So, you're saying that universities are run by idiots who don't realize they can take their own damn research, do the "ultra-trivial" work that pharmas do, and sell it for billions?
I was thinking along those lines... when I was watching a portion of a PBS documentary on the Dover trial that was on youtube. They were using a bunch of clips to show all the security measures taken for the president (and therefore his importance) while doing a voiceover talking about religious fundamentalists... it wasn't clear what the images had to do with the voiceover at first, and I think that was intentional. It also made me think of Dune for a bit, and then a flash of insight came through:
"As the ruler of an empire, you want your people to be fanatic enough to support you without thinking, yet be able to shut that mood off long enough to design good missiles."
I know, I know, I'm not the first person to have that insight. But it gave me a greater understanding of the line Bush has to walk.
or a Neo-Nazi being confronted with evidence of the holocaust. Whoa whoa whoa, timeout. That was a low blow.
I have spoken to MANY Neo-Nazis and every one of them COMPLETELY accepts that the Holocaust happened, just that it was a good thing.
Read their literature. Do they say, "Let's go start a holocaust" ? Do they say, "Let's start the extermination of Jews" ? No and no.
What they say instead is, "Let's finish the job Hitler started." "Let's sent them back to the gas chambers" --implying they were *there* in the first place.
The *real* assholes are the ones who think the holocaust *didn't* happen, but *would* have been good. Yuck.
I can believe the world is flat and perhaps for some strange reason during some epochs it helps me propagate my genes... But it does not mean the world is flat. The actual flatness or roundness of the world is a separate objective claim that must be tested by some other means than the evolutionary success or failure of the adherents. And this is where we disagree. In the context of the thread -- and, more importantly, in the context of the philosophy Dawkins wants to promote!! -- "truth" refers to scientific truth, which IMHO is the only kind of truth anyone can have a fruitful, resolvable debate about.
And for a claim C to be a scientific truth means nothing more and nothing less than, "Making predictions based on C will have a higher accuracy than making predictions based on not-C."(I'd work it out in Bayesian terms if I had the time.)
So, for example, it would make no sense to say, "C is true, but all observations will appear as if it is not."
I claim that it is likewise non-sensical to say, "A and B both persue goal G with the same resources, and B is consistently more successful, but A has a better understanding of it." The reason is that to be more successful (beyond a one/two/three-time fluke) means to have a better understanding of how to pursue the goal (assuming, again, roughly the same resources, which holds here.)
Now, I would agree that higher evolutionary success due to a philosophy that includes flat-earthism wouldn't imply the earth is flat. But look at the change in circumstances: the scientific field judging the shape of the earth does not necessarily make claims about evolutionary fitness. So beating them at evolutionary fitness would not prove better understanding. The (say) astronomers would still be superior at understanding how to travel, to launch satellites, etc.
Contrast this with evolutionary biologists, who most certainly DO claim to intimately understand all of the intricacies of what does and does not lead to a gene's propogation. Propogating your genes at a higher percentage rate than they do, when both camps want that, would certainly prove -- as per the standard of scientific truth -- a greater understanding.
So, like I said before, the best you can do is appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the mythological assumptions that "clearly" aren't necessary for propogating genes. But I claim that from the mind of a Christian fundamentalist, these beliefs can't be so easily decoupled.
Their ability to survive in your example has no bearing on the truth of group B's specific claims. Doesn't it?
UbuntuDupe's point (and though a major socially-inept asshole, he seems to be very smart... insofar as being able to rigorously analyze claims) was that you have to compare the success of group B's belief set, *in total*, to group A's belief set, *in total*. (I'm not goint to use the term "in toto"... I'm just not...)
That is, you compare:
A) all life evolved from one common ancestor N billion years ago + single-celled became multi-celled + organisms use these strategies to spread their genes +...
to
B) you should have lots and lots of kids starting at a young age[1] + you shouldn't drink alcohol or dance + you should discipline your children harshly[1] + the earth is 6000 years old[2] + jesus was born from a virgin[2] + jesus performed miracles + life was designed by a supernatural being +...
Now, like U/D said, group A claims to have an intimate understanding of how and why genes are spread. Yet beliefing B) is a better strategy for that. Belief set B has more accurate predictions in that field, in other words, than A.
Your claim now is, that, okay, B's, you found a better strategy than A -- but that doesn't get you the claims labeled [2].
But, [2] is part of a more accurate belief *set*. So the best you can say is, hey, you're successful -- but that's only because of the beliefs labled [1]. You could accomplish the same faster gene spreading without the [2]'s, so by Occam's Razor, you have to discard them, which is what you seem to be saying.
HOWEVER -- and here's the kicker -- would fundies do [1]'s without believing [2]'s?
Insofar as comparing belief *sets* (worldview, theoretical model), yes, the virgin birth belief *does* have a bearing on gene spreading rate, as counterintuitive as that might be.
LOL! I always think it's funny how people can't stop themselves from trivializing theories about the origin of life, by using the infinite regress argument...
The relevance of confusing -caid with -care is because you were talking about health care being provided to poor people (-caid) when the discussion was about health care provision to the young compared to the old (which is done through -care). Even if it did not have that relevance to the discussion, it would show another instance of you being clueless about hits.
I don't care if this "isn't anything new". I don't care if it's a "good idea". I bring up health care because it's a wonderful example of people being quite selective about where they want to apply the principle of "use more, pay more". If I can pay to keep somebody's 89-year-old comatose body alive for six more months, granny can handle a $35/month internet bill for checking text-only emails instead of paying the $5/month she really "deserves" to.
Medicare goes to the elderly. Medicaid goes to the poor.
The young pay for the old. Glad you finally came around to admitting that, which was my original point: we seem to think it's such a lovely idea for heavier users to pay more for internet access, but God forbid we do the same for users of *health care*.
What's especially funny is how you think, "well it's been that way for a long time" is actually a relevant, valid argument. And then you reveal your disconnect from the original topic of discussion by talking about how well "it" works, and the future prospects.
Perhaps I should elaborate on the economics of this mechanism (although much of this is a repeat of the journal entry that you might want to check out).
When roads suddenly cost a lot at peak times, that *creates a market* for someone to start a bus service. The bus pays a higher toll, but takes more people, so it costs less *per traveler*. The genius of the toll is that it puts a price on a scarce resource and allows for *whatever* solution is compatible with the correct price of the scarce resource. People could do a van pool, or move closer, or rearrage work hours, or more densely pack businesses when they build them so a bus line has more potential passengers.
Nobody worries about "privatizing agriculture without providing another means of food" -- once the food is correctly priced, entrepreneurs work around it.
Now, like his journal entry mentions, you could, perhaps as a transitionary measure, run a free bus service, but probably the middle class would prefer to just pay $8 (much less than an hour of labor) to ride a clean, restrictive, private bus. Moreover, it's guaranteed that they won't end up "in the same traffic again" because the plan, as stipulated, keeps raising the tolls until it accomplishes the goal of smooth traffic flow. Presumably, you agree that some toll exists high enough to do this. (People seem to pack into airplanes just fine when the price is right.)
I agree that governments mismanage money and do cash grabs, but that's not an argument against the merit of properly pricing roads. If that's an issue, divert the funds to a specified trust so the government can't touch it.
Do you now agree that the proposal has effectiveness you didn't appreciate before?
You make a good point. As a resident of Ireland, I have to settle for horrible download speeds. Actually, I'm not, I just noticed people get modded up for saying they're from countries other than the US.
Telemarketers are disproportionately women, minorities, and/or disabled. This ruling will severely curtail the job opportunities available to society's most deserving of our help and kindness. Just something for you guys to think about in between strokes while you jerk off to the decision.
And they'd be totally justified in doing so. This new technology is just going to make the p2p filesharing problem a zillion times worse and is going to destroy literally all incentive for artists to produce movies and music.
What about PRIVACY rights? Do you extend this principle to individuals? Should the fact that someone doesn't want to submit to some kind of invasion be proof he's done something wrong?
I wouldn't download from that if I were you. If they track you down in the US, you can be prosecuted under US laws for breach of copyright. What they're selling is almost certainly illegal. Just a little caveat.
Now that people can download music in a legal, cheap way, it's going to be that much easier for people to distribute it illegally. This will mean people won't even bother to use the legal sites since the illegal ones will be so much better and faster. Free music means no compensation for the artists, which means no incentive to produce anything. Expect a precipitous drop in the quantity and quality of music out there very soon.
What you're arguing here is a version of the efficient markets fallacy: "If it's such a good idea, why don't we already know about it?" That's what slashdot is for: to get people to know about stuff!
Strawman. I did not claim you have no right to privacy, and believe me, I have no intention of watching you in the bathroom. My claim was that you cannot use privacy rights as a shield against liability for copyright infringement. You claim that there's no evidence it exists, but give me a break! What else is p2p used for? Distributing open source software? Hah! The fact that it's on a p2p network is evidence it's being shared illegally. You can verify this by any search of such a network.
You should be required to say who you are if there's evidence you broke the law. That's been the precedent since Miranda, and it's not a violation of your privacy rights.
Let me put it this way: one day, police will be able to look at your face and then use facial recognition technology to look up loads of info on you. Will you then say it's a violation of your privacy rights for a cop to observe your face (i.e., look at you)?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that universities are run by idiots who don't realize they can take their own damn research, do the "ultra-trivial" work that pharmas do, and sell it for billions?
I find that insulting.
I was thinking along those lines ... when I was watching a portion of a PBS documentary on the Dover trial that was on youtube. They were using a bunch of clips to show all the security measures taken for the president (and therefore his importance) while doing a voiceover talking about religious fundamentalists ... it wasn't clear what the images had to do with the voiceover at first, and I think that was intentional. It also made me think of Dune for a bit, and then a flash of insight came through:
"As the ruler of an empire, you want your people to be fanatic enough to support you without thinking, yet be able to shut that mood off long enough to design good missiles."
I know, I know, I'm not the first person to have that insight. But it gave me a greater understanding of the line Bush has to walk.
I have spoken to MANY Neo-Nazis and every one of them COMPLETELY accepts that the Holocaust happened, just that it was a good thing.
Read their literature. Do they say, "Let's go start a holocaust" ? Do they say, "Let's start the extermination of Jews" ? No and no.
What they say instead is, "Let's finish the job Hitler started." "Let's sent them back to the gas chambers" --implying they were *there* in the first place.
The *real* assholes are the ones who think the holocaust *didn't* happen, but *would* have been good. Yuck.
And for a claim C to be a scientific truth means nothing more and nothing less than, "Making predictions based on C will have a higher accuracy than making predictions based on not-C."(I'd work it out in Bayesian terms if I had the time.)
So, for example, it would make no sense to say, "C is true, but all observations will appear as if it is not."
I claim that it is likewise non-sensical to say, "A and B both persue goal G with the same resources, and B is consistently more successful, but A has a better understanding of it." The reason is that to be more successful (beyond a one/two/three-time fluke) means to have a better understanding of how to pursue the goal (assuming, again, roughly the same resources, which holds here.)
Now, I would agree that higher evolutionary success due to a philosophy that includes flat-earthism wouldn't imply the earth is flat. But look at the change in circumstances: the scientific field judging the shape of the earth does not necessarily make claims about evolutionary fitness. So beating them at evolutionary fitness would not prove better understanding. The (say) astronomers would still be superior at understanding how to travel, to launch satellites, etc.
Contrast this with evolutionary biologists, who most certainly DO claim to intimately understand all of the intricacies of what does and does not lead to a gene's propogation. Propogating your genes at a higher percentage rate than they do, when both camps want that, would certainly prove -- as per the standard of scientific truth -- a greater understanding.
So, like I said before, the best you can do is appeal to Occam's Razor to "shave off" the mythological assumptions that "clearly" aren't necessary for propogating genes. But I claim that from the mind of a Christian fundamentalist, these beliefs can't be so easily decoupled.
UbuntuDupe's point (and though a major socially-inept asshole, he seems to be very smart
That is, you compare:
A) all life evolved from one common ancestor N billion years ago + single-celled became multi-celled + organisms use these strategies to spread their genes +
to
B) you should have lots and lots of kids starting at a young age[1] + you shouldn't drink alcohol or dance + you should discipline your children harshly[1] + the earth is 6000 years old[2] + jesus was born from a virgin[2] + jesus performed miracles + life was designed by a supernatural being +
Now, like U/D said, group A claims to have an intimate understanding of how and why genes are spread. Yet beliefing B) is a better strategy for that. Belief set B has more accurate predictions in that field, in other words, than A.
Your claim now is, that, okay, B's, you found a better strategy than A -- but that doesn't get you the claims labeled [2].
But, [2] is part of a more accurate belief *set*. So the best you can say is, hey, you're successful -- but that's only because of the beliefs labled [1]. You could accomplish the same faster gene spreading without the [2]'s, so by Occam's Razor, you have to discard them, which is what you seem to be saying.
HOWEVER -- and here's the kicker -- would fundies do [1]'s without believing [2]'s?
Insofar as comparing belief *sets* (worldview, theoretical model), yes, the virgin birth belief *does* have a bearing on gene spreading rate, as counterintuitive as that might be.
And I pay as much as grandma for health care, yet she gets free medicare, while I get precisely nothing.
Hey, I'd be glad to take on a higher proportion of the costs if she can pay the proportional cost for her health care.
Fair, right?
LOL! I always think it's funny how people can't stop themselves from trivializing theories about the origin of life, by using the infinite regress argument...
even on legitimate, non-creationist science!
The relevance of confusing -caid with -care is because you were talking about health care being provided to poor people (-caid) when the discussion was about health care provision to the young compared to the old (which is done through -care). Even if it did not have that relevance to the discussion, it would show another instance of you being clueless about hits.
... wow.
I don't care if this "isn't anything new". I don't care if it's a "good idea". I bring up health care because it's a wonderful example of people being quite selective about where they want to apply the principle of "use more, pay more". If I can pay to keep somebody's 89-year-old comatose body alive for six more months, granny can handle a $35/month internet bill for checking text-only emails instead of paying the $5/month she really "deserves" to.
And then your tangent into the Iraq War
Alright, looks like we got a slow one today.
...?
Medicare goes to the elderly. Medicaid goes to the poor.
The young pay for the old. Glad you finally came around to admitting that, which was my original point: we seem to think it's such a lovely idea for heavier users to pay more for internet access, but God forbid we do the same for users of *health care*.
What's especially funny is how you think, "well it's been that way for a long time" is actually a relevant, valid argument. And then you reveal your disconnect from the original topic of discussion by talking about how well "it" works, and the future prospects.
Were you just trying to be funny, or
I said HEALTH CARE costs, not insurance costs.
How much of those Medicare revenues go to the young?
Hm, you know ... that's a fair point. Use a ton? Pay more. Have light usage habits? Then by golly, you should be paying less. Makes perfect sense.
JUST DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE EVER THINK OF APPLYING THIS EXACT SAME LOGIC TO HEALTH CARE COSTS BETWEEN THE YOUNG AND OLD
Perhaps I should elaborate on the economics of this mechanism (although much of this is a repeat of the journal entry that you might want to check out).
When roads suddenly cost a lot at peak times, that *creates a market* for someone to start a bus service. The bus pays a higher toll, but takes more people, so it costs less *per traveler*. The genius of the toll is that it puts a price on a scarce resource and allows for *whatever* solution is compatible with the correct price of the scarce resource. People could do a van pool, or move closer, or rearrage work hours, or more densely pack businesses when they build them so a bus line has more potential passengers.
Nobody worries about "privatizing agriculture without providing another means of food" -- once the food is correctly priced, entrepreneurs work around it.
Now, like his journal entry mentions, you could, perhaps as a transitionary measure, run a free bus service, but probably the middle class would prefer to just pay $8 (much less than an hour of labor) to ride a clean, restrictive, private bus. Moreover, it's guaranteed that they won't end up "in the same traffic again" because the plan, as stipulated, keeps raising the tolls until it accomplishes the goal of smooth traffic flow. Presumably, you agree that some toll exists high enough to do this. (People seem to pack into airplanes just fine when the price is right.)
I agree that governments mismanage money and do cash grabs, but that's not an argument against the merit of properly pricing roads. If that's an issue, divert the funds to a specified trust so the government can't touch it.
Do you now agree that the proposal has effectiveness you didn't appreciate before?
You make a good point. As a resident of Ireland, I have to settle for horrible download speeds. Actually, I'm not, I just noticed people get modded up for saying they're from countries other than the US.
I've submitted much better stories with much better summaries and they've been rejected. Way to go admins!
I see it as being more of a cure for another disease- homosexuality.
Telemarketers are disproportionately women, minorities, and/or disabled. This ruling will severely curtail the job opportunities available to society's most deserving of our help and kindness. Just something for you guys to think about in between strokes while you jerk off to the decision.
I'd consider that to be more of a DODS attack - Denial of Dis-service!
Why didn't you make your post a reply in that thread instead of starting a new one?
And they'd be totally justified in doing so. This new technology is just going to make the p2p filesharing problem a zillion times worse and is going to destroy literally all incentive for artists to produce movies and music.
What about PRIVACY rights? Do you extend this principle to individuals? Should the fact that someone doesn't want to submit to some kind of invasion be proof he's done something wrong?
I wouldn't download from that if I were you. If they track you down in the US, you can be prosecuted under US laws for breach of copyright. What they're selling is almost certainly illegal. Just a little caveat.
Slashdot doesn't sell the right to post advertisements as news. Just FYI. The mere though that you'd suggest such a thing is baffling.
Now that people can download music in a legal, cheap way, it's going to be that much easier for people to distribute it illegally. This will mean people won't even bother to use the legal sites since the illegal ones will be so much better and faster. Free music means no compensation for the artists, which means no incentive to produce anything. Expect a precipitous drop in the quantity and quality of music out there very soon.
What you're arguing here is a version of the efficient markets fallacy: "If it's such a good idea, why don't we already know about it?" That's what slashdot is for: to get people to know about stuff!
Strawman. I did not claim you have no right to privacy, and believe me, I have no intention of watching you in the bathroom. My claim was that you cannot use privacy rights as a shield against liability for copyright infringement. You claim that there's no evidence it exists, but give me a break! What else is p2p used for? Distributing open source software? Hah! The fact that it's on a p2p network is evidence it's being shared illegally. You can verify this by any search of such a network.
You should be required to say who you are if there's evidence you broke the law. That's been the precedent since Miranda, and it's not a violation of your privacy rights.
Let me put it this way: one day, police will be able to look at your face and then use facial recognition technology to look up loads of info on you. Will you then say it's a violation of your privacy rights for a cop to observe your face (i.e., look at you)?