I'm not familiar with Australian weather, but here in northeast Ohio, snow and ice and the like make cycling problematic at best for several months out of the year; "impossible" is probably closer to the truth.
Much of the spring and fall, frequent rain is likewise a problem; I'm told (though I haven't counted 'em myself) that we have fewer sunny days annually here than Seattle. I don't have a problem getting wet, but we have no shower or locker room facilities where I work, and a poncho/raincoat/whatever can only keep you so dry. I DO have a problem with sitting in wet clothes all day long.
Summers, cycling could work, but it's very humid here in the summers, and again, no shower facilities at work, and I value my co-workers' goodwill too much to do that.
As for finding parking for a bicycle, again, I can't speak for Australia, but where I work there is no safe place to store a bike. They aren't allowed in the building, and the bike rack itself got stolen once, so I wouldn't be comfortable chaining a bike to it. We have running complaints from customers whose bikes have been stolen, locks and all.
Weather permitting, I walk to work. I'm lucky enough to live close enough to do so. But given Ohio weather, it isn't always a reasonable option, especially when I'm expected to "look professional" when I arrive and stay that way all day long.
I don't understand your objection. "Cost time" is perfectly acceptable English and has been so for centuries. No less a source than the Oxford English Dictionary lists as one of the definitions of the verb "cost":
To necessitate or involve the expenditure of (time, [emphasis added] trouble, or the like), loss or sacrifice of (some valued possession), suffering of (some penalty, etc.).
It goes on to quote some of those lousy hack writers -- you know, people like Gower, Shakespeare, Milton, De Foe, Huxley...
The phrase may not be to your taste, but it doesn't show any lack of English skills.
Nope, still doesn't help. First of all, the "ambiguous" parts might be the only useful info in the patron's question. The person who asked for "How to burn stuff" used a very ambiguous term -- "burn" (flambes? CDs? refuse? butter for frosting? rubber? the midnight oil?). Yet that term was the only clue in the question as to the real nature of the answers the patron was seeking. (For that matter, there are no UNambiguous terms. Not one. So how does the computer figure out which ones to eliminate?)
Second, most people don't know how to formulate a question so another human being can understand it. No matter how you fluff up the question and massage the language in it, the questions that most people formulate will never be understandable by a computer, at least not by any computer that our technology has been able to produce to date.
+Crafts will not readily yield instructions on pumpkin carving, nor will +Ambulance ever in a million years yield up the World Almanac.
I can see you've never worked a library reference desk. Sadly, half the time the person asking the question doesn't understand the terms they're using to ask. Rule number one in reference work is never to trust what the patron gives you.
I've had people come in asking:
Where are your car books? (they wanted a bio of Mario Andretti)
"How do you burn stuff?" (they wanted info on pyrography)
"What do you have on crafts?" (they wanted to know how to carve pumpkins)
"I need a map of the world." (they wanted to plan a trip to Egypt... and thought they could drive there)
"Where is that ambulance book?" (they wanted the World Almanac)
"What can you tell me about Greece?" (they wanted the price for a 1943 coin from there)
Now, being a librarian, I can ask clarifying questions and figure out more precisely what they're looking for. Thus far, search engines have proved to be very very bad at doing this. If Microsoft's upcoming site proves to be better at it, more power to it. But all the hype about AI notwithstanding, computers have a very long way to go to be able to do it half so efficiently or perceptively as a human being.
Putting the burden on the seeker to "reformulate the question" probably works well for most Slashdotters (given that they tend to show above average intelligence and articulation), but assumes far too much intelligence on the part of the average seeker.
the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.
Apparently, however, commenting on them once they've been written is not pointless.
Re:GooCal not very responsive right now :-|
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yeah. When I offer Gmail invites to non-tech-savvy folks, they sometimes respond, "G-mail? Does that mean like gay mail?" (I suppose my being gay might put that idea in their heads...)
Google Desktop; Firefox and/or Opera; OpenOffice and/or AbiWord; and the requisite antispyware/antivirus apps, of course. Oh, and Google Desktop.
I also make heavy use of the following:
It is not "petty semantics" to point out a distinction between "X may be true" and "X is true", nor to point out a distinction between "I can't know, but I believe" and "I know".
Nor is it "petty semantics" to point out a distinction between "We cannot know whether Y is justified" and "Y is justified".
Clearly you are unable to deal with ambiguity, and do not see any distinction between proof and belief. I have no difficulty reconciling my "religious convinctions and [my] conscience/sense of reason," nor do I see anything wrong with my beliefs. They are not supported by logic; such is the nature of faith. However, you have yet to demonstrate that they can be refuted by logic, except if you allow yourself to conflate belief with proof.
I'm quite familiar with the fallacies of logic. But I think perhaps you should re-assess your own beliefs with the common fallacies of logic in mind, for I think you will find that many of the reasons you hold those beliefs to be true are based on logical fallacies--particularly the ones which "cannot be supported by logic.
Thank you for your recommendation, but I have quite thoroughly examined my faith in the light of logic. It stands unrefuted. I do not claim it as "true" in the sense of the word as it is used as a technical term in logic. Yet I choose to believe it; I hope it is true, but I have no evidence to prove it, and until I see evidence to refute it, I choose to act on hope. If others choose to act on different hopes, or to forego hope, I do not judge them. Why do you feel the need to judge those who choose a different interpretation than yours, if you cannot refute their interpretation?
If the only things one can ever legitimately choose to believe are those that can be proved to be logically true, then I cannot imagine how one can function in daily life. Many things must be taken on faith; many choices must be made on the basis of what we hope is true rather than what we know to be true.
If you are unable to see the distinction, I have nothing further to offer in this discussion.
Either you misunderstand my position, or you misunderstand the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It applies to the argument that because we do not know that X is true, it therefore MUST be false, or vice versa.
I am not arguing that anything must be true, or that "we should trust" anything. I am saying that I choose to believe that it is true (because it might be), and that I choose to trust (because I can, without compromising logic). I have repeatedly stated that my position cannot be supported logically (nor can it be refuted logically, without further evidence). It may be utterly false. I acknowledge that.
You are arguing that because we cannot know God's masterplan, it must be assumed that it is evil. This is a much better example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam than my own argument is. Please demonstrate how your argument is any more logical or less fallacious than mine.
And I repeat that no one is saying that natural disasters are a good thing. We are saying that they may be a good thing. We do not know. We cannot know. The judgment, either way, is a choice. To decide either way is an act of faith. I would prefer to believe in a benevolent universe; some prefer not to believe that, and that is their (your?) right.
You can read more about the fallacy here and here.
To the best of my knowledge, yes, it is stable. I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't. However, the phrase "runaway greenhouse" is one I've seen used (by various journalists, popularizers of science, and scientists themselves) to describe Venus's atmosphere -- often in articles or books that use it to caution against Terran global warming; these articles generally ignore or at least downplay the myriad other huge differences between Earth's atmospheric chemistry and density, insolation levels, albedo, etc.
And all I meant by "went haywire" was to inquire as to the possibility that Venus's climate had perhaps been different -- more friendly to (our Terran conception of) life, perhaps -- and had changed for some reason in a way that made it so brutally hostile to life. Perhaps there is good reason to think that it has been so almost since its formation; I confess I don't know enough about planetary science to know what the evidence is either way.
Actually, I seem to recall reading back in freshman Psych (umpty-leven years ago) of a study that showed that people who are deprived of environmental cues to the time of day tend to settle into a 27- to 28-hour pattern of activity. (Can't seem to find any links to such a study at the moment, though, so it's entirely possible I'm misremembering. Or maybe I just need sleep.)
This AC comment seems to have been made in jest, but it got me thinking.
Do we have any way of knowing how long Venus has been a runaway greenhouse? (That phrase, by the way, invokes a really bizarre mental image... )
Is it conceivable that the climate there went haywire within human history? Given the current pressure, temperature, and chemical composition of the atmosphere on Venus, is there any chance that any indications at all could have survived of a possible former ecosystem there?
Mars is fascinating for what it might have become. Venus is fascinating for what it might have been.
In what way is the argument "fallacious"? Please be specific. Precisely what logical fallacy is being committed here?
I think it is on core premises, not on logic, that we differ. Core premises can neither be refuted nor supported logically.
I repeat that no one is "justifying" the suffering. Since we are as human beings necessarily unable to know all the ramifications of a situation, some of us (not only Christians, and not only those whose lives are untouched by such tragedies) are willing to trust in the benevolence of the God in Whom we choose to believe (a core premise); and to trust therefore that there may be a justification that we cannot comprehend. This is a subtle but important distinction.
If you choose a different belief -- i.e., a different core premise -- or are not so willing to trust, that is of course your right. But it is no more (or less) "logical" or "fallacious" than my core premise.
But have you never learned that some act you thought was evil worked instead to your benefit? If I could honestly say that I had never revised your assessment of the good or ill of a situation as your knowledge and understanding grew, then I must have been either the wisest child or the most intractable idiot ever born. Did your parents never give you medicine when you were too small to understand that it would help? Did no one ever break your heart by leaving because they knew they were making you miserable? Did no teacher ever impose discipline that you thought at the time were monstrously unfair, but later came to understand as the only sensible way to run things?
So please demonstrate in what way you are being more "logical" than Christians and other believers who think that our assessment of other situations, no matter how obviously horrific or wondrous they might seem, might likewise be revised if we understood all the ramifications.
The argument is not that ignorance justifies the death and suffering. The argument is that without knowing all that an omniscient God knows, we are not in a position judge whether the death and suffering are justified. For those who choose to believe in a benevolent God, we have the option to trust that they are justified. For those who choose no such belief, the option exists to choose to believe that they are not justified. Either way, the option has little to do with the evidence and everything to do with what one chooses to believe.
Better minds than mine have tried to tackle the argument from evil, from many angles and with admittedly questionable success; and I have nothing helpful to offer that they have not already presented.
I will point out, though, as some of them have, that the occurrence of thousands of deaths all at once is really no more (or less) intractable a problem for the concept of a benevolent God than the occurrence of billions of deaths over millions of years.
(I'm not really helping my own case here, I know; but it's not my intent to push my belief system on anyone else. Just to make the point that science is irrelevant to the question of the existence and the personal interest of a deity.)
Slashdot Mirror
I must admit, I do tend to avoid any drink that's fuzzy. ;-)
But this admin does not care about legal or moral issues.
Has there really ever been an administration that did?
My kidneys are boggled by your wit. ;-)
I'm not familiar with Australian weather, but here in northeast Ohio, snow and ice and the like make cycling problematic at best for several months out of the year; "impossible" is probably closer to the truth.
Much of the spring and fall, frequent rain is likewise a problem; I'm told (though I haven't counted 'em myself) that we have fewer sunny days annually here than Seattle. I don't have a problem getting wet, but we have no shower or locker room facilities where I work, and a poncho/raincoat/whatever can only keep you so dry. I DO have a problem with sitting in wet clothes all day long.
Summers, cycling could work, but it's very humid here in the summers, and again, no shower facilities at work, and I value my co-workers' goodwill too much to do that.
As for finding parking for a bicycle, again, I can't speak for Australia, but where I work there is no safe place to store a bike. They aren't allowed in the building, and the bike rack itself got stolen once, so I wouldn't be comfortable chaining a bike to it. We have running complaints from customers whose bikes have been stolen, locks and all.
Weather permitting, I walk to work. I'm lucky enough to live close enough to do so. But given Ohio weather, it isn't always a reasonable option, especially when I'm expected to "look professional" when I arrive and stay that way all day long.
I don't understand your objection. "Cost time" is perfectly acceptable English and has been so for centuries. No less a source than the Oxford English Dictionary lists as one of the definitions of the verb "cost":
...
To necessitate or involve the expenditure of (time, [emphasis added] trouble, or the like), loss or sacrifice of (some valued possession), suffering of (some penalty, etc.).
It goes on to quote some of those lousy hack writers -- you know, people like Gower, Shakespeare, Milton, De Foe, Huxley
The phrase may not be to your taste, but it doesn't show any lack of English skills.
Nope, still doesn't help. First of all, the "ambiguous" parts might be the only useful info in the patron's question. The person who asked for "How to burn stuff" used a very ambiguous term -- "burn" (flambes? CDs? refuse? butter for frosting? rubber? the midnight oil?). Yet that term was the only clue in the question as to the real nature of the answers the patron was seeking. (For that matter, there are no UNambiguous terms. Not one. So how does the computer figure out which ones to eliminate?)
Second, most people don't know how to formulate a question so another human being can understand it. No matter how you fluff up the question and massage the language in it, the questions that most people formulate will never be understandable by a computer, at least not by any computer that our technology has been able to produce to date.
+Crafts will not readily yield instructions on pumpkin carving, nor will +Ambulance ever in a million years yield up the World Almanac.
I can see you've never worked a library reference desk. Sadly, half the time the person asking the question doesn't understand the terms they're using to ask. Rule number one in reference work is never to trust what the patron gives you.
... and thought they could drive there)
I've had people come in asking:
Where are your car books? (they wanted a bio of Mario Andretti)
"How do you burn stuff?" (they wanted info on pyrography)
"What do you have on crafts?" (they wanted to know how to carve pumpkins)
"I need a map of the world." (they wanted to plan a trip to Egypt
"Where is that ambulance book?" (they wanted the World Almanac)
"What can you tell me about Greece?" (they wanted the price for a 1943 coin from there)
Now, being a librarian, I can ask clarifying questions and figure out more precisely what they're looking for. Thus far, search engines have proved to be very very bad at doing this. If Microsoft's upcoming site proves to be better at it, more power to it. But all the hype about AI notwithstanding, computers have a very long way to go to be able to do it half so efficiently or perceptively as a human being.
Putting the burden on the seeker to "reformulate the question" probably works well for most Slashdotters (given that they tend to show above average intelligence and articulation), but assumes far too much intelligence on the part of the average seeker.
I think everyone should be a nonconformist!
It's still around.
Whoops, forgot the URL: http://www.knowitnow.org/
Ohio librarians are even doing it online now.
... )
(Wait, that doesn't sound right somehow
the only thing more pointless than reading articles about things that "should" "theoretically" be "possible" is writing them.
Apparently, however, commenting on them once they've been written is not pointless.
Yeah. When I offer Gmail invites to non-tech-savvy folks, they sometimes respond, "G-mail? Does that mean like gay mail?" (I suppose my being gay might put that idea in their heads ...)
I'll second Avast heartily. Very nice, no-fuss antivirus.
Google Desktop; Firefox and/or Opera; OpenOffice and/or AbiWord; and the requisite antispyware/antivirus apps, of course. Oh, and Google Desktop.
I also make heavy use of the following:
ClocX
Windows XP PowerToys (highly useful, especially TweakUI
Notify CD (bare-bones but elegant CD player)
ReadPlease (text-to-speech)
Foxit Reader (a much faster PDF reader than Adobe)
Trillian (multiple IM)
foobar2000 (audio player)
It is not "petty semantics" to point out a distinction between "X may be true" and "X is true", nor to point out a distinction between "I can't know, but I believe" and "I know".
Nor is it "petty semantics" to point out a distinction between "We cannot know whether Y is justified" and "Y is justified".
Clearly you are unable to deal with ambiguity, and do not see any distinction between proof and belief. I have no difficulty reconciling my "religious convinctions and [my] conscience/sense of reason," nor do I see anything wrong with my beliefs. They are not supported by logic; such is the nature of faith. However, you have yet to demonstrate that they can be refuted by logic, except if you allow yourself to conflate belief with proof.
I'm quite familiar with the fallacies of logic. But I think perhaps you should re-assess your own beliefs with the common fallacies of logic in mind, for I think you will find that many of the reasons you hold those beliefs to be true are based on logical fallacies--particularly the ones which "cannot be supported by logic.
Thank you for your recommendation, but I have quite thoroughly examined my faith in the light of logic. It stands unrefuted. I do not claim it as "true" in the sense of the word as it is used as a technical term in logic. Yet I choose to believe it; I hope it is true, but I have no evidence to prove it, and until I see evidence to refute it, I choose to act on hope. If others choose to act on different hopes, or to forego hope, I do not judge them. Why do you feel the need to judge those who choose a different interpretation than yours, if you cannot refute their interpretation?
If the only things one can ever legitimately choose to believe are those that can be proved to be logically true, then I cannot imagine how one can function in daily life. Many things must be taken on faith; many choices must be made on the basis of what we hope is true rather than what we know to be true.
If you are unable to see the distinction, I have nothing further to offer in this discussion.
Either you misunderstand my position, or you misunderstand the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It applies to the argument that because we do not know that X is true, it therefore MUST be false, or vice versa.
I am not arguing that anything must be true, or that "we should trust" anything. I am saying that I choose to believe that it is true (because it might be), and that I choose to trust (because I can, without compromising logic). I have repeatedly stated that my position cannot be supported logically (nor can it be refuted logically, without further evidence). It may be utterly false. I acknowledge that.
You are arguing that because we cannot know God's masterplan, it must be assumed that it is evil. This is a much better example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam than my own argument is. Please demonstrate how your argument is any more logical or less fallacious than mine.
And I repeat that no one is saying that natural disasters are a good thing. We are saying that they may be a good thing. We do not know. We cannot know. The judgment, either way, is a choice. To decide either way is an act of faith. I would prefer to believe in a benevolent universe; some prefer not to believe that, and that is their (your?) right.
You can read more about the fallacy here and here.
To the best of my knowledge, yes, it is stable. I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't. However, the phrase "runaway greenhouse" is one I've seen used (by various journalists, popularizers of science, and scientists themselves) to describe Venus's atmosphere -- often in articles or books that use it to caution against Terran global warming; these articles generally ignore or at least downplay the myriad other huge differences between Earth's atmospheric chemistry and density, insolation levels, albedo, etc.
And all I meant by "went haywire" was to inquire as to the possibility that Venus's climate had perhaps been different -- more friendly to (our Terran conception of) life, perhaps -- and had changed for some reason in a way that made it so brutally hostile to life. Perhaps there is good reason to think that it has been so almost since its formation; I confess I don't know enough about planetary science to know what the evidence is either way.
Actually, I seem to recall reading back in freshman Psych (umpty-leven years ago) of a study that showed that people who are deprived of environmental cues to the time of day tend to settle into a 27- to 28-hour pattern of activity. (Can't seem to find any links to such a study at the moment, though, so it's entirely possible I'm misremembering. Or maybe I just need sleep.)
So we send the men back to Mars, the women back to Venus -- then who's left?
This AC comment seems to have been made in jest, but it got me thinking.
... )
Do we have any way of knowing how long Venus has been a runaway greenhouse? (That phrase, by the way, invokes a really bizarre mental image
Is it conceivable that the climate there went haywire within human history? Given the current pressure, temperature, and chemical composition of the atmosphere on Venus, is there any chance that any indications at all could have survived of a possible former ecosystem there?
Mars is fascinating for what it might have become. Venus is fascinating for what it might have been.
In what way is the argument "fallacious"? Please be specific. Precisely what logical fallacy is being committed here?
I think it is on core premises, not on logic, that we differ. Core premises can neither be refuted nor supported logically.
I repeat that no one is "justifying" the suffering. Since we are as human beings necessarily unable to know all the ramifications of a situation, some of us (not only Christians, and not only those whose lives are untouched by such tragedies) are willing to trust in the benevolence of the God in Whom we choose to believe (a core premise); and to trust therefore that there may be a justification that we cannot comprehend. This is a subtle but important distinction.
If you choose a different belief -- i.e., a different core premise -- or are not so willing to trust, that is of course your right. But it is no more (or less) "logical" or "fallacious" than my core premise.
But have you never learned that some act you thought was evil worked instead to your benefit? If I could honestly say that I had never revised your assessment of the good or ill of a situation as your knowledge and understanding grew, then I must have been either the wisest child or the most intractable idiot ever born. Did your parents never give you medicine when you were too small to understand that it would help? Did no one ever break your heart by leaving because they knew they were making you miserable? Did no teacher ever impose discipline that you thought at the time were monstrously unfair, but later came to understand as the only sensible way to run things?
So please demonstrate in what way you are being more "logical" than Christians and other believers who think that our assessment of other situations, no matter how obviously horrific or wondrous they might seem, might likewise be revised if we understood all the ramifications.
"Quantum fluctuations" is a widely recognized phrase in physics, used variously to refer to uncertain outcomes of quantum mechanics:
f
. html
e rs/Lopez.C.FinReport03.pdf
A book by Edward Nelson of CMU in the Princeton Series in Physics: http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/qf.pd
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
From a physics lecture at the University of Oregon (the mention is about halfway down the page): http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17
From Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-64917
From an article in New Scientist: http://www.ldolphin.org/qfoam.html
A paper from the Division of Engineering and Applied Science, Roxbury Community College/Harvard: http://www.eduprograms.deas.harvard.edu/reu03_pap
Theses at Penn State: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/31075.html
A book from the World Scientific Series in Contemporary Chemical Physics: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/5952.html
My argument fits the term as used in any one of these sources, or in the half-million others that can be found with a two-second Google search.
The argument is not that ignorance justifies the death and suffering. The argument is that without knowing all that an omniscient God knows, we are not in a position judge whether the death and suffering are justified. For those who choose to believe in a benevolent God, we have the option to trust that they are justified. For those who choose no such belief, the option exists to choose to believe that they are not justified. Either way, the option has little to do with the evidence and everything to do with what one chooses to believe.
Getting off topic here, of course, but ...
Better minds than mine have tried to tackle the argument from evil, from many angles and with admittedly questionable success; and I have nothing helpful to offer that they have not already presented.
I will point out, though, as some of them have, that the occurrence of thousands of deaths all at once is really no more (or less) intractable a problem for the concept of a benevolent God than the occurrence of billions of deaths over millions of years.
(I'm not really helping my own case here, I know; but it's not my intent to push my belief system on anyone else. Just to make the point that science is irrelevant to the question of the existence and the personal interest of a deity.)