Please explain why the burden of proof doesn't fall on the person claiming knowledge.
Do you claim to know that it does?
Do you mean, do I claim to know that evolution does have an intelligent motivation, or do I claim to know that the burden of proof does fall on the person claiming knowledge?
No, the burden of proof belongs to whomever claims to know something one way or another. The burden of proof is on the person who claimed, "I know there is no intelligent motive behind evolution." Knowledge doesn't magically appear. It has to come from somewhere.
I understand. All the magical thinking must make it difficult to understand things like "facts" and "theories". Here, let me explain for you the nuances of my post as simply as I can:
1) Attacking magical thinking (intelligent design, etc) as being unscientific is not bigoted. It's simply the truth. Live with it.
2) Christians, Flat-Earthers, the poor Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents, none of them are downtrodden minorities being attacked by an evil establishment. Ditch the victim complex and move on.
Additional points that I didn't make, but seem worth mentioning now, include:
3) Hypothesis that can never be disproven are unscientific, are not theories, and are of precisely zero (0) value. If the hypothesis can't be tested in the real world, then it can't affect the real world, and so it is useless.
4) Russell's Teapot. It's not my job to disprove your outlandish claims. It's your job to provide evidence to support them.
5) As a corollary to #4, given no one has demonstrated evidence of "intelligent motivation behind evolution", it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Similarly, I don't believe aliens have abducted humans, that homeopathic therapy is anything but a fancy placebo, or that thimerosol causes autism.
Is there anything else I can clear up for you, or does that answer your question?
1) What is "magical" about intelligent design? Who brought up intelligent design? The claimed knowledge was the absence of "intelligent motivation" is what was claimed.
2) I didn't claim association with any of those people. I only asked what the source of the claimed knowledge is.
3) This is my point exactly. That is why the claimed knowledge deserved to be questioned as unscientific and lacking in value.
4) It is the job of the person claiming knowledge to justify their claim. Period.
5) "No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution
What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?
-5, Burden of Proof
Please explain why the burden of proof doesn't fall on the person claiming knowledge.
That's a pretty bold statement. Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Merely that since it all can be explained without intelligent motive.
Just because something can be explained one way doesn't mean it's not another way. I could explain the mail getting into my mailbox without resorting to a mailman. But that explanation would be wrong.
Any proof better then that of those that say there is?
Yes. Evolution can be observed to follow patterns not requiring intelligent design (e.g., Darwin's Finches and the observed instances of new species creation). All God speculations have exactly the same amount of observable evidence: zero.
First of all the question was of intelligent motivation, not intelligent design. Second of all, how do you know that the observed pattern of evolution doesn't require intelligent design? Third of all, even if the evidence conforms to a theory that does not include a certain element (intelligent motivation), how does that constitute the claimed "knowledge" that that element is absent?
I'm sorry, I must have missed your point amongst the sarcasm. What is the evidence behind the statement, "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution"?
I know that there's no intelligent motive behind evolution.
What a remarkably obtuse thing to say. How can anyone know -- short of subjective observations, which are inherently non-scientific, i.e. revelation from such an "evolution-motivating" intelligence -- whether or not there is an intelligent motive behind any such process?
Look, if you want to ridicule the "creationists" and "intelligent design" proponents, just have the balls to come out and say it; don't pussyfoot around, trying to be clever. Or, better yet, just keep your bigotry to yourself.
I think you are obviously correct.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." Confucius
Stopping dumping tons of crap into the atmosphere is unlikely to make things worse. Now trying to fix things by releasing some other chemical to try to balance the problem could backfire.
The first is like "Shouldn't we understand the complete ecosystem of the lake before we stop using it as a garbage dump?". It's generally unnecessary to wait to have a 100% complete understanding. Maybe the fish are dying for some other reason, but stopping dumping junk is unlikely to make things get any worse.
CO2 isn't crap. It's the stuff that all life is dependent on.
Clearly, as you suggest, you don't know what hypocrisy is. The only companies that survived the Great Depression are the ones who were able to get all employees to accept pay reductions. This depression will be no different. Top executives have had as many pay reductions as the rest of the work force. However, the idea of the government capping salaries, especially in a recession or a depression, is an obscenity if not a criminality. It's the stuff that revolutions are born of.
TFA states these workers are being paid 41 cents/hour to work 84 hour weeks. Let's pay them 82 cents/hour to work 42 hour weeks.
Who's this "let's"? How about you open a keyboard factory in China paying twice market for labor and see how well you can sell your overpriced keyboards?
Plus, calling these working conditions "inhumane" just shows how western culture has lost all its fortitude, and become not only lazy, but weak. Unless you're descended from aristocrats, your great-great-grandfather would most likely call a job where he could work a scant 12 hours a day, sitting down no less, in exchange for the rural China purchasing power of 41 cents/hour, "cushy".
Not only does 41 cents an hour buy a heck of a lot in terms of food and shelter, but the workers live in dormitories. This is 41 cents an hour that's getting sent home to sustain families that are otherwise unable to get by in bad economic conditions.
These are the families the boycotters would like to sentence to starvation, because it somehow eases their conscience.
That is a naive argument based on the idea common in socialist countries that salaries are some form of charitable donation to employees. It is not. Salaries are determined by the supply and demand for labor. It's not the job of the company to try to charge some maximal amount for keyboards so it can pay its employees a maximal amount. That is not how economics works. It's their job to pay employees just enough to attract the number of qualified employees it needs, so it can minimize costs. And in many parts of China, the prospect of a job where you only have to work 12 hours per week, and sitting down at that, is probably enough of a benefit, that they don't need a high salary to attract workers.
Those who have no conception of reality would rather boycott such companies, and therefore take away such work opportunities from the people living in the toughest conditions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Westerners would be quite well served by butting out of economies they don't understand.
Few Republicans these days are "pure free market economics". (I am one of them, however.) There's a certain mystique about America being the land of free markets or something, but it is far from true. We higher corporate taxes than the European average, we have high tariffs, we have one of the world's highest minimum wages, and we have very strong union protection laws. We are, however, home to a lot of great thinkers who believe in free market economics; the Chicago school of economics; Milton Friedman; but we are far down the list when it comes to implementing it.
You may be screwed, but that's the free market. Protectionism is never a good thing in the long run. What these companies SHOULD be able to do is fire the over-paid American workers and keep the workers that are the better bargain. That is, if Congress has any interest in letting American companies be competitive and profitable again. Once a country's workers start relying on laws to guarantee their livelihood rather than relying on the value they bring to the market, that country is screwed.
How is barring foreigners from working in the US assuming a role of non-interference? Non-interference would mean that anyone could come work here, and wouldn't need a visa in the first place.
There's nothing inherent in life that suggest that it a) be visible to humans, b) cover the surface of the planet, c) visibly (to humans) change the landscape, or even d) ever live on the planet's surface.
I don't know if the methane is produced by life forms or not. But if it is, I don't think the discovery will be as earth-shattering as it is typically made out to be. I think most people pretty much assume there are other life forms out there somewhere. It could lead to scientific insights once we're able to bring a sample back to earth to examine, but that will be a very long time, and if it ends up looking pretty much like earth life, there won't be that much insight to glean after all.
Many years ago, I took one of those for a Sales job at Sears, an ethics test. The thing was completely worthless; Anyone with an IQ over 90 could have figured out the "correct" answers.
The fact that they gave them at all implies that some people must have failed them (and therefore not been hired). The people who failed them would therefore not have been able to figure out the "correct" answers to fundamental questions of ethics that anyone with an IQ over 90 should know. So how is that worthless? I certainly wouldn't want to hire such people.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean, do I claim to know that evolution does have an intelligent motivation, or do I claim to know that the burden of proof does fall on the person claiming knowledge?
No, the burden of proof belongs to whomever claims to know something one way or another. The burden of proof is on the person who claimed, "I know there is no intelligent motive behind evolution." Knowledge doesn't magically appear. It has to come from somewhere.
1) What is "magical" about intelligent design? Who brought up intelligent design? The claimed knowledge was the absence of "intelligent motivation" is what was claimed.
2) I didn't claim association with any of those people. I only asked what the source of the claimed knowledge is.
3) This is my point exactly. That is why the claimed knowledge deserved to be questioned as unscientific and lacking in value.
4) It is the job of the person claiming knowledge to justify their claim. Period.
5) "No one has demonstrated intelligent motivation behind evolution" does not justify the claim "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Please explain why the burden of proof doesn't fall on the person claiming knowledge.
Just because something can be explained one way doesn't mean it's not another way. I could explain the mail getting into my mailbox without resorting to a mailman. But that explanation would be wrong.
For someone claiming a knowledge of the nonexistence of intelligent motivation behind evolution, you talk as if you are presupposing a motivation.
First of all the question was of intelligent motivation, not intelligent design. Second of all, how do you know that the observed pattern of evolution doesn't require intelligent design? Third of all, even if the evidence conforms to a theory that does not include a certain element (intelligent motivation), how does that constitute the claimed "knowledge" that that element is absent?
I'm sorry, I must have missed your point amongst the sarcasm. What is the evidence behind the statement, "I know there is no intelligent motivation behind evolution"?
I think you are obviously correct.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." Confucius
What court case is that? For it to be illegal, there would have to be a law.
CO2 isn't crap. It's the stuff that all life is dependent on.
Clearly, as you suggest, you don't know what hypocrisy is. The only companies that survived the Great Depression are the ones who were able to get all employees to accept pay reductions. This depression will be no different. Top executives have had as many pay reductions as the rest of the work force. However, the idea of the government capping salaries, especially in a recession or a depression, is an obscenity if not a criminality. It's the stuff that revolutions are born of.
Their probably very happy with it as it is. Only 12 hours a day, and they get to sit down all day. That's not bad.
Who's this "let's"? How about you open a keyboard factory in China paying twice market for labor and see how well you can sell your overpriced keyboards?
Plus, calling these working conditions "inhumane" just shows how western culture has lost all its fortitude, and become not only lazy, but weak. Unless you're descended from aristocrats, your great-great-grandfather would most likely call a job where he could work a scant 12 hours a day, sitting down no less, in exchange for the rural China purchasing power of 41 cents/hour, "cushy".
Not only does 41 cents an hour buy a heck of a lot in terms of food and shelter, but the workers live in dormitories. This is 41 cents an hour that's getting sent home to sustain families that are otherwise unable to get by in bad economic conditions.
These are the families the boycotters would like to sentence to starvation, because it somehow eases their conscience.
I'm sorry, but how exactly are you helping these people by taking away their jobs?
That is a naive argument based on the idea common in socialist countries that salaries are some form of charitable donation to employees. It is not. Salaries are determined by the supply and demand for labor. It's not the job of the company to try to charge some maximal amount for keyboards so it can pay its employees a maximal amount. That is not how economics works. It's their job to pay employees just enough to attract the number of qualified employees it needs, so it can minimize costs. And in many parts of China, the prospect of a job where you only have to work 12 hours per week, and sitting down at that, is probably enough of a benefit, that they don't need a high salary to attract workers.
Those who have no conception of reality would rather boycott such companies, and therefore take away such work opportunities from the people living in the toughest conditions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Westerners would be quite well served by butting out of economies they don't understand.
Did you actually TAKE economics 101. The price point for maximum profit is determined EQUALLY by the supply curve and the demand curve.
Scary movies also deliberately generate fear. Oddly, I've never seen the producers charged with assault. Maybe that's next on Obama's list.
Few Republicans these days are "pure free market economics". (I am one of them, however.) There's a certain mystique about America being the land of free markets or something, but it is far from true. We higher corporate taxes than the European average, we have high tariffs, we have one of the world's highest minimum wages, and we have very strong union protection laws. We are, however, home to a lot of great thinkers who believe in free market economics; the Chicago school of economics; Milton Friedman; but we are far down the list when it comes to implementing it.
You may be screwed, but that's the free market. Protectionism is never a good thing in the long run. What these companies SHOULD be able to do is fire the over-paid American workers and keep the workers that are the better bargain. That is, if Congress has any interest in letting American companies be competitive and profitable again. Once a country's workers start relying on laws to guarantee their livelihood rather than relying on the value they bring to the market, that country is screwed.
How is barring foreigners from working in the US assuming a role of non-interference? Non-interference would mean that anyone could come work here, and wouldn't need a visa in the first place.
There's nothing inherent in life that suggest that it a) be visible to humans, b) cover the surface of the planet, c) visibly (to humans) change the landscape, or even d) ever live on the planet's surface.
I don't know if the methane is produced by life forms or not. But if it is, I don't think the discovery will be as earth-shattering as it is typically made out to be. I think most people pretty much assume there are other life forms out there somewhere. It could lead to scientific insights once we're able to bring a sample back to earth to examine, but that will be a very long time, and if it ends up looking pretty much like earth life, there won't be that much insight to glean after all.
The fact that they gave them at all implies that some people must have failed them (and therefore not been hired). The people who failed them would therefore not have been able to figure out the "correct" answers to fundamental questions of ethics that anyone with an IQ over 90 should know. So how is that worthless? I certainly wouldn't want to hire such people.
BULLSHIT. The right to life, is the right to not be killed without due process. It is not a right to free medical services.