Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: OK, so what is the meaning of the word ought? For example, that a man ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl. It is simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him not do so? At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain -- in other words, these moralities are only desirable to someone if the majority do not follow the same morals. This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general the golden rule strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic. The whole thing is a meme competition, and it seems to me that the meme that provides the most pleasantness for the most number of people is likely to win. Of course, plesantness is subjective, but since humans share a lot of the same genetic heritage and similar environments, most of us will have similar enough definitions to have compatible morals. What I am getting at is that most people explicitly or implicitly have understandings of universals when they discuss things like human rights, morality, etc. But they aren't really universal, are they? The origin is mostly the result of shared genetics and environment, logical thought, and rational extrapolation. And of course, self-perpetuating memes arising from those causes, since many people do not think these things through but rather do as they were taught or indoctrinated. The criterion for every decision is what's in it for me? As you have presented it, this is a short-sighted philosophy. As I alluded to above, if EVERYONE followed such a philosophy, then life would be miserable for everyone. If instead, some people followed a what's in it for me strategy rationally, extrapolating what would happen if it became universal, then they would NOT act in short-sightedly selfish ways, since in the long-run it is NOT in their best interests. Many things cannot be accomplished efficiently alone -- cooperation is frequently the best strategy to achieve a goal. Competition and greed are strong motivators, but if there isn't also a strong degree of cooperation (teamwork, fairness, rule of law, etc.) then progress will be agonizingly slow. You are willing to sacrifice your own direct interest to help others. Yes, but usually because I believe it is in my own long-term direct interest, and when it is ambiguous, I tend to err on the side of cooperation rather than competition (in case some others are following a strict tit-for-tat strategy, it is better for me to err on the cooperative side). Human progress is NOT a zero-sum game -- the pie can be greatly enlarged by cooperation. Best for whom? If not for you, why bother? You see, I'm guessing that there are assumptions by which you judged Bank's world. But it IS best for me, long-term. Maybe I will live forever and see it. But you are right, there is another assumption: it is not a white and black, Culture good, not-quite-Culture bad world. Taking steps closer towards that world is better for me, even if it isn't completely obtainable in my lifetime. But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Agreed. Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. No, it is NOT so simple. William already replied to that: Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing boogey-men? This, IMHO, makes morality somewhat moot. It makes no more sense saying a man ought not to kill another man in
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 29 Jun 2003 at 14:02, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. No, it is NOT so simple. William already replied to that: Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing boogey-men? Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no inherent moral sense. Genes allways cause selfish behavoir. The memes (remembering that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society are a crious mix of altruism and selfishness, and the interplay of them is what defines conventional morality within a society. I honestly don't care if someone reaches a set of values via secular or religious means. I only care with what I have to deal. Also, absolute Intollerance of any kind of beliefs which are generally accepted in society looks just the same to me - fanaticism. Which is dangerous. (how it is dangerous and what it is dangerous TO is another issue, but basically it's corrosive to the core memes of society as praticed today. Today's society is a very fragile construct which is running on inertia - and out of time) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Sorry, I'm with Heinlien on this one - Man has no inherent moral sense. Genes allways cause selfish behavoir. The memes (remembering that memes can be selfish or altruistic) for society are a crious mix of altruism and selfishness, and the interplay of them is what defines conventional morality within a society. snip Well, _I'm_ not, an' I'm not sorry neither! ;) serious Humans, and their primate cousins, and indeed many if not all social animals, have genetically enabled (if not determined, because so many behaviors are influenced by environment and learning) behaviors that we could label moral or kind or altruistic. While I agree that *most* intrinsic behaviors are designed ultimately to improve the chances of successful reproduction, some certainly are not. In this latter category are behaviors such as defending non-related individuals - who are not potential mates - from predators (sometimes the defendents are not even the same species), and caring for non-related or seriously injured young, which diverts precious time and energy from one's own offspring. The extreme example given earlier was raping a 5-year-old child; this is reproductively immoral behavior because it cannot result in progeny, and may prevent said child from becoming a potential mate if in the process of the rape it is killed. In a social group, it may result in the death of the perpetrator at the hands of the child's relatives. Personality traits such as 'shyness' or 'aggression' appear by current research to have a genetic component; certainly we have bred domestic animals for enhancement of desired behaviors. That behaviors or traits we label moral are influenced by genetic factors seems logical - and I suspect as we continue to crack the code we will only find more supporting evidence. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth? I certainly admit that my choice is subjective. Out of all the futures I have imagined or read about, Banks' Culture is my favorite. This may be an accident of nature (the specific path evolution took, the randomness inherent in the gene formations of my ancestors, my environment, etc.). My morals are not real knowledge. But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right and wrong are just subjective values. Yes, they are. OK, so what is the meaning of the word ought? For example, that a man ought not to torture, rape, and kill a 5 year old girl. It is simply that his desire to do so conflicts with your desire to have him not do so? It morality simply a statement of desire for general outcomes? What I am getting at is that most people explicitly or implicitly have understandings of universals when they discuss things like human rights, morality, etc. Those that argue against this redefine morality so that it no longer resembles itself. For example, if you explore one of the more influential atheistic philosophies, post-modernism, you will find that it embraces the concept of morality as being no more than a useful narrative. It bases decision making, not in right or wrong, but on politics. The criterion for every decision is what's in it for me? To me, it seems more useful to state that post modernism argues against the existence of right and wrong, and argues for politics. Surely you don't mean to equate our worldviews? I see surprising agreement on desirable goals. You are willing to sacrifice your own direct interest to help others. What you advocate seems to be consistent with holding the welfare of other human beings as equal to one's own. (This is not the same, of course as believing that you are responsible for another's welfare as much as your are for your own, but as at least a tacit agreement with acting as though others were to be treated as your equal. Mine is based on the subjective choice of the best of all possible worlds. One assumption, and that's it. Best for whom? If not for you, why bother? You see, I'm guessing that there are assumptions by which you judged Bank's world. Everything else is based on observation and empiricism. But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would CHOOSE to have a god as depicted in the Bible when presented with an infinite number of possible choices (I'd rather have Bush in charge of the universe than the god in the bible, and from me, that is saying something). It depends on how you mean depict. If you don't consider the changes in understanding that are clearly seen from the earliest Old Testament scripture through the later Old Testament, through the New Testament as evidence of a growing understanding, then I can see where you are coming from. But, I cannot see that living in a world where the Divine has been willing to explicitly express the greatest love possible for me is a horrid world to live in. This, however, is a tangent to the question of what can be known from experimental testing: or what are the consequences of logical positivism. Concluding that morality is subjective is quite reasonable in a logical positivistic philosophical system. Going further, I would argue that a logical positivist must reject free will. There is no experimental evidence for free will. Thus, in a logical positivistic system, there is no room for free will. This, IMHO, makes morality somewhat moot. It makes no more sense saying a man ought not to kill another man in cold blood than would make sense to argue that a lightning bolt ought not to have killed that golfer. Both things just happened, the idea that the person made a choice and the lightning bolt didn't would just be an illusion. So, in additional to morality, it seems clear to me that free will and responsibility have to be dropped to embrace logical positivism. Dan M. P.S. From your arguments so far
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 01:46 am, Dan Minette wrote: But, its really that one assumption that is critical. Mine basis for morality is religious, and its that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with this. Human rights, the Golden Rule, etc. all flow from this postulate as theorems. So, my assumption is also quite simple. I don't see how you get from is to ought here. Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each other without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
I meant to respond to this before... --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... [David] But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! [Julia] If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? Hmm, if it was a _set_ of spirituality genes, then bearers of all active genes will have numinous moments (thanks for reminding me of that word!) without any 'enhancements.' Those missing one or more of the active genes will have to fast, dance or stay awake to experience universal oneness. Not having exerienced these 'assisted moments,' I don't know if they engender the same feelings/states-of-mind, but perhaps I am being unfair in excluding them, and drug-induced ones. I wonder if having a 'null set' of these spirituality genes would mean that the person won't have the 'spiritual connectednees' even with maximal enhancement? Debbi who will pass on the self-flagellation, thanks... :P __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Julia said: OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know? I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but it's presumably because having one copy of the gene conveys some advantage that outweighs the problems involved with having two copies. Another example is the incidence of thalassemia in Ferrara, Italy. In that region, 18% of people are born with one copy of the thalassemia gene and 1% with two copies. The unfortunate people with two copies develop the disease, and nearly all of them die young. However, until WW2, Ferrara had been afflicted with malaria for centuries, and the gene for thalassemia conveys resistance to malaria. About one in ten people with no thalassemia gene died of malaria whereas those with one or two thalassemia genes almost always survived. The incidence of the gene was thus kept at an equilibrium level: having the occasional descendent who dies of thalassemia is outweighed by having lots of descendents who don't die of malaria. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia said: OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know? I don't know about cystic fibrosis in detail, but it's presumably because having one copy of the gene conveys some advantage that outweighs the problems involved with having two copies. Another example is the incidence of thalassemia in Ferrara, Italy. In that region, 18% of people are born with one copy of the thalassemia gene and 1% with two copies. The unfortunate people with two copies develop the disease, and nearly all of them die young. However, until WW2, Ferrara had been afflicted with malaria for centuries, and the gene for thalassemia conveys resistance to malaria. About one in ten people with no thalassemia gene died of malaria whereas those with one or two thalassemia genes almost always survived. The incidence of the gene was thus kept at an equilibrium level: having the occasional descendent who dies of thalassemia is outweighed by having lots of descendents who don't die of malaria. Rich Not sure if thalassemia is a European term for sickle cell anemia, which has the same effects. One copy of the cystic fibrosis gene conveys a high degree of resistance to cholera, so CF is prevalent in areas where there have been high historic rates of cholera infection. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Gautam said: Not sure if thalassemia is a European term for sickle cell anemia, which has the same effects. No, they aren't the same thing. I chose thalassemia for my example because it's less well known than sickle cell anaemia. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 12 Jun 2003 at 21:07, Julia Thompson wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...). OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know? Can you explain in under 10K of text? You have my curiousity piqued, Andy. Yep, simple. Cholera. Endemic in European towns for centuries, if you have a single gene for Cystic Fibrosis, you only lose about half the water (dehydation being the nastiest element of a cholera infection) which someone without it would, hence you have a much higher chance of survival. There are similar links with other genes which are pretty lethal when double-expressed, for example (as I recall) Tay-Sachs and tuberculosis. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. I don't know. perhaps I was, but perhaps not. I just didn't want to be paraphrasing someone without acknowledging that I might be. Sounds rather imprecise to me (joke). I was just thinking about it, and it occurred to me that despite having read a lot of (and about) Feynman, I couldn't recall reading what you (possibly) attribute to him. But he wrote a lot, so I could have missed it or forgotten. If you're talking about the license plate thing (and if you're not, y'all have managed to *totally* confuse me, not that it's that difficult to do so this week), I quote from _Genius_ by James Gleick, from near the end of the section The Explorers and the Tourists in the chapter Caltech: He subjected other forms of science and near-science to the same scrutiny: tests by psychologists, statistical sampling of public opinion. He had developed pointed ways of illustrating the slippage that occurred when experimenters allowed themselves to be less than rigorously skeptical or failed to appreciate the power of coincidence. He described a common experience: and experienter notices a peculiar result after many trials -- rats in a maze, for example, turn alternately right, left, right, and left. The experimenter calculates the odds against something so extraordinary and decides it cannot have been an accident. Feynman would say: I had the most remarkable experience While coming in here I saw license plate ANZ 912. Calculate for me, please, the odds that of all the license plates... If that's not what y'all were talking about, ignore the quote. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. I don't know. perhaps I was, but perhaps not. I just didn't want to be paraphrasing someone without acknowledging that I might be. Sounds rather imprecise to me (joke). I was just thinking about it, and it occurred to me that despite having read a lot of (and about) Feynman, I couldn't recall reading what you (possibly) attribute to him. But he wrote a lot, so I could have missed it or forgotten. If you're talking about the license plate thing (and if you're not, y'all have managed to *totally* confuse me, not that it's that difficult The latter. We were talking about Jan's (possible) paraphrase, quoted above as It is important however But thanks for the quote. A Feynman quote is never boring! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational. I have had sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists. However, since you were not present on any of the occasions when I received that evidence, all I could do at this point is to tell you about it, which would be hearsay at best, and you would have no way of knowing that I was not deliberately lying by making all of it up.Had I not experienced what I have experienced firsthand, I probably would not believe it had happened if someone had simply told me about it, so I suspect that you would also find it incredible. That's why I said The proof is left as an exercise for the reader. The only evidence that will convince you will be that evidence you obtain yourself. But you presented no empirical evidence in the form of a repeatable experiment that anyone can do. Answered below. Does God listen to your prayers? Yes. If He's really busy, you'll get His voice mail and He'll get back to you. (BTW, the part about God's voice mail was a wisecrack. ;-) ) Can you provide empirical evidence No, as I said above, _I_ cannot provide it. and a repeatable experiment that I can perform to verify your assertion? I expect you already know what the experiment is, and how to carry it out to get the answer. If not, I can tell you where to find the instructions. However, following them is up to you. Once you have the correct answer to the first question on your original list, you will be able to find the correct answers to all of the other questions on your list on your own. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational. Has anyone read the short story Anomalies by GB? I had this same discussion with a group of friends and I refused to continue until they read all 14 pages of it. In my opinion, evidence for a model that includes a deity should be posible. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 01:10 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500 At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. OK, well, you snipped my Cow Paradox question, so I'm re-pasting it: ~ To take it one step further, here's a good example with regards to food. Let's call it the Cow Paradox. Hindus say their God(s) say that cows are sacred and should never be eaten. Jews say their God say that cows are not sacred and can be eaten at any time except on fast days as long as they are killed in a specified manner. Catholics believe that their God says that cows can be eaten any time except Lent, no matter how they are killed. Which God is correct, and which are smoking cow patties? These are contradictory statements. They cannot be waved away with the comment 'they're all correct' because that's an illogical conclusion based on the available evidence. Either cows are sacred or they are not. ~ You didn't answer this question, and I don't understand how it's 'meaningless.' How is it possible for three omnipotent Gods to give conflicting answers? Which one is correct and why? If you'd prefer (as you seem to) to translate this as *one* God giving multiple conflicting messages, then which message is correct and why? The messages contradict each other, so how do you decide which one is right or wrong? I'm not attempting to bust your balls here... I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Here are some other possibilities to consider: (1) The practices you mentioned, presuming they are commandments from God, were filtered through men. God is perfect, but men are imperfect, so perhaps something was garbled along the way? (2) God gives different instructions to different persons/groups of persons at different times. Frex, in the OT He commanded all male Jews to be circumcised, but that is not a requirement for Christians, since Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [...] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day, when the light had travelled 155,412,410,227,200 meters from its point of origin, God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (Genesis 1:3, 31-2:2, The Authorized King James for Creation Scientists Version) which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) So wait a minute. If it is all subject to interpretation then how do we know what's real? (I sense a pending
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 11:05 PM 6/11/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! Personally, I tend to give a lot less credibility to spiritual experiences which reportedly occur under such conditions than those which occur unasked-for in the middle of an otherwise normal day to a person with no history or subsequent diagnosis of mental illness when that person is neither hungry, thirsty, fatigued, or under the influence of substances legal or illegal . . . If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? Perhaps, but how can one be sure those are genuine spiritual experiences (assuming at least for the sake of this discussion that such experiences are possible) rather than the effects of the drugs? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
At 02:25 PM 6/11/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: The majority of religious people are irrational. So are the majority of real numbers . . . Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational. Make of that what you will. :) Julia who has a book about pi and another book about e M, pi-e. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 06:40 PM 6/11/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous knowledge as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. I'd point out a few things- I was scientically trained Me, too. and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. It probably made me more skeptical of accepting just any so-called religious claim on the say-so of someone else without my own personal witness. This moves into the SECOND point, that Christianity likes to try to stuff the Genie back in the bottle, while Judaism takes a look at the Genie and sees where it fits. If she looks like a young Barbara Eden, I can fit her in quite well here at my place . . . Example - Christian: Cloning is wrong Jewish: A clone would be a Human being like any other (that's the majority view, anyway). I'm not sure where the idea that the Christian position is that cloning is wrong comes from. I believe in Christ, I'm not Jewish, and IMO a [successful] human clone would be no more or less human than a naturally-occurring identical twin. My biggest concern at present would be over whether humans can be cloned successfully, and perhaps the ethics of the inevitable failed experiments which would be necessary to get to that point. Is that what you mean by it being the Christian position that cloning is wrong: not so much that creating another human being with the DNA of an already-living person would be wrong, but the ethics of human experimentation? Maybe They Could Clone Barbara Eden Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 01:20 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400 On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. Very paraphrased: Dr. Brin on Art Bell a while back: All the Messiah would have to do is something spectacular, like level a mountain range, and people would flock to him. I would! Until then, many people are going to have doubts. Have you ever considered why He didn't do something like that on those occasions reported in the NT when He could have? (Based on the assumption that He really existed and the events reported in the NT really happened, that is.) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Erik said: Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say that evolution isn't random chance: it's random mutation followed by non-random selection. The fact that some organisms have heritable improvements in reproductive fitness means that even though mutations are random they aren't equally likely to persist. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? Huh? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sense? Numinous moments! My favourite was after spending eight hours traipsing all around the fantastic ancient site of Petra in Jordan. The scenery fantastic and the ancient magnificent works of man on display. Sitting alone in the gloaming having a cup of mint tea. Very calm, still evening. Camel rider singing beautifully after a hard day's work dealing with tourists, his voice echoing off the red sandstone cliffs. Such a joyful and spontaneous sound. Still get goosebumps reliving the memories. You had to be there... I don't have the skill to adequately describe the feeling. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question I asked before you get to ask me another one. Well, you didn't answer my question first, instead you answered one question with 20. :-) The problem I have answering many of them as asked is that they look like which slit did the single photon go through questions. My view of our understanding of the Divine is that we look through a glass darkly. While some understandings are better than others, none really can capture the nature of the Divine. One might then ask why bother? The answer is that doing something with a partial answer is much better than living on the sidelines. For example, I believe that Truth, Good, Evil, Right and Wrong exist. I fully accept that my understanding is partial. But, I'd argue that it is objectively wrong to engage in an action like raping and beating a 5 year old girl. Not just wrong within the moral system I personally have, not just wrong within a certain cultural context, but wrong even if the culture endorses it. Now, I suppose one could come up with a hypothetical where it is the lesser of two evils, but it is still an evil action. I believe that some things are objectively right or wrong. I also fully accept the fact that this is a matter of faith, not knowledge. I know that there is no way to obtain Truth from scientific observation. Rather, one obtains models of phenomenon. But I'll give you a free one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth? BTW, I'm not arguing with your choice. It is fairly consistent with my basic principals, and the antagonist on Earth's is opposed. But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right and wrong are just subjective values. You have no objective reason to pick Culture instead of Lovecraft as your basis morality. P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie the question...and would take a while to write clearly. Why don't we start at the one you just replied to (but did not answer) and go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get anywhere, however. You don't really consider yourself to be a typical religious person, do you? I'm not a typical person, period, so no. I think that you are exceptionally rational and scientific and skeptical most of the time, but it makes me uncomfortable sometimes to see the contortions you put your mind through to keep the religious/irrational part of your mind compartmentalized but alive. You mean when I differ with your a priori suppositions? The bottom line is that we have a fundamental difference in our a priori assumptions. No amount of experimentation with falsify one or the other. However, I think that logic can point out the consequences of actually implementing your assumptions or mine. Here's where I think we differ. I will not accept as valid anything that contradictions validated scientific theories. For example, instead of rejecting the validity of cosmology as a model of observation, I would accept the need to fit my theology so that it is consistent with cosmology (which isn't all that hard since non-literalistic interpretation of scripture is the Origenal interpretation). I accept my belief in free will is contingent on the fact that it is not inconsistent with science. Naturally you would disagree with this, and we aren't likely to get anywhere on that subject, and I fear your detailed answers would keep leading
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner. You can formulate hypothosis however. That distinction is very important, and the one Fynman was trying to make. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? Huh? What are the chances that I would be paraphrazing someone on the very same topic. What a coincidence! 87) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner. I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between I have a theory and I have a hypothesis are not worth arguing about. If you change theory in my quote above to hypothesis, then I don't believe it changes the meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes you happy. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:49, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! He deliberately leaves the question open. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:17, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the rational/scientific part in charge most of the time, but they keep the irrational/religious part going in parallel, although usually not in dominance. In several of the cases, it seems likely this behavior was due to religious brainwashing when they were young and impressionable, and they never quite manage to expunge it, so it just gets pushed into a corner. Heh - I'm not especially religious and my parent's certainly aren't (the three-times-a-year type). For me, Judaism is FAR more a people, a culture and a homeland than it is a religion. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 12 Jun 2003 at 9:50, Richard Baker wrote: Erik said: Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. It's been a while since I read it, but I think he does make that argument. Of course, Andy hasn't mentioned that he then goes on to say that evolution isn't random chance: it's random mutation followed by non-random selection. The fact that some organisms have heritable improvements in reproductive fitness means that even though mutations are random they aren't equally likely to persist. Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...). Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Andy said: And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...). How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B in environment (physical and biological) E if A on average produces more descendents than B. Although by using strange environments, you can get odd results. See, for example, the latter parts of http://cdr.sine.com/cdr/shell.cfm?action=articleid=58 Rich GCU Here's Some Strangeness I Prepared Earlier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner. I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between I have a theory and I have a hypothesis are not worth arguing about. If you change theory in my quote above to hypothesis, then I don't believe it changes the meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes you happy. Yes Erik, I agree, and I did know what you meant, but since to a SCIENTIST these words are used in such a narrow way, and since the distinction between the two is so important (especialy in this case) I thought it was more important to strive for correct knowledge and _accurate_transmission_thereof_. (There I go paraphrasing again.) Anyway it's not a game or a competition, I just wanted to make sure that the transmission of this information was accurate. Hypothesis: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Theory: A scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words appropriatly. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
-Original Message- From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:34 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner. I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between I have a theory and I have a hypothesis are not worth arguing about. If you change theory in my quote above to hypothesis, then I don't believe it changes the meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes you happy. Yes Erik, I agree, and I did know what you meant, but since to a SCIENTIST these words are used in such a narrow way, and since the distinction between the two is so important (especialy in this case) I thought it was more important to strive for correct knowledge and _accurate_transmission_thereof_. (There I go paraphrasing again.) Anyway it's not a game or a competition, I just wanted to make sure that the transmission of this information was accurate. Hypothesis: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Theory: A scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words appropriatly. Thanks, Jan! Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis, and you beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some slack on my use of theory). I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not possible. At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what that's worth. Nerd From Hell = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words appropriatly. Please produce the cite on the Feynman quote you referenced. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:33:41AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words appropriatly. Please produce the cite on the Feynman quote you referenced. Which quote is that? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:15:50PM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis, and you beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some slack on my use of theory). I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not possible. At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what that's worth. Nerd From Hell You are correct that hypothesis (or conjecture or idea) would have been more precise. I will endeavor to pick my words more carefully in the future. However, my usage of theory is not incorrect, according to American Heritage Dictionary. I was using it in the context of definition #6. And it is pretty clear you are disingenous. You may want to start a competition, but I do not. Feel free to point out imprecisions in my word choices in the future, and I will endeavor to improve. the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. [Late Latin theria, from Greek theri, from theros, spectator : probably the, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horn, to see).] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? -Original Message- From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:34 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Of course you can use anecdotal evidence in formulating a theory. The point is, you CANNOT use the SAME data to validate the theory. You are wrong Erik. You can not formulat _theories_ in this manner. I think we are arguing semantics. The point was about the concept of EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS vs. EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTED THE HYPOTHESIS. Semantic differences between I have a theory and I have a hypothesis are not worth arguing about. If you change theory in my quote above to hypothesis, then I don't believe it changes the meaning. So feel free to substitute hypothesis if it makes you happy. Yes Erik, I agree, and I did know what you meant, but since to a SCIENTIST these words are used in such a narrow way, and since the distinction between the two is so important (especialy in this case) I thought it was more important to strive for correct knowledge and _accurate_transmission_thereof_. (There I go paraphrasing again.) Anyway it's not a game or a competition, I just wanted to make sure that the transmission of this information was accurate. Hypothesis: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Theory: A scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Of course Theory is used by _layman_ in place of Hypothesis. But we are not _laymen_ we are scientificaly trained and should use the words appropriatly. Thanks, Jan! Once again, you trumped me. I was drafting a message about what the difference (as I was taught) between an idea, theory and hypothesis, and you beat me to it (This was in response to Erik cutting me some slack on my use of theory). I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not possible. At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what that's worth. I was taught the same thing in high school science. But, after a few years in graduate school I formed a different opinion. The scientific method is not as cut and dried as it appears in textbooks. First of all, things are not nearly as clear as they are in a textbook. The data show some inconsistencies, there are always 2-sd anomalies that lead you to investigate blind alleys. Further, experimentalists rarely have formulated a hypothesis to test before taking data. Rather, the hypothesis is much more loose: such as I bet this would be an interesting place to look. A good theorist may come up with 5 different ideas in a day. About one every day or two is worth trying on colleagues. About one a month is worth publishing...at least according to Shelly Glashow, who shares the Nobel Prize for the Standard Model. So, the scientific method is a lot more about good experimental technique (workmanlike effort in the words of a professor I've always respected) and thinking about the data and throwing models at it until one sticks. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. I don't know. perhaps I was, but perhaps not. I just didn't want to be paraphrasing someone without acknowledging that I might be. What is your point? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. I don't know. perhaps I was, but perhaps not. I just didn't want to be paraphrasing someone without acknowledging that I might be. Sounds rather imprecise to me (joke). I was just thinking about it, and it occurred to me that despite having read a lot of (and about) Feynman, I couldn't recall reading what you (possibly) attribute to him. But he wrote a lot, so I could have missed it or forgotten. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Erik wrote: the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries [snip] 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have I Have A Theory from the Buffy musical going through my head... I have a theory we should work this out. It's getting eerie what's this cheery singing all about? Reggie Bautista I have a theory It could be bunnies... _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:55:07PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? This one. I don't know. perhaps I was, but perhaps not. I just didn't want to be paraphrasing someone without acknowledging that I might be. Sounds rather imprecise to me (joke). I was just thinking about it, and it occurred to me that despite having read a lot of (and about) Feynman, I couldn't recall reading what you (possibly) attribute to him. But he wrote a lot, so I could have missed it or forgotten. Yea. I was thinking as I was writing it that it sounded like the bit that the original quote was coming from. I listened to those lectures on tape during a snowboarding trip and we discussed them along the way. So it all runs together. Call me a nurd but I only really on mentioned it to fit in the recursive joke. :) Speaking of Feynman and those lectures. I especially like the bit where he takes an aside and discusses the absurdity of English spelling... or was that in one of the books? Anyway, he suggests that there would be a way to make spelling in English deterministic. That endeared him to me and he became one of my heroes right then and their because I always thought the same thing and had never heard anyone else who thought that idea was ridiculous. I am also fond of him because of his work in reversible computation. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Erik wrote: the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries [snip] 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have I Have A Theory from the Buffy musical going through my head... I have a theory we should work this out. It's getting eerie what's this cheery singing all about? Reggie Bautista I have a theory It could be bunnies... But its definitely not witches witches love nature and are misunderstood. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik wrote: the·o·ry( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries [snip] 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Great. Thanks to this discussion, I now have I Have A Theory from the Buffy musical going through my head... I have a theory we should work this out. It's getting eerie what's this cheery singing all about? Reggie Bautista I have a theory It could be bunnies... Not bunnies, please no! anything but bunnies! Actualy the dictionary only provides the definition of words as they are used. It doesn it provide a source for proper use, and it doesn't provide any infomration on the proper use of a word in a proper context. It only records all of the current uses in all contexts. Technicaly the use of the word theory in a scientific setting is limmited in the way that I and Chad specified. That said. I use it the wrong way too. But I try real hard not to. It does get difficult if you want to say something like. theoreticaly speaking and instead say hypotheticaly speaking becouse everyone gets the wrong connotation. As you can tell I have given this a lot of thought. Hay, speaking of bunnies, do you think she was put off by Bugs? What about Babbs? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth? I certainly admit that my choice is subjective. Out of all the futures I have imagined or read about, Banks' Culture is my favorite. This may be an accident of nature (the specific path evolution took, the randomness inherent in the gene formations of my ancestors, my environment, etc.). My morals are not real knowledge. But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right and wrong are just subjective values. Yes, they are. Surely you don't mean to equate our worldviews? Mine is based on the subjective choice of the best of all possible worlds. One assumption, and that's it. Everything else is based on observation and empiricism. I may be wrong about the best way to achieve the goal, but it is possible, albeit difficult, for me to test my methods empirically. And it is possible I may change my fundamental assumption someday, if one that is subjectively better comes along. I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would CHOOSE to have a god as depicted in the Bible when presented with an infinite number of possible choices (I'd rather have Bush in charge of the universe than the god in the bible, and from me, that is saying something). And I've never met anyone whose worldview was that they were trying to work towards bringing about the existence of a god that they read about in a religious book. Many religious people do NOT admit that their choice of god is subjective and arbitrary -- their god actually exists outside of their mind. Furthermore, most religions are untestable BY DESIGN. They are DESIGNED to be a useless sort of knowledge. If you've read Songs of Earth and Power by Greg Bear, it reminds me of the world Clarkham designed to be self-consistent and seamless. But it also lacked any sort of progress -- it was static. It was a trap. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
-Original Message- From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:28 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? - Original Message - From: Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in the context of fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific method process, and theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not possible. At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what that's worth. I was taught the same thing in high school science. But, after a few years in graduate school I formed a different opinion. The scientific method is not as cut and dried as it appears in textbooks. First of all, things are not nearly as clear as they are in a textbook. The data show some inconsistencies, there are always 2-sd anomalies that lead you to investigate blind alleys. Further, experimentalists rarely have formulated a hypothesis to test before taking data. Rather, the hypothesis is much more loose: such as I bet this would be an interesting place to look. A good theorist may come up with 5 different ideas in a day. About one every day or two is worth trying on colleagues. About one a month is worth publishing...at least according to Shelly Glashow, who shares the Nobel Prize for the Standard Model. So, the scientific method is a lot more about good experimental technique (workmanlike effort in the words of a professor I've always respected) and thinking about the data and throwing models at it until one sticks. Isn't it really the difference between a pragmatic vs idealistic approach? Scientists write papers, and engineers do what it takes, even if it violates scientific method? It seems as though modern scientists are caught between the two approaches - held to the Scientific method, but expected to use non-scientific intuition to make leaps. It must be a tough business. Nerd from Hell Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 12 Jun 2003 at 18:24, Richard Baker wrote: Andy said: And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...). How is it complex? Entity A is more reproductively fit than entity B in environment (physical and biological) E if A on average produces more descendents than B. Although by using strange environments, you can get odd results. See, for example, the latter parts of But the Cystic Fibrosis gene itself, when double-expressed, is pretty lethal...that would hint that it (and it, indeed, does) would have some effect which made the single-expressed (not recessive, mind you, since it's expressed in certain tissues) beneficial. And some of those factors are no longer operative in the first world. http://cdr.sine.com/cdr/shell.cfm?action=articleid=58 hmm well. I refer you back to Brin - high K inviduals are NOT going to be popular with low K ones. Sooner or later, the low K ones ARE going to do something about it as well. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Andrew Crystall wrote: Certainly, but that applies to biology and we don't really KNOW how random much of the formation of the Universe was. And I'd point out that what reproductive fitness is can be complex (for example, why the Cystic Fybrosis gene survived...). OK, why *did* it survive? Do you know? Can you explain in under 10K of text? You have my curiousity piqued, Andy. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Julia What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am? Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well, OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are, I'd have to ask Chuck or Renee, if even one of *them* had ordered one at some point), and I go out with folks once a month on Sunday afternoon after a meeting, and as the meeting tends to get out around 2:30 or 2:45 and it takes us awhile to figure out where we're going to eat and then to *get* there, when they changed their closing time to 3PM from 4PM, we just kinda wrote them off our list (and went to the *next* Tex-Mex joint south of there, which Shane said was pretty good, and it wasn't that bad, and I think we went back there one time after that). Now that Barton Springs Rd. is open again, if we want Tex-Mex, it oughtn't be too difficult to go to Chuy's or Baby Acapulco. (And it's the Chuy's that the Bush twins got busted at, if anyone gives a flip.) Julia Was just joking. Since you didn't put in the evil AM or PM, I assumed military. Assume it was a bar was easy. Kevin T. - VRWC Where is Alberto anyway? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) Does Allah exist? Does Zeus exist? Does Odin exist? I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative names for the same being, with the apparent differences between them perhaps being due to the limited understanding of the men who described them? Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? Is there life after death? Based on what I know, I believe so. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) Does God listen to your prayers? Yes. If He's really busy, you'll get His voice mail and He'll get back to you. Is God immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient? As different people use those terms in different ways, you will have to define them more precisely before the question can be answered. Did God create the world? Yes. Lots of others, too. Did God create the world in a state that makes it appear that the earth is billions of years old and that mankind evolved from single-celled organisms? Obviously He did, as that is the way it appears. It doesn't mean that those things aren't as they appear, either. Why? Perhaps that is the method He used to create the world. Is the big bang theory the best explanation for the beginning of the universe? Is evolution the best explanation for the origin of mankind? So far as we know now, yes. Did Christ die and come back to life? Yes. Have you ever eaten a part of the body of Christ or drank of his blood? Probably, along with atoms which were once part of the bodies or blood of numerous other historical figures. Do you have an immortal soul? Last time I checked, I did. (So do you, FWIW.) What are its other properties? I don't know what the physical properties of the spirit are. About all I do know is that if I encountered the spirit of someone I had known while they were alive in mortality, I would recognize that person. Are Christian Scientists who refuse proven medical treatment for their child's chronic illness behaving rationally? They think so. Personally, I believe that God approves of doctors, and indeed has made it possible for some wo/men to become doctors and to learn how to care for the bodies we have while in this stage of our lives. Do miracles (i.e., phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically) occur? Sometimes, with the caveat that science does not claim to be able to explain everything at the current time. Did God disapprove of Galileo? IMO, no. Did God order the Crusades? If He did, I think a lot of what happened was ad-libbed by the Crusaders. How do you know? I don't know: as I said, that's my opinion. Should a woman be allowed to be a priest? A bishop? The pope? If you are asking about the Catholic church specifically, I have no opinion, having never been a Catholic. If you are asking whether women will ever be ordained to the Priesthood: if and when God decides that that should happen, He will inform the appropriate authorities of His wishes. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. Hope that helps. -- Ronn! :) People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
At 05:47 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: Julia What the heck are you doing at a bar at 3 - 4am? Who said anything about bar and AM? It's a restaurant, so, well, OK, they *do* have a bar, but you don't even need to sit there if you want to order margaritas (and I have no idea how their margaritas are, I'd have to ask Chuck or Renee, if even one of *them* had ordered one at some point), and I go out with folks once a month on Sunday afternoon after a meeting, and as the meeting tends to get out around 2:30 or 2:45 and it takes us awhile to figure out where we're going to eat and then to *get* there, when they changed their closing time to 3PM from 4PM, we just kinda wrote them off our list (and went to the *next* Tex-Mex joint south of there, which Shane said was pretty good, and it wasn't that bad, and I think we went back there one time after that). Now that Barton Springs Rd. is open again, if we want Tex-Mex, it oughtn't be too difficult to go to Chuy's or Baby Acapulco. (And it's the Chuy's that the Bush twins got busted at, if anyone gives a flip.) Julia Was just joking. Since you didn't put in the evil AM or PM, I assumed military. Assume it was a bar was easy. Have you so soon forgotten what happens when you assume? Kevin T. - VRWC Where is Alberto anyway? I've been wondering that, too. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown To take it one step further, here's a good example with regards to food. Let's call it the Cow Paradox. Hindus say their God(s) say that cows are sacred and should never be eaten. Jews say their God says that cows are not sacred and can be eaten at any time except on fast days as long as they are killed in a specified manner. Catholics believe that their God says that cows can be eaten any time except Lent, no matter how they are killed. Which God is correct, and which are smoking cow patties? These are contradictory statements. They cannot be waved away with the comment 'they're all correct' because that's an illogical conclusion based on the available evidence. Either cows are sacred or they are not. I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Jon _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. Hope that helps. -- Ronn! :) Here's a different explanation for the survey: Scientists generally define believe differently than others do. Not that I can really define believe. The best I can do is acts as if it were true, which doesn't really help in matters of the spirit. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Plonkworthy?
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Plonkworthy? Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:35:04 -0700 (PDT) --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religion is extremist by nature. YAWN stre-e-etch curl up comfortably under the lilac bush Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :) Why Lilac? :) Perhaps Gandalf's or the hobbits' pipes were made of lilac: http://www.devonian.ualberta.ca/pwatch/lilac.htm ?Syringa' originates from the Greek ?syrinx', meaning hollow stem. One of the first common names for Syringa vulgaris in English was ?pipe tree', because the straight stems made excellent pipes. The stem was used by ancient Greek doctors to inject medications into their patients... It's an indicator plant: snip It travels well and is hardy: snip But most of all, I loved it as a child: the marvelous odor from the lavender blooms, how perfect a secret meeting place the lilac thicket on the crest of the hill made, playing at Mowgli peering out from the jungle to the houses below... I remember playing around a huge hedge of them at my grandparents place in Pennsylvania when I was young. That smell always brings back the memory of playing on their swing and eating big helpings of pancakes, eggs and sausages. :) (The scent would drift in through the windows every morning over breakfast.) My cats like to hang out under the lilac bush out back; it's cool, shady, and protects from sharp bird eyes as well as silly dog noses. ;) Heh. If they're anything like mine, they probably like the scent as well. My cats rub themselves all over the place if there's something floral scented about. Too cool!!! Thanks for posting this. Fascinating! :) Jon _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Thank you, but I've never found any problem with voicing my views. If I get ostracized, it is more usually by fundamentalist Christians/Bible literalists who disagree with my religious views. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:40:41AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Does God exist? Yes. (The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.) In other words, you have no evidence. That's irrational. Does Allah exist? Does Zeus exist? Does Odin exist? I'm not saying that this is what I believe, or that it is the only possibility, but could these perhaps be alternative names for the same being, with the apparent differences between them perhaps being due to the limited understanding of the men who described them? Most of them would not agree. And why did they get it so wrong and so different? The simplest answer is that it is all made-up fantasy. If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? Because many religious people have said they compete? You've never read about Greek and Roman gods? Based on what I know, I believe so. But you presented no empirical evidence in the form of a repeatable experiment that anyone can do. So this is just your irrational fantasy.. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) Absurd. I say there are thousands of entities who will give you an afterlife, but only if they are the strongest when you die (they are always competing for top dog/god and the places flip-flop) . Unfortunately, each entity requires a separate and often conflicted tribute during your life in order to get the afterlife. Of course my version is absurd too. That's the point. There are an infinite number of such possible wagers, and you have no empirical evidence to show which one is correct. Does God listen to your prayers? Yes. If He's really busy, you'll get His voice mail and He'll get back to you. Can you provide empirical evidence and a repeatable experiment that I can perform to verify your assertion? Otherwise you are essentially claiming the same as that invisible pink unicorns that are undetectable roam around us all the time and listen to what we say. Absurd and irrational. Is God immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient? As different people use those terms in different ways, you will have to define them more precisely before the question can be answered. Take the first dictionary definition you find (i.e., the one labeled 1. in the most handy dictionary) and use that. I'm sure that will adequately define it. Did God create the world? Yes. Lots of others, too. And you can determine this in a repeatable experiment? How do you know it wasn't created by a bunch of white mice who are really super-intelligent? Obviously He did, as that is the way it appears. It doesn't mean that those things aren't as they appear, either. Only obviously to a irrational person. Considering the infinite variety of untestable creation fantasies that have equivalent expletive power. Big Bang best explanation? So far as we know now, yes. Many religious people have claimed otherwise. Did Christ die and come back to life? Yes. Irrational. These things just don't happen in the world we live in. Have you ever eaten a part of the body of Christ or drank of his blood? Probably, along with atoms which were once part of the bodies or blood of numerous other historical figures. Cute. Surely you knew the intent of the question. And you surely know that many literalists claim that they have. Do you have an immortal soul? Last time I checked, I did. (So do you, FWIW.) Irrational. It is unreasonable to say that a specific type of an infinite number of possibilities exists, and you know it, but you have no repeatable experimental test of it. What are its other properties? I don't know what the physical properties of the spirit are. About all I do know is that if I encountered the spirit of someone I had known while they were alive in mortality, I would recognize that person. Irrational. Are Christian Scientists who refuse proven medical treatment for their child's chronic illness behaving rationally? They think so. Personally, I believe that God approves of doctors, and indeed has made it possible for some wo/men to become doctors and to learn how to care for the bodies we have while in this stage of our lives. Yes or no question, but apparently you are afraid of the answer? I guess it is tough for one irrational person to say that another person is irrational. Shame. Do miracles (i.e., phenomena that cannot be explained scientifically) occur? Sometimes, with the caveat that science does not claim to be able to explain everything at the current time. Your caveat doesn't answer the question, because it didn't say are currently explainable scientifically. It said cannot be explained scientifically. Let me make it more clear, since you are obviously trying to wiggle out of it. will never be able to be explained scientifically Did God disapprove of Galileo? IMO, no. So it was irrational
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:41 -0500 At 10:32 AM 6/11/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:49 -0500 At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: lots of snippage throughout Is there more than one God? What happens when two omnipotent Gods want two different things? If there is more than one being who holds the office of God, why wouldn't they cooperate rather than compete? IMO, your answer doesn't really answer the question though. If the God of the Assyrians says that every Babylonian should be killed, and the God of the Babylonians says every Assyrian should be killed, who's right? It's all well and good to say why wouldn't they cooperate, but that doesn't always happen. Tonight, on WWF Smackdown My point is that there is no separate God of the Assyrians and God of the Babylonians, therefore that question is meaningless. OK, well, you snipped my Cow Paradox question, so I'm re-pasting it: ~ To take it one step further, here's a good example with regards to food. Let's call it the Cow Paradox. Hindus say their God(s) say that cows are sacred and should never be eaten. Jews say their God say that cows are not sacred and can be eaten at any time except on fast days as long as they are killed in a specified manner. Catholics believe that their God says that cows can be eaten any time except Lent, no matter how they are killed. Which God is correct, and which are smoking cow patties? These are contradictory statements. They cannot be waved away with the comment 'they're all correct' because that's an illogical conclusion based on the available evidence. Either cows are sacred or they are not. ~ You didn't answer this question, and I don't understand how it's 'meaningless.' How is it possible for three omnipotent Gods to give conflicting answers? Which one is correct and why? If you'd prefer (as you seem to) to translate this as *one* God giving multiple conflicting messages, then which message is correct and why? The messages contradict each other, so how do you decide which one is right or wrong? I'm not attempting to bust your balls here... I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Which part(s) of the Bible are fundamental teachings of God and which (if any) are just stories? I suspect that there are some parts which qualify as both, as Jesus often used parables to teach important truths when He was preaching while He was here in mortality. So are the Bible Literalists, the Baptist sects of Christianity, wrong in your opinion? Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) So wait a minute. If it is all subject to interpretation then how do we know what's real? (I sense a pending conversation about existentialism.) Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Thank you, but I've never found any problem with voicing my views. If I get ostracized, it is more usually by fundamentalist Christians/Bible literalists who disagree with my religious views. OK, but I may post anyway, cuz it wasn't for you, per se. I would post it because I'd think it might add to our
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous knowledge as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:23 -0400 On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge. Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. Very paraphrased: Dr. Brin on Art Bell a while back: All the Messiah would have to do is something spectacular, like level a mountain range, and people would flock to him. I would! Until then, many people are going to have doubts. Jon _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. Erik has the classic agnostic belief, which follow strict rules of logic. I am by no means criticizing this. I believe that his assumptions are very correct, and based in logic. I believe the same, and fully support his position. So why do not others (90% as quoted before) go through the same set of tests to determine that it can't be 'determined'? Why is there such a reliance upon faith? I do not believe that this is linked to a fundamental fear or death, for if it was, most people would follow the dictates of their belief (free of most sin - no one's perfect). There is little in the way of dogma that leads people to believe in God. A belief in God does not require a religion, but I would assert that it does require personal validation (feeling God). For some it is a fundamental belief, validated only through experience. Unfortunately science cannot measure or validate this belief or feeling as being real. Even some scientists, packed with the sharp sword of the scientific method, can still find a place for God. I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) that genetics plays a strong role in experiencing spirituality. Putting aside what spirituality means, there are fundamental physiologic processes that occur when people feel rapture or feel God. All religions have this one thing in common. All feelings of spirituality has a common element of feeling God or knowing their place in the Universe(there are thousands of ways to express this feeling, which explains the cornucopia of religious dogma to pick and choose from). Most people feel this at one time, some more than others. I can't help but to think that some people (like myself) lack the necessary component to feel God in the same degree and manner. Some people are raised religious, but never gain conviction. Others never have exposure to religion, yet do claim to have felt God and profess a belief and love of God. Why is this? Taking the religious position, one could say that they have not let God in. I believe that for some people (perhaps that 10% of us who are 'godless')they (I) lack something which provides this unshaken belief in so many people. I would assert that most people who do believe in God, know that it is based upon faith, but do have personal validation, despite its illogicalness. They understand the arguments, but can put them aside, because they have personal validation that God exists, and is aware of their existence. Being an objectivist, I have been taught to scoff at the idea, with the clear and simple argument - Where's the Beef!. I struggled with this for many, many years. WHY DO THEY BELIEVE! I personally would like proof, even if it was a personal conviction. Life may have been easier for me as a strong church goer, having faith in the Lord, doing the Lord's work. It did not come, but it did have an interesting effect - It freed me to be critical of God, his believers, and the dogma associated with God. In talking to my parents about this, I came to realize that my freedom from feeling God places me in a position to be unbiased, and by this, I become an intellectual guardian, able to question and challenge those who use religion for evil, as a weapon or as an implement of control. I pay a price in this, but it is _undenialable _that I contribute to the health of religion, by being its intellectual guardian - to question bad religion, bad beliefs, bad science, bad memes. Some say that religion will die. I'm suggesting that religion will mature and grow stronger as science progresses. Science has and will break down the toxic memes of religion, and will influence the culture of religion to enhance the survivialability of humanity. Call it the God or Spirituality Gene. Some of us don't understand what it means to believe in God. Evolution may have made us that way. But Gaia may a role for Atheists and Agnostics - it's to make religion better for the common man. I believe I was born to do the job. For all of you who believe, I think you owe me your thanks for defending the Lord's work. Chad Cooper -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? I've noticed that most folks who claim they do end up doing a lot of arm waving to explain why things that have no scientific basis really do because they really really believe in them. I'm not saying that you act this way; you've pleasantly surprised me a few times in the past. But, if not, we can explore how much is really verified by experiment. Dan M. P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie the question...and would take a while to write clearly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:14, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:49:50AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:44 PM 6/11/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Typical religious irrationality. THEY say there is, you say there is not, but none of you have any empirical process to check your knowledge.Their beliefs are more absurd than your beliefs? Without any empirical tests, it is all absurd. What empirical tests have you performed to check if your belief is correct? Ambiguous question. It makes no sense to postulate one of an infinite number of undetectable explanations for something when no explanation is required. There is no need to explain what need not be explained. If you have a more specific question, then ask away. But before you ask, you should know that I do NOT believe there is no god, nor do I believe there is a god. I do not have any beliefs regarding the matter, because they are not necessary to explain the world I see. If I ever see a verifiable, repeatable experiment for god, then I will accept that there is a god and work on reorganizing my conception of science. Until then, there is no need. have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ? Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 11:40, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Given that there are passages in the KJV which contradict other passages in the KJV, not to mention portions of one version of the Bible which do not agree with another version, and that Bible Literalists believe that when Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days that means six days of twenty-four hours each, each hour consisting of 3600 seconds, and each second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10^9) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom, or, alternatively, the time required for an electromagnetic field to propagate 299,792,458 meters (2.99792458 x 10^8 m) through a vacuum, which either contradicts the scientific evidence or requires ridiculous gyrations to attempt to make it fit, yes, they are wrong. (IMO.) _Genesis and the Big Bang_ is a good book. Essentially, the length of a time unit on Earth depends on your observation point. Hence, it's erronoius to say that 6 days from one viewpoint couldn't be a very long time indeed for the Earth. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was going with his question. Am I right? Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these questions because they don't have a rational answer. Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists (people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe in these phenomena? Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. A while back I remember reading a story about a website where scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it to the list. Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, because most scientists see no empirical verification of such phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous knowledge as correct is much lower in the scientist population than in the general population. I'd point out a few things- I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. This moves into the SECOND point, that Christianity likes to try to stuff the Genie back in the bottle, while Judaism takes a look at the Genie and sees where it fits. Example - Christian: Cloning is wrong Jewish: A clone would be a Human being like any other (that's the majority view, anyway). Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My wager, was Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:04 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:25 AM 6/10/03 -0400, Erik Reuter asked: Is there life after death? Based on what I know, I believe so. (Besides, there's always Pascal's wager to consider.) My wager is that it is best to not believe in any of this religious stuff because even if it turns out I was wrong, and Zoop the Spider-Goddess rules the Universe[1] and sentences me to eternity scrubbing the larvae-pits for my lack of faith, *at least I got a whole lifetime free of this nonsense first*. [1] I'm not singling out you Zoopites, just an example :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:07 PM 6/9/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: The majority of religious people are irrational. So are the majority of real numbers . . . Ah, but all transcendental numbers are irrational. Make of that what you will. :) Julia who has a book about pi and another book about e ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) that genetics plays a strong role in experiencing spirituality. sniplet All religions have this one thing in common. All feelings of spirituality has a common element of feeling God or knowing their place in the Universe sniplet Most people feel this at one time, some more than others. I can't help but to think that some people (like myself) lack the necessary component to feel God in the same degree and manner. Some people are raised religious, but never gain conviction. Others never have exposure to religion, yet do claim to have felt God and profess a belief and love of God. If genetics does play a role (intriguing yet disturbing thought, and dovetails with the notion of 'a brain hard-wired for spirituality'), what is the evolutionary survival value to such an experience? Does it help bind a small family group/tribe together in an improved-reproductive-success way, by promoting a sense of connectedness? Does it help the individual sacrifice ers life for the good of the tribe by giving a sense of continuance despite an obviously fatal scenario? Why is this? Taking the religious position, one could say that they have not let God in. I believe that for some people (perhaps that 10% of us who are 'godless')they (I) lack something which provides this unshaken belief in so many people. I would assert that most people who do believe in God, know that it is based upon faith, but do have personal validation, despite its illogicalness. sniplet Being an objectivist, I have been taught to scoff at the idea, with the clear and simple argument - Where's the Beef!. I struggled with this for many, many years. WHY DO THEY BELIEVE! Asking the question from a more tolerant religious perspective, if Faith is a Gift or Grace bestowed by God for the 'poor sinner' to be capable of belief, then how can an individual be blamed for lack of Faith? This is a question I, a believer who has felt that oneness with the Universe, have wrestled with, as it makes Belief impossible without Divine Intervention...and what sin have those who *cannot* feel Faith have committed to merit such isolation from God? How is that at all fair or merciful? It isn't, of course - in fact, it fits one non-literalist definitions of hell. I personally would like proof, even if it was a personal conviction. Life may have been easier for me as a strong church goer, having faith in the Lord, doing the Lord's work. It did not come, but it did have an interesting effect - It freed me to be critical of God, his believers, and the dogma associated with God. In talking to my parents about this, I came to realize that my freedom from feeling God places me in a position to be unbiased, and by this, I become an intellectual guardian, able to question and challenge those who use religion for evil, as a weapon or as an implement of control. I pay a price in this, but it is _undenialable _that I contribute to the health of religion, by being its intellectual guardian - to question bad religion, bad beliefs, bad science, bad memes. Some say that religion will die. I'm suggesting that religion will mature and grow stronger as science progresses. Science has and will break down the toxic memes of religion, and will influence the culture of religion to enhance the survivialability of humanity. A built-in check and balance? A reasonable notion, IMO. Call it the God or Spirituality Gene. Some of us don't understand what it means to believe in God. Evolution may have made us that way. But Gaia may a role for Atheists and Agnostics - it's to make religion better for the common man. I believe I was born to do the job. For all of you who believe, I think you owe me your thanks for defending the Lord's work. Intriguing. Thank you. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the rational/scientific part in charge most of the time, but they keep the irrational/religious part going in parallel, although usually not in dominance. In several of the cases, it seems likely this behavior was due to religious brainwashing when they were young and impressionable, and they never quite manage to expunge it, so it just gets pushed into a corner. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On 11 Jun 2003 at 19:04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: have you read _The Blind Watchmaker_ ? No, but I have heard a few things about it. If you want to make a reference to it, go ahead, there is a chance it won't go over my head. Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Some phycisists I know say it's why they believe in a creator, even if not a God as most religions would consider it. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question I asked before you get to ask me another one. But I'll give you a free one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. P.S. I can give a long answer to your 20 questions if you really want that; but it involves how I differ with some of the premises that underlie the question...and would take a while to write clearly. Why don't we start at the one you just replied to (but did not answer) and go from there. I'm not sure if we'll get anywhere, however. You don't really consider yourself to be a typical religious person, do you? I think that you are exceptionally rational and scientific and skeptical most of the time, but it makes me uncomfortable sometimes to see the contortions you put your mind through to keep the religious/irrational part of your mind compartmentalized but alive. Naturally you would disagree with this, and we aren't likely to get anywhere on that subject, and I fear your detailed answers would keep leading back to this. And my point in asking the questions was that most, not all, religious people were quite irrational, and since you aren't a typical case, it hardly seems worthwhile. But if you think it would be productive, go ahead. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:08:04PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Are you really willing to accept anything that is not subject to scientific testing as no more real than God? You are really cheating. You should at least answer that one question I asked before you get to ask me another one. But I'll give you a free one. I think that any knowledge that can never be tested by experiment is a poor and useless sort of knowledge, if knowledge it is at all. I guess I know where you are going with this, and if I'm right, I'd like to remind you about a discussion we had some time ago (years?) where I mentioned that most of my morals are based on what I think is the best way of advancing toward a Banks' Culture level of human development. And while that is not easily tested by experiment (I have only limited control over the ongoing experiment and as of now I can only run one experiment), it IS possible to test it experimentally. It just takes a very long time, and repeating it would be even more difficult. Erick, Do you consider yourself a Positivist? Jan = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:10:46AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: Okay, I was essentially refering to the Blind Watchmaker theory - a Universe capebale of supporting out type of life, and a planet like ours, and us coming along...is SO unlikely, that is it unlikely it was random chance. Does Dawkins make this argument in the book? It doesn't sound like him. Actually Dawkins' book is about debunking the 'argument from design'. Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! I haven't read 'The Blind Watchmaker' for many years, but that story might be in it... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) [side note: on dictionary.com they had the ad: If you love someone who has Schizophrenia...you're not alone. ] positivist adj : of or relating to positivism; positivist thinkers; positivist doctrine; positive philosophy [syn: positivistic, positive] n : someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes [syn: rationalist] Tentatively, I'd say yes based on that definition but I'm not really happy with it. I wouldn't describe my thought that way off-hand. I don't like the ambiguity of speculation about origins or ultimate causes. Maybe that is philosophical jargon and actually means something specific, but to me it is a little vauge. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I was scientically trained and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit. Yes, many of the ~40% I have met are like that. Those I have discussed it with seem to keep their mind compartmentalized, with the rational/scientific part in charge most of the time, but they keep the irrational/religious part going in parallel, although usually not in dominance. In several of the cases, it seems likely this behavior was due to religious brainwashing when they were young and impressionable, and they never quite manage to expunge it, so it just gets pushed into a corner. grin So non-condescending of you... serious What about Chad's thought that there might be 'spirituality gene(s)'? I can see how that might have a survival advantage in small, close groups. How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sense? Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Debbi who has had moments of absolute wonder and of profound universal connectedness (no visions, voices or anything hallucinatory); no typical time of day or situation, although more have occurred outdoors than in, began at least by age 5 (Oh, because it almost crosses over into prairie dog thread, I'll relate that one day in kindergarten I was delighted to discover gophers in the schoolyard: how cute, how clever with their quick dartings and the way they watched right back, how marvelous that they *built homes underground,* had families...how akin yet different we were, eying each other under the bright Califoria sun, me crouched on my Charlie Browns,# the gopher headshoulders out of its dark hole.) #saddle oxford shoes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: grin So non-condescending of you... Arrogance, love it or ...of course you love it in me, who wouldn't! Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Maybe it is a leftover from childhood. That whole warm-fuzzy feeling of being cradled at Mommy's breast, sucking the magical, all-powerful source of life... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Is the sensation of wonder or true awe akin to universal connectedness? What evolutionary purpose does wonder serve? (Anger, fear and love all have clear survival advantages.) Is this related at all to how some people have sensitve music-evoked emotions/states? Or to empathy? Maybe it is a leftover from childhood. That whole warm-fuzzy feeling of being cradled at Mommy's breast, sucking the magical, all-powerful source of life... snort How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning emotions... ;) serious But they are a huge part of being human, and are worthy of study. There is a connection between genes and temperament and emotion, whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. I'll see what kind of studies I can find sometime... Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:45:15PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: snort How silly of me to ask of you a question concerning emotions... ;) sniff Now you've hurt my feelings :-( -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the positive data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics, which were already recognized by the Scottish Empiricist and Skeptic David Hume as concerned with the relations of ideas and, in a later phase of Positivism, were classified as purely formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the Positivists became noted for their repudiation of metaphysics; i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such transcendent knowledge claims. In its basic ideological posture, Positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of the Positivists. The Logical Positivist school differs from earlier empiricists and positivists (David Hume, Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification rather than upon personal experience. It differs from Auguste Comte and J.S. Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless-that the great unanswerable questions about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. Britannica is handy :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:20:03AM -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: I have a theory (which of course would not meet Erik's stringent standard for what is required to formulate a theory) Geez, Chad, I didn't mean to make you so paranoid! I don't have any problem with something stated like that (I have a theory...). No stringent requirements. My problem is when false knowledge is presented authoritatively as FACT (not just a theory). (And I am not implying that your theory is wrong, I actually don't have much opinion on it, although it sounds possible) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: Happiness Is A Warm Fuzzy Maru Happiness is a warm fuzzy something, anyway. :-D Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
William T Goodall wrote: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:49 am, Erik Reuter wrote: Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! I haven't read 'The Blind Watchmaker' for many years, but that story might be in it... If not, I'm pretty sure it's in _Genius_ by James Gleick. If it's not there, then it must be in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynmann!_. I read both of those in the past 18 months, and it's in one of them. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sense? If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia Julia, you're unfair too. Either tell it or not, but don't just mention it and leave it. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
David Hobby wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) ... But traditional methods such as fasting, sleep deprivation, frenetic dancing, sensory deprivation, self-flagellation, etc are all O.K.? Unfair! If there is a spirituality gene and some people are lacking, if they feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to achieve such feelings? If so, then something that I heard about recently makes a lot more sense than it did to me at the time I heard it Julia Julia, you're unfair too. Either tell it or not, but don't just mention it and leave it. : ) I don't want to give too much detail, because I don't want to get anyone in trouble. Prior to a big blow-out thing that was of spiritual significance for at least some of the participants, in the frantic get-ready-for-it someone was asking after a particular pipe so she could get high beforehand. (And she was one of the people for which it had spiritual significance.) I couldn't see the point, myself; sleep dep would do a lot for me, and crowd mood would carry me a ways, as well, if I walked in in the right mindset to let it. (Frentic dancing was also a mood-alterer of choice for a number of people, but sheer fatigue ruled *that* out for me, not to mention that it's not easy to dance frentically when you're obviously pregnant and not used to frentic dancing.) Then again, she'd taken Benadryl or something the previous couple of nights so she was able to sleep through all sorts of crap that I couldn't, so maybe she wasn't suffering the degree of sleep dep I was. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
Deborah Harrell wrote: s. How many here who consider themselves religious, spiritual, or otherwise somehow connected to the Divine have had that feeling of universal connectedness or sacred presence (drug experiences disqualified in my book) -- and how many here who consider themselves atheist or agnostic (or indifferent) have had such a feeling/sens I'm agnostic - Eric's description of his agnostisism fits pretty closely with the way I feel - but I believe strongly in spirituality. I just don't think it has anything to do with a divine presence, and I feel that it probably be explained logically. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) [side note: on dictionary.com they had the ad: If you love someone who has Schizophrenia...you're not alone. ] positivist adj : of or relating to positivism; positivist thinkers; positivist doctrine; positive philosophy [syn: positivistic, positive] n : someone who emphasizes observable facts and excludes metaphysical speculation about origins or ultimate causes [syn: rationalist] Tentatively, I'd say yes based on that definition but I'm not really happy with it. I wouldn't describe my thought that way off-hand. I don't like the ambiguity of speculation about origins or ultimate causes. Maybe that is philosophical jargon and actually means something specific, but to me it is a little vauge. I'm not happy with that definition either. Websters Positivism: A theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences Logical Positivism: a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless -- called also logical empiricism = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:29 am, Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:20:00PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Do you consider yourself a Positivist? If I say no, will you think negatively of me? :-) Ummm, wait while I look it up (I've heard it before but I don't really know what it means, I'm quite ignorant on a lot of philosophy, in fact, despited my 3 letter designation I can't remember having ever read a philosophy book) The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the positive data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics, which were already recognized by the Scottish Empiricist and Skeptic David Hume as concerned with the relations of ideas and, in a later phase of Positivism, were classified as purely formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the Positivists became noted for their repudiation of metaphysics; i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such transcendent knowledge claims. In its basic ideological posture, Positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of the Positivists. The Logical Positivist school differs from earlier empiricists and positivists (David Hume, Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification rather than upon personal experience. It differs from Auguste Comte and J.S. Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless-that the great unanswerable questions about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. Britannica is handy :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth Thank you Mr. Goodall. That was very consice. I would like to add that modern positivists are more or less logical positivists, and follow the idias of Carl Poper (sp?). = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy?
writen by??? Anyway, this is the mistake of using the evidence that suggested a theory to support the theory. To demonstrate this type of error, Richard Feynmann once walked into the lecture hall and said something like: The most amazing thing happened to me on the way to lecture. I passed a car and the license plate was WZ3726!!! Can you imagine? Out of all the millions of permutations, I saw that particular one! The odds are incredible! It is important however not to neglect the benefit of intuition. Using anecdotal evidence is often appropriate when making decisions, especially in the formation of hypothesis. I think I am paraphrasing Feynman himself, but perhaps not. Anyway, what are the chances? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Plonkworthy?
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religion is extremist by nature. YAWN stre-e-etch curl up comfortably under the lilac bush Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :) Why Lilac? :) Perhaps Gandalf's or the hobbits' pipes were made of lilac: http://www.devonian.ualberta.ca/pwatch/lilac.htm Syringa' originates from the Greek syrinx', meaning hollow stem. One of the first common names for Syringa vulgaris in English was pipe tree', because the straight stems made excellent pipes. The stem was used by ancient Greek doctors to inject medications into their patients... It's an indicator plant: ...Both plants and insects develop in a sequence in spring, in response to temperature. Because of this, the bloom time of lilac or other key indicator plants can be used to predict the best time for certain farming activies. In Montana, alfalfa is usually ready for its first cut one month after lilacs start to flower. To get rid of alfalfa weevil, Montana farmers do an early cut of alfalfa hay within 10 days of first lilac bloom. This eliminates the weevil eggs before they hatch. In Southern Alberta the saying is be ready to cut hay 40 days after the lilac flowers. When the lilacs reach full bloom is the best time to treat birch leaf miner on birch trees, gypsy moth larvae on deciduous trees, and lilac borer on lilac... It travels well and is hardy: http://www.frontrangeliving.com/garden/Lilacs.htm ...A favorite in Thomas Jeffersons garden and a tough plant that journeyed to Colorado with the pioneers, old-fashioned lavender lilacs still can be found on abandoned homesteads, along with Harison's yellow rose and heirloom bearded irises. None is native to North America but all have adapted to conditions in the West... But most of all, I loved it as a child: the marvelous odor from the lavender blooms, how perfect a secret meeting place the lilac thicket on the crest of the hill made, playing at Mowgli peering out from the jungle to the houses below... My cats like to hang out under the lilac bush out back; it's cool, shady, and protects from sharp bird eyes as well as silly dog noses. ;) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Plonkworthy?
At 11:35 PM 6/9/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Religion is extremist by nature. YAWN stre-e-etch curl up comfortably under the lilac bush Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :) Why Lilac? :) Perhaps Gandalf's or the hobbits' pipes were made of lilac: http://www.devonian.ualberta.ca/pwatch/lilac.htm Syringa' originates from the Greek syrinx', meaning hollow stem. One of the first common names for Syringa vulgaris in English was pipe tree', because the straight stems made excellent pipes. The stem was used by ancient Greek doctors to inject medications into their patients... The hemlock plant also has hollow stems . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
In a message dated 6/9/2003 10:39:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I remember one about a guy playing golf in Japan the day after a night when he visited a lady of the evening . . . -- Ronn! :) And his boss says Whadda ya mean I've got the wrong Brin-L? William Taylor - Zen rimshoot. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
In a message dated 6/9/2003 10:59:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: curl up comfortably under the lilac bush Heretic Lutheran Deist Maru :) Why Lilac? :) Why not? ;-) Not Another Eliza Emulation Maru -- Ronn! :) But gringo the lilacs, oh. William Taylor - Etymology Reference Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Personally, I don't like to associate myself with groups that have such a bad history and such a large number of irrational people. Fen, frex. ;-) Oh, like the Disclave Flooding Incident perpetrators? (If you haven't heard the story, the moral is, if you're going to play bondage games in the con hotel, DON'T use a sprinkler as a tie-down point. Knowing that, and knowing about the 2' high wave of water that came out of the door to outside that was opened when the folks outside noticed water coming from under the door at 2AM, I think reconstruction of the rest of the story can be left to the imagination.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
In a message dated 6/10/2003 7:02:39 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, like the Disclave Flooding Incident perpetrators? (If you haven't heard the story, the moral is, if you're going to play bondage games in the con hotel, DON'T use a sprinkler as a tie-down point. Knowing that, and knowing about the 2' high wave of water that came out of the door to outside that was opened when the folks outside noticed water coming from under the door at 2AM, I think reconstruction of the rest of the story can be left to the imagination.) Julia Bless be the bind that tides? William Taylor Was it more or less destructive than the peanut butter in the shower? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
On 9 Jun 2003 at 23:05, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:16:20AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: So sorry, I have to utterly disagree with you. It's not semantics at all. I'd say the *majority* of the students who go to the local JSoc (Jewish Society) events aren't really religious, in fact. But they consider themselves Jews. It is semantics. There is definitely a difference between a religion and a people. As I explained before. A person chooses their religion, not their parents. You can call it whatever you want, the difference between birth and choice remains. You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish. And what's more, Isralie recognises that. You do not need to be a practicing Jew (although you cannot be a minister of another faith) to make use of the Law of Return. Does the notion that you are born into a faith discomfort you? Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
Andy said: You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish. Isn't that argument roughly the same as if I set up the Slaves of Rich and said anyone with brown eyes was automatically a Slave of Rich and when people with brown eyes said they weren't my slaves I replied Yes you are - everyone with brown eyes is!? Or is Judaism linked to a mitochondrial gene or something? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:37:12PM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: You do not chose to be Jewish if your mother is. You are Jewish. But you are not automatically practicing the religion because of your mother. Semantics. Not so hard to comprehend, really, if you are thinking clearly. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Plonkworthy?
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plonkworthy? Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:00:35 -0500 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Personally, I don't like to associate myself with groups that have such a bad history and such a large number of irrational people. Fen, frex. ;-) Oh, like the Disclave Flooding Incident perpetrators? (If you haven't heard the story, the moral is, if you're going to play bondage games in the con hotel, DON'T use a sprinkler as a tie-down point. Knowing that, and knowing about the 2' high wave of water that came out of the door to outside that was opened when the folks outside noticed water coming from under the door at 2AM, I think reconstruction of the rest of the story can be left to the imagination.) :-D That's hilarious. :-D Were the perpetrators dressed as naughty Klingons at the time? Jon _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
