The problem with ID is that it demands a suspension of logic, at a given point in the past, based on no reason whatsoever other than a thought that exists in an arbitrary person's head. That simply is not the basis for Science.
o For you, Ashton, I assume it is a Christian belief structure of some sort that calls for logic to suspend itself somewhere between 6,000 years ago and the full observable age of life on Earth (let's call it 4 billion years, just to be generous).
- You don't sound like a Literalist, but if you were you would be able to support the idea that the laws of physics we observe today could have been in place for up to those six thousand years, but you could not support the idea that the laws of physics were in place 10,000 years ago.
- Similarly, you would not be capable of sustaining the idea that any object was more than 6,000 years old (early human artifacts, cave paintings and such would require explanations that defy the laws of physics, geology becomes almost imponderable).
- Even as on Open-minded Christian ID Supporter, you would have to believe that the laws of physics did not apply prior to four billion years ago, since the suspension of logic that allows for Intelligent Design would have to take place after the formation of the Earth, thence at least 8 billion years after the creation of the universe (or the universe was created four billion years ago but it *looked* eight billion years old at the time...).
Specific logic prlbmes with ID:
o To deal with ID fairly and honestly you would have to be able to interchange any conceivable relgious belief-set in the place of the Assumed Christianity that goes with ID.
- Established usual suspects: each branch of Christianity; Judiasm; Islam (all three pretty similar, Adam/Eve etc...); Budhism; Hinduism...
- Smaller organized beliefs (i.e. Moonies) down to four-person Cults...
- And from the "Disagreement Does Not Indicate Anyone Is Correct" Dept: Any belief system that could be dreamed up.
- While we are on the topic: if there are any non-Christian supporters of ID out there please speak up, I'd be interested to hear your views.
Any ID argument that would support Supernatural Happenings requiring the suspension of the laws of physics two thousand (or four billion) years ago would also support the Universe being created five minutes ago with this post half-written and all of our memories of a non-existant-pre-five-minutes-ago past already in place in our heads. There is just as much a complete absense of evidence to suggest that the Universe is five minutes old as there is that the Serengeti Plain was populated late one afternoon about tea-time.
To believe ID, you have to be able to imagine that at a point in the past you would have been able to observe large, hairy mammals literally popping into existence out of thin air. If you had stoon on a hillside you could have actually witnessed trees snapping into reality, or at least witness a seedling sprouting from a piece of ground where you had just personally established there was nothing but sand with no biological soil components, not even seeds. This seems to be at least several factors less likely than the idea that rabbits used to be the end result of the flowering of a shrub.
The fact that there is no reason to believe any of these things other than (mutually-exclusive) strings of words should be enough to make it clear that this is not a topic that fits within any definition of Science.
Good luck working out your belief structures, Ashton et al (seriously, I hope it all works out for you), but there remains no logic to teaching ID to my kids in school Science class, and the ability to think logically is what they need to learn there.
-cheers!
Hi folks!
I'd just like to say that it reaffirms my belief in people, free market capitalism and the implications of the Internet to see that this issue has resolved itself so well.
In 1991 I rushed into my boss's office to tell him I'd thought of an area where we could focus on to develop products for the Internet - the music industry. They already had the digital content, current (now called "early") Internet users were demographically significant consumers of music, and a quick rethink of the business model for the industry would create opportunities for producers/artists to take marketshare.
Mike Burke - my boss at seachg.com at the time - had been a record producer in the 80s. His "Forget it" was accompanied with words to this effect:
"I know these people, I used to be one. The music industry will still have it's thumb in its ear ten years from now on this."
Of course, as we know now, he was entirely correct.
It frustrated the crap out of me and I have nagged at the problem since. Every musician and most other people I meet get queried on a couple standard areas, and the change in response over time has been fascinating.
1/ In the early 90s, musicians would respond with a disgusted "no" when asked if they would put their music on the 'Net for free download.
o This is now completely reversed. As posters to this thread have pointed out, there are plenty of business models people can try to make the creative effort of their musical talents put bread on the table. Every model (worth a hill of beans [imho]) includes making some or all of the music freely available on the 'Net.
2/ Throughout the 90s and up until the very recent past, non-musicians believed that people who downloaded free music had exited the commercial loop - they were stealing music and would not be part of the music economy.
o Surveying teenagers over the years - particularly my nephews/nieces and their friends - has shown the dynamic I expected: they download piles of music, then buy CDs from the artists they like. They also buy other articles (clothing...) that supports the musicians financially.
The two reasons people purchase music even when they don't have to are:
- that they want an "official" version (CD with the cover art).
- they think it is the fair and right thing to do.
The second reason is the important one, to understand the social dynamics driving the economic model (and human nature, but that's another topic). Even though many (most?) people believe that humans are greedy and unfair, the reality is that most people will do what they believe is fair for all parties the majority (+80%)of the time. This is an area of research now with experimenatal proofs, btw, not just long-hair philosophy (SciAm a year or two had a good writeup on this - you can prove this with any two random people all day long).
What this means for musicians is that if you make your music available and provide products/services at fair prices, people who like your music will purchase them.
For the "music industry" outside of the actual artists, there remain plenty of opportunities to provide services to the artists to help them reach wider markets.
Any artist or "industry person" who cannot make a living with their activities in this space either is missing product (people don't like your tunes) or is not providing products to the fans that: a/ are the kind of thing they are looking for or b/ are priced appropriately.
I'll be interested in seeing how it develops from here, and I think it will be good for the artists, the music consumer and people who can help bring the two together.
So, glad to see that it all worked out so well.
-cheers!
-chris
Slashdot Mirror
Hi Ashton, Room.
The problem with ID is that it demands a suspension of logic, at a given point in the past, based on no reason whatsoever other than a thought that exists in an arbitrary person's head. That simply is not the basis for Science.
o For you, Ashton, I assume it is a Christian belief structure of some sort that calls for logic to suspend itself somewhere between 6,000 years ago and the full observable age of life on Earth (let's call it 4 billion years, just to be generous).
- You don't sound like a Literalist, but if you were you would be able to support the idea that the laws of physics we observe today could have been in place for up to those six thousand years, but you could not support the idea that the laws of physics were in place 10,000 years ago.
- Similarly, you would not be capable of sustaining the idea that any object was more than 6,000 years old (early human artifacts, cave paintings and such would require explanations that defy the laws of physics, geology becomes almost imponderable).
- Even as on Open-minded Christian ID Supporter, you would have to believe that the laws of physics did not apply prior to four billion years ago, since the suspension of logic that allows for Intelligent Design would have to take place after the formation of the Earth, thence at least 8 billion years after the creation of the universe (or the universe was created four billion years ago but it *looked* eight billion years old at the time...).
Specific logic prlbmes with ID:
o To deal with ID fairly and honestly you would have to be able to interchange any conceivable relgious belief-set in the place of the Assumed Christianity that goes with ID.
- Established usual suspects: each branch of Christianity; Judiasm; Islam (all three pretty similar, Adam/Eve etc...); Budhism; Hinduism...
- Smaller organized beliefs (i.e. Moonies) down to four-person Cults...
- And from the "Disagreement Does Not Indicate Anyone Is Correct" Dept: Any belief system that could be dreamed up.
- While we are on the topic: if there are any non-Christian supporters of ID out there please speak up, I'd be interested to hear your views.
Any ID argument that would support Supernatural Happenings requiring the suspension of the laws of physics two thousand (or four billion) years ago would also support the Universe being created five minutes ago with this post half-written and all of our memories of a non-existant-pre-five-minutes-ago past already in place in our heads. There is just as much a complete absense of evidence to suggest that the Universe is five minutes old as there is that the Serengeti Plain was populated late one afternoon about tea-time.
To believe ID, you have to be able to imagine that at a point in the past you would have been able to observe large, hairy mammals literally popping into existence out of thin air. If you had stoon on a hillside you could have actually witnessed trees snapping into reality, or at least witness a seedling sprouting from a piece of ground where you had just personally established there was nothing but sand with no biological soil components, not even seeds. This seems to be at least several factors less likely than the idea that rabbits used to be the end result of the flowering of a shrub.
The fact that there is no reason to believe any of these things other than (mutually-exclusive) strings of words should be enough to make it clear that this is not a topic that fits within any definition of Science.
Good luck working out your belief structures, Ashton et al (seriously, I hope it all works out for you), but there remains no logic to teaching ID to my kids in school Science class, and the ability to think logically is what they need to learn there. -cheers!
-chris
Hi folks! I'd just like to say that it reaffirms my belief in people, free market capitalism and the implications of the Internet to see that this issue has resolved itself so well. In 1991 I rushed into my boss's office to tell him I'd thought of an area where we could focus on to develop products for the Internet - the music industry. They already had the digital content, current (now called "early") Internet users were demographically significant consumers of music, and a quick rethink of the business model for the industry would create opportunities for producers/artists to take marketshare. Mike Burke - my boss at seachg.com at the time - had been a record producer in the 80s. His "Forget it" was accompanied with words to this effect: "I know these people, I used to be one. The music industry will still have it's thumb in its ear ten years from now on this." Of course, as we know now, he was entirely correct. It frustrated the crap out of me and I have nagged at the problem since. Every musician and most other people I meet get queried on a couple standard areas, and the change in response over time has been fascinating. 1/ In the early 90s, musicians would respond with a disgusted "no" when asked if they would put their music on the 'Net for free download. o This is now completely reversed. As posters to this thread have pointed out, there are plenty of business models people can try to make the creative effort of their musical talents put bread on the table. Every model (worth a hill of beans [imho]) includes making some or all of the music freely available on the 'Net. 2/ Throughout the 90s and up until the very recent past, non-musicians believed that people who downloaded free music had exited the commercial loop - they were stealing music and would not be part of the music economy. o Surveying teenagers over the years - particularly my nephews/nieces and their friends - has shown the dynamic I expected: they download piles of music, then buy CDs from the artists they like. They also buy other articles (clothing...) that supports the musicians financially. The two reasons people purchase music even when they don't have to are: - that they want an "official" version (CD with the cover art). - they think it is the fair and right thing to do. The second reason is the important one, to understand the social dynamics driving the economic model (and human nature, but that's another topic). Even though many (most?) people believe that humans are greedy and unfair, the reality is that most people will do what they believe is fair for all parties the majority (+80%)of the time. This is an area of research now with experimenatal proofs, btw, not just long-hair philosophy (SciAm a year or two had a good writeup on this - you can prove this with any two random people all day long). What this means for musicians is that if you make your music available and provide products/services at fair prices, people who like your music will purchase them. For the "music industry" outside of the actual artists, there remain plenty of opportunities to provide services to the artists to help them reach wider markets. Any artist or "industry person" who cannot make a living with their activities in this space either is missing product (people don't like your tunes) or is not providing products to the fans that: a/ are the kind of thing they are looking for or b/ are priced appropriately. I'll be interested in seeing how it develops from here, and I think it will be good for the artists, the music consumer and people who can help bring the two together. So, glad to see that it all worked out so well. -cheers! -chris