 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> > or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
> who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
I'm not so sure of that. I suppose it depends a lot on the movement inside
the religion, the local church/congregation and the individual person.
Many religious people are quite predisposed to accept the existence of
all kinds of supernatural phenomena which are not part of the teachings
of their own religion. They simply state that it's the work of Satan (or
whatever antagonist the religion might have).
There are also many movements of eg. Christianity where the people are
quite predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, such as Freemasons
being a NWO secret cult which is secretly pulling the strings behind the
scenes and are aiming at total world domination. (And all this simply
because someone *told* them that.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
> or are they true and ok.
They are not popular.
> Where is agnostism ?
Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
conspiracy theories.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 3:54 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Really?
>
> What, you mean that "science" isn't just saying about waving expensive
> equipment around and saying sciency words at it?
>
My PKE meter says .. hmm, never saw that reading before.. <taps meter on
desk>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/10/2010 18:45, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
>> or are they true and ok.
>
> They are not popular.
>
>> Where is agnostism ?
>
> Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
agnostim is not atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
>
>> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
>> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
>
> An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
> conspiracy theories.
>
Conspiracy theories have the subtitle that they have an agenda (or many)
and they are acting cleverly (for their agenda). It might be more stupid
and selfish than that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> >> Where is agnostism ?
> >
> > Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> agnostim
You keep using that word...
> is not atheism.
Which atheism, exactly? Agnostic atheism or strong atheism?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
The only thing that agnosticism claims is that it's impossible for us
to know if there exists a deity or deities.
How you *interpret* that stance is a different question. Some might
interpret it as "it's ok to believe in anything you want, because it
might (or might not) be the truth", while others might interpret it as
"it's foolish to believe in deities because even if there are any,
it's impossible for us to know it, or their nature" (and likewise it's
foolish to claim that there are no deities because, once again, we cannot
know).
(The difference between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the
latter takes the stance "there's no *reason* to believe any deities
exist because there is no evidence". It doesn't claim there are none,
just that there's no reason to believe there are. Unlike strong atheism,
which outright claims that there are none.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>> those rejected as mythology.
>
> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>
As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to. My
point being that, once the idea is no longer considered "modern", it
becomes non-attributable to religion, and therefor rejected. The only
difference therefor is whether or not someone still follows it, how
many, and whether or not the person examining the entity in question is
**aware** that someone still follows it. If these criteria are met, the
theist invariably lumps such things into, "part of my mythology, but not
what those other bozos imagine it is", with the only conclusions tending
to be either that its for or against their position. The only real
exception to this rule are people that have formal logic training, as
applied to a specific branch of science, but still apply mis-logic to
other propositions. In there case, someone pointed out, the issue
becomes one of rigor. Tests, questions, skepticism, and application of
careful examination of premises, get applied asymmetrically. When
applied to their field of study, the number of allowed categories of
evidence is highly narrow. When applied to faith, or even other fields
of science, presuppositions, conclusions, and even evidence, which
would, in their own field, have been rejected as absurd to the point of
completely rejecting them on their most basic foundations, are not only
accepted, but presented as evidence for the phenomena.
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, either by creating barriers
to examination, where questions are not asked, or risking running across
evidence that could be applied to other things, which would, if so
applied, logically contradict those other positions (and thus either
undermine them, or undermine acceptance of the principles that led to
the contradiction, and thus their own field of study).
I flat out do not believe that such a complete disparity in positions
does not produce failures, albeit, often hard to find ones, in the
thinking about the subject for which the ridiculous *is* readily
rejected, if such quality substance is accepted in other venues.
--
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 10/19/2010 9:41 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
>>> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
>
>> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
>> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
>> who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
>
> I'm not so sure of that. I suppose it depends a lot on the movement inside
> the religion, the local church/congregation and the individual person.
>
> Many religious people are quite predisposed to accept the existence of
> all kinds of supernatural phenomena which are not part of the teachings
> of their own religion. They simply state that it's the work of Satan (or
> whatever antagonist the religion might have).
>
> There are also many movements of eg. Christianity where the people are
> quite predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, such as Freemasons
> being a NWO secret cult which is secretly pulling the strings behind the
> scenes and are aiming at total world domination. (And all this simply
> because someone *told* them that.)
>
Which is my point. You can't conclude that there are theists which
accept their own, but reject others. This doesn't even happen,
necessarily, among non-theists. Rather, its creating false categories.
Everything that they accept which is absurd, but I don't know about is
in category A, but since category B seems to be empty, I have no reason
to presume category A either. Basic psychology should present grounds
for category A (and its near infinite collection of things you don't
know they believe), while B is simply a subset of those, which you *may
have* considered bringing up at one time or another, when talking with them.
Darren's assertion is one I find implausible, based on the fact that
even I catch myself still thinking some things may be reasonable, due to
insufficient reason to reject them, and lack of care in questioning.
Claiming, on the other hand, that theists are, generally, far more
likely to fall prey to these sorts of errors is supported both by their
initial error, the prevalence of those that do hold multiple categories
of woo, *and* the fact that even those that reject almost all of them,
including religion, still fall prey to such mistakes, in some cases.
--
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 10/18/2010 11:17 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
>
The only people claiming to even believe such a proposition are the ones
attempting to use it to undermine the system. Like the tea party -
"We will repeal Obama Care, then pass it again, but defund it, and give
money back the rich, then turn all government programs into capitalistic
ones, run by the very people that sell you the insurance this was all
created to protect you against. Trust us! We are the new, better
government!"
Had a real WTF moment when I realize this is almost *exactly* what they
are proposing, well, after impeaching everyone they don't like, for
things that are not offenses, repelling half the shit their own party
spent the last 30 years claiming they cared about (like infrastructure
spending), and changing laws, and the constitution, to make it all more
"Jesus!".
No one thinks the government isn't part of the problem. But, only
idiots, liars, and would be dictators, claim that the solution to the
problem is to completely ignore why, defund everything, then replace it
all with libertarian, Jesus freak, capitalists, who **defend** the
practice of shipping jobs out of the country, want to reduce the minimum
wage to 50% of poverty level, and give themselves a pay raise. This
isn't "understanding" the problem, or "fixing" the system, it is either
blind stupidity *or* an attempt to, as a few of the outliers, which have
been quietly swept under the rug, have hinted at, creating a new
theocracy, because this whole, "Do what the people want.", thing didn't
work for the people that wanted absolute power to dictate everything
from morality, to social status, to life styles, to all the "lesser" people.
The government isn't the problem, the people intentionally trying to
break the damn thing are. The solution isn't the demolish it, its to
patch the damn holes, stop spending money on Senator Q's jewel encrusted
gold fish collection (marked in the filing department as "school
resources for my state"), and take rational actions. Sadly, the only
people really pushing to do this, since, normally it would be political
suicide, are the bad guys, from the cast of Looney Toons.
--
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 10/19/2010 12:37 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Conspiracy theories have the subtitle that they have an agenda (or many)
> and they are acting cleverly (for their agenda). It might be more stupid
> and selfish than that.
Might be?
--
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 10/19/2010 1:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> (The difference between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the
> latter takes the stance "there's no *reason* to believe any deities
> exist because there is no evidence". It doesn't claim there are none,
> just that there's no reason to believe there are. Unlike strong atheism,
> which outright claims that there are none.)
>
Actually, this is not entirely correct. Even "strong" atheists will
generally state that its not *completely* impossible for something to
exist like that. Rather, the argument tends to be:
1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
as "supernatural".
2) You cannot, even in such a hypothetical, rule out numerous other
plausible, possibly more plausible, explanations, such as advanced tech
being used to present the evidence, in a way that *known* understandings
of technology cannot explain.
3) Trying to pin anyone claiming plausibility of a god down on what the
hell they actually mean by that isn't a matter of goal post shifting,
where by any definition that gets undermines is simply modified to be
more vague, imprecise, or simply sufficiently different that it no
longer fits the original claim itself. Rather, as PZ Myers recently
called it, it is a case of "motorized goalposts". They don't merely move
them around, to find some new "god" that you can't undermine, they move
themselves around, automatically, in reaction to any conflict, on little
robotic wheels...
You can't present even a plausibility of god existing, if you can't even
pin down a definition of what they bloody heck it is you are implying
might exist. Is it a rock? Its not unlike a rock! Is a it a boulder? No,
but its sort of like that too. A tree? No, but sort of. A bird?... ad
infinitum. Its like nothing, but everything, but undefinable, but still
definable enough that agnostics think its somehow *possible* for it to
be out there. Uh.. Ok. So, what the hell is it then? And to how many
decimal places? What are we talking about, so I can say, without
sounding like the Mad Hatter, from Alice in Wonderland, whether or not
its something that *might* plausibly exist, in any fashion, at all?
Because, nothing anyone comes up with is either testable **at all** in
any way, so knowable, or, if testable, implies any reasonable criteria
by which to claim, "It might be real after all".
That is the problem "strong atheism" has with the whole mess.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
XKCD is oddly relevant today: http://www.xkcd.com/808/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> 1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
> if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
> as "supernatural".
There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
"Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
Universe where we are in.
Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
out, due to the Universe's geometry).
Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
*exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
a *superset* of our own physical laws).
Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
"life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
(something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
"superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
life as we know it).
A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
"superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>>> those rejected as mythology.
>>
>> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>>
> As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
> category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to.
You are uneducated.
> theist invariably lumps such things into,
That hasn't been my experience.
> 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.
> I flat out do not believe
So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren's assertion is one I find implausible,
You find it implausible that someone could believe in Jesus without
believing in CIA mind-control beams, moon trip hoaxes, and space aliens
making crop circles?
You find it implausible that someone could believe in God, but not believe
Jesus is his son, or that Mohamed or John Smith spoke to him directly?
You find it implausible that someone could believe Mohamed is the one true
prophet, but there aren't any Thetans living inside people?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the superuniverse to
affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run experiments, if we
can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate this with an example:
Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call God
for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant (deterministic)
game of The Sims for God.
Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are usually
discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe. Omnipotent, by
the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the code to make it do
what he wants, or change data structures with a debugger, etc. Omniscient,
by the simple expedient of checkpointing the simulation, letting it run, and
seeing what happens, then winding it back again. Capricious, possibly.
Interested in humans, likely, unless God is only interested in some other
bunch of aliens. Desiring of worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his
rocks off. Probably still not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty
sure last I looked that only Christians think of God that way.
Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him to
simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways, definitively
answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural", even beyond the
ability of alien technology, such as altering fundamental physical
constants, predicting the results of quantum events, moving things around
faster than light, etc.
Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
it's a semantic argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
> it's a semantic argument.
As I said, if this hypothetical being is bound to the physical laws of
the hypothesized superuniverse rather than the ones of our universe, this
being would be, by definition, "supernatural" (because "natural" would be
anything bound to the laws of *this* universe).
Of course one could argue that if the existence and nature of the
superuniverse becomes well-known, the definition of "natural" would then
be expanded to cover that as well.
(It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. By the same token, there is at least one computer
scientist, who worked for the military, who in fact "claims" that
genetic algorithms don't work. He knows this because he worked with
them, supposedly, yet, nearly every modern weapons tracking system uses
them, because its easier to "evolve" a system that tracks 250
simultaneous targets, than it is to engineer one.
>> I flat out do not believe
>
> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>
Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this
context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be
true." Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen
show up on a science blog denying evolution either say, "I reject it for
religion", or, "Religion is part of it, but I am also a computer
scientist, or engineer, and things just don't *work* that way, or happen
without a creator!"
It does effect things. But, as I said, it may not be in a way that is
obvious to an outside observer. You don't need to believe in the earth
being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you
found yourself having to find your own oil... all of the sudden your
"expertise" in internal combustion engines has just been rendered
worthless, by having no fracking clue where, or why, to look for fuel
for the damn thing. If you have no need **at all** to find it, its never
a problem. Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs
computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms,
and they don't need to build their own chips, they can go around
blissfully ignorant of everything they program, or use to program, that
may have, at some point, used them to make the product. Same with every
other field. If you never deal with the stuff "under the table", which
is just the wiring/parts/mechanics of the system you use to do your job,
you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe
something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in
the first place. So, in a bloody trivial sense, you are quite correct.
It is possible for someone to even be a neurosurgeon, and deny the brain
as anything but and "interface" to souls, but I for one want to frakking
know my doctor doesn't hold this view, if he is going to be working in
my head. Same with the guy building my car, or my TV, or coding my
software. I want to know that they not only are using the best ideas,
but that if they *need* to reinvent the wheel, for some reason, they are
not trying to do so by referencing passages in the Bible that suggest
that "round" objects can be made using 3 for the value of PI.
--
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 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>>>> those rejected as mythology.
>>>
>>> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>>>
>> As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
>> category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to.
>
> You are uneducated.
>
Sorry, was thinking "plates", as "eat off of", not the magic hat
variety. I do admit ignorance of the flying horse one though...
--
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 10/20/2010 9:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren's assertion is one I find implausible,
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe in Jesus without
> believing in CIA mind-control beams, moon trip hoaxes, and space aliens
> making crop circles?
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe in God, but not
> believe Jesus is his son, or that Mohamed or John Smith spoke to him
> directly?
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe Mohamed is the one
> true prophet, but there aren't any Thetans living inside people?
>
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. I am not
advocating that they will automatically believe in any *specific* random
idea you might name, just at least one or more of the myriad absurdities
people also believe in. Want to bet how many Jesus nuts fell for "The
Secret!", for example?
--
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 10/20/2010 7:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> 1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
>> if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
>> as "supernatural".
>
> There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
> "Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
> Universe where we are in.
>
> Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
> nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
> outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
> doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
>
> If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
> the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
> of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
> geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
> geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
> understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
> out, due to the Universe's geometry).
>
> Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
> *exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
> of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
> Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
> our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
> Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
>
> Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
> of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
>
> Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
> to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
> by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
> a *superset* of our own physical laws).
>
> Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
> is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
> exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
> "life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
> this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
> (something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
> concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
> defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
> Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
> "superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
> laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
> life as we know it).
>
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
> can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
> "superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
>
So.. In other words, it doesn't matter if you name it supernatural, or
superuniverse, its still not "testable" from inside ours, and therefor
represents neither a useful question (since it can't apply, unless you
can make **some sort** of testable predictions about it), nor something
necessary for understanding the one we *can* test things about?
This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more
useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just
as much sense to propose, which is "none". Why not the "Matrix", or
"everyone is just the one and only real person's dream", etc.? Unless
you can present something you can test, they are all equally valid,
which is to say, not useful at all.
--
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 10/20/2010 10:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
>> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
>> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
>> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
>> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the
> superuniverse to affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run
> experiments, if we can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate
> this with an example:
>
> Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
> specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call
> God for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant
> (deterministic) game of The Sims for God.
>
> Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are
> usually discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe.
> Omnipotent, by the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the
> code to make it do what he wants, or change data structures with a
> debugger, etc. Omniscient, by the simple expedient of checkpointing the
> simulation, letting it run, and seeing what happens, then winding it
> back again. Capricious, possibly. Interested in humans, likely, unless
> God is only interested in some other bunch of aliens. Desiring of
> worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his rocks off. Probably still
> not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty sure last I looked that
> only Christians think of God that way.
>
> Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him
> to simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways,
> definitively answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural",
> even beyond the ability of alien technology, such as altering
> fundamental physical constants, predicting the results of quantum
> events, moving things around faster than light, etc.
>
>
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that
> point, it's a semantic argument.
>
Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a
construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of
the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things
that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the
system was "designed". This is a perfectly valid question, for which the
answer seems to be, "Nothing obvious, so far, would imply this, as far
as we can tell." Doesn't prove that the "design" isn't bullet proof, in
the sense of use not being *able* to see the flaws, but, again, if that
is the reality of the situation, then all we can do is work with what we
*can* see, since, by definition, the superuniverse is irrelevant to
anything we can detect/test/analyze anyway, and therefor does not, for
practical purposes, exist anyway.
--
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 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.
You said "you can't have such a drastic error in thinking" (i.e., being
religious) "and not have it spill over into your own discipline."
I give examples of where you can.
I don't understand what you're trying to say in response, but it doesn't
sound like anything addressing what I said.
>>> I flat out do not believe
>>
>> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>>
> Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this
> context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be
> true."
And I'm saying you have confirmation bias. Just like the people who say
"thinks just don't *work* that way" are basing it on their experience.
> Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen
> show up on a science blog denying evolution
Now you're going on about something else.
Please explain how the lack of belief in evolution affects ones ability to
program computers. You simply assert this, yet none of your examples
actually show it affects that. You simply point out that computer
scientists do indeed sometimes assert this. So? Does it "spill over into
your own discipline"?
You say you've argued this. What's your argument?
Now, if you said "You can't believe in creationism and not have it affect
your discipline if your discipline is biology or medicine", then sure, I'd
believe that.
> It does effect things.
Sheesh. I've seen about thirty people today attempting proof by vigorous
assertion.
> You don't need to believe in the earth
> being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you
> found yourself having to find your own oil
... then you'd no longer be a car mechanic, now would you? You'd be a geologist.
> Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs
> computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms,
I think it's entirely possible for someone to believe Jesus is their savior
and still understand how genetic algorithms work. I think it's entirely
possible for someone to believe in creationism and understand how genetic
algorithms work. Why wouldn't they?
> and they don't need to build their own chips,
I've been a professional computer programmer for 30+ years. I have a PhD in
it. I've never needed to use a genetic algorithm or build my own chips, in
spite of actually knowing the physics behind how semiconductors work, which
is more than I can say about 99% of anyone else I know who programs
computers, most of whom don't even know how many connectors a transistor has.
> Same with every other field.
Oh, I'm pretty sure you can be a carpenter without knowing how evolution
works. I'm almost certain you can lay cement and build roads and still
believe the Mohamed spoke directly to angels.
Indeed, not only can you be a carpenter and religious, I'd go so far as to
say you can even be a carpenter and be GOD HIMSELF. ;-)
> you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe
> something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in
> the first place.
I don't follow. How does believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for
our sins on the cross prevent me from understanding how an electrical
circuit works? Above, you say "you argue that" but you haven't actually
given me an explanation except in cases where it's actually relevant to the
work you do.
How does believing in Jesus' resurrection prevent me from understanding how
computers work?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
>> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
>> it's a semantic argument.
>
> As I said, if this hypothetical being is bound to the physical laws of
> the hypothesized superuniverse rather than the ones of our universe, this
> being would be, by definition, "supernatural" (because "natural" would be
> anything bound to the laws of *this* universe).
I'm not disagreeing.
> Of course one could argue that if the existence and nature of the
> superuniverse becomes well-known, the definition of "natural" would then
> be expanded to cover that as well.
That's what the paragraph you quoted was trying to express. That's why I
said "it's a semantic argument." It becomes a question of whether we say
"natural is how the simulation runs" or whether we say "natural is the laws
of that guy's super-universe, and our simulation obeys those laws just like
the Sims obeys the laws of physics running your PC."
> (It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
> from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
> expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
> is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
> laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
> different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
> is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
> the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)
Agreed. That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a
> construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of
> the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things
> that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the
> system was "designed".
Yes, it's trivial. If the system is deterministic, you run it until one of
the simulees notices something wrong. Then you back it up, fix it, and let
it go on again.
I'd say nowadays we're finding all kinds of things that may very well be
flaws we're detecting: Bell's inequality, Plank length, dark energy,
incompatibility of GR with QM, inability to separate out an individual
quark, etc etc etc.
I thought one of the more interesting ideas was in one of Wolfram's books.
If we're simulated, there's no reason to believe the universe updates all at
once. There's no reason why each atom can't be moving one step of simulation
(one plank length?) at a time, once for each particle in the universe, one
at a time. You wouldn't notice, because your brain isn't getting updated
while every other atom is getting moved into position.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more
> useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just
> as much sense to propose, which is "none".
I think he was just defining what "supernatural" could possibly mean. It's
not meaningless to talk about the supernatural, even if it doesn't exist.
Just like it's less meaningless to talk about unicorns than about flimbrusters.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Ditto here, I know several of the Engineers I work with are very religious,
and it doesn't affect their work at all, why would it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2010 9:37 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
> can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
> "superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
>
Interesting thought. Almost brings about the whole simulation
hypothesis. Wherein we're actually living within a simulation of some
sort. We can only observe what is within the bounds of our simulation.
Beyond that, nothing is observable. By that /something/ has to be
running the simulation. It explains a lot of unexplainable stuff, but
its also unprovable. We can't prove there is something outside our own
universe because it's beyond what we can observe about our own universe.
It's just a hypothesis, though. For all we know matter and the universe
as we know it is totally concrete and is not simply a construct of some
very complicated model. We'll never know. Speculation on what we are and
what we live in is fun. That hypothesis probably belongs on the Periodic
Table of Utter Nonsense somewhere... ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > (It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
> > from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
> > expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
> > is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
> > laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
> > different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
> > is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
> > the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)
> Agreed. That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)
I think it's an interesting possibility in one aspect: The Big Question
has always been: Where did everything come from?
If the physical laws of the hypothetical superuniverse are drastically
different from ours, that question might actually not make any sense there.
Maybe there is no time there, and hence no beginning to anything. Maybe the
whole concept of time and things having to have a "beginning" is completely
nonsensical in the superuniverse. Maybe the concept of time exists only
inside this bubble that forms our Universe, but not outside. Maybe the
closest concept that we can come up with to explain the superuniverse is
that "it has always existed" (even though "always" implies some kind of
timeline which, as said, might be a completely nonsensical notion in the
superuniverse). Maybe what we consider the "big bang" and the "expanding
universe" from inside here, is something completely different from the
outside.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe what we consider the "big bang" and the "expanding
> universe" from inside here, is something completely different from the
> outside.
Fun! Probably more fun for a physicist than a computer scientist, but fun! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> We can't prove there is something outside our own
> universe because it's beyond what we can observe about our own universe.
There's a fair amount of sci-fi that does just this sort of thing. I
wouldn't say it's logically impossible to prove there's something outside
our own universe.
See, for example, Greg Egan's "Permutation City", or Robert Sawyer's
"Calculating God". And of course if something from outside simply modified
the simulation to tell us of its existence...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> > We can't prove there is something outside our own
> > universe because it's beyond what we can observe about our own universe.
>
> There's a fair amount of sci-fi that does just this sort of thing. I
> wouldn't say it's logically impossible to prove there's something outside
> our own universe.
>
> See, for example, Greg Egan's "Permutation City", or Robert Sawyer's
> "Calculating God". And of course if something from outside simply modified
> the simulation to tell us of its existence...
Exactly the footnote to Carl Sagan's "Contact" - the novel, at least.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. I read several blobs that deal with
science, and invariably, every time the question of evolution comes up,
you get *two* types of people claiming it doesn't work. 1. People that
have no degrees **at all**, or understanding of anything related to it,
and are religious. 2. People claiming that their vast experience in
computers or engineering has "proven to them" that it can't work, oh,
and.. also happen to be religious.
That is the point I am making. 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. Like the religious guy I
mentioned, who claimed to be a) religious, b) a programmer, and c)
working on projects that use genetic algorithms, yet also d) they are
useless and the whole theory behind them is wrong. That doesn't happen
**unless** your gibberish from religion is informing your conclusions.
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." The
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?"
A lot of fields already have issues with failing to, for example,
account for fluid dynamics, in biology, because the person is an expert
in some specialty of biology, which doesn't require knowing fluid
dynamics, at least until they ran into something that depended on it to
work out what was going on. We like to think that ever discipline is so
specialized that there is no overlaps. This is wrong. There are lots of
overlaps, though they happen in the fringes of the discipline. The more
specialized you get, the less you deal with those fringes, but the more
likely you are to run into some case where you **need** one of those
cross overs to explain something. Its one thing to be unaware of the
answer, and have to, if you know who to ask, garner outside information
from someone that *does* know. But, what happens when you a) don't know
it, and b) don't believe you need to ask, because your "belief" about
the subject implies that the answer lies in a church, instead of someone
else's lab?
That is what I see happening with some of these people. If you want an
example, just look at William Dembski. By all grounds, he seemed to be
an adequate, at the least, mathematician, yet, the moment his
creationism became an issue, he suddenly, and inexplicably, started
doing math that would make almost anyone else embarrassed. Nothing he
has done on the subject is more than superficially believable, and it
contains so many errors, one has a hard time understanding how he
managed to get his original degree. The only thing that explains this is
that, the moment he had to deal with a situation where the math went
against belief, he **had to** mangle the math, to support the belief,
and, worse, actually can't understand why the result is invalid,
defective, and mathematically unsound.
I have seen too many of these things to simply *accept* the assertion
that someone isn't being influenced in their work, by things they, and
others, claim our "outside of it", and therefor never effect it. It can
and does happen. And, my basic argument is, unless you only stick to
things that never come into conflict (which may, itself, mean you are
not exploring the full range of possibilities in the discipline), you
will **inevitably** run into a situation where one or the other needs to
give. Which one does depends on both professional integrity, and how
invested you are in what ever is in conflict. But, the conflict *will*
happen.
--
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 12:38 AM, scott 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.
>
> Ditto here, I know several of the Engineers I work with are very
> religious, and it doesn't affect their work at all, why would it?
>
>
Just to be clear, it doesn't always, necessarily effect their own
discipline, but it may undermine understanding of others. And, as I said
in the other post I just made, it **highly** depends on whether or not
you ever run into a situation where a conflict "does" appear. Given
enough time, some sort of conflict will. Its just that, for the most
part, people don't live long enough for it to be a statistical certainty.
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?
--
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 10/20/2010 11:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more
>> useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes
>> just as much sense to propose, which is "none".
>
> I think he was just defining what "supernatural" could possibly mean.
> It's not meaningless to talk about the supernatural, even if it doesn't
> exist. Just like it's less meaningless to talk about unicorns than about
> flimbrusters.
>
Depends on your definition of "meaningful". When applied to sciences,
some concepts involve much stricter limits, on what is being implied.
Its perfectly meaningful to talk about such things in the context of
pure imagination. Its utterly useless, if your intent is to understand
things that have tangible realities (and, no I don't mean you get to
stretch that definition to include, "But, people draw them, so they are
"tangible"). lol
--
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 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 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:
>> 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 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 10/22/2010 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 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:
>> 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 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 10/24/2010 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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
