 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
For example, someone who strongly believes in the afterlife, ghosts,
psychics and divination, is also very likely to believe in a number of
completely unrelated claims, such as UFOs, cryptozoology (bigfoot, etc)
and homeopathy, even though there's no connection whatsoever between
these things.
Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
no matter how unrelated they might be.
(A similar phenomenon happens with conspiracy theories. Seldom have I seen
a person strongly believing in one conspiracy theory and seriously doubting
another. It seems to almost always be all-or-nothing. If you believe in
the Moon landing hoax theory, you are very likely to also believe in the
9/11 and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories as well.)
Sometimes proponents of these things try to invoke argumentum ad populum,
as if popularity of belief would somehow give it credibility. However, the
way I see it is that it's a phsychological phenomenon, where people who are
likely to believe in one type of nonsense is likely to believe in all kinds
of nonsense without much discrimination or critique.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
Anonymous said...
Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
ago.
18 July 2010 22:47
kamehamehaaa!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 11:20 AM, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>
> For example, someone who strongly believes in the afterlife, ghosts,
> psychics and divination, is also very likely to believe in a number of
> completely unrelated claims, such as UFOs, cryptozoology (bigfoot, etc)
> and homeopathy, even though there's no connection whatsoever between
> these things.
>
> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
> no matter how unrelated they might be.
>
> (A similar phenomenon happens with conspiracy theories. Seldom have I seen
> a person strongly believing in one conspiracy theory and seriously doubting
> another. It seems to almost always be all-or-nothing. If you believe in
> the Moon landing hoax theory, you are very likely to also believe in the
> 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories as well.)
>
> Sometimes proponents of these things try to invoke argumentum ad populum,
> as if popularity of belief would somehow give it credibility. However, the
> way I see it is that it's a phsychological phenomenon, where people who are
> likely to believe in one type of nonsense is likely to believe in all kinds
> of nonsense without much discrimination or critique.
>
Actually, you might think of this as a *necessary* pattern. Basically,
any one conspiracy/woo contains vastly insufficient support for its own
existence, so, by extension, can only be supported by the coexistence of
*other* conspiracies/woo. It doesn't even, in many cases, require that
these things not be mutually exclusive, or directly contradictory, as
long as they support the central premise. For example, two "government
conspiracy" types that disagree on 99.9% of all points, yet feel that
each other's conspiracies collectively "prove" that government
conspiracies exist.
Couple of good sites for this:
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/
has a weekly conspiracy thing they do, and a few posts on the goofy
nature of accepting everything as real, as long as it supports the
"reality" of what ever wooish stuff one started out with.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/
hasn't posted as much recently, but some of the first posts on the site
include detailed analysis of the types, nature, and arguments, made by
people that want reality to differ from itself, so make up either
excuses, or total gibberish, to support their positions.
Its all about confirmation. If evidence and facts won't, then maybe
contradictory, mutually exclusive, nonsense will, even if only as
evidence that one's idea is apposed, therefor *must* have some validity,
or people wouldn't be apposing it.
Sadly, for more of this stuff, it takes a 15 year old (or younger for
the whole theroputic touch craze) to disprove it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/drinking_bleach_is_good_for_yo.php
--
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 2:04 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
> this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
>
> Anonymous said...
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
> martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
> body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
> ago.
>
> 18 July 2010 22:47
>
> kamehamehaaa!!!
>
Ah.. I didn't read the commentary... I was just entertained by the table ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> this reply is far more fun than the table itself:
> Anonymous said...
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy. I am a
> martial Arts practitioner and i experienced the true power of qi through my own
> body. Besides it was scientifically proven with thermal imaging cameras years
> ago.
I find it hilarious how to crackpots any kind of experiment or test which
involves anything physical is immediately an actual "scientific test". It's
like "scientific means that you do something physical" (as opposed to simply
theoretizing verbally).
Of course there are many requisites for a test to have any scientifical
validity or credence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
of this nonesense. And presumably anybody how has this disorder belives
*all* of it! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/10/2010 08:57 PM, Warp wrote:
> I find it hilarious how to crackpots any kind of experiment or test which
> involves anything physical is immediately an actual "scientific test". It's
> like "scientific means that you do something physical" (as opposed to simply
> theoretizing verbally).
>
> Of course there are many requisites for a test to have any scientifical
> validity or credence.
Really?
What, you mean that "science" isn't just saying about waving expensive
equipment around and saying sciency words at it?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Why yes, Jesus ascended into heaven after coming back from the dead. Golden
plates? Flying horses? What bollocks!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Whoever created this, FUCK YOU for listing Buddhism and Qi energy.
I think that makes my case right there. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> > I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> > one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> > in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>
> Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
> of this nonesense.
It actually requires being exposed to it from a tender age, plus general society
acceptance. In pre-scientific-method societies, it could be perfectly
acceptable for mentally sane people to theorize the most ridiculous theories to
explain unexplained phenomena -- the ancient greek philosophers were quite good
at logic, but some of their reasoning was based on false promises not quite
based on evidence.
Today, it still goes on based mostly on cultural inheritance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 6:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
>>> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
>>> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>>
>> Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
>> of this nonesense.
>
> It actually requires being exposed to it from a tender age, plus general society
> acceptance. In pre-scientific-method societies, it could be perfectly
> acceptable for mentally sane people to theorize the most ridiculous theories to
> explain unexplained phenomena -- the ancient greek philosophers were quite good
> at logic, but some of their reasoning was based on false promises not quite
> based on evidence.
>
> Today, it still goes on based mostly on cultural inheritance.
>
>
Not even that always. Mind.. religion tends to help, since usually it
emphasizes authority and the same sort of pre-scientific thinking about
its own premises, so that gets carried over into other areas. But, as
someone put it a while back, logic is hard, applying it in such a manner
that you avoid confirmation bias even harder, and nothing about using it
is *natural* in any sense of the word for the brain. It has to be
learned. Instead, lack of real understanding of the process leads to
leaps, errors, confirmation via popularity/"common sense"/wish
fulfillment, and the like. None of which lead to valid results, since
they all rely on the person opting for the answer on the basis not of if
its true, but if it seems it should be, or feels like it should be, or
would upset something they care about, if it wasn't.
Any good magician can show that "everyone else saw it", or, "that seems
like the most reasonable answer", never mind, "I really wish it worked
that way", are all really bad ways to figure out reality, but very
**very** good ways of keeping people from seeing reality, which is, of
course, the other problem. Second oldest profession in the world, right
after, "I will give you this banana, if you suck my...", was, "I promise
that this will help you, just look how happy all the other people I
scammed into this ritual look doing 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 10/18/2010 3:02 PM, Darren New 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.
>
Uh, seriously, not really true, from what I have seen. In my experience
you get one of two sorts - 1. All those other sorts of magic are
deceptions. A position that is hardly any better than, "all this stuff
is real". 2. Its all really the same stuff being done by my own magic
spook, or his nemesis, just wearing a different hat.
Sure, they will claim they reject all other forms of woo, but when
pressed, they will either turn out to reject it on the grounds that its
contrary to their own religion, not because they don't think its is real
at all, *or* it turns out that they are way less selective about just
what sort of woo they manage to shoe horn in anyway, despite claiming
otherwise, including, possibly, slightly different forms, under
different names, of the same things they claim not to accept.
> Why yes, Jesus ascended into heaven after coming back from the dead.
> Golden plates? Flying horses? What bollocks!
>
Well, that may be true, in that respect, but also not surprising. Except
for a small number of wackos that think D&D players actually worship
Zues, or some similar BS, there is a marked difference between "still
accepted" beliefs, and those rejected as mythology. For most of these
people, reality really is a popularity contest. The fact that no one
follows Apollo means it can be safely rejected. The fact that even a few
hundred people follow god X on some island some place makes it
*plausible* that something is going on, even if 99.9% of them insist
that its the debil! trying to mislead a few hundred nobodies on some
remote island. If its still believed, by any number of people at all,
then it *exists*, and the only matter to be considered is whether it
exists in the sense of being "God", or it exists are some plot against
what ever it is they do believe in. Its popular, thus, on some level,
real. Flying horses are not popular, therefor are not (which doesn't
stop, for example, some people thinking Djinn and the like are
responsible for possessions, in some of the more insane mini-groups in
places where Zues would still be a popular figure too, where not for his
geographic absence in the local mythos.
--
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:
> 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?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/10/2010 19:31, Mike Raiford a écrit :
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
>
Scientology is misplaced, it should at least be in the Extra Terrestrial
column or nearby, per the dogme itself.
Probably near Alien Abductions.
Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
or are they true and ok.
Where is agnostism ?
Divination & Extraterrestrial should be swapped (at least it would make
some religions of the delusion block more consistent.
And Psi & Psychic might be one & same ?
Nice inventory, wrong classification.
Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.)
--
- 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
