 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/21/2010 9:05 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcable com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:
> On 10/22/2010 1:34 AM, scott wrote:
> 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
Yes, but I'm having trouble seeing how their saying this has any
influence. I've yet to hear an anti-evolutionist say "Everyone has a
designer because the engineers, who really know their stuff, say so!"
In any case, I think you're overstating a point. As Darren pointed out,
one could reject evolution, and still do fantastic work on
evolution. That's the difference between beliefs and training. Heck, I
know economists who are regarded highly in their fields who point out
that they don't believe some of the more fundamental axioms of
economics. Yet, they're quite happy to invoke those axioms to do what is
considered great research in economics.
I often find that people have this notion that you have to be a complete
believer in the scientific process, and all that comes with it, to do
good science. History repeatedly has shown that not to be the case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2010 1:27 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
>
A quick google implies that you could be right, at least recently. Most
of the cases seem to hedge around people dying, while being kept alive,
at huge expense, because the doctor refused to honor the families wish
to shut down the equipment, or one case where a nun was fired, because
she opted to save a woman's life, against Catholic policy, by aborting
her child.
While I don't doubt the doctor in the case would have been sued, had she
*and* the child died, its less certain if they would have lost their
license over it.
>> 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).
>
The laws may have changed since the more obvious cases happened. Which
doesn't mean they wouldn't still be doing it, if the law didn't make it
illegal.
But, yeah, the "current" fight is mostly over "certain types" of treatment:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/nun-abortion-refusalofcare.html
That, and end of life issues.
> 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.
>
There is that too... Which is idiotic, in this day and age, but no more
idiotic than letting someone's house burn down, with pets inside, based
on a lack of paying a "fee" for out of town response. Try that one in
California fire country...
>>>> 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.
>
Again, I am making an assertion of implausibility, not certainty. I
could be wrong, I just don't find it at all likely, should such a
conflict also appear "in" their work.
>> 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.
>
Agreed.
>> 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.
>
?? My point is, this guy has been discussed 1-2 times on the blog I
read. His odd belief is one that is **obviously** very nuts, but, it
might be plausible that it also doesn't effect his work, since he thinks
he is the equivalent of the bloody TV repair man. On the other hand,
there have been people in the past that took that view of the human
brain, and *fixed* problems with people's heads by inventing things like
lobotomies. So... The question, in such a case, isn't if its effecting
his work, its, given his odd ideas about how it works, "Would you trust
this guy to cut into your head, without 'trying' something that he
thinks will fix things, due to this rather bizarre view?"
--
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:
>> 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.
>>
> There is that too... Which is idiotic, in this day and age, but no more
> idiotic than letting someone's house burn down, with pets inside, based
> on a lack of paying a "fee" for out of town response. Try that one in
> California fire country...
There was a long discussion over this in this newsgroup some months ago,
and I don't find it all that idiotic.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/23/2010 1:34 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:
>
>> On 10/22/2010 1:34 AM, scott wrote:
>> 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
>
> Yes, but I'm having trouble seeing how their saying this has any
> influence. I've yet to hear an anti-evolutionist say "Everyone has a
> designer because the engineers, who really know their stuff, say so!"
>
> In any case, I think you're overstating a point. As Darren pointed out,
> one could reject evolution, and still do fantastic work on
> evolution. That's the difference between beliefs and training. Heck, I
> know economists who are regarded highly in their fields who point out
> that they don't believe some of the more fundamental axioms of
> economics. Yet, they're quite happy to invoke those axioms to do what is
> considered great research in economics.
>
See, now you are suggesting something that I want a citation for. Near
as I can tell, every, "I don't believe in evolution", type known has
either gone to work for the Disco Institute, at which point all they
publish is gibberish about Irreducible Complexity, and other fallacies,
or they leave, to go on to a carrier as a denier, having only gotten the
degree as a means to babble about how they "know" so much because they
barely passed the final. I have yet to see *any* indication of someone,
in modern times, making significant, or even relevant, non-repeated,
discoveries in the field, who is a creationist.
> I often find that people have this notion that you have to be a complete
> believer in the scientific process, and all that comes with it, to do
> good science. History repeatedly has shown that not to be the case.
>
For most of history, its been fairly irrelevant, since there was **way**
more wiggle room, in which one could hide theology. This is, especially
in some sciences, becoming increasingly problematic, and the lengths
needed to reconcile them more and more stretched and tenuous.
--
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 10/24/2010 1:17 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> There is that too... Which is idiotic, in this day and age, but no more
>> idiotic than letting someone's house burn down, with pets inside, based
>> on a lack of paying a "fee" for out of town response. Try that one in
>> California fire country...
>
> There was a long discussion over this in this newsgroup some months ago,
> and I don't find it all that idiotic.
>
>
Interestingly enough.. I see this sort of thing as much the same issue
that the the religious often use to support the idea of "sanctity of
life". The difference, as I see it, is that they often find very little
cause for considering the value and sanctity of *one* life, if the trade
is the loss of both *or* just the one they claim to care about less
(such as the mother, in cases where the odds of the mother dying, if
birth is attempted, is like 99%, while the child's survival, especially
if premature, might only be 50%). For me, having to draw that line is
horrible, and there are many important issues involved in deciding. For
them, its nicely spelled out, and all incidental facts involved (even if
they are not all that incidental) are irrelevant.
One person recently put it this way - Ethics is what you do because you
want to avoid hurting people, while morals are what you let someone else
tell you that you should be doing.
The later hardly implies hurting someone can't be moral. Rather, it
implies that, as long as you can find authority to say so, you can do
nearly anything you want, then justify this, on the basis of "greater
good", or the like, without *any* regard for those effected in the
supposed "short term". Nothing relativistic in that, right?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
