God is good (either by definition of good, or by dogma) and Satan evil, perhaps we should say that godlike 'selfish' behavior is good and satanlike behavior evil? Then if someone feels good when he makes others happy, we can say he is good, as well as selfishly making himself feel warm inside, and if someone else likes to hurt people, we can say he is evil, as well as selfishly making himself feel warm inside.
Anyhow, looks like my sig is about as on-topic as it will ever get.
No, your logic is flawed. It doesn't imply that God does not exist; only that he didn't directly create every species. It still allows the possiblilty that he created the rules which govern the Universe, and therefore caused evolution to happen.
That may logically be true, but scientists must abide by Occam's Razor.
Allow me to explain my reasoning: First, we'll accept the axiom "treat others as you wish to be treated." If we assume that I don't want others to kill me, rob me, etc., then it follows that I shouldn't to it to them. Simple, isn't it? The only thing that's required for morality is to recognize the social contract that holds civilization together, and see value in abiding by it.
Why should I accept "treat others as you wish to be treated" as an axiom? How about "an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth"? Or "maximize the number of my surviving offspring"? Evolution doesn't care how you want to be treated, so why should you?
No, it doesn't. Science never says anything about "purpose." It only exists to explain how things are, not why they are that way. For that, you have to move outside the realm of science and into philosophy.
Not per se, but the only reason you are not chemical soup is because you are better at surviving and reproducing than chemical soup, right? Inasmuch as anything created by natural selection has a purpose, it is to reproduce.
>> I've always wondered why the global scientific community doesn't do more replication of data as part of peer review.
Just try getting a grant for "Doing exactly what this other guy already did, just to make sure."
I don't think it is too far-fetched. If someone publishes a result that $RICH_PERSON doesn't like, there will be grant money for "verifing" it.
What you say is true, however, this isn't really the greatest timing for a story to break on the fact that scientists sometimes fabricate their data.
Why? Because it casts a little doubt on the credibility of proponents on both sides of the debate? Everyone but an absolute moron knows that scientists occasionally fabricate (or fudge) data, either for personal glory, or to please their sponsors.
If you think this is bad press for scientists, wait till you see what happens to this guy.
Given a system of axioms and basic rules, one can prove the non-existence of infinitely many things, in that system. The problem is that we do not know the axioms this 'reality' thing we observe around us is based on. And it's likely we will never fully know them.
True. I appologize for not being clear on this, in math I can logically prove the non-existance of things. In the real world I can scientifically show the non-existance of things, by showing it contradicts accepted scientific facts (which we scientifically know are true).
>>> Real evolutionists get their morals from their biology textbooks.
How so? If you get your morals from society, or you construct them logically from the axiom "treat others as you wish to be treated," does that make you not a "real evolutionist?"
The theory of evolution, to any scientist, implies that God does not exist. Hence there is no "absolute" morals (I'm presuming you can't deduce morals from logic). Thus you should choose morals that benefit you personally (or your genes).
Also, the theory of evolution says that the purpose you were "designed" for is spreading your genes, since that is the only thing natural selection can "design."
that's what most people call a trump card. as I've told people before, if you encapsulate yourself in those arguments, you will never lose because you cannot be argued with.
Right... I stated a fact supported by every logician in the world. It is quite hard to argue with that.
Sure, you can suppose [God] does exist.
Thanks, but I did not assume that. I was just explaining that if God has always existed, he was not caused and does not need something to have caused him as the GP claimed. So if you say God exists you don't need to say what created God.
many changes = change of family
Proof of mutation and natural selection was presupposed, so you lose.
OK, but you really should prove that first statement. Note: a change of family implies many changes, but many changes do not imply a change of family.
"Mutations and natural selection" IS "actual evolution"
So the fact that we observe mutations, and that "bad" mutants die off, is exactly equivalent to saying a single celled creature evolved into us? You seem to have a very bad understanding of evolution or of logic. Evolution implies mutations and natural selection does not mean that mutations and natural selection imply evolution.
the "higher creator" introduces additional, unneeded, complexity to the system and simply begs the question of "Where did we come from" because additional complexity must be explained.
Allow me to educate you on cause and effect. Things that are not effects do not need a cause. We know that we were "created" (that is, we did not exist before but we do now), and so we need to explain how we came to be. An eternal god was not created, and hence does not need a cause.
I do not think I have ever met a single atheist that say says science disproves God, not even Dawkins. What an atheist says is that we should relate to God in the same way we relate to other pretty unlikely fixtures of our lives, such Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and little green men under your bed - too small to see. In other words, there is no compelling data that suggests that there is a God, so it makes no logical sense to think there is.
and therefore saying that the probability that God exists is approximately zero. And that God has never interacted with the world in any observable form. And if religion and science conflict, science wins. So basically they are saying that God doesn't exist or is powerless/unwilling to use his power.
Science can not prove that there is no God, science can likewise not prove that there are no blue swans with yellow spots or a Tooth Fairy. You can't prove the non-existance of something.
As a mathematician, I can prove the non-existance of infinitely many things, thank you very much. In the real world, it is much harder to do but can still be done if it creates a contradiction.
Intelligent Design on the other hand is not a scientific theory, there is nothing scientific at all about that theory
Ignoring the fact that you just said ID is not a theory and then called it a theory, ID is not much different from archeologists claiming that an artifact was made by humans. It can be shown that something was designed by showing it is sufficiently unlikely to have arisen by natural means. This is harder for ID than for archeology because people know humans exist but don't know of any intelligence capable of creating life a few billion years ago. However, anyone who claims to know anything about the intelligent designer but doesn't prove it is an unscientific asshole.
OK, I'll bite. Which of these rely on actual evolution, as opposed to with mutations and natural selection? (If anyone thinks mutations and natural selection don't occur, they deserve to be beaten to death with a lead pipe.) How many examples actually depend on organisms being able to change from one family to another?
I can't believe this got modded +5; moderators, shame on you. This post is the oldest logical fallacy in the book: Argumentum ad Hominem . Rather than attacking the source, you're supposed to attack the argument! And quite frankly, the tests look rock solid and statistically accurate.
From Wikipedia:
Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.
Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments (emphasis mine)
So if this is the guy who did the tests, an "ad hominem" argument can be to call him a rotten liar and wonder whether his data is accurate. Any argument based on such data relies on doubtful premises and is therefore invalid.
Wonder how good he is... Now that he's beginning his new career as a black hat...
This guy just lost his job, and will have more trouble getting another job in the security industry (depending on what they charge him with). Also, he will be very pissed off at the government and the law. Hence, the logical solution is to solve both problems by becoming a black hat -- or where else did you think he would apply his skills as a security expert if no one will hire him? (Not that I think he is a bad guy, donating to Tsunami relief and all)
As I understand it, carbon dating gives wildly wrong dates for things that are still alive, and different dates for different parts of the same animal. And isn't accurate past a few tens of thousands of years. But maybe I am just partial because a pig that was supposed to be extinct for over 20 million years was found alive and kicking in my home country (Paraguay).
You make a very good point. Now let me point out that Google would be banned from China if they did not comply -- and hence would be able to do nothing for the Chinese people. This way at least people can search for code words.
While I admire your going the extra mile to help your users, you are openning the possibility that you will be used as a scapegoat if there is a sexual harassment problem in your office. I don't know anything about where you work, but I think the "training" is just a way for the managers to cover their asses if there is a scandal. Now they can't cover their asses except by pointing the finger at you.
Security through obfuscation is not security.
Really? Care to give me your password?
PS: damn anonymous cowards.
Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.
Not so much pedophilia... It incredibly commonplace for any hunting animal to target the young or the weak, those who cannot fight back or run. In this case it seems most unfair. As others have pointed out, minors do not have credit cards and thus cannot buy music online, and the parents are often quite clueless. Anyhow, this doesn't help the prejudice that lawyers == sharks.
Looks like you really don't know how linux works (or computers in general). Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to force programs to be installed by a single installer? You'd basically need an "antivirus" that detects any programs which have'nt been officially installed and prevents them from running. How would you prevent someone from downloading solitary.exe and running it (essentially a manual install)?. On the bright side, if someone does manage to do as you suggest, it would become that much easier to implement forced DRM :-)
Ah, but it's really speakers and other music playing hardware that encourage music piracy. I mean, people have always been copying music, even if they didn't have a computer, and it's all because of music-playing hardware.