It is religion if we say that science produces knowledge that is reality.
As I see it, science is a technology that produces higher qualities of usable knowledge. Religion does not produce knowledge. It is apples and oranges when arguing one against the other.
My other argument is that if science is BS, as Socrates may say, it is very effective knowledge. Do we care if it is reality so long as my plane can create lift or that I can power my computer with electricity? No, so long as the algorithms that create the effect are always valid. I think this is a more humble approach that science asks us to consider so that it can continue creating new knowledge.
I am not sure why you want to conclude stuff, but your conclusion is incorrect. Because we do not know if there ARE x-rays does not make the fact that we understand that a given set of inputs dependably generates a set of outputs less useful. To say that there is in fact x-rays IS A religious assertion as we may discover/invent that x-rays are a combination of thousands of phenomena. Does that mean it is any less useful?
If we know so much about particles and what we know is nature, then why do we need a particle collider? We know there are neutrons and protons and electrons. They must be the end-all at least they were for sometime for many scientists. It could not possibly be that those were man-made models that embodied a collective of sub atomic particles(again more man made models) acting collectively to produce an effect of what we think of as a proton or neutron. How do you think we create equipment to look for things? Is the equipment naturally endowed to understand what an xray or particle is? You do live in a fantasy world.
Um, just because we do not know reality, does not mean that our models are not useful. Is that what I said?
I am seriously attributing more value and wisdom to one Greek than the mass of human knowledge. I actually think that this one Greek is the grandfather of modern philosophy of which the scientific method sprung from.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic. Space-time fabric sounds like anthropomorphic fantasy. Have you touched a space-time fabric? How do you know it is real and not just a man-made model that is coincidental with nature? Is coincidence the same thing as reality? Sounds like religion. Does that mean it is any less useful? Nope.
I was more commenting on the assertion about the collective sum of brilliant minds. My point was that they may be the most brilliant minds of what we "know" today. But it is entirely possible we have exhausted the models we have produced based on this current state knowledge. These minds might be fruitlessly spinning their wheels in the mud without some sort of breakthrough that throws away old assumptions and theories. But because they are brilliant means nothing is what I am saying.
I agree that science, or the scientific method, is quite humble.
I am also not sure of the assertion that knowledge only comes through trying out old knowledge. New knowledge that comes from old knowledge is probably a tweak of old knowledge to accommodate the hypothesis that broke the old conclusion. Also, all knowledge is not empirical if I interpret what you are saying directly. This may be more of an eeking out of knowledge than a fundamental shift in thinking. Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
And a group of scientists have never been wrong even if they work at the LHC? Right. I think a little humility is needed. Because their heads are big and full of nothing, as Socrates would say, they must be respected? Gimme a break. They could all be morons in the context of the next horizon in human understanding of nature. Sure, they have a great understanding of old theories and old math, but that does not mean in anyway that this knowledge translates into the next generations of knowledge.
Wow, someone that thinks they are sitting at the adult table because they have a quip of a poem and a youtube video.
There is a lot of religion in science. For instance, what is responsible for gravity? Last I heard, we still do not know. Is it any less of a powerful concept?
But if we want to talk about adults, how do we address Socrates assertion that the only wisdom is that we know nothing? This tells me that the knowledge coming out of science is nothing but anthropomorphic models of nature that are highly coincidental. Anyone that believes science knows anything is also not sitting at the adult table.
For one, the scientific method addresses Socrates question. Since you are so mature and represent your quality of knowledge with the 2 sources you site, how does science support Socrates assertion?
Maybe we haven't identified all the places to look in our limited understanding of nature. So, sure we have axed a few "known" anthropomorphic places, but maybe we don't know WTF anyway. Socrates would say that we know nothing and this is really a search for nothing. For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.
I think a survey should be taken if we really believe that a Higgs particle exists. What if a Higgs effect is made up of hundreds of particles that when considered in whole look like Higgs? Because our anthropomorphic models predict the particle does not mean we will find it in nature. Gravity is a similar concept, but very useful despite not knowing what gravity is.
If CarrierIQ is making money from studying my behaviors, then I want a cut or I want to uninstall their craptastic software. I should not be forced to consume software I do not want. If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS. My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer. I should be able to decide what other relationships I want. CarrierIQ can contact me if they think their software somehow adds value to my experience. Otherwise, do more testing.
Technically a company should not let you bring anything of yours that benefits the company or they are stupid. For one, most non-competes try to claim gray matter that has been imprinted with company proprietary information, but thankfully I get to keep that. Do not let people use their own resources at your company unless they are a contractor. And I am not sure about your assertion that because you did company work on your resource, that they cannot demand to inspect your computer. That seems pretty risky to a discovery, of course, of child pornography or have German authorities put a keylogger on your machine.
Another rule is to not do anything personal on company resources. It is considered theirs because you did it on their resources which they consider their time too which means you did whatever for the benefit of them.
because he wants his followers. Otherwise, he would be nobody and have to work real hard to have his name recognized. May be not, but that is what an individual without the resources of a company would have to do to help build their reputation so that 17,000 people followed them.
You are coming to a conclusion backwards. Because he had a twitter account with the company's name in it and they did not pursue a trademark violation, this does not mean that he did it with their permission. How do you reach this conclusion when it could be Phonedog did not protect their mark and he was improperly using their mark. If anything, I would be afraid if I was phonedog as being seen as complacent about enforcing their marks.It seems their may be a gray area here.
However, may be like software development, if his tweeting was done with company resources, it may indeed be Phonedog's to keep.
Was this in the constitution? That is insane. Why not say the amendment expires depending on what side of the bed the supreme justice wakes up on. What a load of crap? Is there a website that tracks horrible decisions and the people involved? Where is shame in our society? This is embarrassing.
You mention, "Nobody can ever say their voice wasn't heard, " for those that do not care to vote. How is your form different than representative democracy today in that regard?
What if I refuse to delegate and do not vote? Am I still represented?
Is this for a part on Glee where 40 year olds portray 18 year olds?
I do not believe the anecdotal assertion. Prove that there is age bias. Do you hire for instance and you use age as a determining factor in hiring? That would be good testimony, but not scientific to the point we can generalize the phenomenon across the industry.
In any case, going back to my first statement, how many actors are way older than the parts they play? I think it has more to do with how young or old you look than whether you can fit the part.
What evidence is there that there is age discrimination in the movie industry except anecdotal evidence? Please provide any scientific evidence of this effect, otherwise it is hearsay and no better than people who looked at the earth as flat.
In addition, I do believe birth certificates are public record which means her age is public domain.
I do not think she has a leg to stand on. If the information is public and IMDb tracks actors, then I imagine it is within their rights to post what is in the public domain.
there is a huge difference between the government and a 3rd party. For one, the judicial system already makes the ruling public, but does not broadcast so why the change. Generally, it has been the job of enterprising individuals to make news and broadcast(newspapers/bloggers). Does the courts lambasting someone through amplification of their communication fall under cruel and unusual? The question I would have is why broadcasting is necessary for the courts as it really has nothing to do with their role.
Slashdot Mirror
It is religion if we say that science produces knowledge that is reality.
As I see it, science is a technology that produces higher qualities of usable knowledge. Religion does not produce knowledge. It is apples and oranges when arguing one against the other.
My other argument is that if science is BS, as Socrates may say, it is very effective knowledge. Do we care if it is reality so long as my plane can create lift or that I can power my computer with electricity? No, so long as the algorithms that create the effect are always valid. I think this is a more humble approach that science asks us to consider so that it can continue creating new knowledge.
I am not sure why you want to conclude stuff, but your conclusion is incorrect. Because we do not know if there ARE x-rays does not make the fact that we understand that a given set of inputs dependably generates a set of outputs less useful. To say that there is in fact x-rays IS A religious assertion as we may discover/invent that x-rays are a combination of thousands of phenomena. Does that mean it is any less useful?
If we know so much about particles and what we know is nature, then why do we need a particle collider? We know there are neutrons and protons and electrons. They must be the end-all at least they were for sometime for many scientists. It could not possibly be that those were man-made models that embodied a collective of sub atomic particles(again more man made models) acting collectively to produce an effect of what we think of as a proton or neutron. How do you think we create equipment to look for things? Is the equipment naturally endowed to understand what an xray or particle is? You do live in a fantasy world.
Hmm, a comment about nothing. I was not aware that it has been decided that quoting dead Greeks is foolish.
The adult table was not my remark but I am all ears for any wisdom you would like to share.
Um, just because we do not know reality, does not mean that our models are not useful. Is that what I said?
I am seriously attributing more value and wisdom to one Greek than the mass of human knowledge. I actually think that this one Greek is the grandfather of modern philosophy of which the scientific method sprung from.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic. Space-time fabric sounds like anthropomorphic fantasy. Have you touched a space-time fabric? How do you know it is real and not just a man-made model that is coincidental with nature? Is coincidence the same thing as reality? Sounds like religion. Does that mean it is any less useful? Nope.
I was more commenting on the assertion about the collective sum of brilliant minds. My point was that they may be the most brilliant minds of what we "know" today. But it is entirely possible we have exhausted the models we have produced based on this current state knowledge. These minds might be fruitlessly spinning their wheels in the mud without some sort of breakthrough that throws away old assumptions and theories. But because they are brilliant means nothing is what I am saying.
I agree that science, or the scientific method, is quite humble.
I am also not sure of the assertion that knowledge only comes through trying out old knowledge. New knowledge that comes from old knowledge is probably a tweak of old knowledge to accommodate the hypothesis that broke the old conclusion. Also, all knowledge is not empirical if I interpret what you are saying directly. This may be more of an eeking out of knowledge than a fundamental shift in thinking. Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?
And a group of scientists have never been wrong even if they work at the LHC? Right. I think a little humility is needed. Because their heads are big and full of nothing, as Socrates would say, they must be respected? Gimme a break. They could all be morons in the context of the next horizon in human understanding of nature. Sure, they have a great understanding of old theories and old math, but that does not mean in anyway that this knowledge translates into the next generations of knowledge.
Wow, someone that thinks they are sitting at the adult table because they have a quip of a poem and a youtube video.
There is a lot of religion in science. For instance, what is responsible for gravity? Last I heard, we still do not know. Is it any less of a powerful concept?
But if we want to talk about adults, how do we address Socrates assertion that the only wisdom is that we know nothing? This tells me that the knowledge coming out of science is nothing but anthropomorphic models of nature that are highly coincidental. Anyone that believes science knows anything is also not sitting at the adult table.
For one, the scientific method addresses Socrates question. Since you are so mature and represent your quality of knowledge with the 2 sources you site, how does science support Socrates assertion?
Maybe we haven't identified all the places to look in our limited understanding of nature. So, sure we have axed a few "known" anthropomorphic places, but maybe we don't know WTF anyway. Socrates would say that we know nothing and this is really a search for nothing. For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.
I think a survey should be taken if we really believe that a Higgs particle exists. What if a Higgs effect is made up of hundreds of particles that when considered in whole look like Higgs? Because our anthropomorphic models predict the particle does not mean we will find it in nature. Gravity is a similar concept, but very useful despite not knowing what gravity is.
If CarrierIQ is making money from studying my behaviors, then I want a cut or I want to uninstall their craptastic software. I should not be forced to consume software I do not want. If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS. My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer. I should be able to decide what other relationships I want. CarrierIQ can contact me if they think their software somehow adds value to my experience. Otherwise, do more testing.
Technically a company should not let you bring anything of yours that benefits the company or they are stupid. For one, most non-competes try to claim gray matter that has been imprinted with company proprietary information, but thankfully I get to keep that. Do not let people use their own resources at your company unless they are a contractor. And I am not sure about your assertion that because you did company work on your resource, that they cannot demand to inspect your computer. That seems pretty risky to a discovery, of course, of child pornography or have German authorities put a keylogger on your machine.
Another rule is to not do anything personal on company resources. It is considered theirs because you did it on their resources which they consider their time too which means you did whatever for the benefit of them.
because he wants his followers. Otherwise, he would be nobody and have to work real hard to have his name recognized. May be not, but that is what an individual without the resources of a company would have to do to help build their reputation so that 17,000 people followed them.
You are coming to a conclusion backwards. Because he had a twitter account with the company's name in it and they did not pursue a trademark violation, this does not mean that he did it with their permission. How do you reach this conclusion when it could be Phonedog did not protect their mark and he was improperly using their mark. If anything, I would be afraid if I was phonedog as being seen as complacent about enforcing their marks.It seems their may be a gray area here.
However, may be like software development, if his tweeting was done with company resources, it may indeed be Phonedog's to keep.
Was this in the constitution? That is insane. Why not say the amendment expires depending on what side of the bed the supreme justice wakes up on. What a load of crap? Is there a website that tracks horrible decisions and the people involved? Where is shame in our society? This is embarrassing.
You mention, "Nobody can ever say their voice wasn't heard, " for those that do not care to vote. How is your form different than representative democracy today in that regard?
What if I refuse to delegate and do not vote? Am I still represented?
You've ruined it for me!
=)
He definitely was too old. Thank gawd there was no IMDb for him or he may not have landed his role in 90210.
Is this for a part on Glee where 40 year olds portray 18 year olds?
I do not believe the anecdotal assertion. Prove that there is age bias. Do you hire for instance and you use age as a determining factor in hiring? That would be good testimony, but not scientific to the point we can generalize the phenomenon across the industry.
In any case, going back to my first statement, how many actors are way older than the parts they play? I think it has more to do with how young or old you look than whether you can fit the part.
What evidence is there that there is age discrimination in the movie industry except anecdotal evidence? Please provide any scientific evidence of this effect, otherwise it is hearsay and no better than people who looked at the earth as flat.
In addition, I do believe birth certificates are public record which means her age is public domain.
I do not think she has a leg to stand on. If the information is public and IMDb tracks actors, then I imagine it is within their rights to post what is in the public domain.
there is a huge difference between the government and a 3rd party. For one, the judicial system already makes the ruling public, but does not broadcast so why the change. Generally, it has been the job of enterprising individuals to make news and broadcast(newspapers/bloggers). Does the courts lambasting someone through amplification of their communication fall under cruel and unusual? The question I would have is why broadcasting is necessary for the courts as it really has nothing to do with their role.
I am making fun of all the "cloud" as panacea advertising that is so prevalent.