Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>>> Invisible wrote:
>>>>>> (There are people who think that accupuncture is nonesense. But 
>>>>>> now scientists are finding that it causes measurable chemical 
>>>>>> changes in the body that do, in fact, do something. As crazy as 
>>>>>> that sounds...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for clearing that up for us. I guess all the actual medical 
>>>> doctors can stop looking into it now.
>>>>
>>> Yep.. 
>>
>> <long 100% nonsequitur rant deleted>
>>
>> Wow. OK, I think I'll just give up now.
>>
> Sigh.. Not a rant, but an explanation. As I said, your "medical doctors" 
> are almost universally not trained scientists, they are a sort of 
> technician.

I completely understood what you said.  It was entirely unrelated to what 
*I* was saying.

> That clearer for you?

I completely understood and even *agreed* with what you said. That doesn't 
make it any more related to what I was saying. If it's a non sequitur, it 
doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Wolfram limits the number of people's names you're allowed to use. The 
> list has to be short, so it's kind of arbitrary which people you choose 
> to include.

Right.

> Euclid, Archimedes and Pythagorus are ancient Greek. Then there's a gap 
> of about 1,000 years, 

You mean, "And then I chose a gap of about 1,000 years."

Watch:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, ...

Wow! Look at that big gap in the prime numbers!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> They're ideograms not phonograms, but I'm not aware that this 
> disqualifies them as an "alphabet".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

In short: Yes.

> Most of the people in that list, I've never heard of.

And, as we know, you have an *excellent* mathematical education. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Though I am no Buddhist myself, I prefer the Buddhist view (which might even 
be true): some questions about life and the universe are unanswerable.

> Putting it the other way... the scientists *do* know that they are correct 
> (or at least, very nearly correct), so why are they worried about 
> creationists?

I am not worried by the idea of creationism itself, but I am worried by the 
creationist movement. I am very worried by religious people with a mission - 
no good did ever come from zealots, whatever the god they pray to. If you 
believe a god created this world, big bang, evolution and all, this is 
entirely your affair. But there is no real evidence for this. So why should 
a mere belief be taught at school? Belief is for church, not for the world.

I have never heard of a scientist publicly burning a Christian (or a 
Creationist) for his beliefs at the stake, applauded and urged on by a crowd 
of fellow scientists. The reverse situation has been true only too often. So 
why do you wonder about scientists being afraid of Creationists, especially 
Christian ones? If people should be starting to believe in these unprovable 
"theories" (which are no theories at all, just mere beliefs), then the next 
inquisition, witch hunts and crusades will soon be at hand. So any sane 
human should worry about the Christian Creationist movement. One of the few 
things Karl Marx was right about: religion is opiate for the masses. People 
can be controled more easily if they believe.

If you are a true Christian, a true believer, then this can lead to terrible 
conclusions and horrible deeds, which are nonetheless completely logical and 
justified. My favourite "pearl" of applied Christian wisdom:

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." - "Kill them all, the Lord 
will recognise His own." (Arnaud-Amaury, papal legate, when ordering the 
slaughter of many thousand men, women and children - "Heretics" and 
"Christians" alike)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:05:35 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Even nowadays, it surprises me (in some sense) that religious people
>> object to the teaching of evolution here. You'd think if creationism
>> were *true* and they *really* believed it, they wouldn't be worried
>> about *science*.
>> 
>> Why would the church lock up Galileo if they thought his observations
>> and deductions were factually incorrect?
> 
> Putting it the other way... the scientists *do* know that they are
> correct (or at least, very nearly correct), so why are they worried
> about creationists?

Because there are those who think that what should be taught in schools 
is decided by popular vote rather than through the application of common 
sense.

That's how you end up with "Creation Science" being taught as a part of 
*science* curriculum in some of the more backwards states in the US as an 
"alternative theory to evolution".  When you have people who have zero 
expertise in science dictating what should be taught in science classes, 
then progress is retarded.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Putting it the other way... the scientists *do* know that they are 
> correct (or at least, very nearly correct), so why are they worried 
> about creationists?

If scientists know there are no demons, why are they worried about being 
burned at the stake?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

>> Most of the people in that list, I've never heard of.
> 
> And, as we know, you have an *excellent* mathematical education. ;-)

Fun thing: Grab 10 random people on the street, ask them if they know 
who Euclid or Euler was. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/01/09 03:43, Invisible wrote:
>>> Most of the people in that list, I've never heard of.
>>
>> And, as we know, you have an *excellent* mathematical education. ;-)
>
> Fun thing: Grab 10 random people on the street, ask them if they know
> who Euclid or Euler was. ;-)

	Be prepared to dodge their blows.<G>
	
-- 
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> If, and this is a big if, it actually does do something in some obscure cases, I am
still not sure that the unfortunate side effect of finding this out, that of having a
huge number of people insist that it still does work for allergies, and pointing at
non-related studies of something that it does work for, is worth the relatively small
benefit that might be gained from it. 
> 
> That I have to disagree with. People claim and believe that new drugs do
> all sorts of things that they just can't, and we let those individuals
> promote and sell the drugs to doctors! If a treatment works, knowing
> about it is worth the fact that some people out there may try to spin
> things their own ways. Unfortunately, that happens, but it will happen
> with any treatment, new or old or rediscovered.

I did say "small benefit" right? If it was a huge one, I would say 
"weather the storm, until the clueless mostly disappear." The problem 
is, its hardly clear that the benefit is *large enough*, or couldn't be 
gained some other, less abuse prone, way.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Actually, I believe this device could really be useful : think to WHO really
carry bombs and weapons... Mostly fanatics, often pretty stupid - stupid enough
to carry guns and bombs anyway. So they may pretty much be stupid enough to
believe this device to work.
This only goal of this device is disuasion. It might actually work well this
way, it USA doesn't prove to everyone how useless it is...

Post a reply to this message