Is it really that surprising people choose faith over science?
See, I think of it the other way. In what sort of world would you want to live? A world where some arbitrary and capricious god or god-like being determines whether you live or die, succeed or fail, based on one of a large number arbitrary religious teachings of which you must choose correctly in order not to be cursed?
Or would you rather live in a world where the laws of physics and nature are constant for everyone?
Personally, I'd prefer option B, thank you very much. The whole god thing is nonsense and the fact that people believe that stuff is disturbing.
I'm sorry, but it is just not acceptable to have someone who can believe in myths and nonsense in charge of science.
Science takes intellectual honesty. It is too easy to fool one's self. If you have the predilection to believing absurdities, you are automatically disqualified from being a scientist.
You do not need to reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks
There was no adhominem, I merely refuted one claim.
Yea, yea, Godel's first and second theorem, its fun philosophical masturbation but it is a logical exercise in foolishness. It more reflects in the ability to create logically flawed arguments based on "axioms." i.e. "Norman, I'm lying." In which case all the androids crash.
It has little to do with real science and math.
We could argue that we are all in the matrix or the product of someone's imagination, that's fun too, especially if you have 420 around.
One of the aspects of science is to seek clarity, theology seeks to obfuscate.
Accepting that the rock you hold in your hand is a real and physical object with mass is a logical leap quite different from easter bunnies.
I have my doubts because you seem unfamiliar with the accepted usage of the language.
Mathematics itself relies upon a set of irreducible axioms, concepts which cannot be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be mathematically true
Name one.
Does our use of mathematics to describe the physical world imply that we must accept these mathematical axioms in order for our mathematical descriptions of the world to be self-consistent?
Your premise is flawed and bogus. There are no mathematical axioms that can not be proved.
You are using a "what if 'd' 'o' 'g' spelled 'cat'" argument that works with theologians because, that's all crap to begin with anyway. We are talking about science and math. If it isn't proved it isn't accepted.
Sadly, science and mathematics, the pillars of modern western philosophy, rely upon irreducible axioms. These axioms, if rejected, would make the entire system nonsense.
Sadly, people who don't understand science, seek to undermine science by trying to inject the framework of religion in a discussion of science.
Science is not a belief system and there are no "irreducible axioms." The whole of science is built upon layers of proof and verifiability. There is no axiom that is "self evident" to "believe." Science has facts that can be proved to ridiculous degrees.
The term "axiom" also has a canonical meaning as an established principle. In science and math, the term axiom is sometimes used in this manner and the theologians like to seize upon this ambiguity in the language to create an argument that takes a bit to untangle to show its nonsense.
It is a mathematical axiom that 1+1=2. Assuming we are using common base ten numbering systems and integers, this is a fact, it is provable. It is not something one needs to believe.
OK, this is a noble idea, but I'm an atheist and many of the things that pass as legitimate discussion, i.e. theology or bible study, is nonsense.
Lets be honest, all religion is bogus and would not pass muster. Sheeple believe it, sheeple will fight and die for it.
How is other nonsense and lies any different?
Is christ truth? Of course not, but people would be offended by an impartial system that brands all nonsense as nonsense. There must be rigidly defined parameters of "acceptable" nonsense that includes things like christianity and islam whilst excluding scientology in Germany and so on.
Sheeple believe because they need to believe. People believe because they have seen and understand the facts. When someone says to you, "You have to believe in something..." The only sane answer is "no I don't."
I like to rip my DVDs to my hard disk so I can load them on my iPod, will Vista's DRM keep me from doing this?
I have a ton of music on my existing system, can I be sure vista will not let its DRM get in the way?
Can I get XP if Vista doesn't run y programs?
Can I get my money back if I don't want Vista and decide to use something else?
If I don't like Vista, and end up using something else, can I sell my copy of Vista if I want? If not, why not, I have the legal right of "first sale" who is Microsoft to take away my rights like that!
these are only poetic analogies, they don't provide any insight into how the biology actually works
While I hear what you are saying, I think you are looking at it as if I'm saying that DNA works like a computer, I said it works like a program and OS. Which is subtly different.
There are definitely commonalities to how "programs" work to how DNA works. No central CPU is required. Are the underlying mechanics similar, no, of course not. There, never the less, exists similarities.
No, genetics is not like computer programming. (I studied both biology and computer science in college.) If they seem that similar, it's because human beings tend to describe and understand new things using concepts that they already know.
Thats all well and good, but you offer no factual debate or argument to support your claim. You offer only an appeal to some supposed expertise, which isn't even extensive nor is it validated.
In common terms, "if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, we should at least consider the possibility that we have a duck." I'm not suggesting that DNA, as a program, has executional states as a linear computer, but there are startling similarities to computer program operation.
So, I ask you how are they different and why? Support your statement.
You have no idea what you're talking about, so stop embarrassing yourself.
Better yet, read up on some biology instead of projecting your computer paradigms where they don't fit.
Well, I'm not a molecular biologist, true, but the constant emergence of computer-like analogies coming from the study of DNA certainly gives one pause to consider if not postulate the similarities between the two.
Every time I see DNA stuff discussed I think it looks more and more like a program. There are areas that are "code" and there are areas of "data."
The "junk DNA" may simply be static constants or variables used by the rest of the DNA. If you were to look at the static load area on an embedded system you'd call it junk because it seems to do nothing. It has illegal operands. But it has a purpose, it turns things on/off, defines their behavior, etc. Sound familiar?
I think biologists focusing on DNA should take a computer science course.
2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.
The point I think you miss is the useful lifetime of a disk and system. Lets say he uses ReiserFS on his disks on a brand-new computer.
Addressing your first problem: critical flaw, the probability I'd bet is fairly equal across the board. So your choice of file system neither increases nor decrease (significantly) your chance of a critical flaw. If it did, you would exclude that file system in general.
Second, a "file system" is not necessarily an integral component of the technology. Its just a generic storage mechanism, you can copy data from one file system to another and as long as the copying process did not fail, your data is still usable.
If ReiserFS becomes a problem in a couple years, its time for a system upgrade anyway, so just copy the files to your new computer (or hard disk) with a different file system.
When ever someone talks about a technology to stop "terrorism" you can be 100% sure it isn't about terrorists. It is about the control of the general public. Tracking citizens.
There is NOTHING detectable about a terrorist that makes them any different than any other person. If you can track a terrorist, you can track a political rival or ACLU member just as easily.
I was one of the first people to go out and buy a CD Player.
I was one of the first people to buy a DVD player.
I don't own a Blu-Ray play. It is too incompatible with what I want to do with my media. 10 years ago, I had a few TVs in the house. Today, I have one TV in the living room. If I want to watch a movie, I use a computer. Blu-Ray doesn't give me this.
As long as Blu-Ray is so expensive and can't be used on cheap devices, it will not grab hold. People have DVD players in their cars, computers, $99 portable DVD players, etc. None of these devices play Blu-Ray.
And how else can we work toward a viable third party than by voting for it and convincing other like-minded individuals to do so? It will only be when we stop believing the "third party is throwing your vote away" lie and enough people vote third party to make a difference that things are going to change.
And do you think, between now and november, you'll have a viable candidate that can be elected?
You'll find that most of us who are concerned with gun control are concerned with keeping the *entire* Constitution intact. We certainly wouldn't enjoy traipsing around with pistols and say, no Fourth Amendment. I'd like to see the Fourth Amendment repealed before the Second. Good luck.
Don't give me that constitution argument, I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU.
One of these two candidates *WILL* be chosen. If you want to preserve the constitution, it is vital that you choose the candidate that will do the least amount of damage. Anything less removes your vote from consideration.
You do realize that doesn't make any sense, right?
No, it makes a LOT OF SENSE. 3rd party wishers will never get anywhere as long as they remove themselves from the system.
There are only two ways to change the politics of a nation: From within or through armed revolution. I think we can agree that armed revolution would be messy and dangerous.
You had me up until there. You are reinforcing the problem we always have IT IS TWO PARTIES. If you dont like something, WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO? Coke or Pepsi? BOTH ARE BAD! You have collusion of power, and most discustingly REDISTRICTING to ensure THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY!
What democracy is this when you have 99% re-election of long life politicians..PUBLIC SERVANTS, who ARE THERE TO PROMOTE PEOPLES NEEDS, and how is that those Public servents, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS SOON AS THEY RETIRE? From what? Criminal beyond belief! and you are propogating it with the 2 party system. In conclusion:
3 is always better than 2!
3 branches of gov't
3 legged stool
Threesomes.
Triforce.
With two, you have no incentive to change, except just to polarize.
I'm not saying that I disagree in theory, but unless you want armed revolution, this is the system we have right now. Change is a gradual process. Losing, out right, means losing. Getting a flawed and imperfect candidate that is less unlike you, is better then getting one more unlike you.
I'll trot out the old football metaphor. The game is not usually won by long "hail-mary" passes, but steady and deliberate short runs.
Complain all you want about how things should be better, but that isn't changing between now and November.
Slashdot Mirror
They're modding you down because you obviously didn't RTFA.
Ordained clergy have no place in a scientific organization.
I would say that the above sentence is true in every respect.
Is it really that surprising people choose faith over science?
See, I think of it the other way. In what sort of world would you want to live? A world where some arbitrary and capricious god or god-like being determines whether you live or die, succeed or fail, based on one of a large number arbitrary religious teachings of which you must choose correctly in order not to be cursed?
Or would you rather live in a world where the laws of physics and nature are constant for everyone?
Personally, I'd prefer option B, thank you very much. The whole god thing is nonsense and the fact that people believe that stuff is disturbing.
Why is this even an issue?
You don't see political machines engaged in the fight against spherical earth and a sun centric orbit.
Creationism and ID are no different. Why are there people clinging to myth and superstition?
People may see my post as a troll, but while it is strongly worded, it is not intended as a troll.
I'm sorry, but it is just not acceptable to have someone who can believe in myths and nonsense in charge of science.
Science takes intellectual honesty. It is too easy to fool one's self. If you have the predilection to believing absurdities, you are automatically disqualified from being a scientist.
You do not need to reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks
There was no adhominem, I merely refuted one claim.
Yea, yea, Godel's first and second theorem, its fun philosophical masturbation but it is a logical exercise in foolishness. It more reflects in the ability to create logically flawed arguments based on "axioms." i.e. "Norman, I'm lying." In which case all the androids crash.
It has little to do with real science and math.
We could argue that we are all in the matrix or the product of someone's imagination, that's fun too, especially if you have 420 around.
One of the aspects of science is to seek clarity, theology seeks to obfuscate.
Accepting that the rock you hold in your hand is a real and physical object with mass is a logical leap quite different from easter bunnies.
The only way not to steal IP from a previous employer is to have your brain erased.
Forget the stupid Ben Afflek movie, read the Philip K. Dick short story "Paycheck."
As a scientist and engineer,
I have my doubts because you seem unfamiliar with the accepted usage of the language.
Mathematics itself relies upon a set of irreducible axioms, concepts which cannot be proven (in the mathematical sense) to be mathematically true
Name one.
Does our use of mathematics to describe the physical world imply that we must accept these mathematical axioms in order for our mathematical descriptions of the world to be self-consistent?
Your premise is flawed and bogus. There are no mathematical axioms that can not be proved.
You are using a "what if 'd' 'o' 'g' spelled 'cat'" argument that works with theologians because, that's all crap to begin with anyway. We are talking about science and math. If it isn't proved it isn't accepted.
Sadly, science and mathematics, the pillars of modern western philosophy, rely upon irreducible axioms. These axioms, if rejected, would make the entire system nonsense.
Sadly, people who don't understand science, seek to undermine science by trying to inject the framework of religion in a discussion of science.
Science is not a belief system and there are no "irreducible axioms." The whole of science is built upon layers of proof and verifiability. There is no axiom that is "self evident" to "believe." Science has facts that can be proved to ridiculous degrees.
The term "axiom" also has a canonical meaning as an established principle. In science and math, the term axiom is sometimes used in this manner and the theologians like to seize upon this ambiguity in the language to create an argument that takes a bit to untangle to show its nonsense.
It is a mathematical axiom that 1+1=2. Assuming we are using common base ten numbering systems and integers, this is a fact, it is provable. It is not something one needs to believe.
OK, this is a noble idea, but I'm an atheist and many of the things that pass as legitimate discussion, i.e. theology or bible study, is nonsense.
Lets be honest, all religion is bogus and would not pass muster. Sheeple believe it, sheeple will fight and die for it.
How is other nonsense and lies any different?
Is christ truth? Of course not, but people would be offended by an impartial system that brands all nonsense as nonsense. There must be rigidly defined parameters of "acceptable" nonsense that includes things like christianity and islam whilst excluding scientology in Germany and so on.
Sheeple believe because they need to believe. People believe because they have seen and understand the facts. When someone says to you, "You have to believe in something..." The only sane answer is "no I don't."
I like to rip my DVDs to my hard disk so I can load them on my iPod, will Vista's DRM keep me from doing this?
I have a ton of music on my existing system, can I be sure vista will not let its DRM get in the way?
Can I get XP if Vista doesn't run y programs?
Can I get my money back if I don't want Vista and decide to use something else?
If I don't like Vista, and end up using something else, can I sell my copy of Vista if I want? If not, why not, I have the legal right of "first sale" who is Microsoft to take away my rights like that!
Great - another 600 bigoted posts about Scientology.
Scientology is a great, true faith. But you guys don't know anything about faith, do you.
I'm an atheist, and while I think the middle eastern religions are pretty horrid, Scientology is pure insanity. Xenu? DC10s? Thetans?
LOL, psyco.
these are only poetic analogies, they don't provide any insight into how the biology actually works
While I hear what you are saying, I think you are looking at it as if I'm saying that DNA works like a computer, I said it works like a program and OS. Which is subtly different.
There are definitely commonalities to how "programs" work to how DNA works. No central CPU is required. Are the underlying mechanics similar, no, of course not. There, never the less, exists similarities.
No, genetics is not like computer programming. (I studied both biology and computer science in college.) If they seem that similar, it's because human beings tend to describe and understand new things using concepts that they already know.
Thats all well and good, but you offer no factual debate or argument to support your claim. You offer only an appeal to some supposed expertise, which isn't even extensive nor is it validated.
In common terms, "if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, we should at least consider the possibility that we have a duck." I'm not suggesting that DNA, as a program, has executional states as a linear computer, but there are startling similarities to computer program operation.
So, I ask you how are they different and why? Support your statement.
You have no idea what you're talking about, so stop embarrassing yourself.
Better yet, read up on some biology instead of projecting your computer paradigms where they don't fit.
Well, I'm not a molecular biologist, true, but the constant emergence of computer-like analogies coming from the study of DNA certainly gives one pause to consider if not postulate the similarities between the two.
Every time I see DNA stuff discussed I think it looks more and more like a program. There are areas that are "code" and there are areas of "data."
The "junk DNA" may simply be static constants or variables used by the rest of the DNA. If you were to look at the static load area on an embedded system you'd call it junk because it seems to do nothing. It has illegal operands. But it has a purpose, it turns things on/off, defines their behavior, etc. Sound familiar?
I think biologists focusing on DNA should take a computer science course.
2: You're proposing a reactive method of systems administration. This might be fine for a hobbyist who doesn't care about his system(s), but for a production environment this is playing with fire. You know that support for ReiserFS will disappear (unless you know for a fact that another person/group has stepped up to provide support); why wait until the last possible second, when you'll only have more work to do, to migrate your systems to a new filesystem? Don't put off to tomorrow that which can be done today.
The point I think you miss is the useful lifetime of a disk and system. Lets say he uses ReiserFS on his disks on a brand-new computer.
Addressing your first problem: critical flaw, the probability I'd bet is fairly equal across the board. So your choice of file system neither increases nor decrease (significantly) your chance of a critical flaw. If it did, you would exclude that file system in general.
Second, a "file system" is not necessarily an integral component of the technology. Its just a generic storage mechanism, you can copy data from one file system to another and as long as the copying process did not fail, your data is still usable.
If ReiserFS becomes a problem in a couple years, its time for a system upgrade anyway, so just copy the files to your new computer (or hard disk) with a different file system.
When ever someone talks about a technology to stop "terrorism" you can be 100% sure it isn't about terrorists. It is about the control of the general public. Tracking citizens.
There is NOTHING detectable about a terrorist that makes them any different than any other person. If you can track a terrorist, you can track a political rival or ACLU member just as easily.
The decision was made by the Mythbuster staff in much the same way a man with a gun directed at him volunteers.
Anyone see "Wrong Trousers?" Gromit puts down the bat when feathers points the gun.
(Instant karma for using Wallace & Gromit!)
I was one of the first people to go out and buy a CD Player.
I was one of the first people to buy a DVD player.
I don't own a Blu-Ray play. It is too incompatible with what I want to do with my media. 10 years ago, I had a few TVs in the house. Today, I have one TV in the living room. If I want to watch a movie, I use a computer. Blu-Ray doesn't give me this.
As long as Blu-Ray is so expensive and can't be used on cheap devices, it will not grab hold. People have DVD players in their cars, computers, $99 portable DVD players, etc. None of these devices play Blu-Ray.
And how else can we work toward a viable third party than by voting for it and convincing other like-minded individuals to do so? It will only be when we stop believing the "third party is throwing your vote away" lie and enough people vote third party to make a difference that things are going to change.
And do you think, between now and november, you'll have a viable candidate that can be elected?
You'll find that most of us who are concerned with gun control are concerned with keeping the *entire* Constitution intact. We certainly wouldn't enjoy traipsing around with pistols and say, no Fourth Amendment. I'd like to see the Fourth Amendment repealed before the Second. Good luck.
Don't give me that constitution argument, I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU.
One of these two candidates *WILL* be chosen. If you want to preserve the constitution, it is vital that you choose the candidate that will do the least amount of damage. Anything less removes your vote from consideration.
you are dumb. go read a book.
Which book would you recommend? Can you recommend something that doesn't make you look as stupid as you sound?
You do realize that doesn't make any sense, right?
No, it makes a LOT OF SENSE. 3rd party wishers will never get anywhere as long as they remove themselves from the system.
There are only two ways to change the politics of a nation: From within or through armed revolution. I think we can agree that armed revolution would be messy and dangerous.
"Third party? Don't be an idiot"
You had me up until there. You are reinforcing the problem we always have IT IS TWO PARTIES. If you dont like something, WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO GO? Coke or Pepsi? BOTH ARE BAD! You have collusion of power, and most discustingly REDISTRICTING to ensure THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY!
What democracy is this when you have 99% re-election of long life politicians..PUBLIC SERVANTS, who ARE THERE TO PROMOTE PEOPLES NEEDS, and how is that those Public servents, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS SOON AS THEY RETIRE?
From what? Criminal beyond belief! and you are propogating it with the 2 party system.
In conclusion:
3 is always better than 2!
3 branches of gov't
3 legged stool
Threesomes.
Triforce.
With two, you have no incentive to change, except just to polarize.
I'm not saying that I disagree in theory, but unless you want armed revolution, this is the system we have right now. Change is a gradual process. Losing, out right, means losing. Getting a flawed and imperfect candidate that is less unlike you, is better then getting one more unlike you.
I'll trot out the old football metaphor. The game is not usually won by long "hail-mary" passes, but steady and deliberate short runs.
Complain all you want about how things should be better, but that isn't changing between now and November.