There are almost no black long distance runners in the Americas and no black sprinters in Africa (at the top levels). In fact, blacks in Africa are far slower than white sprinters or Asian sprinters at the top levels.
Can you provide a citation for that?
It's not that I have anything against the concept - in fact I find it fascinating to think that traits which we've attributed to race may have more to do with culture and technological/medical progress - I'd just like to have the facts straight before I go repeating it to anyone else:)
At one point in history, every known "scientist" had proven the Earth was flat.
The really sad thing about that statement is that you clearly have no concept of how ignorant it makes you look. We've known that the earth was round since before your religion even existed. We've known that the earth was round before science even existed. Where do you get this crap from?
Does it matter? Small amount of energy in -> large amount of energy out = profit!
It matters because none of the "cold fusion" experiments have ever gotten to the "large amount of energy out" phase.
If we can observe the experiment and deduce that fusion is actually occurring, then we have a good reason to take it seriously and invest more time and money into that line of research. Otherwise, these guys might just be peddling bad data.
Of course, if they ever DID get to that stage, then no, it wouldn't matter whether the process was nuclear fusion or a god-powered hamster wheel. The end result would be more important than the process.
Plants have been using its energy reliably and giving us energy to live. What we need to do is to figure out how the plants do it or maybe use plants, such as blue-green algae, to supply us with fuel.
Who and the what now?
We already know exactly how the plants do it. The problem is that photosynthesis is only about 6-10% efficient. We already have solar products which are MUCH more efficient than that. I'm not sure where this woo-woo "DO WHAT GAIA DOES!" mindset comes from, but it's flat out wrong.
Here we have a situation where a single large country - with too much power and inertia in these matters - is pointedly ignoring what the rest of the world is doing, and forcing the use of an arcane, unwieldy, incompatible standard on the rest of us.
Not very well. You suggested that math isn't science. I showed that it is. If you then go and show that it's possible to study theology in a scientific manner, it does nothing to support your claim that math isn't a science. Since you seem fond of the study of logical fallacies, you should know that you've just committed one - it's called a red herring.
But in a philosophical debate, the Dictionary definition of a word is meaningless.
Oh, so in philosophical discussions you just get to make shit up? Sounds fun. Pointless, but fun.
But while you have your dictionary open, look up "ad hominem"
Ad-hominem:
"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"
I've done nothing of the sort. I first showed you how your argument fails, and only afterwards did I insult you. Ergo, I am not resorting to an ad-hominem attack - I am answering your argument AND providing an estimation of your mental faculties.
For example: you say "2+2=5"
If I say "you're an idiot", that's an ad-hominem attack.
If I say "no, it's 4, here's why, and, by the way, you're an idiot" that's NOT an ad-hominem attack.
Clear as mud?
Your close minded personal attacks on me make you no better than the worst of the zealous christians you despise.
Ah, yes, the "closed minded" defense: the last bastion of the ignorant and the clueless. The "9/11 was an indise jobby job!" crowd accuse me of that, too, after I finish spanking them on every talking point they bring up. If you're calling someone closed-minded it usually means that you can't make a rational argument, which usually means you're full of shit.
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
Your emotional, ad hominem response shows that the debate about theology and science are anything but non-sequitur.
I have no idea what you just said there, but judging by the rest of your comment, I'm willing to bet it wasn't much.
Really? Wow. In that case, I must say that I'm shocked we have any scientists left. They should all have died by now from jumping out of windows, ingesting radioactive materials, and blowing up their laboratories. Or, in the words of the famous old poem:
Charlie was a chemist But Charlie is no more What Charlie thought was H2O Was H2SO4
And it has nothing to do with the ability to prove something with 100% certainty.
But that's what you're asking for. It's like me going through the science to show you how lighning occurs through natural processes, and you saying
"uuuummm... naw, I still think Zeus does it"
Ok, yeah, there's no way for me to prove you wrong. And no, I didn't prove my care with 100% certainty. But that doesn't mean that you're right, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm wrong - it just means you're a fool who prefers to believe in fairy tales instead of natural processes.
You cannot develop an experiment or make an observation about something that is unobservable.
And you cannot make an observation about something which doesn't exist, either. So, really, you're creating three categories:
1. Things which are real and observable. 2. Things which are real and unobservable. 3. Things which are imaginary, and unobservable.
For all intents and purposes, the last two categories are indistinguishable. If we cannot observe it in any way, then we have no basis for supposing it to be real. Saying that your god is untestable and unobservable is just another way of saying that she probably doesn't exist.
Saying that something is knowable is an unobservable concept.
Bullshit. 2+2=4. That's knowable. If I ask you what 2+2 is, you either know or you don't know. I can observe that you know, or that you don't know. Ergo, knowledge is observable.
I'm not sure what sort of convoluted logic you're using here, but you're plain wrong.
You cannot observe or experiment with Shakespeare's Greatness.
Sure you can. Every time you read his works, you're observing his greatness. But greatness isn't scientific knowledge - it's an opinion, and an opinion is not the same as knowing.
Literature is outside the realm of the objectively observable. So is God.
No! How the hell is literature outside the realm of objective observation? If I have a book in front of me, I can observe it. What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe our opinions about literature aren't objective observations, but the literature itself certainly can be observed. If you want to compare your god to literature, then you first have to show that your god can be observed. If you want to argue that opinions about your god aren't objective, then hey, ok, I've got no problem with that. But there still has to be an objective physical entity for us to observe, otherwise we have nothing to base those opinions ON.
The scientific method is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge.
Yes, it is. Only science can produce knowledge. Everything else is just opinion and conjecture.
The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.
When one parallel universe gets raped by a divine parallel universe and gives birth to another divine parallel universe which is then killed and resurrected with a zombie army of parallel universes....
Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.
Yes, and I'm getting really tired of it...you can do better.
Your false sympathy is too transparent to be effective.
The idea of God explains existence.
No, it explains nothing. If I say "What causes lightning?" or "Why does the sun set and rise?" and you respond with "Magic Man Did It", you haven't explained anything. Invoking gods isn't an answer - it's simply another way of saying "I don't know".
Just as Santa Claus is a possible, if unlikely explanation for something... God is also a possible explanation for existence...
Sure - and equally likely.
You seem to be invoking Occam's Razor
Really? Where did I do that?
Of course it is. c6gunner: 3, straw men: 0
Well... thank you? I didn't think you'd made 3 strawmen... I only counted one... but I'll take your word on it.
Occam's Razor can also be used to justify the likelihood of existence of God, as this is the simplest explanation for the existence of ANYTHING.
Apparently you don't understand Occam's Razor. From wiki (emphasis added for the benefit of the simple-minded):
When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
Try again?
Only God, by definition, is uncaused.
Sure - because that's how YOU defined her. What if I say that Elvis is the uncaused first cause? Does that make it true? What if I say a giant turtle is the uncaused first cause? Or that I AM god and I created the universe through a gargantuan fart?
Your argument is completely idiotic, and 100% circular. It goes something like this:
What created the univrse? God! How do I know there's a God? Because he created the universe!
If you can't see the lack of logic in that, then you have no business taking part in rational discussions.
It is a matter of faith that this Uncaused Supreme Author has been the inspiration for the most enduring and transformative set of moral and philosophical beliefs in history.
Well, yes, the Quaran certainly is enduring and transformative, but I hardly think it's fair to blame it on Magic Man.
Something caused everything....What you cannot do is decide nothing caused everything and somehow claim you can prove it.
Once again, your logic fails miserably. If something has to cause everything, then nothing can exist. You have to accept that some things are eternal. In my model of the universe, the only thing that has to be eternal is matter/energy. In your model, it's a bearded guy who is all powerful, all knowing, and an asshole to boot. Your model has the following limitations:
1. Zero evidence 2. Contradictory claims. 3. Unnecessary complexity. 4. Competing ideologies making similar claims. 5. Failed every test it's ever been put to. 6. Currently untestable and unfalsifiable by design.
Whereas my model has none of those flaws. Ergo, the choice between the two is simple. It's only your early-childhood brainwashing which has led you to reject common sense and accept Magic Man as an "explanation" - without realizing that he doesn't really explain anything.
Of course, the biggest problem with all modern religions is that you've essentially created an all powerful all knowing whatchamacallit that by definition can not be tested. Religion used to make all kinds of testable claims. We'd test them, we'd find out they're wrong, and the religious would just change their claims. So over time you've retreated further and further back, u
No, we're not. What's going on here is that I'm making fun of you while trying to illustrate a simple point, and you're failing to perceive my mocking tone or to understand what I'm trying to show you. So I'll stop being a dick and just lay it out for you:
The basic problem here is that you're trying to equate belief without evidence with a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. That is absurd. In the absence of evidence, the logical stance is a lack of belief. If I tell you that I am god, you will refuse to believe me until you see some evidence of it. The same stance should be taken on ANY statement for which there is no evidence - anything else is irrational.
Since you didn't like my Elvis analogy, let's try Santa. How can you possibly disprove the existence of Santa Claus? Let's imagine such a conversation:
Me: Santa is real, I know he is, because it says so in this here book. You: But that book was written by people. Human beings. Me: Maybe so, but it's quite clear that Santa guided them in their writings. You: But we've been to the North Pole. We know he's not there. Me: That means nothing. You just haven't looked hard enough. Or maybe his workshop is invisible. Either way, he's there, and you can't prove that he's not. You: Ok, well then how could a single man know if every child on the earth has been naughty or nice? Me: He's psychic, of course. Don't tell me you don't believe in psychics either! You: Ok, ok, well then how could a single person travel around the entire world and visit billions of houses, all in a single night? Me: Santa moves in mysterious ways.
You get the point yet? You can justify ANY belief as long as you're willing to accept supernatural explanations. If we're to accept your postulate - that not believing is the same as believing - then you would have to apply the same logic to EVERY situation. You would have to argue that not believing in santa is every bit as faith-based as believing in him. You would have to argue that the belief that a flat earth rests on the back of a giant turtle is every bit as rational as the lack of such a belief. ANYTHING can be explained away by resorting to the supernatural, and NOTHING can be disproven as long as supernatural phenomenon are accepted as valid excuses. That is why science cannot accept supernatural claims - because as long as we accept that there might be supernatural forces influencing real-world events, we cannot develop models for ANYTHING. We'd have to accept that gravity might really be a bending of space caused by matter, OR that it might be angels pushing shit around. Both hypothesis would be equally likely if we accepted your line of reasoning.
Now do you understand me? Or do I have to start drawing pictures?
And even if you were to claim such a (however absurdly) that you had such a proof, there would be no way to show you were wrong.
Here's how you prove god exists:
1. You identify a living person who is god. 2. Q.E.D.
Ta da! This is a proof that god exists. Or to be more precise since you repeatedly don't get it, these are the steps that you can use to prove god exists. Now the fact that god doesn't exist is irrelevant. It's still a valid proof. We're talking logic here, not whether or not god exists.
Go back and re-read my post; you seem to have completely forgotten what I originally said
Nope, you're just contradicting yourself. You said that:
If it's impossible to prove God exists then, it's also impossible to prove He doesn't exist
When I pointed out that the same holds true for the current status of Elvis, you then stated that you could prove that he's alive, but not now. So you've made two contradictory claims:
1. That the status of supernatural claims is unprovable. 2. That you can prove supernatural claims, but not right now.
I went on to say that despite the fact that I believe in God, I do not think it is possible to prove God exists. Therefore, your non-belief in God is no more based on fact than my belief in God could possibly be
Which is to say that your non-beliefs in Elvis being alive is no more fact based than someones belief that he is alive. If such statements make you happy, fine, fill your boots. Just don't pretend that it's a sane proposition.
That's ridiculous. By the same logic, you could show me that god is real by showing me a real god - you just can't do it at this time. Ditto for unicorns, fairies, and little green men from mars. If that's what passes for logic in your world, maybe we better just stop here.
And yet Leibniz invented calculus too, independently and at about the same time. Methinks you need a better example.
From what I understand, they invented two different types of calculus. Also, there was some reason to suspect that Leibniz may have gotten the idea from Netwon, and they had quite a fight about it for many years.
But my dog knows that when I put on his shock collar we are going hunting as he gets visibly more excited than when we are just going for a walk in the woods
Yes, and when I was working in a canine unit, we trained the dogs to differentiate between work-mode and play-mode based on the collars we used. You put one collar on them, and they're vicious attack dogs held back by rigid discipline and unquestioning obedience. Put the other collar on them, and they're as playful and mischievous as any puppy.
That's still a different phenomenon. It shows recollection and some awareness, sure, but it's a far cry from being able to prepare for future events.
Anyway, I should state that IANAP, so I might just be talking out of my ass here:) Could be that I'm prone to primate-bias. It just seems to me that for most animals, most actions are instinctive, and those that aren't instinctive are reactive. They react to a sound, a smell, a texture, or the presence of a particular person. They have the ability to learn from experience, but they don't seem to be able to project their actions into the future and predict the possible outcome. That's why chimps can learn to do all sorts of things on their own - including primitive tool use - while dogs only react to the training you give them.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you provide a citation for that?
It's not that I have anything against the concept - in fact I find it fascinating to think that traits which we've attributed to race may have more to do with culture and technological/medical progress - I'd just like to have the facts straight before I go repeating it to anyone else :)
The really sad thing about that statement is that you clearly have no concept of how ignorant it makes you look. We've known that the earth was round since before your religion even existed. We've known that the earth was round before science even existed. Where do you get this crap from?
And I have yet to see proof that the Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation explains how gravity works. What's your point?
Nobody is saying they're closed minded - we're saying they're ignorant bafoons.
Google is your friend.
It matters because none of the "cold fusion" experiments have ever gotten to the "large amount of energy out" phase.
If we can observe the experiment and deduce that fusion is actually occurring, then we have a good reason to take it seriously and invest more time and money into that line of research. Otherwise, these guys might just be peddling bad data.
Of course, if they ever DID get to that stage, then no, it wouldn't matter whether the process was nuclear fusion or a god-powered hamster wheel. The end result would be more important than the process.
Who and the what now?
We already know exactly how the plants do it. The problem is that photosynthesis is only about 6-10% efficient. We already have solar products which are MUCH more efficient than that. I'm not sure where this woo-woo "DO WHAT GAIA DOES!" mindset comes from, but it's flat out wrong.
Sheesh, you Esperanto guys just never give up ...
"Personal preferences may v-e-ry, but my answer is 'yes.'"
At first I thought that was a typo ... then I looked at the picture, and realized you were just adding emphasis :)
Sure we do! For women, in order of importance, it's:
1. Money
2. Status
3. Humour
4. Intelligence
5. Physical appearance
For men, in order of importance, it's:
1. .. ... .... .....
2.
3.
4.
5. BOOBIES!
Not very well. You suggested that math isn't science. I showed that it is. If you then go and show that it's possible to study theology in a scientific manner, it does nothing to support your claim that math isn't a science. Since you seem fond of the study of logical fallacies, you should know that you've just committed one - it's called a red herring.
Oh, so in philosophical discussions you just get to make shit up? Sounds fun. Pointless, but fun.
Ad-hominem:
"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"
I've done nothing of the sort. I first showed you how your argument fails, and only afterwards did I insult you. Ergo, I am not resorting to an ad-hominem attack - I am answering your argument AND providing an estimation of your mental faculties.
For example: you say "2+2=5"
If I say "you're an idiot", that's an ad-hominem attack.
If I say "no, it's 4, here's why, and, by the way, you're an idiot" that's NOT an ad-hominem attack.
Clear as mud?
Ah, yes, the "closed minded" defense: the last bastion of the ignorant and the clueless. The "9/11 was an indise jobby job!" crowd accuse me of that, too, after I finish spanking them on every talking point they bring up. If you're calling someone closed-minded it usually means that you can't make a rational argument, which usually means you're full of shit.
Science:
sci-ence
-noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
I have no idea what you just said there, but judging by the rest of your comment, I'm willing to bet it wasn't much.
Really? Wow. In that case, I must say that I'm shocked we have any scientists left. They should all have died by now from jumping out of windows, ingesting radioactive materials, and blowing up their laboratories. Or, in the words of the famous old poem:
Charlie was a chemist
But Charlie is no more
What Charlie thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
Yes it is.
Go ahead, say "no it's not" one more time!
But that's what you're asking for. It's like me going through the science to show you how lighning occurs through natural processes, and you saying
"uuuummm ... naw, I still think Zeus does it"
Ok, yeah, there's no way for me to prove you wrong. And no, I didn't prove my care with 100% certainty. But that doesn't mean that you're right, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm wrong - it just means you're a fool who prefers to believe in fairy tales instead of natural processes.
And you cannot make an observation about something which doesn't exist, either. So, really, you're creating three categories:
1. Things which are real and observable.
2. Things which are real and unobservable.
3. Things which are imaginary, and unobservable.
For all intents and purposes, the last two categories are indistinguishable. If we cannot observe it in any way, then we have no basis for supposing it to be real. Saying that your god is untestable and unobservable is just another way of saying that she probably doesn't exist.
Bullshit. 2+2=4. That's knowable. If I ask you what 2+2 is, you either know or you don't know. I can observe that you know, or that you don't know. Ergo, knowledge is observable.
I'm not sure what sort of convoluted logic you're using here, but you're plain wrong.
Sure you can. Every time you read his works, you're observing his greatness. But greatness isn't scientific knowledge - it's an opinion, and an opinion is not the same as knowing.
No! How the hell is literature outside the realm of objective observation? If I have a book in front of me, I can observe it. What the hell are you talking about?
Maybe our opinions about literature aren't objective observations, but the literature itself certainly can be observed. If you want to compare your god to literature, then you first have to show that your god can be observed. If you want to argue that opinions about your god aren't objective, then hey, ok, I've got no problem with that. But there still has to be an objective physical entity for us to observe, otherwise we have nothing to base those opinions ON.
Yes, it is. Only science can produce knowledge. Everything else is just opinion and conjecture.
I know it was meant as a joke, but I gotta correct you anyway: the answer is actually "yes".
When one parallel universe gets raped by a divine parallel universe and gives birth to another divine parallel universe which is then killed and resurrected with a zombie army of parallel universes ....
Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.
Your false sympathy is too transparent to be effective.
No, it explains nothing. If I say "What causes lightning?" or "Why does the sun set and rise?" and you respond with "Magic Man Did It", you haven't explained anything. Invoking gods isn't an answer - it's simply another way of saying "I don't know".
Sure - and equally likely.
Really? Where did I do that?
Well ... thank you? I didn't think you'd made 3 strawmen ... I only counted one ... but I'll take your word on it.
Apparently you don't understand Occam's Razor. From wiki (emphasis added for the benefit of the simple-minded):
When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.
Try again?
Sure - because that's how YOU defined her. What if I say that Elvis is the uncaused first cause? Does that make it true? What if I say a giant turtle is the uncaused first cause? Or that I AM god and I created the universe through a gargantuan fart?
Your argument is completely idiotic, and 100% circular. It goes something like this:
What created the univrse?
God!
How do I know there's a God?
Because he created the universe!
If you can't see the lack of logic in that, then you have no business taking part in rational discussions.
Well, yes, the Quaran certainly is enduring and transformative, but I hardly think it's fair to blame it on Magic Man.
Once again, your logic fails miserably. If something has to cause everything, then nothing can exist. You have to accept that some things are eternal. In my model of the universe, the only thing that has to be eternal is matter/energy. In your model, it's a bearded guy who is all powerful, all knowing, and an asshole to boot. Your model has the following limitations:
1. Zero evidence
2. Contradictory claims.
3. Unnecessary complexity.
4. Competing ideologies making similar claims.
5. Failed every test it's ever been put to.
6. Currently untestable and unfalsifiable by design.
Whereas my model has none of those flaws. Ergo, the choice between the two is simple. It's only your early-childhood brainwashing which has led you to reject common sense and accept Magic Man as an "explanation" - without realizing that he doesn't really explain anything.
Of course, the biggest problem with all modern religions is that you've essentially created an all powerful all knowing whatchamacallit that by definition can not be tested. Religion used to make all kinds of testable claims. We'd test them, we'd find out they're wrong, and the religious would just change their claims. So over time you've retreated further and further back, u
No, we're not. What's going on here is that I'm making fun of you while trying to illustrate a simple point, and you're failing to perceive my mocking tone or to understand what I'm trying to show you. So I'll stop being a dick and just lay it out for you:
The basic problem here is that you're trying to equate belief without evidence with a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. That is absurd. In the absence of evidence, the logical stance is a lack of belief. If I tell you that I am god, you will refuse to believe me until you see some evidence of it. The same stance should be taken on ANY statement for which there is no evidence - anything else is irrational.
Since you didn't like my Elvis analogy, let's try Santa. How can you possibly disprove the existence of Santa Claus? Let's imagine such a conversation:
Me: Santa is real, I know he is, because it says so in this here book.
You: But that book was written by people. Human beings.
Me: Maybe so, but it's quite clear that Santa guided them in their writings.
You: But we've been to the North Pole. We know he's not there.
Me: That means nothing. You just haven't looked hard enough. Or maybe his workshop is invisible. Either way, he's there, and you can't prove that he's not.
You: Ok, well then how could a single man know if every child on the earth has been naughty or nice?
Me: He's psychic, of course. Don't tell me you don't believe in psychics either!
You: Ok, ok, well then how could a single person travel around the entire world and visit billions of houses, all in a single night?
Me: Santa moves in mysterious ways.
You get the point yet? You can justify ANY belief as long as you're willing to accept supernatural explanations. If we're to accept your postulate - that not believing is the same as believing - then you would have to apply the same logic to EVERY situation. You would have to argue that not believing in santa is every bit as faith-based as believing in him. You would have to argue that the belief that a flat earth rests on the back of a giant turtle is every bit as rational as the lack of such a belief. ANYTHING can be explained away by resorting to the supernatural, and NOTHING can be disproven as long as supernatural phenomenon are accepted as valid excuses. That is why science cannot accept supernatural claims - because as long as we accept that there might be supernatural forces influencing real-world events, we cannot develop models for ANYTHING. We'd have to accept that gravity might really be a bending of space caused by matter, OR that it might be angels pushing shit around. Both hypothesis would be equally likely if we accepted your line of reasoning.
Now do you understand me? Or do I have to start drawing pictures?
Here's how you prove god exists:
1. You identify a living person who is god.
2. Q.E.D.
Ta da! This is a proof that god exists. Or to be more precise since you repeatedly don't get it, these are the steps that you can use to prove god exists. Now the fact that god doesn't exist is irrelevant. It's still a valid proof. We're talking logic here, not whether or not god exists.
Nope, you're just contradicting yourself. You said that:
If it's impossible to prove God exists then, it's also impossible to prove He doesn't exist
When I pointed out that the same holds true for the current status of Elvis, you then stated that you could prove that he's alive, but not now. So you've made two contradictory claims:
1. That the status of supernatural claims is unprovable.
2. That you can prove supernatural claims, but not right now.
Which is to say that your non-beliefs in Elvis being alive is no more fact based than someones belief that he is alive. If such statements make you happy, fine, fill your boots. Just don't pretend that it's a sane proposition.
+1 Funny.
That's ridiculous. By the same logic, you could show me that god is real by showing me a real god - you just can't do it at this time. Ditto for unicorns, fairies, and little green men from mars. If that's what passes for logic in your world, maybe we better just stop here.
Smartass :) You could have just admitted that your argument was flawed, instead of making a joke out of it.
If you cannot prove that Elvis is alive, you also cannot prove that Elvis is not alive. Long Live the King!
TradeWars 2002, woot!
From what I understand, they invented two different types of calculus. Also, there was some reason to suspect that Leibniz may have gotten the idea from Netwon, and they had quite a fight about it for many years.
Yes, and when I was working in a canine unit, we trained the dogs to differentiate between work-mode and play-mode based on the collars we used. You put one collar on them, and they're vicious attack dogs held back by rigid discipline and unquestioning obedience. Put the other collar on them, and they're as playful and mischievous as any puppy.
That's still a different phenomenon. It shows recollection and some awareness, sure, but it's a far cry from being able to prepare for future events.
Anyway, I should state that IANAP, so I might just be talking out of my ass here :) Could be that I'm prone to primate-bias. It just seems to me that for most animals, most actions are instinctive, and those that aren't instinctive are reactive. They react to a sound, a smell, a texture, or the presence of a particular person. They have the ability to learn from experience, but they don't seem to be able to project their actions into the future and predict the possible outcome. That's why chimps can learn to do all sorts of things on their own - including primitive tool use - while dogs only react to the training you give them.