The libertarian would argue that taxpayers shouldn't have been forced to pay for this telescope at all.
Depends on which Libertarians you're talking to. You should check out Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" - the episode where they talk about NASA. Their take would be far different than your typical Ayn Rand fanatic.
Of course, it also depends on what you mean by "forced to pay". If you buy into a type of libertarianism where paying taxes is voluntary, but getting to vote is dependent on paying taxes, then you can have a government sponsored space program without forcing anyone to pay for it.
Good for her! This is what British science used to be about. The quest for knowledge and discovery is what once made the UK a scientific superpower.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring nationality into this, but it's interesting to note that this is an American girl, in the UK, using telescopes in Australia and Maui. When it comes to science, borders don't mean much any more.
An acquaintance imports and sells garlic and other spices. He tried importing from China a couple of times, but always got burned. Shipments came late or not at all and what did come he was not able to sell. He gave up on China. China is probably ok if you have deep pockets or have family connections in the right place. Otherwise it's buyer beware.
I think it depends what you're buying, and where you're getting it. Anything on eBay I'm very weary of. However, I've been shopping on sites like dinodirect, lightinthebox, dealextreme, etc for a couple years now, and never once gotten a defective product, let alone an outright scam. And shipping times? I've had order from California which took longer. Even using the free shipping option on DealExtreme, I've had shipping times under 2 weeks, and as quick as 4 days.
Of course, I HAVE seen a few scams even on there. A magical doohickey which plugs into your car cigarette lighter and "improves mileage". Magical stones and crystals which "balance your energies" or "cauterize your chakras" or some such nonsense. I figure if you're the kind of idiot who believes those claims, that's your problem; there's plenty of people in North America who will be happy to sell you similar crap.
Unfortunately, not looking like I will be creating anything.
Yeah, I think that's status quo for most of us here...
The story of Santa Claus is in no way ever an assertion of supposed fact. It is a myth with moral elements.
Well not you're just running around making baseless assertions;)
Religionists and atheists on the other hand, are making assertions. These different ways of looking at the world, described by these stage theories, really affect our thinking. And it is tempting to think our differences lie in our philosophy, but more likely they are, at their root, in our psychology.
Absolutely. We know that human beings are wired to see 'agency' in pretty much everything, and that we have difficulty with letting go of that even when we know better. Such tendencies manifest regularly at an early age, when children imbue inanimate objects with feelings and personalities, or have completely non-material friends whom they claim to see and interact with. If the majority of our society believed that a stuffed animal really was alive, this would seem perfectly normal even in adults. The only observable difference between a child talking to his invisible friend and a theist talking to his god is that most people will see one as fantasy and the other as reality. So yeah, it's entirely psychological, whether we're talking about why those beliefs exist or why they're seen as legitimate by so many. The only reason god-beliefs persist is because so many of us already hold them, and pass them on to our children. That it's considered a taboo subject by many of those who do not (such as yourself) doesn't help any, either.
The experience they claim to have is hearing a voice. The interpretation is that it's God.
Nope. Your misunderstanding of this basic point is what caused the whole disagreement. Just try and find a religious person who'll say their experience is "hearing a voice". Doesn't happen. All the rest of what you've been saying is completely irrelevant due to this one little detail.
He will experience seeing moving pictures, and you would be wrong to tell him he doesn't.
OF COURSE. Why would I disagree with him if that were the only claim he made?
I see the problem now. You're saying that I would be wrong if I told religious people that they didn't hear a voice in their head. Well duh. Why would I ever object to that? Why would anyone object to that? That's not the "experience" they're claiming to have; the experience they claim to have is that "god spoke to them", or some crazy shit like that.
I swear, this is the stupidest strawman I've ever seen. That you seem to have built it unintentionally is just mind-boggling.
The Billings method prevents fertilization. It also allows you to know exactly when you can conceive if you are trying to have a child. Stop being an ignorant bigot.
Yeah, what an awesome method:
"You know that one week per month when you're the most horny? Yeah, don't have sex then."
Screw that. The only bigotry I see is a church so obsessed with control that they're willing to take the joy out of sex for millions of women, while encouraging the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
You're missing the point. According to Christian doctrine (now that they've decided that unbaptized babies don't really go to purgatory/limbo), the best thing you can do for a child is to kill it. So what's the problem with abortion, or even infanticide for that matter? Why go through ANY expense, or sacrifice any of your time or comfort?
But now you have moved from "there is no evidence" to "there is a better explanation of the evidence"...
No, we're still on "there's no evidence". I'm not sure how you looked at "these people are hallucinating" and arrived at "there's evidence of gods".
Do you think? If I now said to you "You don't actually believe that", would my words have any credibility?
You think that an experience and a belief are the same thing?
Please tell me you're being deliberately obtuse.
By the way, where is my supposed contradiction?
I quote:
If you tell somebody that they've not experienced what they've experienced it's you that's wrong (and it's not science)....
If you tell them that they have misinterpreted their experience then you might be on to something.
If their interpretation is wrong then they could not have experienced what they thought they experienced. If you sit a primitive tribesman in front of a TV, he will not experience magical pixies talking from inside of a box, regardless of what his personal interpretation may be. Unless you're a fan of Deepak Chopra, you should have a pretty clear grasp of the idea that your perceptions do not actually effect reality.
Now, granted, I learned English as a second language, but I'm willing to bet any amount of money you care to wager that anyone with a solid understanding of the English language and basic logic would spot the contradiction immediately. ARE you a Chopra fan?
You really don't understand the foundations of science, do you?
I understand it just fine. You seem to be having some problems, though.
Why do you prefer the explanation of mental illness over the explanation of magic voices in the head?
Occam's razor. We have evidence of mental illness, as well as some knowledge about how it operates. We have no evidence of magic voices, though we have noticed that they tend to correlate with mental illness. Unless you're applying a liberal dose of Occam's Shaving Cream, that situation is absolutely clear-cut.
Do you think science is just a vote on how many people find which account ridiculous?
Nope.
Many solid scientific theories seemed ridiculous before their time.
Not "many", no, unless you're considering the opinions of the average yokel. I can't think of a single "solid scientific theory [which] seemed ridiculous before [it's] time", but, for the sake of the argument, let's say there was. So what?
Come back when you can tell me how science can distinguish between those explanations and why it should prefer one to the other.
Once you've made the claim that "telling people they didn't experience what they think they experienced" makes me "wrong", you've pretty much given up any right to be taken seriously, especially when you then went on to contradict yourself in the very next sentence. You need to get these concepts straight in your head and stop jumping around like a retarded rabbit on speed.
As much as you might like to demonize American culture for it's flaws, especially the racism that still exists in some, it is far superior to most other countries in racial equality. You can't change everyone's attitude, but talk to anyone from anywhere else in the world that has spent some time in the U.S., and they will invariably tell you that racial discrimination is less of an issue than where they came from.
I dunno about that. I did cross-training with the US military a bunch of times, and was shocked by some of the racial trends, especially in units based out of the southern states. The infantry regiments would be almost entirely white, with the odd Hispanic or really big black guy, while the support trades - cooks, especially - were almost invariably black. There was a LOT of segregation, although I got the feeling that it probably wasn't a conscious selection bias on the part of the military so much as self-imposed segregation due to the different attitudes in the different communities. Either way, nothing like that exists in my country.
Anyway, while I'm not sure that the US is more racist than my country, I certainly wouldn't say that it's "far superior to most other countries in racial equality". Unless the countries you're talking about are Saudi Arabia and China.
If this were true, how come my golden retriever is more like my neighbors golden retriever then he is like my poodle? They're all dogs... Somehow the retrievers are better at fetching balls and sticks. Is that racist to say that?
If you don't understand the difference between natural selection and selective breeding, you can't expect to be taken seriously in this kind of discussion.
Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.
Wrong. The "Religious-Right" is against that. "Conservatives" who don't fall under that sub-group generally have no issue with it - at least no more so than the average person on the other side of the political spectrum. This is primarily a religious disagreement.
Not so. You are confusing evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God (the "religious experience", for example),
No. Anecdotes are not evidence. There is zero evidence for the existence of any gods. The fact that there's no "proof" of it is a direct result of the lack of evidence.
It does the scientific position no favours to misrepresent it, because the religious will see that what you are presenting is obviously false and think from that that the scientific position is obviously false.
The religious will think what they want to think - they have no problem dismissing any scientific evidence which disagrees with them, so I'm not particularly worried about pussyfooting around them. Let's call a spade a spade.
Slashdot Mirror
The libertarian would argue that taxpayers shouldn't have been forced to pay for this telescope at all.
Depends on which Libertarians you're talking to. You should check out Penn and Tellers "Bullshit" - the episode where they talk about NASA. Their take would be far different than your typical Ayn Rand fanatic.
Of course, it also depends on what you mean by "forced to pay". If you buy into a type of libertarianism where paying taxes is voluntary, but getting to vote is dependent on paying taxes, then you can have a government sponsored space program without forcing anyone to pay for it.
Suffice it to say that it's a complex topic ....
The whole project, with budget over-runs, is still cheaper than 1 month in Iraq...
Even better, the whole project, with cost overruns, is still cheaper than a week of medicare!
Are we done with the pointless comparisons, now?
What are you, a Japanese Alex Jones?
They don't seem to specify which part was faulty or what the defect actually was. Did a valve stick or maybe a turbopump failed.
For some reason I read that as "turnip-pump", and it made perfect sense.
Magic.
In other news, Congolese scientists have determined that dressing in feathers and shaking a rattle cures cancer.
Good for her! This is what British science used to be about. The quest for knowledge and discovery is what once made the UK a scientific superpower.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring nationality into this, but it's interesting to note that this is an American girl, in the UK, using telescopes in Australia and Maui. When it comes to science, borders don't mean much any more.
An acquaintance imports and sells garlic and other spices. He tried importing from China a couple of times, but always got burned. Shipments came late or not at all and what did come he was not able to sell. He gave up on China. China is probably ok if you have deep pockets or have family connections in the right place. Otherwise it's buyer beware.
I think it depends what you're buying, and where you're getting it. Anything on eBay I'm very weary of. However, I've been shopping on sites like dinodirect, lightinthebox, dealextreme, etc for a couple years now, and never once gotten a defective product, let alone an outright scam. And shipping times? I've had order from California which took longer. Even using the free shipping option on DealExtreme, I've had shipping times under 2 weeks, and as quick as 4 days.
Of course, I HAVE seen a few scams even on there. A magical doohickey which plugs into your car cigarette lighter and "improves mileage". Magical stones and crystals which "balance your energies" or "cauterize your chakras" or some such nonsense. I figure if you're the kind of idiot who believes those claims, that's your problem; there's plenty of people in North America who will be happy to sell you similar crap.
Because 31 microSD cards sandwitched together would still be several times larger than this thing?
I'm more curious about the cost. A 64GB microSD is what ... at least $100, right? I'm not seeing much of a market for a $3,000 flash drive.
Unfortunately, not looking like I will be creating anything.
Yeah, I think that's status quo for most of us here ...
The story of Santa Claus is in no way ever an assertion of supposed fact. It is a myth with moral elements.
Well not you're just running around making baseless assertions ;)
Religionists and atheists on the other hand, are making assertions. These different ways of looking at the world, described by these stage theories, really affect our thinking. And it is tempting to think our differences lie in our philosophy, but more likely they are, at their root, in our psychology.
Absolutely. We know that human beings are wired to see 'agency' in pretty much everything, and that we have difficulty with letting go of that even when we know better. Such tendencies manifest regularly at an early age, when children imbue inanimate objects with feelings and personalities, or have completely non-material friends whom they claim to see and interact with. If the majority of our society believed that a stuffed animal really was alive, this would seem perfectly normal even in adults. The only observable difference between a child talking to his invisible friend and a theist talking to his god is that most people will see one as fantasy and the other as reality. So yeah, it's entirely psychological, whether we're talking about why those beliefs exist or why they're seen as legitimate by so many. The only reason god-beliefs persist is because so many of us already hold them, and pass them on to our children. That it's considered a taboo subject by many of those who do not (such as yourself) doesn't help any, either.
You have a very jaded view of your police force.
Welcome to slashdot. I'm pretty sure half the reader base took part in the London riots, and another quarter were looting in Vancouver.
If they're innocent they should have nothing to hide.
The whole point is that they're not innocent, idiot.
The experience they claim to have is hearing a voice. The interpretation is that it's God.
Nope. Your misunderstanding of this basic point is what caused the whole disagreement. Just try and find a religious person who'll say their experience is "hearing a voice". Doesn't happen. All the rest of what you've been saying is completely irrelevant due to this one little detail.
He will experience seeing moving pictures, and you would be wrong to tell him he doesn't.
OF COURSE. Why would I disagree with him if that were the only claim he made?
I see the problem now. You're saying that I would be wrong if I told religious people that they didn't hear a voice in their head. Well duh. Why would I ever object to that? Why would anyone object to that? That's not the "experience" they're claiming to have; the experience they claim to have is that "god spoke to them", or some crazy shit like that.
I swear, this is the stupidest strawman I've ever seen. That you seem to have built it unintentionally is just mind-boggling.
The Billings method prevents fertilization. It also allows you to know exactly when you can conceive if you are trying to have a child. Stop being an ignorant bigot.
Yeah, what an awesome method:
"You know that one week per month when you're the most horny? Yeah, don't have sex then."
Screw that. The only bigotry I see is a church so obsessed with control that they're willing to take the joy out of sex for millions of women, while encouraging the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
I don't see the point in running around making baseless assertions. That goes for the religionists and the atheists.
Your kids are gonna be REALLY confused ...
"Daddy is Santa real?"
"Well, he migght be, and he might not be. Nobody knows for sure. Anyone who says otherwise is just making baseless assertions."
If you're looking to create a new generation of unpopular mentally-scarred-by-decades-of-bullying slashdot nerds, you're well on your way!
You hate "religionists" and they hate you. The rest of us would rather you all shut the fuck up.
If there's one thing I hate, it's you militant agnostics. There's no battle cry more ridiculous than "I don't know, AND YOU DON'T EITHER!!".
If the teachings of the Catholic Church were so bad, then why are the places with a Catholic Majority an island of health around a sea of disease?
Huh? Did you actually look at the maps which you linked to? Because they certainly don't show what you're claiming.
You're missing the point. According to Christian doctrine (now that they've decided that unbaptized babies don't really go to purgatory/limbo), the best thing you can do for a child is to kill it. So what's the problem with abortion, or even infanticide for that matter? Why go through ANY expense, or sacrifice any of your time or comfort?
But now you have moved from "there is no evidence" to "there is a better explanation of the evidence"...
No, we're still on "there's no evidence". I'm not sure how you looked at "these people are hallucinating" and arrived at "there's evidence of gods".
Do you think? If I now said to you "You don't actually believe that", would my words have any credibility?
You think that an experience and a belief are the same thing?
Please tell me you're being deliberately obtuse.
By the way, where is my supposed contradiction?
I quote:
If you tell somebody that they've not experienced what they've experienced it's you that's wrong (and it's not science). ...
If you tell them that they have misinterpreted their experience then you might be on to something.
If their interpretation is wrong then they could not have experienced what they thought they experienced. If you sit a primitive tribesman in front of a TV, he will not experience magical pixies talking from inside of a box, regardless of what his personal interpretation may be. Unless you're a fan of Deepak Chopra, you should have a pretty clear grasp of the idea that your perceptions do not actually effect reality.
Now, granted, I learned English as a second language, but I'm willing to bet any amount of money you care to wager that anyone with a solid understanding of the English language and basic logic would spot the contradiction immediately. ARE you a Chopra fan?
You really don't understand the foundations of science, do you?
I understand it just fine. You seem to be having some problems, though.
Why do you prefer the explanation of mental illness over the explanation of magic voices in the head?
Occam's razor. We have evidence of mental illness, as well as some knowledge about how it operates. We have no evidence of magic voices, though we have noticed that they tend to correlate with mental illness. Unless you're applying a liberal dose of Occam's Shaving Cream, that situation is absolutely clear-cut.
Do you think science is just a vote on how many people find which account ridiculous?
Nope.
Many solid scientific theories seemed ridiculous before their time.
Not "many", no, unless you're considering the opinions of the average yokel. I can't think of a single "solid scientific theory [which] seemed ridiculous before [it's] time", but, for the sake of the argument, let's say there was. So what?
Come back when you can tell me how science can distinguish between those explanations and why it should prefer one to the other.
Once you've made the claim that "telling people they didn't experience what they think they experienced" makes me "wrong", you've pretty much given up any right to be taken seriously, especially when you then went on to contradict yourself in the very next sentence. You need to get these concepts straight in your head and stop jumping around like a retarded rabbit on speed.
Testimony is evidence. Ask any court.
Yuhuh.
"Your houour, I saw the accused murder the victim, right before he turned into a Green Lizard from Alpha Centauri"
"Well I've heard all I need to know! GUILTY!"
Sure, yeah, testimony rocks.
If you tell somebody that they've not experienced what they've experienced it's you that's wrong (and it's not science).
More bullshit.
If you tell them that they have misinterpreted their experience then you might be on to something.
Hah.
"You're not wrong, you're just misinterpreting!".
Right. What do you do for an encore?
"It's not rape, it's surprise sex!"
As much as you might like to demonize American culture for it's flaws, especially the racism that still exists in some, it is far superior to most other countries in racial equality. You can't change everyone's attitude, but talk to anyone from anywhere else in the world that has spent some time in the U.S., and they will invariably tell you that racial discrimination is less of an issue than where they came from.
I dunno about that. I did cross-training with the US military a bunch of times, and was shocked by some of the racial trends, especially in units based out of the southern states. The infantry regiments would be almost entirely white, with the odd Hispanic or really big black guy, while the support trades - cooks, especially - were almost invariably black. There was a LOT of segregation, although I got the feeling that it probably wasn't a conscious selection bias on the part of the military so much as self-imposed segregation due to the different attitudes in the different communities. Either way, nothing like that exists in my country.
Anyway, while I'm not sure that the US is more racist than my country, I certainly wouldn't say that it's "far superior to most other countries in racial equality". Unless the countries you're talking about are Saudi Arabia and China.
If this were true, how come my golden retriever is more like my neighbors golden retriever then he is like my poodle? They're all dogs... Somehow the retrievers are better at fetching balls and sticks. Is that racist to say that?
If you don't understand the difference between natural selection and selective breeding, you can't expect to be taken seriously in this kind of discussion.
Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.
Wrong. The "Religious-Right" is against that. "Conservatives" who don't fall under that sub-group generally have no issue with it - at least no more so than the average person on the other side of the political spectrum. This is primarily a religious disagreement.
Not so. You are confusing evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God (the "religious experience", for example),
No. Anecdotes are not evidence. There is zero evidence for the existence of any gods. The fact that there's no "proof" of it is a direct result of the lack of evidence.
It does the scientific position no favours to misrepresent it, because the religious will see that what you are presenting is obviously false and think from that that the scientific position is obviously false.
The religious will think what they want to think - they have no problem dismissing any scientific evidence which disagrees with them, so I'm not particularly worried about pussyfooting around them. Let's call a spade a spade.