Then you still run into the same problem as I mentioned, that of trying to design an AI that grasps the semantics of human languages. A chess-playing AI merely has to be "taught" the rules of chess, which are logical and consistent, thus much easier to translate into mathematical formulae. However, as I said before, human language is the product of a complex evolution of the human mind. As such, it requires higher thought processes that work in ways which medical science has yet to fully understand.
I believe that we can create such AI one day, but we need to start with more humble beginnings, not trying to make unrealistic leaps forward by employing parlor-trick-like techniques. We can't even simulate or recreate the relatively unsophisticated thought process of a dog yet; so how can we possibly hope to simulate the intelligence of a chess master?
My point remains. You, and the GGP are both arguing that, because we don't know God's masterplan, that natural disasters could be a good thing. That's an argument to ignorance, and you're using it to justify the sufferng caused by those natural disasters.
And, yes, people have the choice to not buy into such fallacious arguments; most rational people don't since anyone with a basic understanding of logical fallacies can see the inherent flaw in such reasoning, not to mention the obvious insensitivity it shows towards other human beings. But it seems that you, and a lot of Christians do buy into it despite all of this. What does that tell you about yourself?
"You have one side of the issue where a faith based person is bombarded with facts, statements, or just assertions that evolution occurred. On the other side you have a faith based person with a personal conviction that there is a God. How does he justify the two? In my observation, there are varied ways they do it. One is to declare evolution is flat out wrong without argument. Another is to point out evolution's flaws (something evolutionists get very testy about, btw. They don't like their faith questioned anymore than religious people do) Still another is to concede some evolution occurred and suggest that God guided evolution."
What's an evolutionist? Evolution isn't a religion, and it doesn't require faith. If it makes sense to you, then it makes sense to you, if not, then you won't accept it as true. I think the only thing that bugs rational individuals who believe in evolution is when creationists use absurd or specious arguments to deny the well-documented and understood aspects of the evolutionary process. People just get tired of debunking the same tripe arguments over and over again. And most people don't appreciate creationists trying to subject our school systems to their religious beliefs. We don't get testy about scientists poking holes in current understanding of evolution and thus improving upon the current scientific model. But we do get upset when our kids can't get a decent education because a bunch of ignorant religious fundamentalists want to be in denial about scientific facts.
Stop calling anyone who uses reasoned arguments to criticize accepted Christian beliefs a fanatic just because you can't defend those beliefs objectively. I keep hearing Christians talking about all the science fanatics that are supposedly out there, and using this claim to say "see, science is no better than religion," and it's just a pathetic tactic. If you don't want to look ignorant by associating yourself with the creationists, don't be apologetic of them.
So basically you're using an argument of ignorance to try to justify the deaths/suffering of millions of people due to natural disasters/disease? If I were you I'd re-assess your spiritual convictions.
How does a natural disaster present choice? There's this false dichotomy that a lot of Christians seem to embrace where they believe that all that is connected to God must be good, and all else must be bad/evil. So the presence of suffering and other bad things is simply written off as God giving us a choice. But I fail to see what natural disasters that one has no control over translates to having free will. So some family has their home destroyed by a flood. Where was the choice there?
Just because there are now two supernatural dieties messing with your life now doesn't mean that you have free will because of it.
Exactly. It really annoys me when I hear people say stuff like "I didn't spend 6 years in medical school to be called Mr." I mean, shouldn't you be going to grad school for the learning/research experience, not for social titles? It's the same as titles of nobility and serves no other purpose except to be regarded as being superior to the "common folks." It's a snobbish and classist attitude to hold.
Seriously. Sony-BMG is also one of the big four major labels through which most smaller record labels get their distribution through. Heck, they own Columbia Records, Epic, and RCA/Artista, and do business with literally thousands of other indie labels. There's no way Sony's gonna be bought out by Microsoft because of a few poor performing electronics items. Their entertainment holdings alone probably make much more than Microsoft does annually.
What I'm wondering is whether chatbot creators are taking the right approach to AI development. Obviously, robotics labs such as those behind QRIO and ASIMO are much better funded than the respective efforts behind prominent chatbots, so it isn't quite fair to compare the two sets, which exist in completely separate milieux.
But at the same time, I wonder if the goals/immediate objectives of current chatbot developers are too ambitious for working in a relatively nascent field. Though the advances being made in chatbot AI were pretty impressive initially, the number of significant advances being made in the field seems to have dropped off since the 80's.
Meanwhile, over the same 20 years, Sony and Honda et al. have produced the likes of QRIO, ASIMO, and AIBO. All of which, in addition to being marvels of modern engineering, also feature advanced AI which are considerably "smarter" than their chatterbox counterparts. Indeed, the 20+ years of steady research laid down by robotics labratories around the world have yielded impressive results exceeding most expectations, Sony and iRobot having even brought autonomous robots to the consumer market at realistic price points. Contrast this with ALICE and other chatbots, of which even the novelty appeal has vanished. I believe the difference in results can be explained by fundamental differences between the approach to AI development taken in robotics and in chatbots.
At the most fundamental level, the goal of any robotics project is to create an autonomous machine able to interact with its environment (the basic definition of a robot). Now, different levels of autonomy may be desired, but this is a parameter which can be freely changed as the project progresses, just as the extent one may want the robot to be able to interact with its environment.
If the research goals were realistically set, then the focus of the research should simply be on how to integrate existing technology and adapting/improving upon them along the way to meet the project requirements. Since robotics is a mesh of mechanical engineering and computing, aside from designing better servos, and work on hardware design/integration, there is also the inevitable research into the development of auxiliary AI, or the software the robot will run. But rather than trying to mimic human intelligence (a completely useless feature in the context of pure robotics), the AI needs to perform practical functions, namely, coordinating/integrating the hardware so that the robot may interact with its environment as desired, and also maintain the amount of autonomy desired.
Now, integrating hardware components and coordinating them to perform specific tasks isn't anything new in computing. The only thing new in terms of computing in robotics is being autonomous in a physical environment. This requires the integration of visual sensors, motion sensors, servos, etc., and though can be quite an undertaking depending on the level of autonomy and environmental-interaction desired (all adding to the complexity of the software and hardware), it is a realistic goal given the present state of technolgy. One can start off as simple as equipping an RC racer with proximity sensors and giving it software to avoid collisions while driving around randomly, and gradually move up to the level of the autonomous vehicles which completed the DARPA Grand Challenge. Without setting an unrealistic fixed goal, one can develop an AI at the pace of current technology. And, while current AI is a far cry from human intelligence, robots such as QRIO, ASIMO, AIBO, and even the Roomba, do emulate a natural learning process in that they can use a limited set of very general algorithms to extrapolate an unlimited amount of general knowledge by interacting with their environment, and also in turn modify their behavior for future interactions (what turns processed information into applied knowledge).
Chatbot AI, on the other hand, is developed very differently. First off, the
Are these bots designed by enthusiants are leading researchers in the field? Because I'd be really disappointed if your observation were true about all AI research. To me chatbots represent a very small and relatively useless field of AI research. It's more about novelty than functionality. I would expect the AI developed by Sony and Honda for their androids to be much more advanced. They seem to be more focusing on developing "learning" robots that can interact with their environment than merely trying to emulate human behavior via parlor tricks.
Mind directing me to a site that documents these "rigorous standards" that forbid the use of "detrimental" and "anti-evolution" in the title of a scientific study? Or atleast explain why the use of the words "detrimental" and "anti-evolution" are biased?
I'm also curious as to where you obtained a copy of his project proposal and the rejection letter the SSHRC sent him.
Umm... take a little more time to think about that proposition--because it's clearly false.
Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy of Invalid Contrapositives:
A -> B !=> !A -> !B
In other words, even though using a typewriter in place of writing manually (A) may cause poor handwriting (B), that isn't to say that you can't have poor handwriting (!B) without using a typewriter (!A).
You seem to be arguing the obverted contrapositive to that statement:
!A -> B !=> A -> !B
that because you had bad handwriting (B) before receiving a typewriter (!A), that using typewriters (A) can't cause bad handwriting (!B).
Umm... fanatics? Any rational person can understand howwhy evolution works. And once you understand the how, and therefore why, it's only a short extrapolation to the realization that ID is a load of crock. And if ID is a bunch of bologne, then it reasonably follows that other common precept of mainstream religion may also be false. None of this requires faith. None of this has to do with fanatical zeal towards a certain ideology. These are simply natural progressions of ideas that follow from applying reason to what one knows--in this case, biological evolution.
I have yet to read a single book on evolution which tries to argue that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist. Creationists have simply put their concept of God in direct opposition of evolutionary biology on their own, and thus have waged a war against science and reason that they just can't win. No one told them to pit ID up against evolution. And most biologists probably wouldn't be interested in debating over religious beliefs in the first place had creationists not made it their personal duty to attack evolution in schools and in public forums.
No scientists have set out to prove to Christians that their god doesn't exist. Religious ideologies are not based on appeals to logic, so such a task would be pointless. Much of the public outcry comes from creationists foisting their religious beliefs on others and violating the establishment clause of the constitution. And now you want to say that the evolutionists are trying to kill God? I think it might do you some good to take a few steps back and ask why you are threatened by scientific ideas that have nothing to say about religious matters.
It seems to me that those who embrace arbitrary beliefs that fly in plain contradiction to known scientific knowledge and reason are the ones who are fanatics. Sure it's possible to conciliate science with spirituality, but it's not the scientific community's job to do that.
Then perhaps you should learn how to read better. You seem to have taken claims made by one side of the debate and misinterpreted it as a complete and accurate account of the situation. And ofcourse the accused are going to say, "there is no controversy here, we did nothing wrong." The reason for the controversy is clearly stated in the following parts of the article:
McGill University says the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a "factual error" when it denied Professor Brian Alters a $40,000 grant on the grounds that he'd failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
"There are all kinds of reasons to deny a grant proposal," Robinson said. "We don't want to assume anything." But she said McGill is obviously concerned by what it sees as a mistake in the committee's reasoning.
In its decision to deny the grant, the SSHRC panel said Alters had not supplied "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct."
"McGill considers this a factual error," Robinson said.
"The theory of evolution is well-established science, while intelligent design is a form of religious belief."
I have no idea how you could have missed that crucial portion of the article, but it's abundantly clear from the text that the controversy isn't simply over the fact that Alters was denied funding. It's why he was denied that is the point of contention. The SSHRC's executive VP is arguing that they didn't deny Alters' request based on a disagreement over the validity of evolutionary theory. McGill University is arguing that they did. I think it's more than plausible that Halliwell is just be defending her agency's decision. Her ambiguous and avoidant responses seem to suggest that she hasn't taken a hard stance on the issue and/or she's hiding something:
Janet Halliwell, the SSHRC's executive vice-president and a chemist by training, acknowledged that the "framing" of the committee's comments to Alters left the letter "open to misinterpretation."
Ohhh... so the letter was open to misinterpretation. Gee, I guess someone ought take a formal composition class and learn how to express their thoughts more clearly. Or perhaps this is a case similar to how Intelligent Design "theory" is often misinterpreted as a thinly-veiled creationist subterfuge put forth to inject religious beliefs into the our public schools' science curricula. But let's see what else she says:
Halliwell said confidentiality obligations made it difficult for her to discuss Alters's case in detail, but she argued that the professor had taken one line in the letter "out of context" and the rejection of his application should not indicate that SSHRC was expressing "doubts about the theory of evolution."
However, Halliwell added there are phenomena that "may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution" and that the scientific world's understanding of life "is not static. There's an evolution in the theory of evolution."
Hrmm... her mention of "confidentiality obligations" seems awfully suspicious. It's almost as if she has something to hide... And her statements about scientific understanding of life being incomplete and "evolving" seems a bit gratuitous don't you think? C'mon, all bodies of scientific knowledge are constantly undergoing evolution; it's not just biology, and it's not just current theories. There's no point in even making such vacuous statements. Furthermore, if the validity of evolution really were a non-issue here, why then does she even mention
OK, you're part of the religious right that isn't in favor of ID, so what? I didn't say all Christians were part of the religious right, and I didn't say that all members of the religious right are in favor of all of those causes. What stereotypes did I put forth?
Management doesn't get to appoint union leaders; they do however get to choose their employees--including their reporters, writers, political pundits, editors (who in turn decides what news gets reported and what doesn't). Unions are set up to create leverage for workers against management, they aren't part of the corporate infrastructure. If anything, they are a counterbalance to corporate power when the union works as it should.
That's why you seek out diverse news sources--to get different perspectives and identify biases (which all news sources have).
I just watched Good Night and Good Luck the other night, and I'd highly recommend it. It documents a group of CBS news team members who stood up to John McCarthy's communist witchhunt and prevailed. We rarely see such acts of bravery in the media anymore, but there have been moments in history when the press did fulfil its duties by drawing attention to government corruption.
Well, I say religious right to distinguish them from more progressive/liberal theists. There are a lot of Christians, one of my best friends is such a person in fact, who are very reasonable people, have very progressive beliefs, and do not support the political/social agendas of groups such as the Christian Coaltion, or the now-defunct Moral Majority. In general, those trying to inject ID into the school systems, outlaw abortion and birth-control pills, persecute non-heterosexuals, or support other political/social movements based on irrational religious beliefs are typically of the conservative stripe. That's why I use the term "religious right" to refer to these individuals.
Maybe you didn't read the article carefully enough, but the controversy isn't that he didn't get the grant. The controversy is that he didn't get the grant because the panel didn't believe that there was sufficient proof that evolution was correct--the premise of his study. The irony of the situation is that the actions of the panel demonstrate the clear need for such a study.
The problem wasn't that he couldn't come up with the proof--modern day biology is founded on the theory of evolution--it's that some people just can't be persuaded with reason. And it seems like you might be one of those people.
I dunno; I don't think the court decision is really going to hault their pressing of the issue for very long. This is likely to present at most a temporary setback for the religious right.
In order to truly end these kinds of national debacles we need to erradicate all religious trespasses into the sphere of government. This means reverting/changing the national motto and pledge of allegiance to areligious choices, and firmly establishing a separation of church and state once and for all. For it seems that each concession inevitably leads to more brazen attempts by the religious right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation.
Actually, I recall reading something on Straight Dope or some other site which talked about hearing being a very important sense for cognitive development (more important than sight) because human beings use language for abstraction and most thought processes. Those who are born deaf don't develop language skills naturally and need to be taught sign or some other language in order for their thought processes to development normally. And if their hearing handicap is not caught early on, and they aren't taught sign or another language at the stage when most children learn to speak and develop their language skills, then the deaf child may never learn to use language and will be developmentally challenged, leading to severe learning disabilities as they get older.
It's kinda like those week-long anti-terrorism schools for rich folks, where they get to pretend to be CIA spies by shooting at dummies in a prop house and practicing "stunt driving" around traffic cones in an empty lot. They're just feel-good vacation retreats that rich people pay some ridiculous amount of money to attend so that they can have bragging rights over the greatly exaggerated "training" they've undergone.
Anyone who actually pays money for something like that and is over the age of 16 are just complete tools. Space camp is cool if you're still a kid, but it's sad when full grown adults are coddled like that. It's like "grow up." If you want to be a covert operative, try out for the special forces or something. If you want to be an astronaut, apply to NASA. If you want to be a hacker, commit to that goal and get the authentic experience (this applies to the other professions too, i guess). But don't pay some idiot (who worked a short stint as a security consultant for a bank) an exorbitant amount of money to play pretend spy/hacker in an engineered scenario that is so trivially designed that it bears no ressemblance to the real experience. It's just sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you still run into the same problem as I mentioned, that of trying to design an AI that grasps the semantics of human languages. A chess-playing AI merely has to be "taught" the rules of chess, which are logical and consistent, thus much easier to translate into mathematical formulae. However, as I said before, human language is the product of a complex evolution of the human mind. As such, it requires higher thought processes that work in ways which medical science has yet to fully understand.
I believe that we can create such AI one day, but we need to start with more humble beginnings, not trying to make unrealistic leaps forward by employing parlor-trick-like techniques. We can't even simulate or recreate the relatively unsophisticated thought process of a dog yet; so how can we possibly hope to simulate the intelligence of a chess master?
My point remains. You, and the GGP are both arguing that, because we don't know God's masterplan, that natural disasters could be a good thing. That's an argument to ignorance, and you're using it to justify the sufferng caused by those natural disasters.
And, yes, people have the choice to not buy into such fallacious arguments; most rational people don't since anyone with a basic understanding of logical fallacies can see the inherent flaw in such reasoning, not to mention the obvious insensitivity it shows towards other human beings. But it seems that you, and a lot of Christians do buy into it despite all of this. What does that tell you about yourself?
What's an evolutionist? Evolution isn't a religion, and it doesn't require faith. If it makes sense to you, then it makes sense to you, if not, then you won't accept it as true. I think the only thing that bugs rational individuals who believe in evolution is when creationists use absurd or specious arguments to deny the well-documented and understood aspects of the evolutionary process. People just get tired of debunking the same tripe arguments over and over again. And most people don't appreciate creationists trying to subject our school systems to their religious beliefs. We don't get testy about scientists poking holes in current understanding of evolution and thus improving upon the current scientific model. But we do get upset when our kids can't get a decent education because a bunch of ignorant religious fundamentalists want to be in denial about scientific facts.
Stop calling anyone who uses reasoned arguments to criticize accepted Christian beliefs a fanatic just because you can't defend those beliefs objectively. I keep hearing Christians talking about all the science fanatics that are supposedly out there, and using this claim to say "see, science is no better than religion," and it's just a pathetic tactic. If you don't want to look ignorant by associating yourself with the creationists, don't be apologetic of them.
So basically you're using an argument of ignorance to try to justify the deaths/suffering of millions of people due to natural disasters/disease? If I were you I'd re-assess your spiritual convictions.
How does a natural disaster present choice? There's this false dichotomy that a lot of Christians seem to embrace where they believe that all that is connected to God must be good, and all else must be bad/evil. So the presence of suffering and other bad things is simply written off as God giving us a choice. But I fail to see what natural disasters that one has no control over translates to having free will. So some family has their home destroyed by a flood. Where was the choice there?
Just because there are now two supernatural dieties messing with your life now doesn't mean that you have free will because of it.
Exactly. It really annoys me when I hear people say stuff like "I didn't spend 6 years in medical school to be called Mr." I mean, shouldn't you be going to grad school for the learning/research experience, not for social titles? It's the same as titles of nobility and serves no other purpose except to be regarded as being superior to the "common folks." It's a snobbish and classist attitude to hold.
Seriously. Sony-BMG is also one of the big four major labels through which most smaller record labels get their distribution through. Heck, they own Columbia Records, Epic, and RCA/Artista, and do business with literally thousands of other indie labels. There's no way Sony's gonna be bought out by Microsoft because of a few poor performing electronics items. Their entertainment holdings alone probably make much more than Microsoft does annually.
What I'm wondering is whether chatbot creators are taking the right approach to AI development. Obviously, robotics labs such as those behind QRIO and ASIMO are much better funded than the respective efforts behind prominent chatbots, so it isn't quite fair to compare the two sets, which exist in completely separate milieux.
But at the same time, I wonder if the goals/immediate objectives of current chatbot developers are too ambitious for working in a relatively nascent field. Though the advances being made in chatbot AI were pretty impressive initially, the number of significant advances being made in the field seems to have dropped off since the 80's.
Meanwhile, over the same 20 years, Sony and Honda et al. have produced the likes of QRIO, ASIMO, and AIBO. All of which, in addition to being marvels of modern engineering, also feature advanced AI which are considerably "smarter" than their chatterbox counterparts. Indeed, the 20+ years of steady research laid down by robotics labratories around the world have yielded impressive results exceeding most expectations, Sony and iRobot having even brought autonomous robots to the consumer market at realistic price points. Contrast this with ALICE and other chatbots, of which even the novelty appeal has vanished. I believe the difference in results can be explained by fundamental differences between the approach to AI development taken in robotics and in chatbots.
At the most fundamental level, the goal of any robotics project is to create an autonomous machine able to interact with its environment (the basic definition of a robot). Now, different levels of autonomy may be desired, but this is a parameter which can be freely changed as the project progresses, just as the extent one may want the robot to be able to interact with its environment.
If the research goals were realistically set, then the focus of the research should simply be on how to integrate existing technology and adapting/improving upon them along the way to meet the project requirements. Since robotics is a mesh of mechanical engineering and computing, aside from designing better servos, and work on hardware design/integration, there is also the inevitable research into the development of auxiliary AI, or the software the robot will run. But rather than trying to mimic human intelligence (a completely useless feature in the context of pure robotics), the AI needs to perform practical functions, namely, coordinating/integrating the hardware so that the robot may interact with its environment as desired, and also maintain the amount of autonomy desired.
Now, integrating hardware components and coordinating them to perform specific tasks isn't anything new in computing. The only thing new in terms of computing in robotics is being autonomous in a physical environment. This requires the integration of visual sensors, motion sensors, servos, etc., and though can be quite an undertaking depending on the level of autonomy and environmental-interaction desired (all adding to the complexity of the software and hardware), it is a realistic goal given the present state of technolgy. One can start off as simple as equipping an RC racer with proximity sensors and giving it software to avoid collisions while driving around randomly, and gradually move up to the level of the autonomous vehicles which completed the DARPA Grand Challenge. Without setting an unrealistic fixed goal, one can develop an AI at the pace of current technology. And, while current AI is a far cry from human intelligence, robots such as QRIO, ASIMO, AIBO, and even the Roomba, do emulate a natural learning process in that they can use a limited set of very general algorithms to extrapolate an unlimited amount of general knowledge by interacting with their environment, and also in turn modify their behavior for future interactions (what turns processed information into applied knowledge).
Chatbot AI, on the other hand, is developed very differently. First off, the
Are these bots designed by enthusiants are leading researchers in the field? Because I'd be really disappointed if your observation were true about all AI research. To me chatbots represent a very small and relatively useless field of AI research. It's more about novelty than functionality. I would expect the AI developed by Sony and Honda for their androids to be much more advanced. They seem to be more focusing on developing "learning" robots that can interact with their environment than merely trying to emulate human behavior via parlor tricks.
right...
Mind directing me to a site that documents these "rigorous standards" that forbid the use of "detrimental" and "anti-evolution" in the title of a scientific study? Or atleast explain why the use of the words "detrimental" and "anti-evolution" are biased?
I'm also curious as to where you obtained a copy of his project proposal and the rejection letter the SSHRC sent him.
Umm... take a little more time to think about that proposition--because it's clearly false.
Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy of Invalid Contrapositives:
In other words, even though using a typewriter in place of writing manually (A) may cause poor handwriting (B), that isn't to say that you can't have poor handwriting (!B) without using a typewriter (!A).
You seem to be arguing the obverted contrapositive to that statement:
that because you had bad handwriting (B) before receiving a typewriter (!A), that using typewriters (A) can't cause bad handwriting (!B).
Umm... fanatics? Any rational person can understand howwhy evolution works. And once you understand the how, and therefore why, it's only a short extrapolation to the realization that ID is a load of crock. And if ID is a bunch of bologne, then it reasonably follows that other common precept of mainstream religion may also be false. None of this requires faith. None of this has to do with fanatical zeal towards a certain ideology. These are simply natural progressions of ideas that follow from applying reason to what one knows--in this case, biological evolution.
I have yet to read a single book on evolution which tries to argue that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist. Creationists have simply put their concept of God in direct opposition of evolutionary biology on their own, and thus have waged a war against science and reason that they just can't win. No one told them to pit ID up against evolution. And most biologists probably wouldn't be interested in debating over religious beliefs in the first place had creationists not made it their personal duty to attack evolution in schools and in public forums.
No scientists have set out to prove to Christians that their god doesn't exist. Religious ideologies are not based on appeals to logic, so such a task would be pointless. Much of the public outcry comes from creationists foisting their religious beliefs on others and violating the establishment clause of the constitution. And now you want to say that the evolutionists are trying to kill God? I think it might do you some good to take a few steps back and ask why you are threatened by scientific ideas that have nothing to say about religious matters.
It seems to me that those who embrace arbitrary beliefs that fly in plain contradiction to known scientific knowledge and reason are the ones who are fanatics. Sure it's possible to conciliate science with spirituality, but it's not the scientific community's job to do that.
Then perhaps you should learn how to read better. You seem to have taken claims made by one side of the debate and misinterpreted it as a complete and accurate account of the situation. And ofcourse the accused are going to say, "there is no controversy here, we did nothing wrong." The reason for the controversy is clearly stated in the following parts of the article:
I have no idea how you could have missed that crucial portion of the article, but it's abundantly clear from the text that the controversy isn't simply over the fact that Alters was denied funding. It's why he was denied that is the point of contention. The SSHRC's executive VP is arguing that they didn't deny Alters' request based on a disagreement over the validity of evolutionary theory. McGill University is arguing that they did. I think it's more than plausible that Halliwell is just be defending her agency's decision. Her ambiguous and avoidant responses seem to suggest that she hasn't taken a hard stance on the issue and/or she's hiding something:
Ohhh... so the letter was open to misinterpretation. Gee, I guess someone ought take a formal composition class and learn how to express their thoughts more clearly. Or perhaps this is a case similar to how Intelligent Design "theory" is often misinterpreted as a thinly-veiled creationist subterfuge put forth to inject religious beliefs into the our public schools' science curricula. But let's see what else she says:
Hrmm... her mention of "confidentiality obligations" seems awfully suspicious. It's almost as if she has something to hide... And her statements about scientific understanding of life being incomplete and "evolving" seems a bit gratuitous don't you think? C'mon, all bodies of scientific knowledge are constantly undergoing evolution; it's not just biology, and it's not just current theories. There's no point in even making such vacuous statements. Furthermore, if the validity of evolution really were a non-issue here, why then does she even mention
OK, you're part of the religious right that isn't in favor of ID, so what? I didn't say all Christians were part of the religious right, and I didn't say that all members of the religious right are in favor of all of those causes. What stereotypes did I put forth?
Management doesn't get to appoint union leaders; they do however get to choose their employees--including their reporters, writers, political pundits, editors (who in turn decides what news gets reported and what doesn't). Unions are set up to create leverage for workers against management, they aren't part of the corporate infrastructure. If anything, they are a counterbalance to corporate power when the union works as it should.
That's why you seek out diverse news sources--to get different perspectives and identify biases (which all news sources have).
I just watched Good Night and Good Luck the other night, and I'd highly recommend it. It documents a group of CBS news team members who stood up to John McCarthy's communist witchhunt and prevailed. We rarely see such acts of bravery in the media anymore, but there have been moments in history when the press did fulfil its duties by drawing attention to government corruption.
Well, I say religious right to distinguish them from more progressive/liberal theists. There are a lot of Christians, one of my best friends is such a person in fact, who are very reasonable people, have very progressive beliefs, and do not support the political/social agendas of groups such as the Christian Coaltion, or the now-defunct Moral Majority. In general, those trying to inject ID into the school systems, outlaw abortion and birth-control pills, persecute non-heterosexuals, or support other political/social movements based on irrational religious beliefs are typically of the conservative stripe. That's why I use the term "religious right" to refer to these individuals.
Sounds pretty fickle for a God with infinite wisdom. Is that an example of religion evolving?
Maybe you didn't read the article carefully enough, but the controversy isn't that he didn't get the grant. The controversy is that he didn't get the grant because the panel didn't believe that there was sufficient proof that evolution was correct--the premise of his study. The irony of the situation is that the actions of the panel demonstrate the clear need for such a study.
The problem wasn't that he couldn't come up with the proof--modern day biology is founded on the theory of evolution--it's that some people just can't be persuaded with reason. And it seems like you might be one of those people.
But the religious right is still one of the largest (maybe even the largest) voting blocs in the U.S.
I dunno; I don't think the court decision is really going to hault their pressing of the issue for very long. This is likely to present at most a temporary setback for the religious right.
In order to truly end these kinds of national debacles we need to erradicate all religious trespasses into the sphere of government. This means reverting/changing the national motto and pledge of allegiance to areligious choices, and firmly establishing a separation of church and state once and for all. For it seems that each concession inevitably leads to more brazen attempts by the religious right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire nation.
Actually, I recall reading something on Straight Dope or some other site which talked about hearing being a very important sense for cognitive development (more important than sight) because human beings use language for abstraction and most thought processes. Those who are born deaf don't develop language skills naturally and need to be taught sign or some other language in order for their thought processes to development normally. And if their hearing handicap is not caught early on, and they aren't taught sign or another language at the stage when most children learn to speak and develop their language skills, then the deaf child may never learn to use language and will be developmentally challenged, leading to severe learning disabilities as they get older.
It's kinda like those week-long anti-terrorism schools for rich folks, where they get to pretend to be CIA spies by shooting at dummies in a prop house and practicing "stunt driving" around traffic cones in an empty lot. They're just feel-good vacation retreats that rich people pay some ridiculous amount of money to attend so that they can have bragging rights over the greatly exaggerated "training" they've undergone.
Anyone who actually pays money for something like that and is over the age of 16 are just complete tools. Space camp is cool if you're still a kid, but it's sad when full grown adults are coddled like that. It's like "grow up." If you want to be a covert operative, try out for the special forces or something. If you want to be an astronaut, apply to NASA. If you want to be a hacker, commit to that goal and get the authentic experience (this applies to the other professions too, i guess). But don't pay some idiot (who worked a short stint as a security consultant for a bank) an exorbitant amount of money to play pretend spy/hacker in an engineered scenario that is so trivially designed that it bears no ressemblance to the real experience. It's just sad.