Ah, but we don't know that human mortality is 100%. At least, it isn't 100% so far. Only the mortality of dead humans is 100%. The mortality of live humans is 0%.
I remember "Where's the Beef" (Wendy's)and I never even saw that one. I remember, and quote fairly often, "That really chaps my hide." (Pace Picante Sauce).
You say you don't want to watch that stuff, but have you watched it (e.g. any of the movies/shows mentioned)? Will you watch more in the future?
The statistics will whow what you do, not what you say you want to.
I understand that I have no basis for assuming that you've ever watched these things, but my response isn't only for you, but for the many who would say the same words, and still watch the trash.
I've even watched a couple of DVDs that wouldn't let me bookmark. I could set the bookmark, but when I tried to go back to it, it started the whole thing over, including non-skippable commercials.
No, I didn't buy them. At least not directly. I paid taxes and checked them out of the library.
I remember the late 80's. We just watched our G.I. Joe and Transformers cartoons. (I guess some people watched My Little Pony and Strawberry Shortcake.)
Those commercials even had commercials. (Even though the commercial interruptions usually were for the same toys.)
I attended 4 elementary schools, one high school, a small junior college, a large community college, a large university, and a small university.
The elementary schools were in 3 different states, and were different sizes. The high school was very small (350 kids, 6 grades) and the same teachers taught both "regular" and "honors" classes. The colleges were in 4 very different communities, in two states.
I have also taught at 3 different colleges (a tech/trade school, a small university, and a community college).
I know it's a small sample, but in my experience a larger percentage of teachers excel in their professions than in any of the other jobs that I've had (construction, actuarial, IT, farm, etc.).
Still, I generally agree that education isn't what it should be. And I'm convinced that the nearly the entire fault lies with the parents of elementary and secondary students.
I think: If parents involved themselves with their children's education more (I mean personally worked with their own children more) almost all the problems would go away. Teachers would get better. They would be able to concentrate more on teaching and less on babysitting. There would be more time for individual attention. Schools would be safer. College (and high school) students would arrive at college (and high school) knowing how to learn, and liking it. Funding would be adequate for schools and spent where it's needed, instead of where it makes politicians look good.
"Your mother would very likely be much better compensated in a private school rather than a public school."
Many of the places that I've lived, private schools paid substantially LESS than public schools (and on a related note, their standards for teachers were lower).
I think that there is more variation in private school salaries, elementary through university. You can find low paying and high paying at any level.
"This is why incredible teachers are very uncommon."
By definition, anything incredible must be uncommon. If if were common, it would be easily believed (i.e. credible).
So, I suppose that what you really meant is that effective teachers are rare. I disagree. Effective teachers were much more common for me than inneffective, and many were VERY effective. (Public schools from kindergarten through Master of Science)
In Warlords II (not to be confused with Warcraft II) if you choose to resign a game you have two options, Graciously or Ungraciously.
If you resign Ungraciously all your cities are razed. They are out of play and none of the remaining players can benefit from them.
If you select Graciously you are asked, "graciously?" Clicking anywhere makes that box go away and another appears asking, "GRACIOUSLY?" Clicking again brings a third box with, "GRACIOUSLY??????" Another click brings up the last box, which says, "I don't think so. I'm going to burn them all anyway." One more click takes you back to the map with all your newly razed cities.
"The fact that Microsoft funded the "study" means that you MUST look at the assumptions and process."
No it doesn't. Examining the study in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as every other study will reveal its flaws. Nothing else is necessary.
I believe that you are correct that we should examine all studies in the same way (though I hesitate to say exactly). However, the way you said that implies that we shouln't look at the assumptions and processes of the study. That is one thing we should examine in any studies.
"The simple fact is that everybody in the entire history of the world was born an atheist."
That would be interesting, if it were a fact, or if you even had evidence to suggest it.
"the vast majority of the time because their parents drum into their heads from birth that if they don't, they'll burn."
Support for this assumption would also be welcome.
I would not suggest that you can't believe what you choose. But you seem to be suffering from what you're accusing others of, namely; blind belief in things that are unprovable. Of course, if you have evidence of the "facts" that you presented, I apologize and withdraw my criticism.
I do have evidence to the contrary for both of the above quotes, but it is too personal to share in this forum, so I'll understand if you don't want to share evidence that you may have. If you do have evidence, but you choose not to share it, my apology still stands.
Some research has shown that if HR interviews and selects the candidate you are LESS likely to get someone that works out than if you randomly drew a name out of a hat.
(Sorry, no link. I think I read this in What Color is Your Parachute)
Neither. Instead, I'll reexplain what you missed from my last post (gp).
I pointed out that: "it wouldn't help" for me to "do your homework for you."
I also pointed out that the differences are not obscure. Perhaps if I denied the existence of the Earth, you would feel that you could convince me of its existence with arguments.
From my perspective, this is a very similar situation. The way that most people believe in God is - obviously, fundamentally and very - different from how people believe in the FSM. If you have already refused (to me, to yourself, doesn't matter) to see or acknowledge those differences it wouldn't do any good for me to point them out.
So, I'll say it once again. It won't help you if I do your homework for you.
Note: Many will have noticed that in this discussion that I have not asserted the existence or non-existence of any kind of supreme being, other than the implication that the FSM was merely a device for an flawed argument. Others will not have noticed, and will have formulated their responses (internal and posted) accordingly.
I don't think FSM is ironic at all (unless you count the irony of people thinking they are being supremely logical when they present it as an argument).
It's a straw man argument.
What astounds me is that so many people are quick to accept the argument without actually looking at things long enough to see that it is a straw man.
How is a math professor discussing religion in any way the same as the "Chairman of Religious Studies" mocking religion?
And - whether you or I, personally, believe ID or not - most major religions include the fundamental belief that the world and our lives have purpose, and that the world and life did not come about by chance.
Also: "Mirecki repeatedly criticized fundamentalist Christians and Jews and mocked Catholicism."
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but we don't know that human mortality is 100%.
At least, it isn't 100% so far.
Only the mortality of dead humans is 100%.
The mortality of live humans is 0%.
I remember "Where's the Beef" (Wendy's)and I never even saw that one.
I remember, and quote fairly often, "That really chaps my hide." (Pace Picante Sauce).
You say you don't want to watch that stuff, but have you watched it (e.g. any of the movies/shows mentioned)? Will you watch more in the future?
The statistics will whow what you do, not what you say you want to.
I understand that I have no basis for assuming that you've ever watched these things, but my response isn't only for you, but for the many who would say the same words, and still watch the trash.
I've even watched a couple of DVDs that wouldn't let me bookmark.
I could set the bookmark, but when I tried to go back to it, it started the whole thing over, including non-skippable commercials.
No, I didn't buy them. At least not directly. I paid taxes and checked them out of the library.
I love the fake radio ads in Streets of Sim City.
And the fake ads in Eat or Be Eaten.
I remember the late 80's.
We just watched our G.I. Joe and Transformers cartoons.
(I guess some people watched My Little Pony and Strawberry Shortcake.)
Those commercials even had commercials.
(Even though the commercial interruptions usually were for the same toys.)
I attended 4 elementary schools, one high school, a small junior college, a large community college, a large university, and a small university.
The elementary schools were in 3 different states, and were different sizes.
The high school was very small (350 kids, 6 grades) and the same teachers taught both "regular" and "honors" classes.
The colleges were in 4 very different communities, in two states.
I have also taught at 3 different colleges (a tech/trade school, a small university, and a community college).
I know it's a small sample, but in my experience a larger percentage of teachers excel in their professions than in any of the other jobs that I've had (construction, actuarial, IT, farm, etc.).
Still, I generally agree that education isn't what it should be.
And I'm convinced that the nearly the entire fault lies with the parents of elementary and secondary students.
I think:
If parents involved themselves with their children's education more (I mean personally worked with their own children more) almost all the problems would go away. Teachers would get better. They would be able to concentrate more on teaching and less on babysitting. There would be more time for individual attention. Schools would be safer. College (and high school) students would arrive at college (and high school) knowing how to learn, and liking it. Funding would be adequate for schools and spent where it's needed, instead of where it makes politicians look good.
"Your mother would very likely be much better compensated in a private school rather than a public school."
Many of the places that I've lived, private schools paid substantially LESS than public schools (and on a related note, their standards for teachers were lower).
I think that there is more variation in private school salaries, elementary through university. You can find low paying and high paying at any level.
"This is why incredible teachers are very uncommon."
By definition, anything incredible must be uncommon. If if were common, it would be easily believed (i.e. credible).
So, I suppose that what you really meant is that effective teachers are rare.
I disagree. Effective teachers were much more common for me than inneffective, and many were VERY effective. (Public schools from kindergarten through Master of Science)
I wouldn't define forward as towards me, but more away from me.
So, maybe the North pole is moving North (towards itself) and South (towards the South Pole) at the same time?
In Warlords II (not to be confused with Warcraft II) if you choose to resign a game you have two options, Graciously or Ungraciously.
If you resign Ungraciously all your cities are razed. They are out of play and none of the remaining players can benefit from them.
If you select Graciously you are asked, "graciously?"
Clicking anywhere makes that box go away and another appears asking, "GRACIOUSLY?"
Clicking again brings a third box with, "GRACIOUSLY??????"
Another click brings up the last box, which says, "I don't think so. I'm going to burn them all anyway."
One more click takes you back to the map with all your newly razed cities.
I don't remember my nethack very well.
If you are holding a cursed two-handed weapon, can you still use the tin opener?
Isn't anywhere it goes North, because North can be defined as "towards the North Pole?"
So, the North Pole can only go North.
(Posts like this happen when things are slow at work.)
What is this job that no one likes?
"The fact that Microsoft funded the "study" means that you MUST look at the assumptions and process."
No it doesn't. Examining the study in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as every other study will reveal its flaws. Nothing else is necessary.
I believe that you are correct that we should examine all studies in the same way (though I hesitate to say exactly).
However, the way you said that implies that we shouln't look at the assumptions and processes of the study. That is one thing we should examine in any studies.
"Only on /. could you find..."
You must lead a sheltered life.
"The simple fact is that everybody in the entire history of the world was born an atheist."
That would be interesting, if it were a fact, or if you even had evidence to suggest it.
"the vast majority of the time because their parents drum into their heads from birth that if they don't, they'll burn."
Support for this assumption would also be welcome.
I would not suggest that you can't believe what you choose. But you seem to be suffering from what you're accusing others of, namely; blind belief in things that are unprovable. Of course, if you have evidence of the "facts" that you presented, I apologize and withdraw my criticism.
I do have evidence to the contrary for both of the above quotes, but it is too personal to share in this forum, so I'll understand if you don't want to share evidence that you may have. If you do have evidence, but you choose not to share it, my apology still stands.
Some research has shown that if HR interviews and selects the candidate you are LESS likely to get someone that works out than if you randomly drew a name out of a hat.
(Sorry, no link. I think I read this in What Color is Your Parachute)
Perhaps I should have quoted your sig that I was replying to.
I'll try again.
"A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something..."
Do you really believe that?
How can I convince you that it's not true?
(Now do you get it?)
Do you really believe that?
How can I convince you that it's not true?
Even the Hooloovoo?
Then we may be in trouble.
Neither.
Instead, I'll reexplain what you missed from my last post (gp).
I pointed out that:
"it wouldn't help" for me to "do your homework for you."
I also pointed out that the differences are not obscure.
Perhaps if I denied the existence of the Earth, you would feel that you could convince me of its existence with arguments.
From my perspective, this is a very similar situation.
The way that most people believe in God is - obviously, fundamentally and very - different from how people believe in the FSM. If you have already refused (to me, to yourself, doesn't matter) to see or acknowledge those differences it wouldn't do any good for me to point them out.
So, I'll say it once again. It won't help you if I do your homework for you.
Note: Many will have noticed that in this discussion that I have not asserted the existence or non-existence of any kind of supreme being, other than the implication that the FSM was merely a device for an flawed argument. Others will not have noticed, and will have formulated their responses (internal and posted) accordingly.
End of Line
Because it wouldn't help, I won't do your homework for you...
...but, I'll give three hints about the differences:
They are not obscure.
They are not peripheral.
They are not slight.
I don't think FSM is ironic at all (unless you count the irony of people thinking they are being supremely logical when they present it as an argument).
It's a straw man argument.
What astounds me is that so many people are quick to accept the argument without actually looking at things long enough to see that it is a straw man.
How is a math professor discussing religion in any way the same as the "Chairman of Religious Studies" mocking religion?
And - whether you or I, personally, believe ID or not - most major religions include the fundamental belief that the world and our lives have purpose, and that the world and life did not come about by chance.
Also: "Mirecki repeatedly criticized fundamentalist Christians and Jews and mocked Catholicism."