"...and given that so many "religious" predictions get it wrong, are you sure this are statistically significant."
You should be aware that the ratio of "proven" to "disproven" scientific theories approaches 0. Most scientific theories are proven wrong. Then a new theory is created which (hopefully) incorporates the new knowledge. Next that theory is proven wrong, and a newer theory is created. Sometimes the theory is merely abandoned as too wrong to fix.
I didn't explain that in my previous post, because I hoped I wouldn't have to.
What I didn't say in my previous post - because I didn't feel it applicable to the point I was trying to make - is that I don't think that statistical significance is enough for divine revelation.
For science, statistical significance is enough, because that's all we can ever hope to get. We know that even those theories and mathematical models that haven't been discarded are merely approximations that we settle for until we find something better. (Newtonian mechanics, and the constant evolution of evolutionary theories are prominent examples.)
When God is involved; however, we tend to expect perfection.
I would expect a source from God to have some plain and clear predictions that come true, and no errors.
P.S. I apologize for any misunderstanding, if you really thought that I meant to "bait" anyone.
"The predictions were falsifiable. Intelligent Design has none of that."
Look again.
There have been plenty of easily falsifiable (or confirmable) predictions by people that claimed to get their knowledge from God.
Many (probably most) of these predictions have been proven false. Many of these predictions have been proven true. Many of these predictions have yet to be proven one way or another.
Now, we can't just look at the total mass of religious predictions and see if there are more true predictions than false ones, since it would be silly to regard all of the sources as equal. (Giving everyone that that claims to be a "scientist" and every theory equal credibility would be equally foolish.)
However, if we consider each source of predictions separately, we may be able to determine if there is any source that is reliable. This is similar to testing different theories to see which make accurate predictions.
Eager flamers should read carefully and notice that I specifically excluded non-verifiable predictions.
No one HAS to do it, and we know that. We also know that someone WILL do it. Many of us would rather make a lame post than read someone else's lame post.
(I know, I know. There I go, responding to rants again.)
"I have never met a science teacher that spent time in class claiming the non-existence of God."
I have met at least two, real science teachers, not counting sociology, psychology, philosophy (the original science?), anthropology, etc. teachers. I will freely admit that the "soft" science teachers spent much more time on it than the "hard" science teachers.
I have also met several real (as in working, publishing, actively discovering useful things) scientists that believe that God lives, and it doesn't hinder them at all. Some of these scientists were/are teachers too, and it didn't diminish the quality of their science teaching either. And though I haven't seen a science teacher spend class time claiming the existence of God, I expect that it happen in that direction too.
Think about it. NO empirical evidence or mathematical formula actually depends on the the existence (or non-existence) of God.
I was merely answering your question about why spelling mistakes are different if a computer is reading than if a human is reading.
I know that you meant it as a rhetorical question, but I though that my answer was clear enough.
Apparently you didn't understand that seeing the difference in the effects of spelling mistakes is not the same as liking misspellings.
This isn't really meant to be as sarcastic as it reads to me, but I couldn't see a nicer way of saying it. Maybe I should just have ignored your misunderstanding, but I have a hard time ignoring people when they don't seem to understand me.
Yes, shocking. If I'd ever been in a science class that actually assumed the non-existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn as a basis for any "scientific" theory I would have been shocked.
Of course, then I'd have realized that assuming something that you have no data to support, and makes no difference to your theory anyway, is so ridiculous, that I'd have started looking for the punchline of what was obviously some kind of joke.
I would, of course, be just as shocked (or amused) if the existence of the same Invisible Pink Unicorn was assumed as a basis for theory, without supporting data.
"I'll ask for you to explain in depth why it is believed that it is God and not some other god (i.e. Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc..), or aliens that is behind all this?"
I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking why others believe, then I can't answer. If you're asking why there has to be only one right answer, then I would say that multiple right answers (to the question of who is God?) don't make sense to me.
But, perhaps you're asking why I, personally, believe that God lives (and why He is Who I think). I don't feel comfortable sharing the specifics of my reasons in this forum, due to their personal and sacred nature. Still, I will say that I have plenty of evidence, of many kinds, of the reality of God. I will also say that everyone has to find out for themselves.
Thank you for the conversation. I'd be happy to be more specific if you can find an appropriate place/forum.
I have heard (over and over and over) that Intelligent Design has no place in science class because it is not a scientifically testable theory.
I tend to agree.
Why do these same people never object to the non-existence of God being claimed (or assumed) in science class. Undirected Chance (specifically as an opposite of ID) is (if possible) even less scientifically testable than Intelligent Design, and yet it is claimed or assumed regularly in science classes with little outcry from these same people.
It would not be out of place in a science class to mention (once or twice) that SCIENCE currently can't answer whether there is Intelligence behind the workings of the universe, ignore the topic otherwise, and avoid assuming either idea.
Apology, just in case: If any of the slashdot posters that decried ID in science class (because it's scientifically untestable) also decried non-ID in science class (for the same reasons) previous to this post, please show me where, 'cause I missed it, and I'm sorry.
2 + 2 = 4 is not a theory. It's more of a definition.
When I was taught Geometry in high school I was not only taught that parallel lines never intersect (also more of a definition than a theory). I was also taught that there are other geometries where parallel lines DO intersect (also not a theory). This didn't create confusion about Euclidean Geometry for any student in the class. Also, the fact that it was a Euclidean Geometry class didn't preclude the mention of other geometries.
I did get confused in high school science in Biology class. I was required to memorize this made up classification of plants and animals. The memorization requirement was presented to us as SCIENCE, which it's not. I didn't even fully realize what was wrong with that until years later.
I agree that science education needs work, but as was pointed out to me IANAPST (Public School Teacher).
"The problem with your comparison is that the OSS crowd is not trying to force our view onto everyone else"
So, no OSS supported has ever "hacked" proprietary software? No one has ever used OSS support as a rationale to spread malicious code?
"we are certainly not trying to force fundimental changes in highschool science curriculums."
Like introducing OSS into the computer science classrooms isn't a fundamental change? When I was in high school we ONLY had traditional proprietary software, and never knew there was anything else.
OK. As much as I agree with your basic premise that software disagreements are not identical to religious disagreements, my point is that you could have chosen better examples. One place where software ideology disagreements are very like this ID non-ID debate, is that there are a LOT more than two opinions/sides in the debate.
...some of them are interesting, and I'll respond to a few.
"how come better interpretations from God himself haven't been put into a 2005 version?"
Not everyone believes that there is no more revelation from God. In fact, assuming that God existed in Biblical times, as described in the Bible, using the patterns of communication described in the Bible, it seems likely that he would continue the same pattern of communication today.
"why does he insist on using middlemen to try to communicate with us?"
You could answer that yourself if you gave it a little thought. I'll give you a hint, though. The scriptures have many clear examples of God using middlemen, and other clear examples of not using middlemen.
"Faith alone is not enough to convince many of us here."
What does convince people? A short read of/. would quickly show that neither evidence, nor logical argument, nor emotional argument is effective at convincing people.
"And as so-called geeks who can be sticklers about rules in programming and in a programming language, why should you treat natural language any differently?"
Because computers read differently than people? Spelling errors usually make much less difference to a person than they do to a computer.
My wife wonders why I want to watch movies and read books more than once, since I already have the information from the first time.
The thing is, I don't watch movies and read fiction to gain information, but to EXPERIENCE the story. The experience isn't the same the second time, but it is often still a fun experience.
If all I wanted was the information, I'd read plot summaries.
Then, of course, there are a (proportionally) few books and movies that have enough thought put into them that one CAN'T get them all in only a few times through.
But, people don't buy/build The Ultimate Gaming Machine(TM) to improve their game stats, they buy it so they can have The Ultimate Gaming Machine(TM).
So, if an extra $362.00 will get you a faster processor, and $574.00 will get you the better video card, it doesn't matter whether your skills require you to be inside the barn to shoot it.
You may notice that case mods don't improve performance at all, but people still spend money on them.
Disclaimer: If I had more money I'd buy spiffy hardware too.
I didn't state my belief in my original post, because I thought it was irrelevant to my question.
When making my follow-up post I pointed out that I hadn't claimed that there was proof of God's existence, and I thought that someone might get the idea that I didn't believe in Him, and wanted to clear up that potential confusion.
Now, for similar reasons, I should probably point out that I have seen very strong evidence of God.
Slashdot Mirror
"...and given that so many "religious" predictions get it wrong, are you sure this are statistically significant."
You should be aware that the ratio of "proven" to "disproven" scientific theories approaches 0. Most scientific theories are proven wrong. Then a new theory is created which (hopefully) incorporates the new knowledge. Next that theory is proven wrong, and a newer theory is created.
Sometimes the theory is merely abandoned as too wrong to fix.
I didn't explain that in my previous post, because I hoped I wouldn't have to.
What I didn't say in my previous post - because I didn't feel it applicable to the point I was trying to make - is that I don't think that statistical significance is enough for divine revelation.
For science, statistical significance is enough, because that's all we can ever hope to get. We know that even those theories and mathematical models that haven't been discarded are merely approximations that we settle for until we find something better. (Newtonian mechanics, and the constant evolution of evolutionary theories are prominent examples.)
When God is involved; however, we tend to expect perfection.
I would expect a source from God to have some plain and clear predictions that come true, and no errors.
P.S. I apologize for any misunderstanding, if you really thought that I meant to "bait" anyone.
"The predictions were falsifiable. Intelligent Design has none of that."
Look again.
There have been plenty of easily falsifiable (or confirmable) predictions by people that claimed to get their knowledge from God.
Many (probably most) of these predictions have been proven false.
Many of these predictions have been proven true.
Many of these predictions have yet to be proven one way or another.
Now, we can't just look at the total mass of religious predictions and see if there are more true predictions than false ones, since it would be silly to regard all of the sources as equal. (Giving everyone that that claims to be a "scientist" and every theory equal credibility would be equally foolish.)
However, if we consider each source of predictions separately, we may be able to determine if there is any source that is reliable. This is similar to testing different theories to see which make accurate predictions.
Eager flamers should read carefully and notice that I specifically excluded non-verifiable predictions.
Watch your language.
"As he describes it, it's a Savonius windmill"
I don't get it. I looked up Savonius Windmills (with google) and they seem to be different in at least a couple of important points.
Can you explain the differences, and why they don't matter in making this a Savonius windmill?
No one HAS to do it, and we know that.
We also know that someone WILL do it.
Many of us would rather make a lame post than read someone else's lame post.
(I know, I know. There I go, responding to rants again.)
"I have never met a science teacher that spent time in class claiming the non-existence of God."
I have met at least two, real science teachers, not counting sociology, psychology, philosophy (the original science?), anthropology, etc. teachers.
I will freely admit that the "soft" science teachers spent much more time on it than the "hard" science teachers.
I have also met several real (as in working, publishing, actively discovering useful things) scientists that believe that God lives, and it doesn't hinder them at all. Some of these scientists were/are teachers too, and it didn't diminish the quality of their science teaching either. And though I haven't seen a science teacher spend class time claiming the existence of God, I expect that it happen in that direction too.
Think about it. NO empirical evidence or mathematical formula actually depends on the the existence (or non-existence) of God.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
I was merely answering your question about why spelling mistakes are different if a computer is reading than if a human is reading.
I know that you meant it as a rhetorical question, but I though that my answer was clear enough.
Apparently you didn't understand that seeing the difference in the effects of spelling mistakes is not the same as liking misspellings.
This isn't really meant to be as sarcastic as it reads to me, but I couldn't see a nicer way of saying it. Maybe I should just have ignored your misunderstanding, but I have a hard time ignoring people when they don't seem to understand me.
Yes, shocking. If I'd ever been in a science class that actually assumed the non-existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn as a basis for any "scientific" theory I would have been shocked.
Of course, then I'd have realized that assuming something that you have no data to support, and makes no difference to your theory anyway, is so ridiculous, that I'd have started looking for the punchline of what was obviously some kind of joke.
I would, of course, be just as shocked (or amused) if the existence of the same Invisible Pink Unicorn was assumed as a basis for theory, without supporting data.
"I'll ask for you to explain in depth why it is believed that it is God and not some other god (i.e. Zeus, Odin, Allah, etc..), or aliens that is behind all this?"
I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking why others believe, then I can't answer. If you're asking why there has to be only one right answer, then I would say that multiple right answers (to the question of who is God?) don't make sense to me.
But, perhaps you're asking why I, personally, believe that God lives (and why He is Who I think).
I don't feel comfortable sharing the specifics of my reasons in this forum, due to their personal and sacred nature. Still, I will say that I have plenty of evidence, of many kinds, of the reality of God. I will also say that everyone has to find out for themselves.
Thank you for the conversation. I'd be happy to be more specific if you can find an appropriate place/forum.
I have heard (over and over and over) that Intelligent Design has no place in science class because it is not a scientifically testable theory.
I tend to agree.
Why do these same people never object to the non-existence of God being claimed (or assumed) in science class. Undirected Chance (specifically as an opposite of ID) is (if possible) even less scientifically testable than Intelligent Design, and yet it is claimed or assumed regularly in science classes with little outcry from these same people.
It would not be out of place in a science class to mention (once or twice) that SCIENCE currently can't answer whether there is Intelligence behind the workings of the universe, ignore the topic otherwise, and avoid assuming either idea.
Apology, just in case: If any of the slashdot posters that decried ID in science class (because it's scientifically untestable) also decried non-ID in science class (for the same reasons) previous to this post, please show me where, 'cause I missed it, and I'm sorry.
2 + 2 = 4 is not a theory.
It's more of a definition.
When I was taught Geometry in high school I was not only taught that parallel lines never intersect (also more of a definition than a theory). I was also taught that there are other geometries where parallel lines DO intersect (also not a theory). This didn't create confusion about Euclidean Geometry for any student in the class. Also, the fact that it was a Euclidean Geometry class didn't preclude the mention of other geometries.
I did get confused in high school science in Biology class. I was required to memorize this made up classification of plants and animals. The memorization requirement was presented to us as SCIENCE, which it's not. I didn't even fully realize what was wrong with that until years later.
I agree that science education needs work, but as was pointed out to me IANAPST (Public School Teacher).
"The problem with your comparison is that the OSS crowd is not trying to force our view onto everyone else"
So, no OSS supported has ever "hacked" proprietary software? No one has ever used OSS support as a rationale to spread malicious code?
"we are certainly not trying to force fundimental changes in highschool science curriculums."
Like introducing OSS into the computer science classrooms isn't a fundamental change? When I was in high school we ONLY had traditional proprietary software, and never knew there was anything else.
OK. As much as I agree with your basic premise that software disagreements are not identical to religious disagreements, my point is that you could have chosen better examples.
One place where software ideology disagreements are very like this ID non-ID debate, is that there are a LOT more than two opinions/sides in the debate.
Atheism and moral relativism are very attractive to anyone wishing that there was no long-term accountability or consequence for their choices.
There will always be people that fight awfully hard to preserve that illusion. (examples available on request)
For those that have trouble with written English: This post neither asserts nor implies that atheism is the same as moral relativism.
...some of them are interesting, and I'll respond to a few.
/. would quickly show that neither evidence, nor logical argument, nor emotional argument is effective at convincing people.
"how come better interpretations from God himself haven't been put into a 2005 version?"
Not everyone believes that there is no more revelation from God. In fact, assuming that God existed in Biblical times, as described in the Bible, using the patterns of communication described in the Bible, it seems likely that he would continue the same pattern of communication today.
"why does he insist on using middlemen to try to communicate with us?"
You could answer that yourself if you gave it a little thought. I'll give you a hint, though. The scriptures have many clear examples of God using middlemen, and other clear examples of not using middlemen.
"Faith alone is not enough to convince many of us here."
What does convince people? A short read of
"And as so-called geeks who can be sticklers about rules in programming and in a programming language, why should you treat natural language any differently?"
Because computers read differently than people?
Spelling errors usually make much less difference to a person than they do to a computer.
Which is why I've removed the blue signal wire from my VGA plug. My software improved overnight.
(I know, I know. But it was still fun to say.)
My wife wonders why I want to watch movies and read books more than once, since I already have the information from the first time.
The thing is, I don't watch movies and read fiction to gain information, but to EXPERIENCE the story. The experience isn't the same the second time, but it is often still a fun experience.
If all I wanted was the information, I'd read plot summaries.
Then, of course, there are a (proportionally) few books and movies that have enough thought put into them that one CAN'T get them all in only a few times through.
I learned problem solving.
"The documents suggest that there may be at least thirteen instances"
This doesn't mean that there are thirteen abuses.
But, people don't buy/build The Ultimate Gaming Machine(TM) to improve their game stats, they buy it so they can have The Ultimate Gaming Machine(TM).
So, if an extra $362.00 will get you a faster processor, and $574.00 will get you the better video card, it doesn't matter whether your skills require you to be inside the barn to shoot it.
You may notice that case mods don't improve performance at all, but people still spend money on them.
Disclaimer: If I had more money I'd buy spiffy hardware too.
My personal favorite is still the vast.
I apologize, you're right.
The Presidential Seal is a political symbol. Anything relating to government of any kind is political, by definition.
"...anybody who uses any political symbol..."
One of the points that you may be missing is that the Presidential Seal is NOT a political symbol.
Either that or very secure
I didn't state my belief in my original post, because I thought it was irrelevant to my question.
When making my follow-up post I pointed out that I hadn't claimed that there was proof of God's existence, and I thought that someone might get the idea that I didn't believe in Him, and wanted to clear up that potential confusion.
Now, for similar reasons, I should probably point out that I have seen very strong evidence of God.