All criminal law is legislation of morality. The only way for a government to stop being a "moral compass" is to get rid of the whole criminal legal system. Even many civil laws are moral issues to some degree. One of the whole purposes of governments is to be a moral compass (that does not negate our responsibility to have our own internal moral compasses).
Thanks for posting that. I was just about to post about how making a categorical negative (e.g., "God doesn't exist) is on shaky logical ground (at best). In science, God lies outside the realm of the philosophical assumptions/foundations of science (i.e., proving the existence or non-existence of God is not something scientists can do because the concept of "God" is not a testable hypothesis.
My philosophy is that if an employer really is looking for petty reasons not to hire you, that's a good sign that they are not the best place for you to work. I want to work at a place where they really want me to work there. I encourage a robust hiring process but if a company is looking for stupid reasons to rule me out, then I'll go find a job somewhere else. Granted, this approach may not always work, depending on the industry, but for me it's a completely reasonable approach.
No, if it was legislating religion then there'd be no drinking allowed at all. Period. Even then, that's not really true. Legislating religion is simply saying, "This is the state church. We don't really recognize any other churches." Now that's legislating religion.
The most important religious documents have always been written on long-lasting materials (rocks, metal, etc.). Gold plates or similar things are fairly common, especially considering that as people changed their beliefs many plates or documents would have been destroyed.
The seer stones are mentioned in the Bible (I'm not saying that answers your question but they are Biblical).
If you believe in the Adam and Eve story, why does it matter where they lived? What is now know as the U.S. is as good as any other place. If you don't believe the story, then why does it matter where they lived?
As far as "'true' native americans were white" - that's a very inaccurate representation of LDS Church teachings. We believe there were (within the realm of the Book of Mormon) two groups of people (there were actually other groups too but I'm keeping it simple) - some with lighter skin and some with darker skin. Actually, when the people were righteous they were often referred to having "fair countenances" which does != white. That is a very common way to refer to good and bad - white and black (e.g., white knights and black knights). Besides, there were other people in the Americas - the Book of Mormon only talks about relatively few people and America is a big place. There were other people here too.
You can think we're insane, that's fine, but all people believe strange things in their own way.
Just like most political leaders in most states meet regularly with representatives from any number of organizations, including religions. It's no big deal.
The LDS Church does not tell the legislators how to vote, even if the legislators ask directly.
Faulty assumptions. My religious beliefs are who I am. They have more impact on my identity than my race or my sexual orientation or anything else.
I also disagree that most of the attacks on religion are focused only on the beliefs and not the people (having been on the receiving end of some of those attacks).
"certainly some of this claim is showmanship, but still...)"
No, the claim is based on membership records. If people do not ask for their names to be removed from church records, they are still considered LDS, even if they don't go to church. There's nothing "showy" about that. It's a bit like being an American expatriate who retains U.S. citizenship. So not all of the 70% are active, but they are still members.
You'll find that Mormons in general are not "fundies." Actually, the "fundies" generally dislike Mormons. Yes, we tend to be conservative but not "fundamentalists" in the sense that it's commonly used.
Spurious comparison. Witchcraft and mythical creatures are not real (I know some would argue they are but we'll go with the assumption they are not). Violence is real though so your argument is invalid. You can't disprove a logical argument by constructing a similar argument using unreal elements.
I've gone over 40 GB (probably monthly) and they've never said anything to me either. It's just the principle of it. Besides, you can hit 40 GB pretty easily as a "regular user" watching videos on Hulu or any of the TV sites.
I have Cox too and like the service other than the almost daily outages (usually less than 1 minute) and the "Maximum monthly consumption cap [of] 40 gigabytes downstream; 10 gigabytes upstream". Source: http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
Windows 7 isn't much of a beta. It's just a (big) service pack for Vista. There are some significant changes but not enough to really be a new OS. That's why it runs quite well as a "beta."
"So I wish those who debate on the side of science wouldn't fall into the trap of letting the creationists frame the discussion in terms of truth."
Why not? As you wrote, science is based on certain philosophical assumptions. You are correct in that it is "not the job of science to figure out absolute truth"; the problem is that many people (especially here on/.) believe that that is the role of science. In other words, many believe that truth about the world lies only within the realm of science.
I think our problem today is that we too easily blindly accept science as Truth, when it might not even be truth. Few people study epistemology. If we leave out the discussion of truth, then we miss the whole picture. I believe that if a scientist is not willing to discuss truth, that scientist needs to spend some (more) time studying the philosophy of science.
I agree up until your "poison them with religious rhetoric." Religion helps me maintain a healthy, rational view of science (I am a scientist {neuroscience} - I just don't happen to belong to the Church of Science). I generally accept evolution because all scientific evidence appears to support it. However, like all science, it is not perfect. It is also not Truth. Every year there are discoveries that lead scientists "to rethink evolution [not the whole theory, just some assumptions of it]."
I know some religions discourage critical thinking but don't lump all religions together. Some religions, like the LDS Church (Mormons), embrace all truth regardless of source and encourage critical thinking. We even talk about gaining faith by experimenting (but that's a topic for a different day). Science is just one way to discover truth. It is based on a set of philosophical viewpoints that assume certain things such as materialism and empiricism. There are alternate assumptions for example, that allow for truth to exist in both science and religion. That's enough epistemology for now though.
I agree. I play violent video games all the time (I just finished playing TF2). I just think that here on/. we are so biased in favor of video games (e.g., I play violent video games and I haven't killed or shot or even hit anyone) that that bias leads to a bit of myopia. I just think we should have moderation in the violence that's in games or other media and consume it in moderation.
Your point is mostly correct. However, the author merely pointed out flaws in methodology. That means that the findings showing a link between violent games and school shooting might not be true (but it does not rule them out). Pointing out methodological flaws is not disproof. You have to conduct a more methodologically correct study that supports the null hypothesis of no correlation. That would "disprove" the point. This author did not do that; he wrote a review article.
I just read the original research article. The author provides the caveat that there is fair evidence that there is a small causal link between violent video games and aggression. He stated that there really is no good evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and school shootings - a very small population because there are not many school shooters.
However, in the end, the author believes that much of this focus on violent video games and school shootings is just hype.
I have to add though that there is indisputable evidence (replicated many times in many settings and many ways) showing a link between viewing violent acts and subsequently performing violent acts. To deny that violent media (movies, games, etc.) does not affect someone negatively is naive. On the other hand, to say that violent video games causes school shootings and other criminal violence is premature.
That's not completely true. You can use all citations to create a regression model (or structural equations model or whatever other statistical method you use) that is used to "predict" past and future prize winners. It's really hard to explain in this setting but it's basically using all the aggregate data to create your regression equation, then checking to see if the regression equation was a good fit to the data. From there you should hopefully be able to predict future winners with some degree of accuracy.
I'm not sure if the authors used a method like that or not - I skimmed the original article but don't have time to spend more time on it. In any case, it's not uncommon to use "post" data to help predict "pre" data. That's how you set up a model. Further, it's helpful to be able to use all the "post" data to help you know the size of the error of your prediction. I know I wasn't terribly clear but statistical modeling isn't as straightforward as it might seem.
Slashdot Mirror
"The government is not our moral compass."
All criminal law is legislation of morality. The only way for a government to stop being a "moral compass" is to get rid of the whole criminal legal system. Even many civil laws are moral issues to some degree. One of the whole purposes of governments is to be a moral compass (that does not negate our responsibility to have our own internal moral compasses).
Thanks for posting that. I was just about to post about how making a categorical negative (e.g., "God doesn't exist) is on shaky logical ground (at best). In science, God lies outside the realm of the philosophical assumptions/foundations of science (i.e., proving the existence or non-existence of God is not something scientists can do because the concept of "God" is not a testable hypothesis.
I know you were just being funny but they said the probability was now 50-50 that they would find the particle first, not just at all. :)
My philosophy is that if an employer really is looking for petty reasons not to hire you, that's a good sign that they are not the best place for you to work. I want to work at a place where they really want me to work there. I encourage a robust hiring process but if a company is looking for stupid reasons to rule me out, then I'll go find a job somewhere else. Granted, this approach may not always work, depending on the industry, but for me it's a completely reasonable approach.
Any link to the torrent? ;)
No, if it was legislating religion then there'd be no drinking allowed at all. Period. Even then, that's not really true. Legislating religion is simply saying, "This is the state church. We don't really recognize any other churches." Now that's legislating religion.
I'll feed your trolling.
The most important religious documents have always been written on long-lasting materials (rocks, metal, etc.). Gold plates or similar things are fairly common, especially considering that as people changed their beliefs many plates or documents would have been destroyed.
The seer stones are mentioned in the Bible (I'm not saying that answers your question but they are Biblical).
If you believe in the Adam and Eve story, why does it matter where they lived? What is now know as the U.S. is as good as any other place. If you don't believe the story, then why does it matter where they lived?
As far as "'true' native americans were white" - that's a very inaccurate representation of LDS Church teachings. We believe there were (within the realm of the Book of Mormon) two groups of people (there were actually other groups too but I'm keeping it simple) - some with lighter skin and some with darker skin. Actually, when the people were righteous they were often referred to having "fair countenances" which does != white. That is a very common way to refer to good and bad - white and black (e.g., white knights and black knights). Besides, there were other people in the Americas - the Book of Mormon only talks about relatively few people and America is a big place. There were other people here too.
You can think we're insane, that's fine, but all people believe strange things in their own way.
There are a number of states and/or counties throughout the U.S. who have tougher liquor laws than Utah.
Just like most political leaders in most states meet regularly with representatives from any number of organizations, including religions. It's no big deal.
The LDS Church does not tell the legislators how to vote, even if the legislators ask directly.
Sorry. It doesn't work like that. I know you're just trying to be funny (mostly) but excommunication doesn't work like that (i.e., not that simple).
Faulty assumptions. My religious beliefs are who I am. They have more impact on my identity than my race or my sexual orientation or anything else.
I also disagree that most of the attacks on religion are focused only on the beliefs and not the people (having been on the receiving end of some of those attacks).
"certainly some of this claim is showmanship, but still...)"
No, the claim is based on membership records. If people do not ask for their names to be removed from church records, they are still considered LDS, even if they don't go to church. There's nothing "showy" about that. It's a bit like being an American expatriate who retains U.S. citizenship. So not all of the 70% are active, but they are still members.
You'll find that Mormons in general are not "fundies." Actually, the "fundies" generally dislike Mormons. Yes, we tend to be conservative but not "fundamentalists" in the sense that it's commonly used.
Maybe he/she was just engaging in a little rhetorical paraleipsis. :)
"They are very detached from the mainstream."
;)
Yet we criticize the mainstream all the time for being stupid/uninformed/etc. Does that make Utahns less stupid and more informed?
The irony of using the phrase "people like you" in context of your response is pretty funny.
Spurious comparison. Witchcraft and mythical creatures are not real (I know some would argue they are but we'll go with the assumption they are not). Violence is real though so your argument is invalid. You can't disprove a logical argument by constructing a similar argument using unreal elements.
I've gone over 40 GB (probably monthly) and they've never said anything to me either. It's just the principle of it. Besides, you can hit 40 GB pretty easily as a "regular user" watching videos on Hulu or any of the TV sites.
I have Cox too and like the service other than the almost daily outages (usually less than 1 minute) and the "Maximum monthly consumption cap [of] 40 gigabytes downstream; 10 gigabytes upstream". Source: http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
Really? 40 GB downstream? That's nothing.
Windows 7 isn't much of a beta. It's just a (big) service pack for Vista. There are some significant changes but not enough to really be a new OS. That's why it runs quite well as a "beta."
"So I wish those who debate on the side of science wouldn't fall into the trap of letting the creationists frame the discussion in terms of truth."
/.) believe that that is the role of science. In other words, many believe that truth about the world lies only within the realm of science.
Why not? As you wrote, science is based on certain philosophical assumptions. You are correct in that it is "not the job of science to figure out absolute truth"; the problem is that many people (especially here on
I think our problem today is that we too easily blindly accept science as Truth, when it might not even be truth. Few people study epistemology. If we leave out the discussion of truth, then we miss the whole picture. I believe that if a scientist is not willing to discuss truth, that scientist needs to spend some (more) time studying the philosophy of science.
I agree up until your "poison them with religious rhetoric." Religion helps me maintain a healthy, rational view of science (I am a scientist {neuroscience} - I just don't happen to belong to the Church of Science). I generally accept evolution because all scientific evidence appears to support it. However, like all science, it is not perfect. It is also not Truth. Every year there are discoveries that lead scientists "to rethink evolution [not the whole theory, just some assumptions of it]."
I know some religions discourage critical thinking but don't lump all religions together. Some religions, like the LDS Church (Mormons), embrace all truth regardless of source and encourage critical thinking. We even talk about gaining faith by experimenting (but that's a topic for a different day). Science is just one way to discover truth. It is based on a set of philosophical viewpoints that assume certain things such as materialism and empiricism. There are alternate assumptions for example, that allow for truth to exist in both science and religion. That's enough epistemology for now though.
I agree. I play violent video games all the time (I just finished playing TF2). I just think that here on /. we are so biased in favor of video games (e.g., I play violent video games and I haven't killed or shot or even hit anyone) that that bias leads to a bit of myopia. I just think we should have moderation in the violence that's in games or other media and consume it in moderation.
Your point is mostly correct. However, the author merely pointed out flaws in methodology. That means that the findings showing a link between violent games and school shooting might not be true (but it does not rule them out). Pointing out methodological flaws is not disproof. You have to conduct a more methodologically correct study that supports the null hypothesis of no correlation. That would "disprove" the point. This author did not do that; he wrote a review article.
I just read the original research article. The author provides the caveat that there is fair evidence that there is a small causal link between violent video games and aggression. He stated that there really is no good evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and school shootings - a very small population because there are not many school shooters.
However, in the end, the author believes that much of this focus on violent video games and school shootings is just hype.
I have to add though that there is indisputable evidence (replicated many times in many settings and many ways) showing a link between viewing violent acts and subsequently performing violent acts. To deny that violent media (movies, games, etc.) does not affect someone negatively is naive. On the other hand, to say that violent video games causes school shootings and other criminal violence is premature.
That's not completely true. You can use all citations to create a regression model (or structural equations model or whatever other statistical method you use) that is used to "predict" past and future prize winners. It's really hard to explain in this setting but it's basically using all the aggregate data to create your regression equation, then checking to see if the regression equation was a good fit to the data. From there you should hopefully be able to predict future winners with some degree of accuracy.
I'm not sure if the authors used a method like that or not - I skimmed the original article but don't have time to spend more time on it. In any case, it's not uncommon to use "post" data to help predict "pre" data. That's how you set up a model. Further, it's helpful to be able to use all the "post" data to help you know the size of the error of your prediction. I know I wasn't terribly clear but statistical modeling isn't as straightforward as it might seem.