I don't see why you are not afraid of common crime; as an example of its prevalence, one in six American women has been raped. Is a fear of rape unjustified in your view? If some of these rapists can be stopped by, say, putting cameras in dark alleys, should not they be installed at once?
I think so. In reality, organized surveillance has always been a policing strategy, as cops "walk the beat," keeping an eye out for suspicious activity. If this job can now be done better by video cameras, or some fancy robots, then so much the better for public security.
I contend that your mind is broken and perceives what is not there; your thoughts have no relation to reality. Do not bother to object, because your objections are necessarily false.
Now tell me with a straight face that you have no faith.
Suppose that the privileged male establishment tries to exclude women, but has negligible effect, and women instead tend to stay away for other reasons. This hypothetical situation demonstrates the possibility of an exogenous gender gap.
One can work with ideas, and in that sense be educated, without adopting a Socratic attitude. As evidence for this, consider that the Soviet world was well enough educated in its day; ideas that would tend to undercut the legitimacy of the state were marked off limits, and this line was seldom crossed.
I mean, of course you are right that, in places such as France and Japan, vested interests block corporate takeovers; but in America they have less power, so private-equity groups can often turn around mismanaged companies. This simply tends to suggest that obvious and significant mismanagement, of any kind, would soon be vetoed by the market.
When a capitalist discovers a dysfunctional firm, he may buy it, fire its overpaid boss, and bring its outsourced operations back in house. This, according to your logic, would boost the firm's bottom line and thus increase its value; it could then be sold at a profit. If capitalists are greedy, they will find and exploit all such opportunities, thus turning the tide of outsourcing and bringing executive salaries down to earth.
Yet this has not happened---why? Perhaps capitalists are not motivated by greed and frequently forego potential profits; or, more likely, perhaps they think that outsourcing and expensive executives are not so bad after all. In this opinion they may of course be wrong; but then, one can only pity them for their unfortunate ignorance.
And that's a failure of our society, in my opinion; the state makes for a lousy father. Whenever children are not well supervised, they are liable to do much worse than get drunk and watch porn.
Perhaps you might find time to study the parable of the seven tasers, the sacred hymn to the red states, or even the famous sermon on Keynesianism, so that you might sharpen your critique of Christian thought and then truly once and for all lay bare the folly of religion.
There exist people whose life values are not centered around or even much concerned with personal computers; they constitute the other ninety-nine percent of mankind.
I only point this out because I have learned so much from them in the past few years.
On continental Europe, policies that protect jobs have led to youth unemployment and social immobility. In America, economic liberalism creates opportunity, but also job insecurity. An American is only encouraged in his labors when the rich get richer; he reasons that one day he will take his rightful place among them. A European, resigned to his lot in life, instead feels envy and demands more taxes.
No one has yet proved intelligent enough to marry American hope and European security. Thus practical choice is inevitable, and the liberal policies you mention are a sign that, for better or for worse, hope has gained the upper hand.
We are too busy murdering our own generation (just watch television news) to lay such bold plans for future crimes.
All that aside, it is the developing world that fans the fires of today's Malthusians; the future of the rich world is rosy by comparison, as declining population and cleaner technology inexorably shrink its ecological footprint.
While technology was indeed made possible by the advent of hereditary traits of intelligence, its ongoing development is not driven by corresponding changes in those traits. We now make iPods not because an iPod-maker trait has recently arisen in certain members of the species but rather in consequence of various social developments: the training of ever more engineers, an economic system that encourages useful new technologies, an expanding body of technical prowess and scientific knowledge, a cultural fascination with music, and so on.
But I do not think my argument is based on that logic. If you asked a layman to explain what is meant by natural selection, he would begin with "over millions of years things gradually changed according to certain laws" and not "Dr Frankenstein decided today that his monster would have seven legs and three eyes."
So, while you are free to choose for yourself what you mean by natural selection, you are also obliged to point out that it differs from that naive interpretation, and that the origin of species can in principle be explained by and in fact often is explained by the whims of powerful intelligent designers.
To (I paraphrase the original poster) "cast doubt on theories and on science in general," to question the scientific consensus, is the very essence of scientific inquiry---something worth doing that, in the words of GK Chesterton, is worth doing badly. But he would have it banned from the classroom so that it would not corrupt the transmission of today's orthodoxies.
are you going to sit here and tell me that the natural law of evolution is patently false because humans have developed the technology to interfere in the process directly, without waiting for it to occur naturally over time?
Well, yes. Countless species possess traits created by controlled breeding (eg, the agricultural revolution) or genetic manipulation in the laboratory; hence it is false to assert that the traits of all species are the result of natural selection, for many species have indeed been intelligently designed in the past ten thousand years.
So, while it is clearly possible for traits to evolve through natural selection, on our planet they have often been created by intelligent designers. And therefore an accurate account of the origin of species must give credit to both natural selection and intelligent design.
(As for your other points: (a) I am not a Christian; (b) I don't hate Catholics; (c) a scientific theory is a conjectural law of nature; (d) technological progress is not driven by natural selection; (e) Hume proved that no natural law can ever be "demonstrated as fact.")
You learned logical argument at home, from your parents; they also presumably taught you to read and write. But there are many children whose negligent parents teach them nothing at all and instead leave everything to the public schoolteacher.
It really is shameful that the best schools are so often attended by the children who least need them, and that the worst schools are imposed upon those who would most gain from good instruction.
Scientists have recently designed genetically-modified species. Therefore---wait for it!---species now exist that are not the result of selective pressure.
And hence the theory of evolution is simply false.
Children have no use for scientific theories; a boy wants to play basketball, not calculate the ball's trajectory. If he is taught an incorrect theory of trajectories, it is of no consequence to him.
Thus the only justification for teaching science is to develop the student's mind. Yet is is madness to develop a student's mind by inculcating in him an uncritical attitude towards received wisdom and a habitual trust of experts and intellectual authorities. Doubt is not the result of a bad education but of a good one.
(This is an important moral issue. Only think of eugenics.)
There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.' So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living.
When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything.
But when he came to himself he said, 'How many of my father's hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands."' So he set off and went to his father.
But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly, bring out a robe -- the best one -- and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!'
And they began to celebrate.
In other words, a Christian would probably answer that it is we who keep God away at a "safe distance."
(And anyway, is there much moral vagueness in the proposal "love your neighbor?")
You seem to want your children to learn and use popular scientific theories. But to understand science and its philosophical claims is something else entirely.
(Likewise, is the aim of history class to memorize the assertions of historians, or to learn to criticize them?)
Slashdot Mirror
I think so. In reality, organized surveillance has always been a policing strategy, as cops "walk the beat," keeping an eye out for suspicious activity. If this job can now be done better by video cameras, or some fancy robots, then so much the better for public security.
Now tell me with a straight face that you have no faith.
Suppose that the privileged male establishment tries to exclude women, but has negligible effect, and women instead tend to stay away for other reasons. This hypothetical situation demonstrates the possibility of an exogenous gender gap.
One can work with ideas, and in that sense be educated, without adopting a Socratic attitude. As evidence for this, consider that the Soviet world was well enough educated in its day; ideas that would tend to undercut the legitimacy of the state were marked off limits, and this line was seldom crossed.
That's a fair criticism.
I mean, of course you are right that, in places such as France and Japan, vested interests block corporate takeovers; but in America they have less power, so private-equity groups can often turn around mismanaged companies. This simply tends to suggest that obvious and significant mismanagement, of any kind, would soon be vetoed by the market.
Yet this has not happened---why? Perhaps capitalists are not motivated by greed and frequently forego potential profits; or, more likely, perhaps they think that outsourcing and expensive executives are not so bad after all. In this opinion they may of course be wrong; but then, one can only pity them for their unfortunate ignorance.
"Mamma! mamma! ah! how nice it is here!" cries her little boy to her.
And that's a failure of our society, in my opinion; the state makes for a lousy father. Whenever children are not well supervised, they are liable to do much worse than get drunk and watch porn.
Perhaps you might find time to study the parable of the seven tasers, the sacred hymn to the red states, or even the famous sermon on Keynesianism, so that you might sharpen your critique of Christian thought and then truly once and for all lay bare the folly of religion.
I only point this out because I have learned so much from them in the past few years.
Capitalist enough to hate, apparently.
No one has yet proved intelligent enough to marry American hope and European security. Thus practical choice is inevitable, and the liberal policies you mention are a sign that, for better or for worse, hope has gained the upper hand.
All that aside, it is the developing world that fans the fires of today's Malthusians; the future of the rich world is rosy by comparison, as declining population and cleaner technology inexorably shrink its ecological footprint.
While technology was indeed made possible by the advent of hereditary traits of intelligence, its ongoing development is not driven by corresponding changes in those traits. We now make iPods not because an iPod-maker trait has recently arisen in certain members of the species but rather in consequence of various social developments: the training of ever more engineers, an economic system that encourages useful new technologies, an expanding body of technical prowess and scientific knowledge, a cultural fascination with music, and so on.
But I do not think my argument is based on that logic. If you asked a layman to explain what is meant by natural selection, he would begin with "over millions of years things gradually changed according to certain laws" and not "Dr Frankenstein decided today that his monster would have seven legs and three eyes."
So, while you are free to choose for yourself what you mean by natural selection, you are also obliged to point out that it differs from that naive interpretation, and that the origin of species can in principle be explained by and in fact often is explained by the whims of powerful intelligent designers.
To (I paraphrase the original poster) "cast doubt on theories and on science in general," to question the scientific consensus, is the very essence of scientific inquiry---something worth doing that, in the words of GK Chesterton, is worth doing badly. But he would have it banned from the classroom so that it would not corrupt the transmission of today's orthodoxies.
are you going to sit here and tell me that the natural law of evolution is patently false because humans have developed the technology to interfere in the process directly, without waiting for it to occur naturally over time?
Well, yes. Countless species possess traits created by controlled breeding (eg, the agricultural revolution) or genetic manipulation in the laboratory; hence it is false to assert that the traits of all species are the result of natural selection, for many species have indeed been intelligently designed in the past ten thousand years.
So, while it is clearly possible for traits to evolve through natural selection, on our planet they have often been created by intelligent designers. And therefore an accurate account of the origin of species must give credit to both natural selection and intelligent design.
(As for your other points: (a) I am not a Christian; (b) I don't hate Catholics; (c) a scientific theory is a conjectural law of nature; (d) technological progress is not driven by natural selection; (e) Hume proved that no natural law can ever be "demonstrated as fact.")
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
Sounds like science to me.
You learned logical argument at home, from your parents; they also presumably taught you to read and write. But there are many children whose negligent parents teach them nothing at all and instead leave everything to the public schoolteacher.
It really is shameful that the best schools are so often attended by the children who least need them, and that the worst schools are imposed upon those who would most gain from good instruction.
I ignore unpleasant truths every day.
Scientists have recently designed genetically-modified species. Therefore---wait for it!---species now exist that are not the result of selective pressure.
And hence the theory of evolution is simply false.
Children have no use for scientific theories; a boy wants to play basketball, not calculate the ball's trajectory. If he is taught an incorrect theory of trajectories, it is of no consequence to him.
Thus the only justification for teaching science is to develop the student's mind. Yet is is madness to develop a student's mind by inculcating in him an uncritical attitude towards received wisdom and a habitual trust of experts and intellectual authorities. Doubt is not the result of a bad education but of a good one.
(This is an important moral issue. Only think of eugenics.)
Dostoevsky wrote The Brothers Karamazov on exactly this topic, and he argues both sides better than you and I ever could.
In other words, a Christian would probably answer that it is we who keep God away at a "safe distance."
(And anyway, is there much moral vagueness in the proposal "love your neighbor?")
You seem to want your children to learn and use popular scientific theories. But to understand science and its philosophical claims is something else entirely.
(Likewise, is the aim of history class to memorize the assertions of historians, or to learn to criticize them?)