No, not always. If I recall correctly, engineers are most likely to believe in God, but I would think that all scientific disciplines are represented. Here are just a few.
To paraphrase the Simpsons: a physcian, a physicist and a different kind of mathematician.
And that's not even getting into the inherent problems in assuming that "God" means one particular type of god - in this case clearly the Juedo-Christian one. There's a whole world of pain there that I tend to sum up as: "when you guys who believe in supernatural beings - especially the ones who believe in the same one - can agree on what is correct then you can come talk to me about it."
It's the biologists that really matter here because it's their in their field expertise and they overwhelmingly reject ID as being fundamentally nonsensical to modern biological science.
Spending much time on Slashdot will disabuse you of that notion
It will?
"Stupid" people can show up in surprising places, like the mirror. Everyone should check there, from time to time.
Stupidity is relative: I don't expect Mt Knuth to be able to competently advise me on home insulation just because of his clear skill in computer science. He might have a go assuming that because he's intelligent in one problem domain that he must automatically be so in all others. This is a common trap and what I was alluding to before: mathematicians and physicists - who generally deal a lot with mathematics - tend to pontificate on all kinds of other subjects because they assume because they've mastered their field and they see others as only being derivative that they must have amazing insights that others cannot see. They're being stupid - a bit like when an actor is asked for his political opinion and ends up doing a Jeremy Irons and saying something laughable about fathers marrying their sons.
Also they may end up coming up with Copernican solutions to keep their chosen cherished axiom in place when the modelling of the world would be a lot simpler if they just abandonded it. Coperincus wasn't an idiot - if anything it's because he was so clever in coming up with epicyclical descriptions of the motions of the heavens that his model of the solar system took longer to abandon than it should have.
So one has to put this in the box where it belongs: pub talk. Interesting maybe, thought provoking sure but not much cop when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge with the scientific method.
I know a PhD physicist that graduated from a major research university, is the head of an academic physics department (last I knew), and believed in either ID or Creationism, I forget which.
Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.
I wouldn't eat meat from a spherical cow (it would be like someone giving you a bit of snot and putting it in a sandwhich) but I would bang on a power line to remove the tension in the lines to avoid the scourge of heavy electricity.
Since that's unlikely to change good ol' social engineering is still going to be the primary tool in any would be assailants toolbox for breaking security.
The businesses and government offices in Guatamala likely already use WIndows sloftware (like 95% of desktops do around the world), not Linux on RaspberryPis -
So what?
if the goal is to teach them to enter the workforce with computer skill,
Then you shouldn't care what
the platform the students will see in industry/government
And as I noted, it's not about "saving ourselves", but "saving Earth from ourselves".
Which assumes the Earth needs saving from us in some way for us - whether that be from the perspective that we need to keep things the way they happen to be now or that we are a scourge that needs to be erradicated it's ultimately and irrecoverable tied to a human perspective on things.
You might try to save a "failed experiment", but nobody tries to save a "plague".
You don't save a failed experiment, you use it to refine the process. One might argue evolution is just the result of shifting from one failed experiment to the next. And from the perspective of a plague it's not relevant our opinion of it.
And this is the inherent problem - it's self-serving one way or the other. If one wants to simply admit that they're taking an active stance on geo-engineering then fine. It's the idea that somehow you aren't doing that by taking a specific action you intend to have global consequences that cannot parse. Hence "saving the Earth" is meaningless unless you know what the person saying it wants it to mean.
It's rather about "saving Earth from us". Sure, Earth isn't truly threatened, but we, humanity are the villain of a cliched morality play. It readily explains why so many backers of environmental policies are blind to the harm those policies can cause.
I.e. it's nothing to do with the Earth at all, it's all about us and how we feel about the matter which will boil down to "save ourselves".
Your disagreement misses the point: the Earth does not require saving.
Regardless of whether or not anything anyone might do in the name of saving the Earth is effective or rational it is better framed in terms of anthropocentric interest, not in gelogical terms.
Yeah. and number 4 was "any attempt to arrest a senior OCP employee results in shutdown" - and I can totally see that in the directives of a robot built by any of OCP's real world analogs.
"Calling that "success" for the victims of factory farming is just a bit of a stretch."
No it isn't. You're just refusing to understand that genes are just little bits of chemical information that could not care a whit how their carriers may or may not suffer.
"I'm assuming you are all for murder and abortion then too."
Can't speak for the poster but I'm assuming you're for non-sequitur.
"And news for the upper posts, you say species don't have a 'desire' and now it's said we humans are just another species? Huh, pretty sure I have desires!"
If you just don't like what was chosen tough - comprimise. It's not your own project when you're working in a team.
I do pick these things up in code review. You know why? Because if you can't be bothered to do the small easy stuff that makes my job as a reviewer easier what kind of impression do you think I'm getting of how much effort you're putting into it? This is brown M&M territory: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp
"The legendary "no brown M&Ms" contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide an easy way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read (and complied with)."
Let's just say "God made it," and leave it at that then eh?
What is your point exactly? Do you have anything of substance to contribute other than butthurt that people are out there tackling complex problems and you don't like that, strangely enough, determining the nature of the Universe isn't as simple as looking inside your lunchbox?
Slashdot Mirror
To paraphrase the Simpsons: a physcian, a physicist and a different kind of mathematician.
And that's not even getting into the inherent problems in assuming that "God" means one particular type of god - in this case clearly the Juedo-Christian one. There's a whole world of pain there that I tend to sum up as: "when you guys who believe in supernatural beings - especially the ones who believe in the same one - can agree on what is correct then you can come talk to me about it."
It's the biologists that really matter here because it's their in their field expertise and they overwhelmingly reject ID as being fundamentally nonsensical to modern biological science.
It will?
Stupidity is relative: I don't expect Mt Knuth to be able to competently advise me on home insulation just because of his clear skill in computer science. He might have a go assuming that because he's intelligent in one problem domain that he must automatically be so in all others. This is a common trap and what I was alluding to before: mathematicians and physicists - who generally deal a lot with mathematics - tend to pontificate on all kinds of other subjects because they assume because they've mastered their field and they see others as only being derivative that they must have amazing insights that others cannot see. They're being stupid - a bit like when an actor is asked for his political opinion and ends up doing a Jeremy Irons and saying something laughable about fathers marrying their sons.
Also they may end up coming up with Copernican solutions to keep their chosen cherished axiom in place when the modelling of the world would be a lot simpler if they just abandonded it. Coperincus wasn't an idiot - if anything it's because he was so clever in coming up with epicyclical descriptions of the motions of the heavens that his model of the solar system took longer to abandon than it should have.
So one has to put this in the box where it belongs: pub talk. Interesting maybe, thought provoking sure but not much cop when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge with the scientific method.
Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.
I wouldn't eat meat from a spherical cow (it would be like someone giving you a bit of snot and putting it in a sandwhich) but I would bang on a power line to remove the tension in the lines to avoid the scourge of heavy electricity.
Since that's unlikely to change good ol' social engineering is still going to be the primary tool in any would be assailants toolbox for breaking security.
"This stuff really wants a proper factory, but there's no reason a network of people couldn't work together to make modern ammunition."
Although at the moment they don't have to because bullets are like candy.
Remember: guns don't kill people, rapidly moving pieces of metal do.
Hmm:
Way to go with your philosophical insights there AC! I'm enlightened.
Ah, you would be one of those that don't really "get" the whole Enlightenment foundations of the US.
It's almost like they can't be bothered to just build the ships and go on location in space.
So what?
Then you shouldn't care what
is.
LOL WHUT?
No, it's to setup a computer laboratory.
Which assumes the Earth needs saving from us in some way for us - whether that be from the perspective that we need to keep things the way they happen to be now or that we are a scourge that needs to be erradicated it's ultimately and irrecoverable tied to a human perspective on things.
You don't save a failed experiment, you use it to refine the process. One might argue evolution is just the result of shifting from one failed experiment to the next. And from the perspective of a plague it's not relevant our opinion of it.
And this is the inherent problem - it's self-serving one way or the other. If one wants to simply admit that they're taking an active stance on geo-engineering then fine. It's the idea that somehow you aren't doing that by taking a specific action you intend to have global consequences that cannot parse. Hence "saving the Earth" is meaningless unless you know what the person saying it wants it to mean.
But, you're not.
I.e. it's nothing to do with the Earth at all, it's all about us and how we feel about the matter which will boil down to "save ourselves".
What threat to the geological structure of the Earth does your children's electrical usage pattern pose?
Your disagreement misses the point: the Earth does not require saving.
Regardless of whether or not anything anyone might do in the name of saving the Earth is effective or rational it is better framed in terms of anthropocentric interest, not in gelogical terms.
Hence "saving ourselves."
"Saving the Earth," sounds better than "Saving ourselves," even though the later is plainly more honest on any environmental issue you care to name.
Yeah. and number 4 was "any attempt to arrest a senior OCP employee results in shutdown" - and I can totally see that in the directives of a robot built by any of OCP's real world analogs.
I think he's saying that it was only unnatural in the past...?
"Calling that "success" for the victims of factory farming is just a bit of a stretch."
No it isn't. You're just refusing to understand that genes are just little bits of chemical information that could not care a whit how their carriers may or may not suffer.
"I'm assuming you are all for murder and abortion then too."
Can't speak for the poster but I'm assuming you're for non-sequitur.
"And news for the upper posts, you say species don't have a 'desire' and now it's said we humans are just another species? Huh, pretty sure I have desires!"
Are you a species? (Hint: no).
"Gene therapy (since human evolution has pretty much stopped since there aren't any selective pressures)"
Where are you getting the idea from the genetics no longer has any bearing on reproductive success from?
"Maybe centuries old traditions of religion and family life "
Sorry, which centuries old traditions of religion and family life is that you're referring to?
Would it be redundant to point out the US doesn't have one?
A confident terrorist is a successful one is the lesson for today kids.
Apply the rules.
If you have better rules push for them.
If you just don't like what was chosen tough - comprimise. It's not your own project when you're working in a team.
I do pick these things up in code review. You know why? Because if you can't be bothered to do the small easy stuff that makes my job as a reviewer easier what kind of impression do you think I'm getting of how much effort you're putting into it? This is brown M&M territory: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp
"The legendary "no brown M&Ms" contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen's contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide an easy way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read (and complied with)."
Let's just say "God made it," and leave it at that then eh?
What is your point exactly? Do you have anything of substance to contribute other than butthurt that people are out there tackling complex problems and you don't like that, strangely enough, determining the nature of the Universe isn't as simple as looking inside your lunchbox?
Lesson: people do not fully conceptualise the ramifications of their actions.