That may be, but I think the real problem is, nobody cared to check his references. As he stated:
"and I offer as my reference the text "Catholicism for Dummies" by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.)."
Now, did *anyone* ever do the trouble of finding out if this is correct? Because, if it is, whether he's Phd or not doesn't matter; he has a basis for his claim. If it doesn't turn out to be true, then it's an inherent problem of wikipedia, where people can get their opinion voiced by citing non-existant sources.
This won't be dealt with by requiring 'proof' of ones' credentials, however. In fact, people with 'high credentials' often have quite a big ego, which add to the problem when they think *they* are right and the others aren't. (Well, it's a common human thing, after all).
On the other hand, I've experienced the same kind of 'argument' being used against me too, when giving some commonly known criticism of the Freenet project, for instance. I had to 'prove' and 'cite sources' untill I dropped dead, but they still didn't allow that criticism, because it came from me. In fact, it was just to get rid of the criticism by fanboys, disguised as being 'not according to the rules'. It boiled down to a variant of an ad hominem attack, really; it wasn't about what I said, but about who said it. Proof of the matter: someone else made similar criticism as I did, and that was kept, because ultimatly, they couldn't hide behind 'the rules' indefinately.
It's difficult to see how one could resolve the first problem, without falling in the pitfall of the second. Any such system is bound to be abused, if it wants to be 'open' to everyone. When you try to deal with one thing, you automatically restrict the other aspect. There is no bullitproof solution for it, though they might refine the system, not by requiring credentials (btw, wasn't there an article on slashdot where it was shown mixed groups work better then groups only existing of lay peopla AND better then groups solely existing of experts?), but by a constant evaluation of the 'worth' a certain wikipediamoderator has. That worth should be determined by the content/edits he made by peer-moderators and normal wikipedians (as endusers).
Thus, it would be a system like it's sometimes used by progressive governmental offices and even companies, where your superior gives a recurrent evaluation of you, but you also (well, all the ones working for the superior) give a grade to the superior. Or where teachers evaluate students, but the students may evaluate teachers too. I know this system is often criticised because of a perceived lack of quality (for instance; the teacher will let students pass if he really gets graded by students, and therefor, we can't really let his job be depended on it - which is why students only have some meaningless say in the matter), but all in all, that system really does provide an extra layer of quality, because the really bad apples *do* get to be removed faster, or at least, they are spotted easier.
If they would implement such a system in wikipedia (and I mean, a real bottom-up evaluation-system, not the poor substitute they have now), it would do a lot better then asking for credentials.
"or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community"
Possible answers which suit the FA:
1.Yes! And anyone who thinks differently doesn't understand what the internet is all about! 2.Insightful discussion? We're on slashdot, for gods' sake! 3.What' you mean; legal community? Their are online illegal communities too? 4.Goatse rulez!
Maybe he is referring to the multi-universe theory. In that case, when someone goes back to kill his own grandfather, he's actually killing his grandfather in another reality, and creating a new future where he doesn't exist, but it's not the future/universe he came from.
In that case, causality isn't violated.
Now, in my opinion, this is a higly unlikely probability, at least in any practical sense, but as a theoretic construction, it is quite possible (without violating causality). It's a bit like your 2 + 2 = 5 example, where you say it's impossible. Actually, that's a wrong statement; it's impossible using Euclidean mathematics, but it's perfectly possible the statement would be true within another mathematical reference-frame.
"Yet it was copied the very next day by large companies (in China) who already had the manufacturing lines in place to quickly produce the things, while the actual inventor had to struggle to put together a business and negotiate deals with manufacturing companies. In the end he didn't receive much if anything for his invention."
I think your story reeks of hyperbole, which isn't a good thing, if you want to be taken seriously. "The very next day"...really? That seems higly unlikely, if it wasn't through industrial espionage...and in that case, patent law wouldn't have made much difference. Which brings me to me next point.
We *live* in a world where patents are granted, so your story, if true, actually proves that patents are of no use. I mean, I fail to see any point here: if you're arguing that patents could have prevented the copying 'the next day', then, seen the fact you can get patents in our 'modern' time, your story rather points to the failure of it. Thus, if there wasn't any patent-possibility around, and the chinese copied it the very next day...what exatly would be different?
A little thought to contemplate, however: the more you get near the speed of light, the more energy you need (exponentially). At the speed of light, the energy needed is infinit.
This is a natural law, so even far more technologically evolved aliens would probably not go beyond 80% of the speed of light; for each additional %, the energy requirements would be staggering, and quickly supercede the energy-output of a complete solarsystem.
Not saying they were (or weren't), but your question seemed to imply the illogical asumption that questions can't be illogical. Ofcourse 'asking' itself might not be illogical, but then again, this is a worthless statement, because 'saying' something isn't illogical neither, even if the *content* of what one says is full of illogical statements.
"That is the crucial difference between all of your "similar" cases and deism: deism provides a logically consistent explanation for observed phenomena that does not contradict other observed phenomena."
Well, that is exactly the point: it doesn't. At least, not necessarily. Just as you claim 'an omnipotent being means something other then what you think', one could also argue 'a tooth fairy isn't what you think' or 'your interpretation of incarnation is a common misconception', etc.. The debate already starts there, and has rather to do with semantics (omnipotent in my view is exactly what it means as explaned in the dictionary; if people use personal interpretations of a certain terminology, one can never come to any fruitful debate).
That said, it is, apart from semantics, also wrong in the assertion itself. For instance, the Flying Spagethi Monster is a fully consistent framework, that at least equals any religious framework - yet I doubt you would believe in it. The example of Carl Sagans 'invisible magical dragon' was fully consistent, yet unprovable, so there too, one could claim that such a magical dragon was in the garage - yet no-one would actually consider it to be true, without any possibility to prove whether it was there, or not. (Note; if you're unfamiliar with this example; it was an invisible, floating, uncorporal (if it so whished) dragon, etc. The example was fully consistent, yet impossible to prove one way or another).
So, it's not an inherent 'difference' with your claim at all. One can find an infinite number of alternative explanations, which are internally consistent, yet remain impossible to prove or refute. (Mind you, that, if you interpret the Bible strictly, there are more then enough inconsistencies in it anyhow, but those get the label of 'misinterpretation' depending on the age/mentality of the time.) But I do agree with you that internal consistency is the first step, and an important one at that. However, it's not enough to make a valid claim that it really exist, only because the concept is consistent.
Now, take the FSM: can you actually prove it doesn't exist? As it is equally (or even more) consistent than most religious claims, and has exactly the same level of 'proof' of it's existance, shouldn't you equal FMA as another viable explanation?
Rationally, you would/should. But in reality you don't believe one iota in the fact that there actually is an FSM, isn't that true? You don't *actually* believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or a magical dragon in your garage), and people claiming there is...well, you would probably think they're spouting nonsense or have a screw loose.
If you think those alternatives are worthwhile, then you have to accept an infinity of other possibilities too. For instance, there is a possibility that I am God, but I act as if I'm human: I do not wish to reveal my godly powers (my ways are mysterious, after all). Can you actually *prove* I'm not God? Am I not consistent with a God pretending to be a human posting on Slashdot? (Maybe it's not consistent with the interpretation you have of God, but then again, maybe your interpretation is wrong - especially since I'm God;-)
Yet, do you actually believe I'm god? Do you feel anyone should give any credibility to my claim?
Bah! You infidel!:-)
"Non-deists are willing to consider other theories that have no more support than deism"
Only if the theories lend themselves to falsification, at least in principle. If scientists come up with theories that aren't possibly to verify in any way conceivable (and sometimes that happens), they don't give it any more worth then an idle thought-experiment.
Of course, with 'non-deists' I mean people using scientific principles. Obviously, I can't speak for all non-deists; I'm sure you have people among them that say whatever they want, just like in any other group.
If it is of any consolation, I think people saying that there are aliens among us, but we can't dectect them in any way possible fall in the same category of people that claim god(s) exist (or the FSM, etc.) but we can't detect them.
"In fact, implicit in your argument is the belief that science can explain all of reality. On what evidence do you base this belief?"
Well..I'm not going to debate the whole thing again; I would have thought you had your fill with the other poster.;-)
I think there is some misunderstanding, here. The proof that something exist has to be delivered by those who make the claim, not by those who hear the claim. If I'm eating food (and I don't get sick), I'm actually not making a claim at all that the food was poisoned or not. If a claim was asked from me, I would probably say that I'd think the food wasn't poisoned (if I hadn't fallen ill) because there is an expectation that food is controlled (at least in my country) and I didn't observe any negative effects, so I have nothing to base myself on to claim differently.
I'm guessing that is what you refer to as my 'belief'; but note that I don't believe there is poison in my food, because nothing indicates that there was. If I would have to translate that into an analogy with god, it would be that one shouldn't believe there is a god, because nothing indicates that there is one.
One could of course claim there IS a god (and one has observed it), but that would be akin as saying there IS poison in the food (and one has observed it). In that case, the claim is a positive one: you are claiming there IS something, and thus, the burden of proof lies with the person that makes such a claim. So, basically, if you say God exist, it's for you to prove it (as it is for scientists to proof their theories are right). Obviously, if a scientist doesn't claim anything, he doesn't have to proof it neither.
Now, the other poster might have been a bit harsh with his 'loon' comment, but let me ask this again:
1)a person comes to you and says he's the reincarnation of Napoleon 2)He is unable or unwilling to prove his claim in any way, but he assures you it is true
Will you:
1)Give credit to his claim and believe him 2)Think he's a loony, or, at the very least, could use some counseling?
If you're honest, in that particular case, you will probably think that the guy isn't right in the head, NOT that he really *is* a reincarnation of Napoleon.
Now, I'm not going to go much further with this discussion, but I would like an answer to this:
If your thoughts about that guy would be as I described it;
1)why do you expect a different response from people if someone would claim that God exists? (e.g.isn't it reasonable to disregard a claim that can't be proven nor disproven?)
2)Are you aware there is *nothing* that differentiates (in regard to establishing the observational reality) his claim, or someone claiming God exists? And if so, does it not logically follow that any claim is worth as much as the next, if the basis for it is mere personal opinion?
To have a sensible debate about the observational reality, you need to have some basic measurements where a claim has to adhere to. One of those measurements is the need that a claim is falsifiable. If one is talking about things that can't be observed, or one refutes those basic (scientific) grounds for determining the truth, then one can not come to any sensible debate, because it boils down to personal beliefs and opinions, and one opinion is as much worth as the other (and thus, worthless in debating for a common ground).
Now, as for my personal vision on religion and the existence of an all-powerful being: I'll give it exactly the same consideration as magical dragons, tooth fairies and reincarnations of Napoleon. Religious people often find this insulting, but it's the *only possible* way to deal with all of these unfalsifiable claims, if one is to remain consistent. I'm still waiting for someone to argument why the first would require more respect/thought/debate/etc. or would be more believable than any of the other claims and possibilities.
In essence, if one beliefs in god, it's on equal footing as someone who believes in tooth fairies. I mean, really, it is.
"There is no practical difference between being unable to, and simply not bothering to, verify something."
I think that was rather the crux with your discussion with the other poster. The difference between science and religion is exactly the fact that one is verifiable, and the other not.
I think there is some semantic confusion maybe as in regard to 'believe' in the sense of 'expectation'; as with believing that your food isn't poisoned if you don't fall sick (i.e. if you don't 'observe' it) and 'belief' as in a beliefsystem that makes unfalsifiable claims (i.e. an omnipotent god).
"I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally."
Well, I'm not sure if he actually said it that way, but maybe he misfrased it. First of all, I would say 'should' is irrelevant here; everyone can believe what he/she wants. I refute, however, that there is no difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim; the difference lies exactly in the ability to falsify. One can not disprove something that isn't there, of course, but it should be noted that the belief in god has no more validity then someone believing in the tooth-fairy.
Religious people often find the notion of someone believing in, say, little green men or the tooth fairy or magical dragons or the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mon ster) ludicrous or insulting (at the very least, they will think it's is not comparable to their belief)... yet they often fail to realise their own religion has not anything more to show for it.
If I were to tell you I'm God, acting as if I were a mere human, would you actually believe that? Without any proof of my claim, I highly doubt that. But can you *disprove* my claim? No. Yet, you still think I'm talking bullocks, right?
Well, it's the same thing with scientifically oriented people towards people claiming god exist: the thing can't be disproven, but without further proof, they regard it as nonsense too. Whether this is a good thing or not, it's the only thing possible, if one wants to have any sort of basis for a claim. Otherwise, ALL unfalsifiable claims should be researched (without having any chance of being falsifiable), and the amount is limitless. The world could be created by an invisible magical dragon, or a magical blue cow, or a green cow, or... see? Unsupported and unfalsifiable claims can be made about anything, and as far as those go, they are ALL equal to eachother. Believing in God is no more or less idiotic then believing in a magical brown cow.
Most people (I suppose even you) would see the magical brown cow explanation as the nonsense it is, but when it becomes 'God', then suddenly people try to defend it.
Rest assured: it is no more defendable then the magical brown cow or any other confabulation people can make up.
"Not as they relate to forming the basis of a belief."
I think that's just the problem the parent poster was alluding at.
With all your other examples, like the food being poisened, there is the possibility of verifying it - regardless of whether one does it or not. With religion (as in: the existence of an omnipotent being), you do not even have the ability to verify or disprove it
The parent poster is actually right; it's a matter of willing, not of being able too. You don't need rockets and satelites or charter a plane to determine that the Earth is round. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes .
I assure you, being 240 BC, that Ancient Greek didn't have a rocket or an airplane neither.
If he could do it more then 2000 years ago, you can too, if you are willing to make the trouble.
One might postulate, however, that life itself has the tendency to cover all possible niches in some way or form (and thus, colonise new habitats). This can be observed for myriads of species that have colonised myriads of habitats - even extremely harsh ones - on Earth.
Space can be viewed as another niche, but only reachable by intelligent life. If so, and if intelligent life follows the tendency of life in general, it might not be farfetched to argue that intelligent life will colonise other planets.
Then again, even cockroaches can't get to another planet (without our help).;-)
I think your analysis is quite correct. While there will always remain some vulnerability to become extinct, I think we're doing better then any mammal on this Earth. In fact seen the ecological niches we inhabit on this planet, and the fact we'll be reaching the 7 billion mark, we're doing better (in an evolutionary sense) then almost all other living things, (excluding insects and microbes and such, of course). The latter are the real survivalists of this world, of course: even we can't go without them.
That said, when looking at the more 'big' animals, we're pretty much at the top. Include our potential to actually go and colonise other planets, and we're actually quite something special, since no animal could do that before us. Compared to that, the shark is, indeed, much more vulnerable. Everything that really whipes out the entire human race is likely to whipe out the sharks too, IMHO - but the reverse can't be said. This becomes even more true if humans can hold their ground on another planet.
That said, our intelligence doesn't really mean it is an advantage per sé, evolutionary wise. If it was really such a huge advantage regardless of the ecological niche to be filled, it is difficult to understand why it hasn't popped up more in the hundreds of millions of years in our planets' history. Greater speed, sharper claws, poison, camouflage, flight... all these things have had miriads of recurrent examples troughout different species and times... but there is no such indication of intelligence.
While we have the tendency to think inteeligence is the summon of evolutionary advantage, I think this is a biased view. It is true that, in the long term certainly, it gives us a clear advantage, but it might well be, that it is a short-term disadvantage (geologically speaking, that is). For instance, intelligence is all good and well, but it requires a considerable amount of energy, solely devoted to the brains. This energy must come from somewhere, and since the intake of food has it's limits, an organism can't specialise in a dozen things at once. We have no claws, no poison, no great speed, etc. In fact, without our brains (and the tools they create) we wouldn't last long; we're actually fairly puny creatures, physically surpassed in almost any other sense by a myriad of animals.
So, the energy put in our brains must compensate for that...but it's far from sure whether it does this as a given. For the most part of our evolution as a human (talking about the before-homo-sapiens-neanderthalis period) we didn't actually did so good. For millenia our tools were very modest and could hardly rival with what other animals had from mother nature. We weren't much more then a group of 'animals' on the fringe of an ecological niche, probably living like scavengers. The fact that we've survived long enough to let our brains evolve enough so that our tools were becomming a definitive advantage from an evolutionary sense of stance, is mostly luck, really.
In fact, it was luck: recent genetic research has demonstrated that even relatively recently (homo sapiens sapiens era; our tools were already much better) our gene-pool had decreased extensively. Speculations are, it was caused by the climatic changes of a supervulcano 70.000 years ago, but whatever the cause was, it shows that our survival was far from certain, even though we'd evolved sentience. If it had been a little bit worse, our species would have ended right there and then, and we wouldn't be talking to eachother now. The evolutionary advantages of intelligence wouldn't even have come up.
However, our current level of technology and tool making has developped so rapidly that, by now, it has become a huge advantage, no doubt. Once humans start exploring and colonising other planets, it's difficult to imagine a disaster which would whipe out the human race: it might be possible, but there
While I agree with most what you said, I think the parent poster (in his last post) was argumenting about (and trying to refute) your claim that it's nothing special, because there are thousands of plans on the drawingboard. You didn't actually make a good counterclaim to that (specifically).
While it's true there are thousands of drawings about it, even from you and me, aparently..;-)...there is a matter of degree when one is to give any objective value to those plans. The space-plan my god-child draws is slightly more unrealistic then mine, for instance, due to the lack of knowledge of physical laws. Yours may be better then mine, but scores almost equally as low when it becomes a matter of actually putting something in space.
However, companies which have actual huge budgets, have actually shown they are capable of at least sub-orbital flight, and have detailed plans to make it economical...well, their papers are a lot better then 98% of all those thousands of other plans you alluded at.
I'm fully aware that it's still a long way to have actual commercial flights in an orbit, let alone going to a space-hotel, but I do think your claim of 'It's nothing to write home about ' is unwarrented, just *because* most never get that far. Whether they bring a person in space may be irrelevant, but the actual requirement of spaceship one was to bring the weight of 3 people above the 100 km boundary - around 250 kg, I guess. and they succeeded in that. Not too long ago, people wouldn't have thought a little private compagny could ever pull such a thing off.
So, yes, most designs never get into orbit, and maybe spaceship 3 will neither. But they DID manage to get somewhere where most designs also never got. One must be intellectually honest, and acknowledge that not all plans/designs are equal, and I think the chances of Scales Composites in conjuction with Virgin Galactic are much higher then the vast majority of those other designplans you speak about.
Oh, yeah, I forgot! It's only if you say it, that it is true! Well, of course, with such a solipsistic thought-pattern, you are right and all the rest is *obviously* wrong, regardles of their logical validity.
I'm sorry, but the one that is making a fool of himself are you. Once again, you don't seem to have bothered to look into the matter. I'll quote again from the wikipedia:
"The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is not an assertion that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists, and conflating the two can be seen as a straw man argument."
Using that straw man argument is exactly what you do, and it's a fallacy.
You really don't get it. Where, I pray, does it it say in your quote that it is pseudoscience? He's saying the hypothesis is extremely unlikely. He might be right.
You fail to see that science is not pertaining to be a closed&shut case, or even give any certainty, nor does it mean one can not make any hypothesis (assumptions, in your words) It's about the *methodology* used. Since you brought SETI along to compare, let's see:
SETI:
1)There is factual anecdotal evidence, but very limited (one example). The anecdotal evidence is measurable.
2)There is a hypothesis made, but no conclusion made (aka nobody on the project is saying there IS life capable of sending radio-waves, it's only projected as a possibility)
3)The methodology and the reasoning for comming to this hypothesis is embedded in our scientific knowledge and known physics, where Occams' Razor is used.
Your case:
1)There is presumed anecdotal evidence (since you didn't actually statistically researched your observations, you can't claim it's factual, due to possible biased rememberance). The evidence is unmeasurable (dixit yourself).
2)There is a conclusion made (aka you claimed to possess the power that is the cause for your anecdotal evidence; it is not postulated as a possibility, but as a fact)
3)There has not been any standardised methodology used in comming to that conclusion, and the main reasoning boils down to personal opinion.
It's is clear to anyone who is intellectual honest, that the two do not compare at all in the context of scientific merrit. The analogy you try to make is therefor flawed.
Meh. You keep distorting the truth: the SETI project was and is being done based on scientific principles, not supernatural causes (nor by supernatural means). Do you even bother to look up something before you make absurd claims? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI and there we can already read in the first paragraph: "The generic approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet, an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer [1])"
Contact was an SF-novel by Carl Sagan, not a scientific non-fictional work. The line may be blurry to you, I know. Him smoking pot is as irrelevant as him dying of cancer. You can emulate those traits as much as you want, as long as you also emulate his clear reasoning, it would definitely be an improvement.;-)
(BTW, I DID read it.:-p )
So I guess that leaves you to read 'the demon haunted world'!(?):-)
"Arrogance really doesn't serve you well."
Hey, sorry if arrogance is only your prerogative! But it *does* serve YOU well, apparently? I quote:
"You seem incapable of grasping this." (dixit yourself, a few posts ago)
Slashdot Mirror
LOL
:-)
Somebody with points left (not I, thus, alas) mod the parent up as 'funny'!
I mean, what; the mods didn't get the reference?
That may be, but I think the real problem is, nobody cared to check his references. As he stated:
"and I offer as my reference the text "Catholicism for Dummies" by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.)."
Now, did *anyone* ever do the trouble of finding out if this is correct? Because, if it is, whether he's Phd or not doesn't matter; he has a basis for his claim. If it doesn't turn out to be true, then it's an inherent problem of wikipedia, where people can get their opinion voiced by citing non-existant sources.
This won't be dealt with by requiring 'proof' of ones' credentials, however. In fact, people with 'high credentials' often have quite a big ego, which add to the problem when they think *they* are right and the others aren't. (Well, it's a common human thing, after all).
On the other hand, I've experienced the same kind of 'argument' being used against me too, when giving some commonly known criticism of the Freenet project, for instance. I had to 'prove' and 'cite sources' untill I dropped dead, but they still didn't allow that criticism, because it came from me. In fact, it was just to get rid of the criticism by fanboys, disguised as being 'not according to the rules'. It boiled down to a variant of an ad hominem attack, really; it wasn't about what I said, but about who said it. Proof of the matter: someone else made similar criticism as I did, and that was kept, because ultimatly, they couldn't hide behind 'the rules' indefinately.
It's difficult to see how one could resolve the first problem, without falling in the pitfall of the second. Any such system is bound to be abused, if it wants to be 'open' to everyone. When you try to deal with one thing, you automatically restrict the other aspect. There is no bullitproof solution for it, though they might refine the system, not by requiring credentials (btw, wasn't there an article on slashdot where it was shown mixed groups work better then groups only existing of lay peopla AND better then groups solely existing of experts?), but by a constant evaluation of the 'worth' a certain wikipediamoderator has. That worth should be determined by the content/edits he made by peer-moderators and normal wikipedians (as endusers).
Thus, it would be a system like it's sometimes used by progressive governmental offices and even companies, where your superior gives a recurrent evaluation of you, but you also (well, all the ones working for the superior) give a grade to the superior. Or where teachers evaluate students, but the students may evaluate teachers too. I know this system is often criticised because of a perceived lack of quality (for instance; the teacher will let students pass if he really gets graded by students, and therefor, we can't really let his job be depended on it - which is why students only have some meaningless say in the matter), but all in all, that system really does provide an extra layer of quality, because the really bad apples *do* get to be removed faster, or at least, they are spotted easier.
If they would implement such a system in wikipedia (and I mean, a real bottom-up evaluation-system, not the poor substitute they have now), it would do a lot better then asking for credentials.
"...or especially, *my* tax dollars :)"
;-)
Well, that would be difficult, since I live in Europe.
"or is internet trolling just a necessary side effect of a policy that otherwise promotes insightful discussion of the legal community"
Possible answers which suit the FA:
1.Yes! And anyone who thinks differently doesn't understand what the internet is all about!
2.Insightful discussion? We're on slashdot, for gods' sake!
3.What' you mean; legal community? Their are online illegal communities too?
4.Goatse rulez!
I don't remember my opinion being asked!
Maybe he is referring to the multi-universe theory. In that case, when someone goes back to kill his own grandfather, he's actually killing his grandfather in another reality, and creating a new future where he doesn't exist, but it's not the future/universe he came from.
In that case, causality isn't violated.
Now, in my opinion, this is a higly unlikely probability, at least in any practical sense, but as a theoretic construction, it is quite possible (without violating causality). It's a bit like your 2 + 2 = 5 example, where you say it's impossible. Actually, that's a wrong statement; it's impossible using Euclidean mathematics, but it's perfectly possible the statement would be true within another mathematical reference-frame.
"Yet it was copied the very next day by large companies (in China) who already had the manufacturing lines in place to quickly produce the things, while the actual inventor had to struggle to put together a business and negotiate deals with manufacturing companies. In the end he didn't receive much if anything for his invention."
I think your story reeks of hyperbole, which isn't a good thing, if you want to be taken seriously. "The very next day"...really? That seems higly unlikely, if it wasn't through industrial espionage...and in that case, patent law wouldn't have made much difference. Which brings me to me next point.
We *live* in a world where patents are granted, so your story, if true, actually proves that patents are of no use. I mean, I fail to see any point here: if you're arguing that patents could have prevented the copying 'the next day', then, seen the fact you can get patents in our 'modern' time, your story rather points to the failure of it. Thus, if there wasn't any patent-possibility around, and the chinese copied it the very next day...what exatly would be different?
Yes, but...wouldn't that require, like... 2 Nvidia Geforce 12753600 ZZX's in SLI to be able to simulate our universe with such a decent framerate?
Well, darn, reading your post now and... I could have spared me my post ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223140 &cid=18165750 )!
A little thought to contemplate, however: the more you get near the speed of light, the more energy you need (exponentially). At the speed of light, the energy needed is infinit.
This is a natural law, so even far more technologically evolved aliens would probably not go beyond 80% of the speed of light; for each additional %, the energy requirements would be staggering, and quickly supercede the energy-output of a complete solarsystem.
"Since when is asking questions illogical?"
Ummm...when the questions are illogical?
Not saying they were (or weren't), but your question seemed to imply the illogical asumption that questions can't be illogical. Ofcourse 'asking' itself might not be illogical, but then again, this is a worthless statement, because 'saying' something isn't illogical neither, even if the *content* of what one says is full of illogical statements.
"That is the crucial difference between all of your "similar" cases and deism: deism provides a logically consistent explanation for observed phenomena that does not contradict other observed phenomena."
;-)
:-)
Well, that is exactly the point: it doesn't. At least, not necessarily. Just as you claim 'an omnipotent being means something other then what you think', one could also argue 'a tooth fairy isn't what you think' or 'your interpretation of incarnation is a common misconception', etc.. The debate already starts there, and has rather to do with semantics (omnipotent in my view is exactly what it means as explaned in the dictionary; if people use personal interpretations of a certain terminology, one can never come to any fruitful debate).
That said, it is, apart from semantics, also wrong in the assertion itself. For instance, the Flying Spagethi Monster is a fully consistent framework, that at least equals any religious framework - yet I doubt you would believe in it. The example of Carl Sagans 'invisible magical dragon' was fully consistent, yet unprovable, so there too, one could claim that such a magical dragon was in the garage - yet no-one would actually consider it to be true, without any possibility to prove whether it was there, or not. (Note; if you're unfamiliar with this example; it was an invisible, floating, uncorporal (if it so whished) dragon, etc. The example was fully consistent, yet impossible to prove one way or another).
So, it's not an inherent 'difference' with your claim at all. One can find an infinite number of alternative explanations, which are internally consistent, yet remain impossible to prove or refute. (Mind you, that, if you interpret the Bible strictly, there are more then enough inconsistencies in it anyhow, but those get the label of 'misinterpretation' depending on the age/mentality of the time.) But I do agree with you that internal consistency is the first step, and an important one at that. However, it's not enough to make a valid claim that it really exist, only because the concept is consistent.
Now, take the FSM: can you actually prove it doesn't exist? As it is equally (or even more) consistent than most religious claims, and has exactly the same level of 'proof' of it's existance, shouldn't you equal FMA as another viable explanation?
Rationally, you would/should. But in reality you don't believe one iota in the fact that there actually is an FSM, isn't that true? You don't *actually* believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or a magical dragon in your garage), and people claiming there is...well, you would probably think they're spouting nonsense or have a screw loose.
If you think those alternatives are worthwhile, then you have to accept an infinity of other possibilities too. For instance, there is a possibility that I am God, but I act as if I'm human: I do not wish to reveal my godly powers (my ways are mysterious, after all). Can you actually *prove* I'm not God? Am I not consistent with a God pretending to be a human posting on Slashdot? (Maybe it's not consistent with the interpretation you have of God, but then again, maybe your interpretation is wrong - especially since I'm God
Yet, do you actually believe I'm god? Do you feel anyone should give any credibility to my claim?
Bah! You infidel!
"Non-deists are willing to consider other theories that have no more support than deism"
Only if the theories lend themselves to falsification, at least in principle. If scientists come up with theories that aren't possibly to verify in any way conceivable (and sometimes that happens), they don't give it any more worth then an idle thought-experiment.
Of course, with 'non-deists' I mean people using scientific principles. Obviously, I can't speak for all non-deists; I'm sure you have people among them that say whatever they want, just like in any other group.
If it is of any consolation, I think people saying that there are aliens among us, but we can't dectect them in any way possible fall in the same category of people that claim god(s) exist (or the FSM, etc.) but we can't detect them.
"In fact, implicit in your argument is the belief that science can explain all of reality. On what evidence do you base this belief?"
;-)
Well..I'm not going to debate the whole thing again; I would have thought you had your fill with the other poster.
I think there is some misunderstanding, here. The proof that something exist has to be delivered by those who make the claim, not by those who hear the claim. If I'm eating food (and I don't get sick), I'm actually not making a claim at all that the food was poisoned or not. If a claim was asked from me, I would probably say that I'd think the food wasn't poisoned (if I hadn't fallen ill) because there is an expectation that food is controlled (at least in my country) and I didn't observe any negative effects, so I have nothing to base myself on to claim differently.
I'm guessing that is what you refer to as my 'belief'; but note that I don't believe there is poison in my food, because nothing indicates that there was. If I would have to translate that into an analogy with god, it would be that one shouldn't believe there is a god, because nothing indicates that there is one.
One could of course claim there IS a god (and one has observed it), but that would be akin as saying there IS poison in the food (and one has observed it). In that case, the claim is a positive one: you are claiming there IS something, and thus, the burden of proof lies with the person that makes such a claim. So, basically, if you say God exist, it's for you to prove it (as it is for scientists to proof their theories are right). Obviously, if a scientist doesn't claim anything, he doesn't have to proof it neither.
Now, the other poster might have been a bit harsh with his 'loon' comment, but let me ask this again:
1)a person comes to you and says he's the reincarnation of Napoleon
2)He is unable or unwilling to prove his claim in any way, but he assures you it is true
Will you:
1)Give credit to his claim and believe him
2)Think he's a loony, or, at the very least, could use some counseling?
If you're honest, in that particular case, you will probably think that the guy isn't right in the head, NOT that he really *is* a reincarnation of Napoleon.
Now, I'm not going to go much further with this discussion, but I would like an answer to this:
If your thoughts about that guy would be as I described it;
1)why do you expect a different response from people if someone would claim that God exists? (e.g.isn't it reasonable to disregard a claim that can't be proven nor disproven?)
2)Are you aware there is *nothing* that differentiates (in regard to establishing the observational reality) his claim, or someone claiming God exists? And if so, does it not logically follow that any claim is worth as much as the next, if the basis for it is mere personal opinion?
To have a sensible debate about the observational reality, you need to have some basic measurements where a claim has to adhere to. One of those measurements is the need that a claim is falsifiable. If one is talking about things that can't be observed, or one refutes those basic (scientific) grounds for determining the truth, then one can not come to any sensible debate, because it boils down to personal beliefs and opinions, and one opinion is as much worth as the other (and thus, worthless in debating for a common ground).
Now, as for my personal vision on religion and the existence of an all-powerful being: I'll give it exactly the same consideration as magical dragons, tooth fairies and reincarnations of Napoleon. Religious people often find this insulting, but it's the *only possible* way to deal with all of these unfalsifiable claims, if one is to remain consistent. I'm still waiting for someone to argument why the first would require more respect/thought/debate/etc. or would be more believable than any of the other claims and possibilities.
In essence, if one beliefs in god, it's on equal footing as someone who believes in tooth fairies. I mean, really, it is.
"There is no practical difference between being unable to, and simply not bothering to, verify something."
n ster) ludicrous or insulting (at the very least, they will think it's is not comparable to their belief)... yet they often fail to realise their own religion has not anything more to show for it.
I think that was rather the crux with your discussion with the other poster. The difference between science and religion is exactly the fact that one is verifiable, and the other not.
I think there is some semantic confusion maybe as in regard to 'believe' in the sense of 'expectation'; as with believing that your food isn't poisoned if you don't fall sick (i.e. if you don't 'observe' it) and 'belief' as in a beliefsystem that makes unfalsifiable claims (i.e. an omnipotent god).
"I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim that one should not believe anything one has not verified personally."
Well, I'm not sure if he actually said it that way, but maybe he misfrased it. First of all, I would say 'should' is irrelevant here; everyone can believe what he/she wants. I refute, however, that there is no difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim; the difference lies exactly in the ability to falsify. One can not disprove something that isn't there, of course, but it should be noted that the belief in god has no more validity then someone believing in the tooth-fairy.
Religious people often find the notion of someone believing in, say, little green men or the tooth fairy or magical dragons or the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mo
If I were to tell you I'm God, acting as if I were a mere human, would you actually believe that? Without any proof of my claim, I highly doubt that. But can you *disprove* my claim? No. Yet, you still think I'm talking bullocks, right?
Well, it's the same thing with scientifically oriented people towards people claiming god exist: the thing can't be disproven, but without further proof, they regard it as nonsense too. Whether this is a good thing or not, it's the only thing possible, if one wants to have any sort of basis for a claim. Otherwise, ALL unfalsifiable claims should be researched (without having any chance of being falsifiable), and the amount is limitless. The world could be created by an invisible magical dragon, or a magical blue cow, or a green cow, or... see? Unsupported and unfalsifiable claims can be made about anything, and as far as those go, they are ALL equal to eachother. Believing in God is no more or less idiotic then believing in a magical brown cow.
Most people (I suppose even you) would see the magical brown cow explanation as the nonsense it is, but when it becomes 'God', then suddenly people try to defend it.
Rest assured: it is no more defendable then the magical brown cow or any other confabulation people can make up.
"Not as they relate to forming the basis of a belief."
I think that's just the problem the parent poster was alluding at.
With all your other examples, like the food being poisened, there is the possibility of verifying it - regardless of whether one does it or not. With religion (as in: the existence of an omnipotent being), you do not even have the ability to verify or disprove it
The parent poster is actually right; it's a matter of willing, not of being able too. You don't need rockets and satelites or charter a plane to determine that the Earth is round. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes .
I assure you, being 240 BC, that Ancient Greek didn't have a rocket or an airplane neither.
If he could do it more then 2000 years ago, you can too, if you are willing to make the trouble.
Good point (and funny too).
One might postulate, however, that life itself has the tendency to cover all possible niches in some way or form (and thus, colonise new habitats). This can be observed for myriads of species that have colonised myriads of habitats - even extremely harsh ones - on Earth.
Space can be viewed as another niche, but only reachable by intelligent life. If so, and if intelligent life follows the tendency of life in general, it might not be farfetched to argue that intelligent life will colonise other planets.
"More and more women are hooking up with 'geeks' now."
Warning! With outrageous claims like that you are in danger of having your Nerd-Licence revoked!
Please stop this hideous and vile indoctrination which might create severe cases of false hope for all us slashdotters!
I'll second that fine thought.
;-)
Then again, even cockroaches can't get to another planet (without our help).
I think your analysis is quite correct. While there will always remain some vulnerability to become extinct, I think we're doing better then any mammal on this Earth. In fact seen the ecological niches we inhabit on this planet, and the fact we'll be reaching the 7 billion mark, we're doing better (in an evolutionary sense) then almost all other living things, (excluding insects and microbes and such, of course). The latter are the real survivalists of this world, of course: even we can't go without them.
That said, when looking at the more 'big' animals, we're pretty much at the top. Include our potential to actually go and colonise other planets, and we're actually quite something special, since no animal could do that before us. Compared to that, the shark is, indeed, much more vulnerable. Everything that really whipes out the entire human race is likely to whipe out the sharks too, IMHO - but the reverse can't be said. This becomes even more true if humans can hold their ground on another planet.
That said, our intelligence doesn't really mean it is an advantage per sé, evolutionary wise. If it was really such a huge advantage regardless of the ecological niche to be filled, it is difficult to understand why it hasn't popped up more in the hundreds of millions of years in our planets' history. Greater speed, sharper claws, poison, camouflage, flight... all these things have had miriads of recurrent examples troughout different species and times... but there is no such indication of intelligence.
While we have the tendency to think inteeligence is the summon of evolutionary advantage, I think this is a biased view. It is true that, in the long term certainly, it gives us a clear advantage, but it might well be, that it is a short-term disadvantage (geologically speaking, that is). For instance, intelligence is all good and well, but it requires a considerable amount of energy, solely devoted to the brains. This energy must come from somewhere, and since the intake of food has it's limits, an organism can't specialise in a dozen things at once. We have no claws, no poison, no great speed, etc. In fact, without our brains (and the tools they create) we wouldn't last long; we're actually fairly puny creatures, physically surpassed in almost any other sense by a myriad of animals.
So, the energy put in our brains must compensate for that...but it's far from sure whether it does this as a given. For the most part of our evolution as a human (talking about the before-homo-sapiens-neanderthalis period) we didn't actually did so good. For millenia our tools were very modest and could hardly rival with what other animals had from mother nature. We weren't much more then a group of 'animals' on the fringe of an ecological niche, probably living like scavengers. The fact that we've survived long enough to let our brains evolve enough so that our tools were becomming a definitive advantage from an evolutionary sense of stance, is mostly luck, really.
In fact, it was luck: recent genetic research has demonstrated that even relatively recently (homo sapiens sapiens era; our tools were already much better) our gene-pool had decreased extensively. Speculations are, it was caused by the climatic changes of a supervulcano 70.000 years ago, but whatever the cause was, it shows that our survival was far from certain, even though we'd evolved sentience. If it had been a little bit worse, our species would have ended right there and then, and we wouldn't be talking to eachother now. The evolutionary advantages of intelligence wouldn't even have come up.
However, our current level of technology and tool making has developped so rapidly that, by now, it has become a huge advantage, no doubt. Once humans start exploring and colonising other planets, it's difficult to imagine a disaster which would whipe out the human race: it might be possible, but there
While I agree with most what you said, I think the parent poster (in his last post) was argumenting about (and trying to refute) your claim that it's nothing special, because there are thousands of plans on the drawingboard. You didn't actually make a good counterclaim to that (specifically).
...there is a matter of degree when one is to give any objective value to those plans. The space-plan my god-child draws is slightly more unrealistic then mine, for instance, due to the lack of knowledge of physical laws. Yours may be better then mine, but scores almost equally as low when it becomes a matter of actually putting something in space.
While it's true there are thousands of drawings about it, even from you and me, aparently..;-)
However, companies which have actual huge budgets, have actually shown they are capable of at least sub-orbital flight, and have detailed plans to make it economical...well, their papers are a lot better then 98% of all those thousands of other plans you alluded at.
I'm fully aware that it's still a long way to have actual commercial flights in an orbit, let alone going to a space-hotel, but I do think your claim of 'It's nothing to write home about ' is unwarrented, just *because* most never get that far. Whether they bring a person in space may be irrelevant, but the actual requirement of spaceship one was to bring the weight of 3 people above the 100 km boundary - around 250 kg, I guess. and they succeeded in that. Not too long ago, people wouldn't have thought a little private compagny could ever pull such a thing off.
So, yes, most designs never get into orbit, and maybe spaceship 3 will neither. But they DID manage to get somewhere where most designs also never got. One must be intellectually honest, and acknowledge that not all plans/designs are equal, and I think the chances of Scales Composites in conjuction with Virgin Galactic are much higher then the vast majority of those other designplans you speak about.
Oh, yeah, I forgot! It's only if you say it, that it is true! Well, of course, with such a solipsistic thought-pattern, you are right and all the rest is *obviously* wrong, regardles of their logical validity.
I'm sorry, but the one that is making a fool of himself are you. Once again, you don't seem to have bothered to look into the matter. I'll quote again from the wikipedia:
"The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is not an assertion that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists, and conflating the two can be seen as a straw man argument."
Using that straw man argument is exactly what you do, and it's a fallacy.
You really don't get it. Where, I pray, does it it say in your quote that it is pseudoscience? He's saying the hypothesis is extremely unlikely. He might be right.
You fail to see that science is not pertaining to be a closed&shut case, or even give any certainty, nor does it mean one can not make any hypothesis (assumptions, in your words) It's about the *methodology* used. Since you brought SETI along to compare, let's see:
SETI:
1)There is factual anecdotal evidence, but very limited (one example). The anecdotal evidence is measurable.
2)There is a hypothesis made, but no conclusion made (aka nobody on the project is saying there IS life capable of sending radio-waves, it's only projected as a possibility)
3)The methodology and the reasoning for comming to this hypothesis is embedded in our scientific knowledge and known physics, where Occams' Razor is used.
Your case:
1)There is presumed anecdotal evidence (since you didn't actually statistically researched your observations, you can't claim it's factual, due to possible biased rememberance). The evidence is unmeasurable (dixit yourself).
2)There is a conclusion made (aka you claimed to possess the power that is the cause for your anecdotal evidence; it is not postulated as a possibility, but as a fact)
3)There has not been any standardised methodology used in comming to that conclusion, and the main reasoning boils down to personal opinion.
It's is clear to anyone who is intellectual honest, that the two do not compare at all in the context of scientific merrit. The analogy you try to make is therefor flawed.
Then you obviously know better then the Skeptical Inquirer and Carl Sagan himself (and all the scientists dealing with the project).
Meh. You keep distorting the truth: the SETI project was and is being done based on scientific principles, not supernatural causes (nor by supernatural means). Do you even bother to look up something before you make absurd claims? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI and there we can already read in the first paragraph: "The generic approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet, an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer [1])"
;-)
:-p )
:-)
Contact was an SF-novel by Carl Sagan, not a scientific non-fictional work. The line may be blurry to you, I know. Him smoking pot is as irrelevant as him dying of cancer. You can emulate those traits as much as you want, as long as you also emulate his clear reasoning, it would definitely be an improvement.
(BTW, I DID read it.
So I guess that leaves you to read 'the demon haunted world'!(?)
"Arrogance really doesn't serve you well."
Hey, sorry if arrogance is only your prerogative! But it *does* serve YOU well, apparently? I quote:
"You seem incapable of grasping this." (dixit yourself, a few posts ago)