When I started to post in this thread I started out with one point and that point was I didn't feel it was a good idea for Tim Cook to be a vocal activist while being CEO of Apple.
I feel it's dangerous to the company when a CEO starts to take sides on a heated issue because there is always the chance you are going to offend the other side of that debate or argument.
And if this was 1955 you would be against Tim Cook stating that people should be able to sit anywhere on the bus?
If Tim Cook wants to support gay rights thats fine he should just do it as part of his life and not comment about it on social media.
That's exactly what he did, he posted it on his personal account as part of his life.
I'm not a big Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook person however I liked the fact that Steve Jobs was all about the product and you didn't know anything else about him, the product was everything.
You're confusing "all about the product" with "only about the product," but you're still wrong because even Jobs showed us his moral compass on many occasions.
I feel like Apple has botched product announcements under Cook, the iMac being a good example and honestly the Apple Watch being the other. I can't remember a time when Apple announced a product and either didn't or couldn't bring it to market until 7 months later.
Then your memory sucks or you're choosing to be ignorant of the facts.
In spite of what Cooks says about leaks, all the leaks have been pretty damn close to being accurate since he became CEO.
Only the leaks from China, and despite their massive growth under Cook in terms of units, revenue, profits, and mindshare, there is less known going to each keynote than before Cook took over. Even with the HW having to be built en masse oversees we're still getting very little in terms of leaks, despite their size and mindshare. ?Watch photos or specs? Nope. ?Watch pricing? Nope. Swift? Nope. Even ?Pay, which required going to financial institutions and merchants was nearly silent.
PS: No idea what this most recent comment had to do the comment in which you replied. If your goal was to change the topic, then well done.
I'm late to the party to point out that your post clearly indicates that you have little or no understanding of science. Firstly, there is no place for beliefs in science, since that would go entirely against the fundamental scientific principle (observe, hypothesize, test, refine).
You make it sound as if humans are like the Star Trek Borg mind. Belief systems have a MASSIVE effect on scientific inquiry. As just one example out of thousands, aeronautical science really took off after the Wright Brothers were able to disprove the common belief that human flight was either impossible or way too dangerous to ever be practical. Until then, no one really did much study or inquiry into it, because of the belief that it was impossible.
I don't know how to convey the essence of science to you if you continually think of it in terms of individual, flawed humans. Humans are not like the Borg, but science is. And that the Wright Brothers might have disproved a common belief in no way suggests that science itself is belief based. I'm afraid that you are simply wrong, and will continue to misunderstand completely the principles of scientific enquiry if you insist on believing that science, like religion, is based on beliefs. I can't help you further there.
Quote:
Steve Jobs' beliefs that certain technical challenges could be overcome, and his cajoling and sometimes threatening the engineers under his watch, led to some amazing products that supposedly "couldn't be done". These were trained engineers and developers, computer scientists in a sense, who wouldn't have got it done without Jobs because they didn't believe certain things were possible.
Now you are just conflating motivation with the science itself or actually, in this case, engineering, which is an entirely different animal. Striving to create a product is not science - it is the practical application of technology that may, or may not, be the result scientific study.
Quote:
So today scientists are smart but "back then" they were stupid and "unscientific", right? Lets see:
Quote:
Looking back and laughing at the flat earth model and bloodletting simply shows that you are unable to distinguish science from non-science. The flat earth concept did not arise from anything resembling science - it was an archaic, ignorant assumption.
If we look at the night sky we see the Moon, and lots of little points of light. Mostly these keep the same positions relative to each other, simply circling the North pole (or South pole if you’re south of the equator). They behave as though they’re attached to a rigid sphere, making them all rotate together. That was called the sphere of the fixed stars, and was thought of as the outermost part of the universe.
A few of them, though, seem not to be attached to it. They move around according to rules of their own, and were given spheres of their own to move them. But apart from that—and from not twinkling—they look pretty much the same as the other points of light. They just happen to be attached to their own spheres instead of the outer one.
How far away were the fixed stars? Nobody knew, but they couldn’t really be much further away than the moving ones or they’d be too dim to see.
So far so good. But why can’t the Sun be at the centre instead of us? What difference would it make, apart from a little bit of wounded pride?
Putting the Sun at the centre of this picture creates a huge, glaring problem.
The closer you are to something, the bigger it looks. If the Earth went round the Sun, then any given constellation would change size in the sky as we moved towards and away from it. This would be clearly visible. Yet we don’t see it. And that, surely, proves that the Earth isn’t moving. It must be the Sun which moves around the Earth.
So, they had a theory, which according to the scientific method, could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies according to an almanac. And it did so.
The problem wasn't that humans were less evolved or stupid at that time. The problem was our understanding was incomplete, we didn't have the correct PERSPECTIVE. There was more to be seen and observed than human awareness allowed for at that time.
Well since you have moved from flat earth to geocentrism the picture changes. But first - I see another misunderstanding - the assumption that science always gets the right answer first time - it doesn't, and never claimed to. Anyway - based on the absence of developed Newtonian Physics and the observations of the time, the hypothesis of geocentrism fitted the available data. It was a reasonable hypothesis. So no, it does not mean that the astronomers of the day were stupid, just that they lacked sufficiently accurate data (which would have provided a test that geocentrism would fail) and they lacked a sufficiently advanced physical framework (gravitation) which it would also have been inconsistent with.
Quote:
You further wrote:
Quote:
Pointing to more recent assertions, such as in regard to the safety of processed food or harmful drugs, simply conflates science with business self-interest.
Right, but this bears on my point. Why should I NOT be cynical when Al Gore when he quotes studies that, if accurate, benefit the stocks he owns? If David Suzuki REALLY believes fossil fuels cause global warming, then how the hell is he flying in a private jet to attend conferences and convince people of these things?
Here's the problem with the scientific method and Thalidomide:
Observation: This drug seems to reduce morning sickness in pregnant women
Hypothesis: There may be an active ingredient that reduces morning sickness
Testing: Confirms
Refinement: Any side effects in women?
Conclusion: Benefits seem to outweigh any downsides to the female taking it.
Then some years go by, and a new observation is made. Deformed babies seem to be occurring more frequently.
Testing: Confirms that the drug causes birth defects.
The entire debacle was "scientific", but it did help lead to another refinement of the drug approval process, which is you have to be very, very careful about unanticipated consequences and not just look at the patient in isolation.
Of course you should be cynical about politicians, and you should be skeptical as a matter of philosophy. But what does Al Gore have to do with this? It's one thing to criticize scientists for failing to uphold appropriate standards, but it becomes ridiculous when you start criticizing science because some politician misuses scientific results. Suzuki is a climate activist, not a climate scientist. He was once a zoologist, but he gave that up. I've no idea how he justifies his travel arrangements, and it is irrelevant to the argument.
The application of science to drug development and trials is very basic, and you missed it completely here. The "debacle" had little to do with science. The drug was developed for an entirely different purpose, but it was noticed that it often reduced morning sickness. Putting profit ahead of due diligence at a time when drug use during pregnancy was virtually uncontrolled and foetal effects were not tested for, the company enthusiastically marketed it as such. There was no science involved until the retrospective testing started.
Quote:
Quote:
According to science you are not supposed to believe anything, whether it be the theory of evolution, AGW or the existence of God. The scientific method is to look at the evidence, develop the least complex hypotheses to explain the evidence, and try to break those hypotheses by testing. If you can't break them then eventually you elevate them to the status of working theory. If you start to become invested in a particular hypothesis then you are a poor scientist and, while those certainly exist, they do not represent science.
There is absolutely no comparison to the arbitrary and belief-based thinking that underpins all religion, which immediately fails every logical test that the scientific method imposes. The inability to understand that distinction itself underpins the widespread inability to understand science. Religious beliefs, while perhaps comforting, are entirely illogical for as many reasons as there are different religions, each of them the only real truth according to their proponents, and each of them completely devoid of any supporting evidence.
You were doing fine on socio-encomics. On this subject you are, unfortunately, clueless.
Yeah I disagree with you on this one. There are plenty of scientists who believe that the existence of Intelligent Design is just as likely as a theory as cognizant humans emerging out of primordial soup. The theory is we should see evidence of logic, structure, balance, planning, and design. And the more scientists observe microscopically and macroscopically, the more evidence there is of design.
Yes - I've know some otherwise competent scientists whose religious beliefs blinded them to the sheer stupidity of intelligent design as a hypothesis. It's regrettable, but probably inevitable. It's actually direct evidence of the harm that "belief" does to any effort to develop testable, defensible hypotheses. If there were evidence of design then we could debate this further, but there is none. In comparison, there is ample evidence for the evolutionary process, and so that is the prevalent scientific theory. It has withstood, and been strengthened by, over a century of research. It is not proven in the strict sense, but it is overwhelmingly more likely than the latest effort by organized religion to dignify and validate their long-held assertion that we arose by the hand of God.
Quote:
There are religious nuts and there are scientific nutcases too. The delivery of the atom bomb on to Hiroshima was based on scientific principles but now we're discovering that what we used to consider "spiritual" or "religious" practices, like meditation or prayer, acts of charity, and so on, have definitive neuropsychological effects on the practitioner. These can be observed by measuring heart rate, brain activity, cortisol levels in the blood stream and so on.
So a common religious practice being meditation, you can't claim to be scientific and not recognize the physical and psychological benefits of the practice.
Sure - there are nutcase everywhere, though in higher densities in some areas than others. The discovery of the physics that enabled the creation of the first two types of nuclear weapon arose from a substantial scientific research effort, but the decision to use it was not science-based at all.
I've no idea what that has to do with meditation, but I have no idea what your point is here. The fact that certain religious practices may be beneficial, or good or bad has no bearing on whether religion, as a whole, is reasonable. Who is claiming that meditation does not have benefits?
Quote:
How might global warming alarmists be wrong? There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, to me and a growing number of people, that they at least MIGHT be wrong:
1. Scientists have been wrong before about many things. The consensus view was Geocentrism, as per the article I quote above. These weren't stupid cavemen or Republicans, they were scientists of the day, going on the models and mathematics that they had at that time. In a narrow perspective, they were "correct" because they could accurately predict future positioning of celestial bodies, but they did not have the whole perspective.
2. Scientists have shown evidence of past ice ages and global warming in the past. But the industrial revolution really didn't get rolling until the 1800s. I bet though that there were Al Gores running around in the time of Dinosaurs blaming the human activities of the time for the rise in temperatures or impending ice age or whatever it was. People see a CORRELATION, and then they ask the smartest guys they know what it's supposed to mean. And snakes like Gore position themselves accordingly to profit.
3. The argument "is it riskier to ignore global warming and do nothing, than to spend a lot of money on mitigation?" That's a tough one to answer. Let's say global warming is real and we really need to do something about it quickly. So a majority vote in politicians who implement carbon taxes, punish coal burning power, massive taxes on transportation and fuel, and so on. ... but then we discover it's too late, warming is happening too fast, and now we need to evacuate the state of Florida (by the way, it was predicted by scientists that Florida should already be underwater). But oh no! We've spent all the money, we're tapped out, we fucked up!
Whenever I ask a global warming alarmist what should be done, they'll tell me it's carbon taxes and investing in wind farms, things like that. And then millions of people are thrown out of work and wind farms kill thousands of birds and make people sick.
So even if you're right about GW, none of your 97% consensus agree on a scientific solution to the problem at hand. People MIGHT be in favour of higher taxation if someone could explain logically how it's not financial rape and how we get from A-B.
Are "global warming alarmists" synonymous to you with climate scientists, or are we talking about Al Gore again? Let's be clear about this: in scientific terms, global warming is a hypothesis. It might be wrong, especially the anthropogenic part. But the body of data suggests not at this stage. What level of confidence (aka "proof" to the non-scientist) do you think should be required before it would be prudent to act on it?
But then you descend into the realm of fallacies again. That science has been wrong in the past is irrelevant to the question of whether it is wrong on this - all one can do is assess the evidence. Scientists, unlike the general public, are fully aware that correlation does not equal causation, but when there are strong data indicating warming, atmospheric science indicating that the production of CO2 and other gases would be expecting to lead to warming, and other major indicators such as ocean temperatures, acidity and ice shelf thinning all aligning with the basic theory, any preliminary conclusion other than AGW would be scientifically negligent.
The "riskier to ignore" argument is, indeed, a tough one to assess, especially when entire sectors of the economy depend on the legacy fuel sources and developing new ones is expensive. Personally, I think that the energy companies and politicians have been unimaginative, and should have viewed this early on as an opportunity. I'd go all out for nuclear power, properly regulated of course, but it's clear that the past performance in this area has made the public very nervous.
Quote:
Thanks for the compliment on Socionomics. Socionomics turned the "dismal science" on its head. Economists saw the correlation between a contracting money supply and depressions and assumed that the Federal Reserve was to blame for the size and scope of the Great Depression. But they clearly misplaced the cause and effect of the phenomenon. Today the 10 year US bond is at its lowest point in 50 years, perhaps the lowest it's ever been in the history of the republic! And I just read a report that said that the VELOCITY OF MONEY is rapidly decelerating.
In Switzerland now we actually have negative interest rates. How can this be – don't low interest rates stimulate the economy? No, low interest rates are an EFFECT of decelerating inflation and negative interest rates means that the hive mind perceives Deflation, i.e., tomorrow's dollars will have more purchasing power than they do today, therefore slightly less would need to be paid back for the lender to receive a return on investment. It also shows, perhaps, the scary onset of a deflationary spiral, which is a social MOOD marked by fear and a belief that things will be cheaper tomorrow than they are today.
For centuries economists (the science of economics) believed that low interest rates caused inflation. In fact, low interest rates mean inflation has been decelerating and, when they reverse, that's the nadir. Very few times has real deflation occurred but when it does, it's nasty, in particular when you look at our current debt to GDP ratios. The BELIEF that the Fed can cure all problems has been sorely tested already. It is BELIEFS that drive EVERYTHING, even science.
Economics, unfortunately, is not a science. Not for lack of trying, but because it refers to a system not governed by natural rules. An economist can observe and hypothesize, but he cannot test.
I think the term marriage should only apply to Christian marriage. To allow anyone other than a man and a woman to marry makes a mockery of marriage, and thereby Christianity and all religion.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
When I was a kid in the 1950's, I lived in an Irish-Catholic neighborhood and almost every family had at least five kids. That size family would be very unusual today. The U.S. birthrate, which had been higher than European birth rates has now fallen below the replacement rate (except in immigrant families). You think everyone is using the rhythm method?
No one is proposing that churches be forced to marry gay or any other types of couples. If the Christian church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their prerogative. Churches are discriminatory by definition. That's not to say that the discrimination practiced by any religious group can't be criticized, but a remedy can't be forced upon them (except in hiring) by civil law.
But what Christians (or Muslims or Orthodox Jews or any other group) may or may not want has nothing to do with civil law. And I really don't see how permitting marriage between two gay people affects the marriage of heterosexuals in any regard whatsoever any more than permitting civil divorce affects someone else's marriage. And it does NOT affect Christianity any more than being Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist affects Christianity.
The biases inherent in trying to stop gay people from marrying are no different than the biases which tried to stop mixed race heterosexual couples from marrying.
But it's all a moot point because it's already over. In the U.S., a majority of states now permit gay marriage and because of that, the Supreme Court is going to make gay marriage legal later this year. I'm sure all those gay marriages are instantly going to cause all Christian marriages to fall apart.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
[SNIP]
Oh good god, don't encourage him. The more people that just ignore him, the better.
I worry a lot about civil liberties. And what I see is the rise of a new McCarthyism, complete with Hollywood blacklists and public denouncing of heretics. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a church that preaches against sex except between a man and a woman who are married to each other?" Joe would be proud. Heck, Mole from Pogo would be proud.
Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
[SNIP]
Oh good god, don't encourage him. The more people that just ignore him, the better.
Or at least please stop quoting him. These threads are much better without his anti-Apple trolling or ridiculous religious and political posts.
I think the term marriage should only apply to Christian marriage. To allow anyone other than a man and a woman to marry makes a mockery of marriage, and thereby Christianity and all religion.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
When I was a kid in the 1950's, I lived in an Irish-Catholic neighborhood and almost every family had at least five kids. That size family would be very unusual today. The U.S. birthrate, which had been higher than European birth rates has now fallen below the replacement rate (except in immigrant families). You think everyone is using the rhythm method?
No one is proposing that churches be forced to marry gay or any other types of couples. If the Christian church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their prerogative. Churches are discriminatory by definition. That's not to say that the discrimination practiced by any religious group can't be criticized, but a remedy can't be forced upon them (except in hiring) by civil law.
But what Christians (or Muslims or Orthodox Jews or any other group) may or may not want has nothing to do with civil law. And I really don't see how permitting marriage between two gay people affects the marriage of heterosexuals in any regard whatsoever any more than permitting civil divorce affects someone else's marriage. And it does NOT affect Christianity any more than being Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist affects Christianity.
The biases inherent in trying to stop gay people from marrying are no different than the biases which tried to stop mixed race heterosexual couples from marrying.
But it's all a moot point because it's already over. In the U.S., a majority of states now permit gay marriage and because of that, the Supreme Court is going to make gay marriage legal later this year. I'm sure all those gay marriages are instantly going to cause all Christian marriages to fall apart.
I, personally, only recognise marriage between man and wife. Anything else is something different and may be called different things, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is ordained by God.
As to divorce: I think the Church's teaching on this is very wrong today. Christ condoned divorce only on the grounds of adultery; nothing else. That is how it should be today.
Inadvertently, I think, you've proven several of my points. You seem to agree with my entire argument about Geocentrism, which is that perspective and limited understanding often limit the value of science. In those days you would be able to say "science has proven that the sun revolves around the earth", and you would be scientifically correct according to the definition. In other words, it's not infallible.
My point about Global Warming/Climate Change/nom du jour is that no one has yet explained to me what should be done about it. It's pretty close to useless to assert "science says the earth is warming and we had better do "something" (aka divert capital from one area to another)" without explaining what that "something" is.
I'm not saying that scientists are in on some big conspiracy with it. I'm saying that because science so far has been useless at crafting any sort of reasonable solution to the problem, this opens the door for politicians to pick our pockets. It would be the same thing if scientists kept discussing a meteor about to hit the earth but offering no solutions. If there are no solutions then no I do not want politicians meddlin in my business. But leftwingers justify government intervention based on "science says" and have done so in this thread. Science is being worshipped but all we have is a fear based paradigm which no one who isn't a scientist can seem to understand.
Economic theories are tested all the time. What's great about economics is you have a lot of data with which to test your theories. I don't know where you get the idea that economic theory can't be tested.
As for beliefs, beliefs are what drive scientific inquiry. If people believe airplane travel is possible, then they will try to test the theory and find evidence to support the theory, whereas most scientists of the day thought they were nuts. There are scientists out there who believe they see a load of evidence of intelligent design from the structure of the atom to the human brain to the solar system and there are other scientists who think they are crazy and won't even entertain the inquiry.
My point about meditation was this: you claimed that every facet of any religion is the antithises of science and basically anyone subscribing to religious tenets is a nutcase, "unscientific" and irrational. And yet science is now showing that at least some ancient religious practices are anything but irrational, illogical, or without scientific basis.
What's intriguing to me is, if meditation is good for the human brain, why is science only discovering this now? Or rather, how can it be logically argued that religionists are completely irrational? It kind of puts this religious debate into perspective, doesn't it? Atheist scientists usually say what you just did, that religious people on every level are irrational... and yet here is a direct medical benefit from a religious practice that scientists had no clue about until they discovered how to measure cortisol in the blood and brainwave activity. Here you have a real physiological phenomenon that was discovered by religion, millenia before it was discovered by science. Lucky break I guess?
I, personally, only recognise marriage between man and wife. Anything else is something different and may be called different things, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is ordained by God.
As to divorce: I think the Church's teaching on this is very wrong today. Christ condoned divorce only on the grounds of adultery; nothing else. That is how it should be today.
You're free to accept and believe anything you want and you're free to join any religion that believes the same things that you do, but that has absolutely nothing to do with civil law. That's what separation of church and state is all about. I can't impose my religious views on you and you can't impose yours on me.
The difference between us is that you think that my opposing views somehow restrict your ability to practice your religion but I don't think your opposing views restrict my ability to practice my religion. You want your beliefs imposed on all of society. That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the U.S. They want their beliefs imposed on all of U.S. society.
I'd agree- what McCarthyism? - actually I see the McCartheyism all right. Its you and those getting all red faced about gays, sticking their snouts in other peoples business ( have you ever been or are you now, a practicing homosexual?)
Every country has its area that hasn't quite grown up yet. Unfortunately, some of them end up in politics. (however, this little fiasco just helped shorten the Republican Presidential Candidates top picks, though, didn't it ;-)
I, personally, only recognise marriage between man and wife. Anything else is something different and may be called different things, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is ordained by God.
As to divorce: I think the Church's teaching on this is very wrong today. Christ condoned divorce only on the grounds of adultery; nothing else. That is how it should be today.
You're free to accept and believe anything you want and you're free to join any religion that believes the same things that you do, but that has absolutely nothing to do with civil law. That's what separation of church and state is all about. I can't impose my religious views on you and you can't impose yours on me.
The difference between us is that you think that my opposing views somehow restrict your ability to practice your religion but I don't think your opposing views restrict my ability to practice my religion. You want your beliefs imposed on all of society. That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the U.S. They want their beliefs imposed on all of U.S. society.
I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone.
I'm saying that marriage is unique to the Church and as such can only be regarded as marriage in the eyes of God. Therefore, there should be no such thing as civil marriage. If a man and woman wish to enter into some kind of legally binding partnership outside the Church, then that is up to them, but it isn't marriage.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
Inadvertently, I think, you've proven several of my points. You seem to agree with my entire argument about Geocentrism, which is that perspective and limited understanding often limit the value of science. In those days you would be able to say "science has proven that the sun revolves around the earth", and you would be scientifically correct according to the definition. In other words, it's not infallible.
No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the best working hypothesis until it was either disproved or a better hypothesis was proposed. As an example, it represents the scientific method at work.
Quote:
My point about Global Warming/Climate Change/nom du jour is that no one has yet explained to me what should be done about it. It's pretty close to useless to assert "science says the earth is warming and we had better do "something" (aka divert capital from one area to another)" without explaining what that "something" is.
I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.
Quote:
I'm not saying that scientists are in on some big conspiracy with it. I'm saying that because science so far has been useless at crafting any sort of reasonable solution to the problem, this opens the door for politicians to pick our pockets. It would be the same thing if scientists kept discussing a meteor about to hit the earth but offering no solutions. If there are no solutions then no I do not want politicians meddlin in my business. But leftwingers justify government intervention based on "science says" and have done so in this thread. Science is being worshipped but all we have is a fear based paradigm which no one who isn't a scientist can seem to understand.
Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.
Quote:
Economic theories are tested all the time. What's great about economics is you have a lot of data with which to test your theories. I don't know where you get the idea that economic theory can't be tested.
But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?
Quote:
As for beliefs, beliefs are what drive scientific inquiry. If people believe airplane travel is possible, then they will try to test the theory and find evidence to support the theory, whereas most scientists of the day thought they were nuts. There are scientists out there who believe they see a load of evidence of intelligent design from the structure of the atom to the human brain to the solar system and there are other scientists who think they are crazy and won't even entertain the inquiry.
I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.
Quote:
My point about meditation was this: you claimed that every facet of any religion is the antithises of science and basically anyone subscribing to religious tenets is a nutcase, "unscientific" and irrational. And yet science is now showing that at least some ancient religious practices are anything but irrational, illogical, or without scientific basis.
Non sequitur, and I never said that, or said that religious belief implies a nutcase. It is irrational and unscientific though. And I already pointed out that just because a belief system is irrational does not imply that it cannot embrace good practices.
Quote:
What's intriguing to me is, if meditation is good for the human brain, why is science only discovering this now? Or rather, how can it be logically argued that religionists are completely irrational? It kind of puts this religious debate into perspective, doesn't it? Atheist scientists usually say what you just did, that religious people on every level are irrational... and yet here is a direct medical benefit from a religious practice that scientists had no clue about until they discovered how to measure cortisol in the blood and brainwave activity. Here you have a real physiological phenomenon that was discovered by religion, millenia before it was discovered by science. Lucky break I guess?
I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in this forum. There are billions of people on this planet, many legally married non Christians. So in your fantasy world if a married Muslim, Jewish, Hindu couple is visiting the UK as tourists they would not be considered married because they are not Christian? Someone would have to be truly deranged to come to that conclusion.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in this forum. There are billions of people on this planet, many legally married non Christians. So in your fantasy world if a married Muslim, Jewish, Hindu couple is visiting the UK as tourists they would not be considered married because they are not Christian? Someone would have to be truly deranged to come to that conclusion.
Seriously - every time you respond to his silly, baiting posts you give him a reason to continue posting.
No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the best working hypothesis until it was either disproved or a better hypothesis was proposed. As an example, it represents the scientific method at work.
I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.
Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.
But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?
I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.
Look man, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that the passion comes first, before the scientific inquiry is even considered.
Scientists aren't studying every possible proposition all the time. They're studying what they feel passionate about, or what the people paying them are passionate about. I think that is a very good thing.
What I am trying to say is your beliefs and vision determine what you choose to study. If you're working for a company or university, hopefully you believe in their vision, or at least they're paying enough to make it not matter.
Some scientists study the molecular structure of cane sugar and others study animals or rocks.
If you believed nuclear science (in the old days) caused cancer, and that scared you, and you chose to enter into another field... probably wise but you would not have learned about nuclear science. If you feel that studying rocks is boring chances are you're not going to be using your lab to experiment on rocks. If you think flight is impossible you won't test any theories about that and you will find funding hard to come by, because no one will invest if the scientist thinks it will be a fruitless pursuit.
Non sequitur, and I never said that, or said that religious belief implies a nutcase. It is irrational and unscientific though. And I already pointed out that just because a belief system is irrational does not imply that it cannot embrace good practices.
,,,,
I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.
You say intelligent design is based on unkowables, which is unscientific... fair enough... but can you say with 100% uncertainty that we evolved from amoebas according to a certain pattern over a reasonably precise time frame, say... within a few hundred million years or so? It just seems astonishing and a little bit arrogant to me that a 50 year old scientist (I'm speaking generally, no idea your age)... could proclaim with such certainty that he knows what happened 350 million years ago.
I think if you're completely honest about it, you'll find that evolution theory depends on a lot of unknowables too. For example I have never read a plausible and convincing theory why I see in colour but many animal species only see in black and white. Or why art and music exist but my cat is indifferent to them. Those are probably unknowables, or "not yet knowables".
I'm saying that marriage is unique to the Church and as such can only be regarded as marriage in the eyes of God. Therefore, there should be no such thing as civil marriage. If a man and woman wish to enter into some kind of legally binding partnership outside the Church, then that is up to them, but it isn't marriage.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
If you feel the need to defend the Christian WORD for "marriage" as the literal word? Then you need to dig up what that relationship is in Aramaic since modern English did not exist when the Catholic/Christian Church was forming and most definitely wasn't spoken by the founders: that would have been Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
I worry a lot about civil liberties. And what I see is the rise of a new McCarthyism, complete with Hollywood blacklists and public denouncing of heretics. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a church that preaches against sex except between a man and a woman who are married to each other?" Joe would be proud. Heck, Mole from Pogo would be proud.
Nice try. Your lurid fantasy projected on Walt Kelly, one of the true heroes of the McCarthy witch hunts, is a disgrace to his memory. You have no idea of the depths of his contempt for the sort of moral gamesmanship that you are displaying here.
An example of what happened in real life: after segregation and discrimination on the basis of race began to be ameliorated by legislation in the 1960s, there was never any effort to round up and blacklist the former perpetrators of segregation, now was there? George Wallace continued on as governor, Bull Conner kept his job, klansmen were never prosecuted, and so on.
No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the best working hypothesis until it was either disproved or a better hypothesis was proposed. As an example, it represents the scientific method at work.
I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.
Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.
But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?
I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.
Look man, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that the passion comes first, before the scientific inquiry is even considered.
Scientists aren't studying every possible proposition all the time. They're studying what they feel passionate about, or what the people paying them are passionate about. I think that is a very good thing.
What I am trying to say is your beliefs and vision determine what you choose to study. If you're working for a company or university, hopefully you believe in their vision, or at least they're paying enough to make it not matter.
Some scientists study the molecular structure of cane sugar and others study animals or rocks.
If you believed nuclear science (in the old days) caused cancer, and that scared you, and you chose to enter into another field... probably wise but you would not have learned about nuclear science. If you feel that studying rocks is boring chances are you're not going to be using your lab to experiment on rocks. If you think flight is impossible you won't test any theories about that and you will find funding hard to come by, because no one will invest if the scientist thinks it will be a fruitless pursuit.
Quote:
Non sequitur, and I never said that, or said that religious belief implies a nutcase. It is irrational and unscientific though. And I already pointed out that just because a belief system is irrational does not imply that it cannot embrace good practices.
,,,,
I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.
You say intelligent design is based on unkowables, which is unscientific... fair enough... but can you say with 100% uncertainty that we evolved from amoebas according to a certain pattern over a reasonably precise time frame, say... within a few hundred million years or so? It just seems astonishing and a little bit arrogant to me that a 50 year old scientist (I'm speaking generally, no idea your age)... could proclaim with such certainty that he knows what happened 350 million years ago.
I think if you're completely honest about it, you'll find that evolution theory depends on a lot of unknowables too. For example I have never read a plausible and convincing theory why I see in colour but many animal species only see in black and white. Or why art and music exist but my cat is indifferent to them. Those are probably unknowables, or "not yet knowables".
The motivations that drive people to science are unconnected with the scientific principles that they apply in conducting research. The biggest motivator is generally curiosity, which is exactly the right mindset to start with. If the motivation is to prove a pet theory then that person will likely be a poor scientist.
And now you are confusing unknowns with unknowables. And still missing my point that science doesn't prove positives, only disprove them. So no - of course science cannot say with 100% certainty exactly how we evolved, but science can say that certain possibilities are more probable than others. In particular, science argues for the simplest supported explanation that is consistent with observation. Science can also say that proposing a theory based on the intervention of a supernatural being, for whom there is no evidence, is not useful. Like any other untestable proposition, it cannot be disproved, but it is just one of a potentially infinite set of equally unsupported propositions. And again - you seem be falling into the trap of arguing that if science cannot explain everything, then it must be wrong about what it can explain.
This conversation is fascinating, but I'm not sure it is really getting us anywhere. Your views on science are still so far off base that it is hard to find common ground to start from.
Comments
And if this was 1955 you would be against Tim Cook stating that people should be able to sit anywhere on the bus?
That's exactly what he did, he posted it on his personal account as part of his life.
You're confusing "all about the product" with "only about the product," but you're still wrong because even Jobs showed us his moral compass on many occasions.
Then your memory sucks or you're choosing to be ignorant of the facts.
Only the leaks from China, and despite their massive growth under Cook in terms of units, revenue, profits, and mindshare, there is less known going to each keynote than before Cook took over. Even with the HW having to be built en masse oversees we're still getting very little in terms of leaks, despite their size and mindshare. ?Watch photos or specs? Nope. ?Watch pricing? Nope. Swift? Nope. Even ?Pay, which required going to financial institutions and merchants was nearly silent.
PS: No idea what this most recent comment had to do the comment in which you replied. If your goal was to change the topic, then well done.
Stick to the topic, please.
Thanks.
Screw you. Yeah, let's talk about Satanic rituals, killing babies and cannibalism to stay on topic. You are such a hypocrite.
I'm late to the party to point out that your post clearly indicates that you have little or no understanding of science. Firstly, there is no place for beliefs in science, since that would go entirely against the fundamental scientific principle (observe, hypothesize, test, refine).
You make it sound as if humans are like the Star Trek Borg mind. Belief systems have a MASSIVE effect on scientific inquiry. As just one example out of thousands, aeronautical science really took off after the Wright Brothers were able to disprove the common belief that human flight was either impossible or way too dangerous to ever be practical. Until then, no one really did much study or inquiry into it, because of the belief that it was impossible.
I don't know how to convey the essence of science to you if you continually think of it in terms of individual, flawed humans. Humans are not like the Borg, but science is. And that the Wright Brothers might have disproved a common belief in no way suggests that science itself is belief based. I'm afraid that you are simply wrong, and will continue to misunderstand completely the principles of scientific enquiry if you insist on believing that science, like religion, is based on beliefs. I can't help you further there.
Now you are just conflating motivation with the science itself or actually, in this case, engineering, which is an entirely different animal. Striving to create a product is not science - it is the practical application of technology that may, or may not, be the result scientific study.
So today scientists are smart but "back then" they were stupid and "unscientific", right? Lets see:
from this very cool article:
https://timtfj.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/earth-centred/
A few of them, though, seem not to be attached to it. They move around according to rules of their own, and were given spheres of their own to move them. But apart from that—and from not twinkling—they look pretty much the same as the other points of light. They just happen to be attached to their own spheres instead of the outer one.
How far away were the fixed stars? Nobody knew, but they couldn’t really be much further away than the moving ones or they’d be too dim to see.
So far so good. But why can’t the Sun be at the centre instead of us? What difference would it make, apart from a little bit of wounded pride?
Putting the Sun at the centre of this picture creates a huge, glaring problem.
The closer you are to something, the bigger it looks. If the Earth went round the Sun, then any given constellation would change size in the sky as we moved towards and away from it. This would be clearly visible. Yet we don’t see it. And that, surely, proves that the Earth isn’t moving. It must be the Sun which moves around the Earth.
So, they had a theory, which according to the scientific method, could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies according to an almanac. And it did so.
The problem wasn't that humans were less evolved or stupid at that time. The problem was our understanding was incomplete, we didn't have the correct PERSPECTIVE. There was more to be seen and observed than human awareness allowed for at that time.
Well since you have moved from flat earth to geocentrism the picture changes. But first - I see another misunderstanding - the assumption that science always gets the right answer first time - it doesn't, and never claimed to. Anyway - based on the absence of developed Newtonian Physics and the observations of the time, the hypothesis of geocentrism fitted the available data. It was a reasonable hypothesis. So no, it does not mean that the astronomers of the day were stupid, just that they lacked sufficiently accurate data (which would have provided a test that geocentrism would fail) and they lacked a sufficiently advanced physical framework (gravitation) which it would also have been inconsistent with.
You further wrote:
Right, but this bears on my point. Why should I NOT be cynical when Al Gore when he quotes studies that, if accurate, benefit the stocks he owns? If David Suzuki REALLY believes fossil fuels cause global warming, then how the hell is he flying in a private jet to attend conferences and convince people of these things?
Here's the problem with the scientific method and Thalidomide:
Observation: This drug seems to reduce morning sickness in pregnant women
Hypothesis: There may be an active ingredient that reduces morning sickness
Testing: Confirms
Refinement: Any side effects in women?
Conclusion: Benefits seem to outweigh any downsides to the female taking it.
Then some years go by, and a new observation is made. Deformed babies seem to be occurring more frequently.
Testing: Confirms that the drug causes birth defects.
The entire debacle was "scientific", but it did help lead to another refinement of the drug approval process, which is you have to be very, very careful about unanticipated consequences and not just look at the patient in isolation.
Of course you should be cynical about politicians, and you should be skeptical as a matter of philosophy. But what does Al Gore have to do with this? It's one thing to criticize scientists for failing to uphold appropriate standards, but it becomes ridiculous when you start criticizing science because some politician misuses scientific results. Suzuki is a climate activist, not a climate scientist. He was once a zoologist, but he gave that up. I've no idea how he justifies his travel arrangements, and it is irrelevant to the argument.
The application of science to drug development and trials is very basic, and you missed it completely here. The "debacle" had little to do with science. The drug was developed for an entirely different purpose, but it was noticed that it often reduced morning sickness. Putting profit ahead of due diligence at a time when drug use during pregnancy was virtually uncontrolled and foetal effects were not tested for, the company enthusiastically marketed it as such. There was no science involved until the retrospective testing started.
Quote:
There is absolutely no comparison to the arbitrary and belief-based thinking that underpins all religion, which immediately fails every logical test that the scientific method imposes. The inability to understand that distinction itself underpins the widespread inability to understand science. Religious beliefs, while perhaps comforting, are entirely illogical for as many reasons as there are different religions, each of them the only real truth according to their proponents, and each of them completely devoid of any supporting evidence.
You were doing fine on socio-encomics. On this subject you are, unfortunately, clueless.
Yeah I disagree with you on this one. There are plenty of scientists who believe that the existence of Intelligent Design is just as likely as a theory as cognizant humans emerging out of primordial soup. The theory is we should see evidence of logic, structure, balance, planning, and design. And the more scientists observe microscopically and macroscopically, the more evidence there is of design.
Yes - I've know some otherwise competent scientists whose religious beliefs blinded them to the sheer stupidity of intelligent design as a hypothesis. It's regrettable, but probably inevitable. It's actually direct evidence of the harm that "belief" does to any effort to develop testable, defensible hypotheses. If there were evidence of design then we could debate this further, but there is none. In comparison, there is ample evidence for the evolutionary process, and so that is the prevalent scientific theory. It has withstood, and been strengthened by, over a century of research. It is not proven in the strict sense, but it is overwhelmingly more likely than the latest effort by organized religion to dignify and validate their long-held assertion that we arose by the hand of God.
So a common religious practice being meditation, you can't claim to be scientific and not recognize the physical and psychological benefits of the practice.
Sure - there are nutcase everywhere, though in higher densities in some areas than others. The discovery of the physics that enabled the creation of the first two types of nuclear weapon arose from a substantial scientific research effort, but the decision to use it was not science-based at all.
I've no idea what that has to do with meditation, but I have no idea what your point is here. The fact that certain religious practices may be beneficial, or good or bad has no bearing on whether religion, as a whole, is reasonable. Who is claiming that meditation does not have benefits?
1. Scientists have been wrong before about many things. The consensus view was Geocentrism, as per the article I quote above. These weren't stupid cavemen or Republicans, they were scientists of the day, going on the models and mathematics that they had at that time. In a narrow perspective, they were "correct" because they could accurately predict future positioning of celestial bodies, but they did not have the whole perspective.
2. Scientists have shown evidence of past ice ages and global warming in the past. But the industrial revolution really didn't get rolling until the 1800s. I bet though that there were Al Gores running around in the time of Dinosaurs blaming the human activities of the time for the rise in temperatures or impending ice age or whatever it was. People see a CORRELATION, and then they ask the smartest guys they know what it's supposed to mean. And snakes like Gore position themselves accordingly to profit.
3. The argument "is it riskier to ignore global warming and do nothing, than to spend a lot of money on mitigation?" That's a tough one to answer. Let's say global warming is real and we really need to do something about it quickly. So a majority vote in politicians who implement carbon taxes, punish coal burning power, massive taxes on transportation and fuel, and so on. ... but then we discover it's too late, warming is happening too fast, and now we need to evacuate the state of Florida (by the way, it was predicted by scientists that Florida should already be underwater). But oh no! We've spent all the money, we're tapped out, we fucked up!
Whenever I ask a global warming alarmist what should be done, they'll tell me it's carbon taxes and investing in wind farms, things like that. And then millions of people are thrown out of work and wind farms kill thousands of birds and make people sick.
So even if you're right about GW, none of your 97% consensus agree on a scientific solution to the problem at hand. People MIGHT be in favour of higher taxation if someone could explain logically how it's not financial rape and how we get from A-B.
Are "global warming alarmists" synonymous to you with climate scientists, or are we talking about Al Gore again? Let's be clear about this: in scientific terms, global warming is a hypothesis. It might be wrong, especially the anthropogenic part. But the body of data suggests not at this stage. What level of confidence (aka "proof" to the non-scientist) do you think should be required before it would be prudent to act on it?
But then you descend into the realm of fallacies again. That science has been wrong in the past is irrelevant to the question of whether it is wrong on this - all one can do is assess the evidence. Scientists, unlike the general public, are fully aware that correlation does not equal causation, but when there are strong data indicating warming, atmospheric science indicating that the production of CO2 and other gases would be expecting to lead to warming, and other major indicators such as ocean temperatures, acidity and ice shelf thinning all aligning with the basic theory, any preliminary conclusion other than AGW would be scientifically negligent.
The "riskier to ignore" argument is, indeed, a tough one to assess, especially when entire sectors of the economy depend on the legacy fuel sources and developing new ones is expensive. Personally, I think that the energy companies and politicians have been unimaginative, and should have viewed this early on as an opportunity. I'd go all out for nuclear power, properly regulated of course, but it's clear that the past performance in this area has made the public very nervous.
In Switzerland now we actually have negative interest rates. How can this be – don't low interest rates stimulate the economy? No, low interest rates are an EFFECT of decelerating inflation and negative interest rates means that the hive mind perceives Deflation, i.e., tomorrow's dollars will have more purchasing power than they do today, therefore slightly less would need to be paid back for the lender to receive a return on investment. It also shows, perhaps, the scary onset of a deflationary spiral, which is a social MOOD marked by fear and a belief that things will be cheaper tomorrow than they are today.
For centuries economists (the science of economics) believed that low interest rates caused inflation. In fact, low interest rates mean inflation has been decelerating and, when they reverse, that's the nadir. Very few times has real deflation occurred but when it does, it's nasty, in particular when you look at our current debt to GDP ratios. The BELIEF that the Fed can cure all problems has been sorely tested already. It is BELIEFS that drive EVERYTHING, even science.
Economics, unfortunately, is not a science. Not for lack of trying, but because it refers to a system not governed by natural rules. An economist can observe and hypothesize, but he cannot test.
I strongly disagree.
I think the term marriage should only apply to Christian marriage. To allow anyone other than a man and a woman to marry makes a mockery of marriage, and thereby Christianity and all religion.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
When I was a kid in the 1950's, I lived in an Irish-Catholic neighborhood and almost every family had at least five kids. That size family would be very unusual today. The U.S. birthrate, which had been higher than European birth rates has now fallen below the replacement rate (except in immigrant families). You think everyone is using the rhythm method?
No one is proposing that churches be forced to marry gay or any other types of couples. If the Christian church doesn't want to marry gay couples, that's their prerogative. Churches are discriminatory by definition. That's not to say that the discrimination practiced by any religious group can't be criticized, but a remedy can't be forced upon them (except in hiring) by civil law.
But what Christians (or Muslims or Orthodox Jews or any other group) may or may not want has nothing to do with civil law. And I really don't see how permitting marriage between two gay people affects the marriage of heterosexuals in any regard whatsoever any more than permitting civil divorce affects someone else's marriage. And it does NOT affect Christianity any more than being Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist affects Christianity.
The biases inherent in trying to stop gay people from marrying are no different than the biases which tried to stop mixed race heterosexual couples from marrying.
But it's all a moot point because it's already over. In the U.S., a majority of states now permit gay marriage and because of that, the Supreme Court is going to make gay marriage legal later this year. I'm sure all those gay marriages are instantly going to cause all Christian marriages to fall apart.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
[SNIP]
Oh good god, don't encourage him. The more people that just ignore him, the better.
I worry a lot about civil liberties. And what I see is the rise of a new McCarthyism, complete with Hollywood blacklists and public denouncing of heretics. "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a church that preaches against sex except between a man and a woman who are married to each other?" Joe would be proud. Heck, Mole from Pogo would be proud.
Just curious - where do you see this "McCarthyism"? In that there is a widespread view that it is wrong to discriminate against citizens because of their sexual orientation? We should all be equally outraged by that, I'm sure. In fact, you are just using the common tactic of fantasizing a future for which there are no indicators simply to bolster your argument, or rather make up for your lack of one.
How about divorce? Does divorce make a mockery of marriage? Because in the U.S., half of all marriages end in divorce and most of those divorces happen to Christian couples (and even Catholic couples), simply on the basis that Christianity is the dominant religion. So there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy right there. You can't tell me that Christian and Catholic churches don't close their eyes to both the use of birth control and the number of divorced church members. They have to close their eyes because if they rejected everyone who uses birth control and those who have divorced, there wouldn't be very many members left to fill those collection plates.
[SNIP]
Oh good god, don't encourage him. The more people that just ignore him, the better.
Or at least please stop quoting him. These threads are much better without his anti-Apple trolling or ridiculous religious and political posts.
I, personally, only recognise marriage between man and wife. Anything else is something different and may be called different things, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is ordained by God.
As to divorce: I think the Church's teaching on this is very wrong today. Christ condoned divorce only on the grounds of adultery; nothing else. That is how it should be today.
Inadvertently, I think, you've proven several of my points. You seem to agree with my entire argument about Geocentrism, which is that perspective and limited understanding often limit the value of science. In those days you would be able to say "science has proven that the sun revolves around the earth", and you would be scientifically correct according to the definition. In other words, it's not infallible.
My point about Global Warming/Climate Change/nom du jour is that no one has yet explained to me what should be done about it. It's pretty close to useless to assert "science says the earth is warming and we had better do "something" (aka divert capital from one area to another)" without explaining what that "something" is.
I'm not saying that scientists are in on some big conspiracy with it. I'm saying that because science so far has been useless at crafting any sort of reasonable solution to the problem, this opens the door for politicians to pick our pockets. It would be the same thing if scientists kept discussing a meteor about to hit the earth but offering no solutions. If there are no solutions then no I do not want politicians meddlin in my business. But leftwingers justify government intervention based on "science says" and have done so in this thread. Science is being worshipped but all we have is a fear based paradigm which no one who isn't a scientist can seem to understand.
Economic theories are tested all the time. What's great about economics is you have a lot of data with which to test your theories. I don't know where you get the idea that economic theory can't be tested.
As for beliefs, beliefs are what drive scientific inquiry. If people believe airplane travel is possible, then they will try to test the theory and find evidence to support the theory, whereas most scientists of the day thought they were nuts. There are scientists out there who believe they see a load of evidence of intelligent design from the structure of the atom to the human brain to the solar system and there are other scientists who think they are crazy and won't even entertain the inquiry.
My point about meditation was this: you claimed that every facet of any religion is the antithises of science and basically anyone subscribing to religious tenets is a nutcase, "unscientific" and irrational. And yet science is now showing that at least some ancient religious practices are anything but irrational, illogical, or without scientific basis.
What's intriguing to me is, if meditation is good for the human brain, why is science only discovering this now? Or rather, how can it be logically argued that religionists are completely irrational? It kind of puts this religious debate into perspective, doesn't it? Atheist scientists usually say what you just did, that religious people on every level are irrational... and yet here is a direct medical benefit from a religious practice that scientists had no clue about until they discovered how to measure cortisol in the blood and brainwave activity. Here you have a real physiological phenomenon that was discovered by religion, millenia before it was discovered by science. Lucky break I guess?
I, personally, only recognise marriage between man and wife. Anything else is something different and may be called different things, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is ordained by God.
As to divorce: I think the Church's teaching on this is very wrong today. Christ condoned divorce only on the grounds of adultery; nothing else. That is how it should be today.
You're free to accept and believe anything you want and you're free to join any religion that believes the same things that you do, but that has absolutely nothing to do with civil law. That's what separation of church and state is all about. I can't impose my religious views on you and you can't impose yours on me.
The difference between us is that you think that my opposing views somehow restrict your ability to practice your religion but I don't think your opposing views restrict my ability to practice my religion. You want your beliefs imposed on all of society. That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the U.S. They want their beliefs imposed on all of U.S. society.
I'd agree- what McCarthyism? - actually I see the McCartheyism all right. Its you and those getting all red faced about gays, sticking their snouts in other peoples business ( have you ever been or are you now, a practicing homosexual?)
Every country has its area that hasn't quite grown up yet. Unfortunately, some of them end up in politics. (however, this little fiasco just helped shorten the Republican Presidential Candidates top picks, though, didn't it ;-)
I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone.
I'm saying that marriage is unique to the Church and as such can only be regarded as marriage in the eyes of God. Therefore, there should be no such thing as civil marriage. If a man and woman wish to enter into some kind of legally binding partnership outside the Church, then that is up to them, but it isn't marriage.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
I'm really afraid that he actually DOES think he should be able to do that...
Quote:
@Muppetry:
Inadvertently, I think, you've proven several of my points. You seem to agree with my entire argument about Geocentrism, which is that perspective and limited understanding often limit the value of science. In those days you would be able to say "science has proven that the sun revolves around the earth", and you would be scientifically correct according to the definition. In other words, it's not infallible.
No - I'm not trying to, nor have I succeeded in, proving anything, and you read all kinds of things that I didn't say. What you seem to regard as a limitation of science is its very strength. It makes no unqualified assumptions, and regards all theories as disposable. Science almost never proves anything - that privilege is reserved for mathematics only. And in doing that you missed my central point again. Science never proved geocentrism - it just used it as the best working hypothesis until it was either disproved or a better hypothesis was proposed. As an example, it represents the scientific method at work.
I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.
Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.
But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?
I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.
Non sequitur, and I never said that, or said that religious belief implies a nutcase. It is irrational and unscientific though. And I already pointed out that just because a belief system is irrational does not imply that it cannot embrace good practices.
I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in this forum. There are billions of people on this planet, many legally married non Christians. So in your fantasy world if a married Muslim, Jewish, Hindu couple is visiting the UK as tourists they would not be considered married because they are not Christian? Someone would have to be truly deranged to come to that conclusion.
The term marriage should only be used to refer to Christian marriage.
That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in this forum. There are billions of people on this planet, many legally married non Christians. So in your fantasy world if a married Muslim, Jewish, Hindu couple is visiting the UK as tourists they would not be considered married because they are not Christian? Someone would have to be truly deranged to come to that conclusion.
Seriously - every time you respond to his silly, baiting posts you give him a reason to continue posting.
Look man, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that the passion comes first, before the scientific inquiry is even considered.
Scientists aren't studying every possible proposition all the time. They're studying what they feel passionate about, or what the people paying them are passionate about. I think that is a very good thing.
What I am trying to say is your beliefs and vision determine what you choose to study. If you're working for a company or university, hopefully you believe in their vision, or at least they're paying enough to make it not matter.
Some scientists study the molecular structure of cane sugar and others study animals or rocks.
If you believed nuclear science (in the old days) caused cancer, and that scared you, and you chose to enter into another field... probably wise but you would not have learned about nuclear science. If you feel that studying rocks is boring chances are you're not going to be using your lab to experiment on rocks. If you think flight is impossible you won't test any theories about that and you will find funding hard to come by, because no one will invest if the scientist thinks it will be a fruitless pursuit.
You say intelligent design is based on unkowables, which is unscientific... fair enough... but can you say with 100% uncertainty that we evolved from amoebas according to a certain pattern over a reasonably precise time frame, say... within a few hundred million years or so? It just seems astonishing and a little bit arrogant to me that a 50 year old scientist (I'm speaking generally, no idea your age)... could proclaim with such certainty that he knows what happened 350 million years ago.
I think if you're completely honest about it, you'll find that evolution theory depends on a lot of unknowables too. For example I have never read a plausible and convincing theory why I see in colour but many animal species only see in black and white. Or why art and music exist but my cat is indifferent to them. Those are probably unknowables, or "not yet knowables".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi_Code
If you feel the need to defend the Christian WORD for "marriage" as the literal word? Then you need to dig up what that relationship is in Aramaic since modern English did not exist when the Catholic/Christian Church was forming and most definitely wasn't spoken by the founders: that would have been Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
Nice try. Your lurid fantasy projected on Walt Kelly, one of the true heroes of the McCarthy witch hunts, is a disgrace to his memory. You have no idea of the depths of his contempt for the sort of moral gamesmanship that you are displaying here.
An example of what happened in real life: after segregation and discrimination on the basis of race began to be ameliorated by legislation in the 1960s, there was never any effort to round up and blacklist the former perpetrators of segregation, now was there? George Wallace continued on as governor, Bull Conner kept his job, klansmen were never prosecuted, and so on.
Reactionaries are paranoid.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry - so your problem with the hypothesis of global warming is that science doesn't tell you what to do about it? That's terrible. Better consult the Lord - I'm sure he will provide.
Then complain about the politicians, not the science. If AGW is real, then the only remedies suggested by climate science depend on an as early as possible and aggressive as possible reduction in CO2 emissions. Science has no magic solution to offer, and science is not responsible for the economic problems that follow from the current situation, nor for the misuse of that message by politicians.
But they are tested by whatever data are, by chance, available, not systematically as required for formally testing a hypothesis. You see the difference, presumably?
I'm simply aghast at your continued mischaracterization of science. Are you not comprehending what I have written, or are you simply refusing to accept it and instead insisting on imposing your own misconceptions, both on what science is and what it does? Your example, "airplane travel is possible" was not a scientific theory in any sense. It was regarded with skepticism because at the time, no supporting theory of fluid dynamics existed. I'm not going to repeat my objections to intelligent design, but I will say that the reason that anyone proposing it might be regarded as crazy (scientifically speaking) is not because they came up with a theory, but because they came up with a theory that depends on inherent unknowables, which is simply unscientific.
Look man, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I'm saying that the passion comes first, before the scientific inquiry is even considered.
Scientists aren't studying every possible proposition all the time. They're studying what they feel passionate about, or what the people paying them are passionate about. I think that is a very good thing.
What I am trying to say is your beliefs and vision determine what you choose to study. If you're working for a company or university, hopefully you believe in their vision, or at least they're paying enough to make it not matter.
Some scientists study the molecular structure of cane sugar and others study animals or rocks.
If you believed nuclear science (in the old days) caused cancer, and that scared you, and you chose to enter into another field... probably wise but you would not have learned about nuclear science. If you feel that studying rocks is boring chances are you're not going to be using your lab to experiment on rocks. If you think flight is impossible you won't test any theories about that and you will find funding hard to come by, because no one will invest if the scientist thinks it will be a fruitless pursuit.
,,,,
I think you are confusing science with the mainstream medical establishment, which has tended, at least in the west, to be rather conservative in its approach to treatment. That said, the field of neuropsychology is fairly new, primarily due to the lack of diagnostics available in the past to make meaningful measurements. So yes - lucky break or the results of centuries of trial and error. I'd guess the latter.
You say intelligent design is based on unkowables, which is unscientific... fair enough... but can you say with 100% uncertainty that we evolved from amoebas according to a certain pattern over a reasonably precise time frame, say... within a few hundred million years or so? It just seems astonishing and a little bit arrogant to me that a 50 year old scientist (I'm speaking generally, no idea your age)... could proclaim with such certainty that he knows what happened 350 million years ago.
I think if you're completely honest about it, you'll find that evolution theory depends on a lot of unknowables too. For example I have never read a plausible and convincing theory why I see in colour but many animal species only see in black and white. Or why art and music exist but my cat is indifferent to them. Those are probably unknowables, or "not yet knowables".
The motivations that drive people to science are unconnected with the scientific principles that they apply in conducting research. The biggest motivator is generally curiosity, which is exactly the right mindset to start with. If the motivation is to prove a pet theory then that person will likely be a poor scientist.
And now you are confusing unknowns with unknowables. And still missing my point that science doesn't prove positives, only disprove them. So no - of course science cannot say with 100% certainty exactly how we evolved, but science can say that certain possibilities are more probable than others. In particular, science argues for the simplest supported explanation that is consistent with observation. Science can also say that proposing a theory based on the intervention of a supernatural being, for whom there is no evidence, is not useful. Like any other untestable proposition, it cannot be disproved, but it is just one of a potentially infinite set of equally unsupported propositions. And again - you seem be falling into the trap of arguing that if science cannot explain everything, then it must be wrong about what it can explain.
This conversation is fascinating, but I'm not sure it is really getting us anywhere. Your views on science are still so far off base that it is hard to find common ground to start from.