Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 11:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>>>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>>>>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>>>>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>>>>
>>>> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
>>>> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
>>>> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
>>>> to design computer software, for example.
>>>>
>>> Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association
>>> between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of
>>> both to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one
>>> or the other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to,
>>> when they claim to advocate ID.
>>
>> You know, I don't know where you grew up or anything, but I have the
>> hardest time in the world understanding WTF you're going on about. That
>> entire sentence makes no sense. It's like a written version of the G-Man
>> speaking.
>>
> 
> Its not about where I grew up. 

What you've experienced isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that you're 
the only person on here that posts entire posts that are utterly 
incomprehensible to me. It's like you took a handful of clauses from some 
books and strung them together with no commas. It doesn't matter what you're 
talking about. Half the time you just don't make any sense, regardless of 
whether I'd agree or disagree were I able to understand.

It may be me. I'm not saying it's you. I'm just saying half your posts sound 
like disconnected babble to me, referring to things in your own head that 
you haven't actually written in the post or something.

My wife used to do that. She'd be telling me something that happened at work 
between her and Steve, and by the end of the story she's talking about six 
other people, all of whom I think are Steve, because she never mentioned 
someone came in. And wouldn't finish half her sentences before starting the 
next sentence.

> That is the point I am making. 

I agree entirely. But that's not what you said. You said "being deluded 
about creationism damages your ability to do anything else." That's what I'm 
disagreeing with.

> In my experience, even being *very good* 
> at your discipline, seemingly, doesn't mean that your belief in certain 
> religious concepts won't "bleed over" into that discipline, and 
> undermine your ability to do you job. 

I think you have to decide whether he's *very good* at his job, or whether 
his beliefs damage his ability to do his job. I don't think you can have it 
both ways.

> At best, the only argument that *is* valid, with regard to the idea that 
> it may not have an effect, would be, "Depending on whether or not the 
> goofy shit you believe directly addresses some subject you are studying, 
> you may escape having your thinking muddled *in* your studies." 

Well, yes. That's why I said creationism doesn't really affect computer 
programming much, but certainly affects biology.

> question then becomes, "How sure are you that what ever those goofy 
> things are, you will *never* run across something that contradicts it, 
> in your field?"

I'm pretty sure believing that Jesus saves your soul or that John Smith had 
magic golden plates isn't going to affect your ability to calculate 
someone's federal income tax or implement the bittorrent protocol.

> That is what I see happening with some of these people. 

Sure. But you implied it happens with all of these people. That's the 
assertion to which I'm objecting.

I think overgeneralization damages truth.  Pointing out that fixing a Mac's 
web cam requires taking the whole computer back to the store I think is much 
more effective than screaming "All Mac users are fags!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 10/20/2010 11:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No, I find it implausible that someone can **only** believe in the
>> specific mythology of their religion, without taking on, at bare
>> minimum, Altie medicine, *or*, therapeutic touch, *or* astrology, *or*
>> at least **one**, of not far more, other goofy ideas.
>
> Well, I know a bunch of people like that. Sorry you find it implausible
> without any reason to back you up other than your general disdain for
> irrational beliefs.
>
My only argument is, "Its not my experience, even if it is yours", and, 
"Unless you have quizzed them on the whole range of stuff that might 
conflict, you can't say this is true." The later is hardly fair, even if 
accurate, the former, could be wrong, in that maybe I have simply never 
met any myself. But, my assertion is that I find it implausible. You are 
the one claiming certainties.

As for my disdain of irrational beliefs.. I disdain the effects of those 
beliefs, when people insist on applying them to the real world, and by 
extension, other people's lives, or medicine, or technology, etc., 
thereby halting, slowing, or sending on wild goose chases, any 
improvements we try to make. If, as you say, some people manage to 
**completely** avoid this error, I have no damn problem with them 
believing what ever the hell they want.

And, to be even clearer. It hardly matters if someone does perfect work 
on computers, keeping all wacky ideas out of the system, yet holds to 
some idea that, outside of work, results in them supporting things that 
result in those computers never getting *used* for some project, 
because, I don't know, maybe they freak out about genetic engineering, 
or stem cells.

No, you want to know what I truly disdain? Its the argument, presented 
by a lot of people, including some atheists, that you shouldn't call 
Glen Beck an frakking idiot, because it might offend someone among the 
nearest group of mostly rational religious, most of which probably call 
him worse things. Some ideas are worthy of disdain, and the US is just 
about the *only* Western country that hasn't been moving towards 
rationality, and away from the absurd and irrational. On the contrary, 
we keep inventing more stupid shit, then telling each other that its a 
"good thing", because it proves we are tolerant of other ideas (except 
the number of stupid things we defend, which are intolerant of 
everything else, including the rational ideas, which, apparently we 
would be intolerant, of we dared to call out for being intolerant).

I do think we would be better off without religion in general, and that 
"weak" religion is almost worse, since you a) can't pin down what it is, 
and b) it tends to defend the ones you can pin down, while claiming 
those ideas are "not so bad", even when they are. I don't think we are 
going to get rid of it soon. I would rather your friends than most of 
the rest of them, but, the simple reality is, its pretty hard to have 
"any" sort of religion, in any non-vague sense, and not have it do 
things to your thinking.

The only "good" thing about the whole mess is that there "seems" to be 
groups like Christian atheists, the "spiritual, but not religious", 
types, and the sort of, "We leave the Bible on the shelf, and act like 
agnostics/atheists, except when someone asks us which church we attend", 
seem to be growing. Those sorts, I would be happy to believe are 
"unlikely" to be effected by religion. They practically don't have one...

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:

> On 10/21/2010 12:38 AM, scott wrote:
> But, just for the sake of argument. Would someone asking them to build
> something that conflicts with their belief be considered "having an
> effect on their work"? Or is refusing to work (or the category I named
> previously, which is "refusing to look at things that conflict"),
> somehow not the same thing? I think they are. Though, the nature of that
> problem is **far** more obvious when you consider the sort of,
> "conscientious objector refuses to give X person Y medicine, even though
> they are the only pharmacy for 200 miles that carries it."
>
> Engineers are less likely to run into such situations, admittedly, but
> they instead have a very bad habit of showing up in someone "else's"
> work shop, to tell them that their expertise as an engineer **backs**
> their religion, which in turn undermines the other guys entire
> discipline. A problem that wouldn't be so annoying, except that, as I
> stated in the other post, sometimes you can't *make* progress in other
> disciplines without referencing things in others, and.. well.. What
> happens when you consult an engineer on something in biology, and the
> engineer does 100% perfect work in engineering, but rejects the
> underlying principles *of* the biology they are being asked to lend
> their own expertise on?

Hard lesson learned from years in grad school: Data > logic any day.

And to quote Sherlock Holmes:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the
evidence. It biases the judgment."

So I ask you: Do you have actual statistics on what you speak of?

1. How many pharmacists refused to provide a drug (hard to call it
medicine - it's not a disease being treated, if I think I know what
you're talking about) on religious grounds? And of those, what
percentage of the cases did not have another pharmacist at the same
site, or within a reasonable driving distance? And of those, how many
were not reprimanded or lose their job (at least in the US)?

2. What percentage of religious engineers claim their expertise backs
their belief in religion, and of those, what percentage of those events
have been demonstrated to be damaging due to their beliefs?

3. What percentage of religious engineers/scientists, when being asked
to apply their expertise on a problem involving biology, have had their
work on that project been subpar compared to, say, an atheist engineer?

Until you present such data, what you keep stating is without merit.

Post a reply to this message

> But, just for the sake of argument. Would someone asking them to build 
> something that conflicts with their belief be considered "having an effect 
> on their work"?

Of course, and in that case they shouldn't be in that job, but people who 
have strong beliefs about one thing or another usually don't take jobs where 
there could be a conflict.  I can't imagine many technical jobs where 
believing in Jesus would cause a conflict.  However I can imagine lots of 
technical jobs where being anti-war or anti-animal-cloning would cause a 
conflict.  In these cases people simply don't apply for jobs where that 
would be involved (or even for a company that does stuff like that).

> Engineers are less likely to run into such situations, admittedly, but 
> they instead have a very bad habit of showing up in someone "else's" work 
> shop, to tell them that their expertise as an engineer **backs** their 
> religion, which in turn undermines the other guys entire discipline.

Huh, sorry I have no idea what you mean by that, and also I don't know any 
engineers that work in a workshop, nor any that preach their religious 
beliefs in the workplace.

> A problem that wouldn't be so annoying, except that, as I stated in the 
> other post, sometimes you can't *make* progress in other disciplines 
> without referencing things in others, and.. well.. What happens when you 
> consult an engineer on something in biology, and the engineer does 100% 
> perfect work in engineering, but rejects the underlying principles *of* 
> the biology they are being asked to lend their own expertise on?

You can't force people to work on things they don't want to.  If someone has 
chosen to be an engineer on PC monitors for example, you can't expect them 
to willingly give advice on how to design a missile or engineer a system to 
clone humans.  If you ask someone advice out of their field of work, you 
have to expect there might be a conflict, especially for sensitive subjects.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/21/2010 4:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 11:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>>>>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>>>>>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>>>>>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
>>>>> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
>>>>> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
>>>>> to design computer software, for example.
>>>>>
>>>> Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association
>>>> between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of
>>>> both to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one
>>>> or the other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to,
>>>> when they claim to advocate ID.
>>>
>>> You know, I don't know where you grew up or anything, but I have the
>>> hardest time in the world understanding WTF you're going on about. That
>>> entire sentence makes no sense. It's like a written version of the G-Man
>>> speaking.
>>>
>>
>> Its not about where I grew up.
>
> What you've experienced isn't what I'm talking about. I'm saying that
> you're the only person on here that posts entire posts that are utterly
> incomprehensible to me. It's like you took a handful of clauses from
> some books and strung them together with no commas. It doesn't matter
> what you're talking about. Half the time you just don't make any sense,
> regardless of whether I'd agree or disagree were I able to understand.
>
> It may be me. I'm not saying it's you. I'm just saying half your posts
> sound like disconnected babble to me, referring to things in your own
> head that you haven't actually written in the post or something.
>
> My wife used to do that. She'd be telling me something that happened at
> work between her and Steve, and by the end of the story she's talking
> about six other people, all of whom I think are Steve, because she never
> mentioned someone came in. And wouldn't finish half her sentences before
> starting the next sentence.
>
>> That is the point I am making.
>
> I agree entirely. But that's not what you said. You said "being deluded
> about creationism damages your ability to do anything else." That's what
> I'm disagreeing with.
>
>> In my experience, even being *very good* at your discipline,
>> seemingly, doesn't mean that your belief in certain religious concepts
>> won't "bleed over" into that discipline, and undermine your ability to
>> do you job.
>
> I think you have to decide whether he's *very good* at his job, or
> whether his beliefs damage his ability to do his job. I don't think you
> can have it both ways.
>
>> At best, the only argument that *is* valid, with regard to the idea
>> that it may not have an effect, would be, "Depending on whether or not
>> the goofy shit you believe directly addresses some subject you are
>> studying, you may escape having your thinking muddled *in* your studies."
>
> Well, yes. That's why I said creationism doesn't really affect computer
> programming much, but certainly affects biology.
>
>> question then becomes, "How sure are you that what ever those goofy
>> things are, you will *never* run across something that contradicts it,
>> in your field?"
>
> I'm pretty sure believing that Jesus saves your soul or that John Smith
> had magic golden plates isn't going to affect your ability to calculate
> someone's federal income tax or implement the bittorrent protocol.
>
Which, if that is all they do, isn't a problem. I am sure the goofballs 
at the Disco Institute have some top programmers trying to prove flood 
geology via simulation (or had, since I never heard anything since.. 
wonder why? lol), but being able to code something that simulates 
gibberish, and do it **really really well** is only considered a 
non-liability when applied to *video games*, usually. Though, I might be 
wrong, some of the gibberish that no doubt went into the financial 
accounting software everyone was using could call into question whether 
those people are really that brilliant at it either..

>> That is what I see happening with some of these people.
>
> Sure. But you implied it happens with all of these people. That's the
> assertion to which I'm objecting.
>
> I think overgeneralization damages truth. Pointing out that fixing a
> Mac's web cam requires taking the whole computer back to the store I
> think is much more effective than screaming "All Mac users are fags!"
>
Ok. I overgeneralized. I admit it.

-- 
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

On 10/21/2010 9:05 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  writes:
>
>> On 10/21/2010 12:38 AM, scott wrote:
>> But, just for the sake of argument. Would someone asking them to build
>> something that conflicts with their belief be considered "having an
>> effect on their work"? Or is refusing to work (or the category I named
>> previously, which is "refusing to look at things that conflict"),
>> somehow not the same thing? I think they are. Though, the nature of that
>> problem is **far** more obvious when you consider the sort of,
>> "conscientious objector refuses to give X person Y medicine, even though
>> they are the only pharmacy for 200 miles that carries it."
>>
>> Engineers are less likely to run into such situations, admittedly, but
>> they instead have a very bad habit of showing up in someone "else's"
>> work shop, to tell them that their expertise as an engineer **backs**
>> their religion, which in turn undermines the other guys entire
>> discipline. A problem that wouldn't be so annoying, except that, as I
>> stated in the other post, sometimes you can't *make* progress in other
>> disciplines without referencing things in others, and.. well.. What
>> happens when you consult an engineer on something in biology, and the
>> engineer does 100% perfect work in engineering, but rejects the
>> underlying principles *of* the biology they are being asked to lend
>> their own expertise on?
>
> Hard lesson learned from years in grad school: Data>  logic any day.
>
> And to quote Sherlock Holmes:
>
> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the
> evidence. It biases the judgment."
>
> So I ask you: Do you have actual statistics on what you speak of?
>
> 1. How many pharmacists refused to provide a drug (hard to call it
> medicine - it's not a disease being treated, if I think I know what
> you're talking about) on religious grounds? And of those, what
> percentage of the cases did not have another pharmacist at the same
> site, or within a reasonable driving distance? And of those, how many
> were not reprimanded or lose their job (at least in the US)?
>
> 2. What percentage of religious engineers claim their expertise backs
> their belief in religion, and of those, what percentage of those events
> have been demonstrated to be damaging due to their beliefs?
>
> 3. What percentage of religious engineers/scientists, when being asked
> to apply their expertise on a problem involving biology, have had their
> work on that project been subpar compared to, say, an atheist engineer?
>
> Until you present such data, what you keep stating is without merit.
>
Specific statistics no. Just news reports, done by people that may have 
them. But, in case #1, this is irrelevant. It hardly matters if its only 
one person effected, by one pharmacist, in one town, which by shear 
chance happens to have only the one pharmacist they can go to, without 
driving for 3 hours (which, maybe, they can't do). You shouldn't take a 
job, if you can't, or worse, won't, do the job.

2. - I would say, among those that deny evolution at the same time, 
pretty much 100%. I can't say for those that do not deny basic sciences.

3. Unknown. But, again, the issue isn't necessarily, despite your 
ignoring that point, whether they are religious, but whether their 
religion happens to specifically come into conflict with the subject 
they are being asked about. That is why I say I find it implausible. 
*Something* is bound to conflict, at some point, and when it does, why 
wouldn't the result be sub-par?

-- 
void main () {

     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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:

>> 1. How many pharmacists refused to provide a drug (hard to call it
>> medicine - it's not a disease being treated, if I think I know what
>> you're talking about) on religious grounds? And of those, what
>> percentage of the cases did not have another pharmacist at the same
>> site, or within a reasonable driving distance? And of those, how many
>> were not reprimanded or lose their job (at least in the US)?
>>
>> 2. What percentage of religious engineers claim their expertise backs
>> their belief in religion, and of those, what percentage of those events
>> have been demonstrated to be damaging due to their beliefs?
>>
>> 3. What percentage of religious engineers/scientists, when being asked
>> to apply their expertise on a problem involving biology, have had their
>> work on that project been subpar compared to, say, an atheist engineer?
>>
>> Until you present such data, what you keep stating is without merit.
>>
> Specific statistics no. Just news reports, done by people that may have
> them. But, in case #1, this is irrelevant. It hardly matters if its only
> one person effected, by one pharmacist, in one town, which by shear
> chance happens to have only the one pharmacist they can go to, without
> driving for 3 hours (which, maybe, they can't do). You shouldn't take a
> job, if you can't, or worse, won't, do the job.

Lots of bad things happen to bad people. If it happened only once, I
don't see what the grave concern is for.

> 2. - I would say, among those that deny evolution at the same time,
> pretty much 100%. I can't say for those that do not deny basic sciences.

I asked for two percentages - which are you referring to?

> 3. Unknown. But, again, the issue isn't necessarily, despite your
> ignoring that point, whether they are religious, but whether their
> religion happens to specifically come into conflict with the subject
> they are being asked about. That is why I say I find it
> implausible. *Something* is bound to conflict, at some point, and when
> it does, why wouldn't the result be sub-par?

Did you even read the question I asked?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/22/2010 7:11 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  writes:
>
>>> 1. How many pharmacists refused to provide a drug (hard to call it
>>> medicine - it's not a disease being treated, if I think I know what
>>> you're talking about) on religious grounds? And of those, what
>>> percentage of the cases did not have another pharmacist at the same
>>> site, or within a reasonable driving distance? And of those, how many
>>> were not reprimanded or lose their job (at least in the US)?
>>>
>>> 2. What percentage of religious engineers claim their expertise backs
>>> their belief in religion, and of those, what percentage of those events
>>> have been demonstrated to be damaging due to their beliefs?
>>>
>>> 3. What percentage of religious engineers/scientists, when being asked
>>> to apply their expertise on a problem involving biology, have had their
>>> work on that project been subpar compared to, say, an atheist engineer?
>>>
>>> Until you present such data, what you keep stating is without merit.
>>>
>> Specific statistics no. Just news reports, done by people that may have
>> them. But, in case #1, this is irrelevant. It hardly matters if its only
>> one person effected, by one pharmacist, in one town, which by shear
>> chance happens to have only the one pharmacist they can go to, without
>> driving for 3 hours (which, maybe, they can't do). You shouldn't take a
>> job, if you can't, or worse, won't, do the job.
>
> Lots of bad things happen to bad people. If it happened only once, I
> don't see what the grave concern is for.
>
Umm. No. This isn't about "bad people". This is about someone who, 
maybe, needs a medicine to live, but the local pharmacist(s) doesn't 
want to give it to them, so they have to find some way to get themselves 
hundreds of miles away, to get it from someone else. Good or bad never 
even enters into it. For the most part, the most common one you here on 
this is "contraception", but some court cases, not just in the US, but 
Britain, have opened the door for **anyone** in one of these jobs to 
deny people, on what ever basis they want. Hell, its hardly an unknown, 
or completely unheard of, for there to be cases of dying people being 
sent, in the US, to a hospital 10-20 miles farther away (along with the 
additional delays, at the most critical time for injuries), because the 
closest one was Catholic, and objected to some known characteristic of 
the person that got delivered to their own emergency room. Its been 
frakking documented to happen, and its not specifically illegal, if the 
hospital doesn't receive funds the government, or is otherwise private, 
and the recent court cases has done nothing other than make it "easier" 
for this to happen.

I don't know about you, but I haven't had, and a lot of other people 
don't ever manage, to find themselves in a position where they can 
simply "go someplace else" where these sorts of problems won't be 
problems for them. If it was that damned simple to fix, for most people, 
it wouldn't be worth discussing. Yet, oddly enough, even the news 
stations seem to think its worthy of pointing out and arguing about...

>> 2. - I would say, among those that deny evolution at the same time,
>> pretty much 100%. I can't say for those that do not deny basic sciences.
>
> I asked for two percentages - which are you referring to?
>
The first one, you can see my answer below for why the second one is 
rather more problematic to pin down, or even form a coherent protocol to 
determine and address.

>> 3. Unknown. But, again, the issue isn't necessarily, despite your
>> ignoring that point, whether they are religious, but whether their
>> religion happens to specifically come into conflict with the subject
>> they are being asked about. That is why I say I find it
>> implausible. *Something* is bound to conflict, at some point, and when
>> it does, why wouldn't the result be sub-par?
>
> Did you even read the question I asked?
Yes, I did. And I answered it. I don't have statistics on that, they are 
bound to be problematic to collect, but it is almost impossible to hold 
irrational views and *never* run into conflicts with those views. Exact 
statistics would certainly be nice, but the first problem you have to 
address is how you determine what their output/results would be if they 
*hadn't* had a bias, before you can address whether or not any bias 
transpired. For *big* questions, like some bozo trying to run computer 
simulations of "flood geology", this is relatively simple. Any one 
claiming to be a geologist, never mind most anything else involve in the 
process, ***has*** failed to do it right.

Its *way* harder to pin down the effect of a bias from, say, giving one 
example I do know of, a neurosurgeon who believes that the brain is 
merely some sort of magic black box, which interfaces with a soul, and 
that any malfunctions are not the "intent" of the soul (presumably even 
cases such as someone suffering radical emotional changes, and killing 
someone, instead of caring for them), but in his words, "A result of a 
failure of the machine to correctly interpret what the soul wanted." 
This is absurd on its face, creates serious issues, at least as far as I 
can see, with his interpretation of "anything" discovered about the 
brain, never mind his practice. Its not even coherent from the stand 
point of religion and punishment for sins, which presumably would result 
from the soul choosing, not the brain machine malfunctioning, outside of 
the soul's control. How do you define *exactly* the parameters of when a 
person who holds that position is going to do something stupid, based on 
the, "brain as mechanical thing, the soul works through, not the mind 
itself", presumption. Hell, how do you even pin down where such a person 
delineates "choice" vs. "malfunction", so you can make any sort of 
distinction that it is only effecting "some" of his practice, not the 
whole thing, even if, in this case, possibly, by shear accident of the 
beliefs nature, benignly?

-- 
void main () {

     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

On 10/22/2010 1:34 AM, scott wrote:
>> Engineers are less likely to run into such situations, admittedly, but
>> they instead have a very bad habit of showing up in someone "else's"
>> work shop, to tell them that their expertise as an engineer **backs**
>> their religion, which in turn undermines the other guys entire
>> discipline.
>
> Huh, sorry I have no idea what you mean by that, and also I don't know
> any engineers that work in a workshop, nor any that preach their
> religious beliefs in the workplace.
>
Seriously? You think I mean "literal" workshop, or I am talking about 
sermons, rather than, say, showing up, for example, on the blog of a 
well known biologist, where the guy *talks* about his, and other 
people's work, and proceeds to say, "I don't believe in evolution. As an 
engineer, I know everything *must* have a designer, and therefor I 
believe god did it, not some random process!". Other than failing to use 
comic sans, this is almost a direct quote of at least 4-5 of the last 
batch of engineers that have sporadically shown up to babble about how 
they know more about genetics than an actual geneticist. This, often, 
includes expounding on how well "designed" the genome, or the body, is, 
when both look more like they where invented by the gnomes in D&D (extra 
gears, things that don't work, or do what they seem like they should, or 
do things that are not intended, and, if you are unlucky, explode) than 
anything a competent engineer would build. Yet, if they happen to show 
up to whine about Darwin, they invariable think the whole thing looks 
like it was made by the most crafty, best, and wondrous, designer in all 
universes. Mind, I have no evidence that the only engineers that show up 
to babble this stuff are not all D&D gnomes either. It would explain 
some things... lol

>> A problem that wouldn't be so annoying, except that, as I stated in
>> the other post, sometimes you can't *make* progress in other
>> disciplines without referencing things in others, and.. well.. What
>> happens when you consult an engineer on something in biology, and the
>> engineer does 100% perfect work in engineering, but rejects the
>> underlying principles *of* the biology they are being asked to lend
>> their own expertise on?
>
> You can't force people to work on things they don't want to. If someone
> has chosen to be an engineer on PC monitors for example, you can't
> expect them to willingly give advice on how to design a missile or
> engineer a system to clone humans. If you ask someone advice out of
> their field of work, you have to expect there might be a conflict,
> especially for sensitive subjects.
>

Hardly a case of them working on things they don't "want" to. They might 
want to do so, but have a completely batshit insane view of how to get 
to the result. You know, sort of like the movie trope of the weirdo 
that, in answer to, "We need to build a better space ship.", answers, 
"Oh great! In a past life I reverse engineered alien space ships for 
Pharaoh Tutankhamen!" One only **hopes** that their defect is *that* 
obvious, when starting the project. This is hardly a certainty though. A 
few people have described ending up on teams where they where making 
fair progress, except for the one nut in the group, who kept insisting 
that they should use some totally absurd thing to get it done. 
Sometimes, this person isn't one you can, for internal political 
reasons, or the funder, etc., get rid up. And, they get to go to their 
next job, with the recommendation of some clown who never directly dealt 
with the project, doesn't know he was a liability, but is perfectly 
happy to say, "Yep. Joker A. Floop worked with the project for 12 
months, until completion."

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:

> On 10/22/2010 7:11 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Lots of bad things happen to bad people. If it happened only once, I
>> don't see what the grave concern is for.
>>
> Umm. No. This isn't about "bad people". This is about someone who,
> maybe, needs a medicine to live, but the local pharmacist(s) doesn't
> want to give it to them, so they have to find some way to get themselves
> hundreds of miles away, to get it from someone else. Good or bad never

And this has happened where? And if it did happen, what became of the
pharmacist?

> even enters into it. For the most part, the most common one you here on
> this is "contraception", but some court cases, not just in the US, but

This is nothing like the scenario you mentioned. Contraception is not
medicine, and sure as hell is not needed to live, and I've yet to hear a
case where the next opportunity was hundreds of miles away.

> deny people, on what ever basis they want. Hell, its hardly an unknown,
> or completely unheard of, for there to be cases of dying people being
> sent, in the US, to a hospital 10-20 miles farther away (along with the
> additional delays, at the most critical time for injuries), because the
> closest one was Catholic, and objected to some known characteristic of
> the person that got delivered to their own emergency room. Its been

Citation? And what happened to the one who rejected treating the person?

Moving emergency room patients to other hospitals is a known phenomenon,
but all the cases I was informed about had to do with financial
considerations, and not religious. 

> frakking documented to happen, and its not specifically illegal, if the
> hospital doesn't receive funds the government, or is otherwise private,

Then you should be able to show me cases (full disclaimer: I haven't
Googled it). 

Any hospital that accepts Medicare/Medicaid payments is bound by the
law, and refusing service would be illegal for them (even if the patient
is not on Medicare/Medicaid). There are very few hospitals out there
that don't fall into this category.

And for those, if this is a problem, then the problem isn't religion,
but one of not having any regulations that require emergency room
patients to be treated. 

>>> 2. - I would say, among those that deny evolution at the same time,
>>> pretty much 100%. I can't say for those that do not deny basic sciences.
>>
>> I asked for two percentages - which are you referring to?
>>
> The first one, you can see my answer below for why the second one is

OK - my experience differs from yours even in the first one. I know
plenty of engineers who don't believe in evolution, but have not
attempted to justify it using their engineering knowledge.

>>> 3. Unknown. But, again, the issue isn't necessarily, despite your
>>> ignoring that point, whether they are religious, but whether their
>>> religion happens to specifically come into conflict with the subject
>>> they are being asked about. That is why I say I find it
>>> implausible. *Something* is bound to conflict, at some point, and when
>>> it does, why wouldn't the result be sub-par?
>>
>> Did you even read the question I asked?

> Yes, I did. And I answered it. I don't have statistics on that, they are

Then why are you saying "I'm ignoring the point" when that was
specifically the question I was asking?

> bound to be problematic to collect, but it is almost impossible to hold
> irrational views and *never* run into conflicts with those views. Exact

The concern isn't whether there is conflict, but whether it impacts
their professional behavior. Outside of that sphere, everyone has
conflict in something or other. 

> statistics would certainly be nice, but the first problem you have to
> address is how you determine what their output/results would be if they
> *hadn't* had a bias, before you can address whether or not any bias

Yes, it is a problem. And therefore I'm not going to make assumptions
until it is well documented.

And, BTW, that's what control groups are far. Just find similarly
qualified engineers/scientists who are doing that work or similar work
and see if they perform better.  

> Its *way* harder to pin down the effect of a bias from, say, giving one
> example I do know of, a neurosurgeon who believes that the brain is
> merely some sort of magic black box, which interfaces with a soul, and
> that any malfunctions are not the "intent" of the soul (presumably even
> cases such as someone suffering radical emotional changes, and killing
> someone, instead of caring for them), but in his words, "A result of a
> failure of the machine to correctly interpret what the soul wanted."
> This is absurd on its face, creates serious issues, at least as far as I
> can see, with his interpretation of "anything" discovered about the
> brain, never mind his practice. Its not even coherent from the stand
> point of religion and punishment for sins, which presumably would result
> from the soul choosing, not the brain machine malfunctioning, outside of
> the soul's control. How do you define *exactly* the parameters of when a
> person who holds that position is going to do something stupid, based on
> the, "brain as mechanical thing, the soul works through, not the mind
> itself", presumption. Hell, how do you even pin down where such a person
> delineates "choice" vs. "malfunction", so you can make any sort of
> distinction that it is only effecting "some" of his practice, not the
> whole thing, even if, in this case, possibly, by shear accident of the
> beliefs nature, benignly?

Frankly, I couldn't follow your point above.

Post a reply to this message