Re: Correlation v. causality
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction. This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know what evidence you have to support either one of them, Evidence? None, except accumulated experience that comes with old age. and more particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing a post hoc analysis to support it. Which decision? It might help to define what you mean by stupid, but what I'm reading here could be inverted as this: Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish. Because many people tend to be followers rather than leaders, and because many people prefer the comfort of feeling part of a group to the relative discomfort of being trend-setters, most people tend to align with a leader of their choice. This can lead to destructive, mindless behavior and inculcate intellectual laziness, which can often be characterized as rank stupidity. That's not the same thing as saying that most people are stupid, but it might be a middle ground that's more conducive to productive discussion regarding what to actually *do* about it. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. Ah, the relativity of evaluation... And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal interpreter of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters. Or consider what might happen if I were to begin holding forth on the subject of opera, about which I know essentially nothing. To an aficionado I'd sure as hell look plenty stupid, but it would (probably) be a mistake to characterize me as being so, instead of simply labeling me a loudmouthed ignoramus on the topic. This is not stupidity, this is ignorance of a specialized field. The point is that we might be more inclined to consider those who are not part of our in-crowd as being stupid simply because they aren't part of our in-crowd, but as with the case of Newton, it seems unwise to apply one label to all members of a clade. If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something - after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Nick Arnett wrote: Emergence has applications in ecosystems, crowd control, city design, animal behaviour, surveillance, neural nets, and so on. Economics. Must not omit economics. The implications for economics are, in my mind, too interesting to make a list and leave it out. Just a point of personal preference...but money makes the world go 'round. Yes. It doesn't matter that 10 million scientists warn us of the dangers of Global Warming or other horrible scenarios, but when the barrel gets to 100 dollars, everybody talks about alternative energies :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 6 Dec 2007, at 03:46, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. I have several categories for people who don't have given information or knowledge: 1) Ignorant (but probably willing to learn, or at least not rejecting the information) 2) Willfully ignorant (actively rejecting the information) 3) Stupid Ignorance can be cured with information. Stupidity can't. Willful ignorance is the worst, IMO. Brittle dogmatism leads to willful ignorance in a number of cases, hence is a very negative thing. That's another reason religion is evil. People with faith will tie themselves in knots to avoid confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products. - Steve Jobs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lies and Damn Lies
May be helpful if those are not good enough: http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ Today (Thursday) only. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lies and Damn Lies
On Dec 6, 2007 5:45 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May be helpful if those are not good enough: http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ Cool, thanks... Never heard of this site before. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007 3:31 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's another reason religion is evil. People with faith will tie themselves in knots to avoid confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs. But thank goodness that people with scientific beliefs never have any trouble confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs. If scientists weren't so open-minded and willing to abandon old theories in a flash, science would hardly move forward at all! Please excuse the sarcasm... but there are benefits of the existence of conservatives in faith, science and other endeavors. Even though I'm not one of them in most domains, I can see the value. And you, William, seem to be a radically conservative atheist, apparently utterly unwilling to confront any ideas that would conflict with your belief. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 6 Dec 2007, at 15:17, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 3:31 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's another reason religion is evil. People with faith will tie themselves in knots to avoid confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs. But thank goodness that people with scientific beliefs never have any trouble confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs. If scientists weren't so open-minded and willing to abandon old theories in a flash, science would hardly move forward at all! This is completely irrelevant misdirection and entirely typical of the faith-addled response to a reasonable discussion. This is arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer because sunbathing causes cancer. Please excuse the sarcasm... but there are benefits of the existence of conservatives in faith, science and other endeavors. Even though I'm not one of them in most domains, I can see the value. And you, William, seem to be a radically conservative atheist, apparently utterly unwilling to confront any ideas that would conflict with your belief. I confront them all the time. Vigourously. That's how this discussion got started! Gentle Correction Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time. - Bill Gates, 1987 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007 7:47 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer because sunbathing causes cancer. No, it's arguing that people tend to cling to their beliefs for reasons other than logic. The same challenge exists in faith as in science -- to remain open-minded. You seem to be claiming that religion is inherently close-minded... perhaps you might consider the possibility that it isn't so, even though some religious people, like some of all people, are close-minded and seek to convert others to close-mindedness. Politics is much the same. And science is riddled with politics. I confront them all the time. Vigourously. That's how this discussion got started! Then you get the point of my sarcasm. Is it confrontation if your mind is already made up? Perhaps so, but it is certainly not engagement. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 6 Dec 2007, at 16:14, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 7:47 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer because sunbathing causes cancer. No, it's arguing that people tend to cling to their beliefs for reasons other than logic. People cursed with faith do, but I don't. My beliefs are what the evidence and logic lead me to. The same challenge exists in faith as in science -- to remain open- minded. You seem to be claiming that religion is inherently close-minded... perhaps you might consider the possibility that it isn't so, even though some religious people, like some of all people, are close-minded and seek to convert others to close-mindedness. Politics is much the same. And science is riddled with politics. Creeds, dogma, holy texts, Papal infallibility, God revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad - this is all extremely close-minded and not open to discussion. You either accept it or you're not part of that religion. There is no open-mindedness there. Try having an open-minded discussion with a Muslim about whether Muhammad might not have been the last prophet, or a Catholic about that 'every sperm is sacred' gibberish. I confront them all the time. Vigourously. That's how this discussion got started! Then you get the point of my sarcasm. Is it confrontation if your mind is already made up? Perhaps so, but it is certainly not engagement. Why would I want to 'engage' with ideas I have already proved to be false and evil? That would just be stupid and I'm not stupid. Clever Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time. - Bill Gates, 1987 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007 8:35 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People cursed with faith do, but I don't. My beliefs are what the evidence and logic lead me to. Haven't you seen, in science fiction, what happens when intelligent computers and robots operate entirely on evidence and logic? Did I miss the memorial service for your emotions, or should we be planning one? ;-) Creeds, dogma, holy texts, Papal infallibility, God revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad - this is all extremely close-minded and not open to discussion. You either accept it or you're not part of that religion. There is no open-mindedness there. Try having an open-minded discussion with a Muslim about whether Muhammad might not have been the last prophet, or a Catholic about that 'every sperm is sacred' gibberish. You're just wrong. You're basing this on the false idea that everybody is conservative. They are not. For example, you are entirely welcome in my church and many others. The only requirement for entrance is to walk in the door... and we'll lend a hand with that if you need it. And you can keep coming back without subscribing to any of our beliefs. Try having an open-minded discussion about faith with an extremist atheist ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 6 Dec 2007, at 16:58, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 8:35 AM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People cursed with faith do, but I don't. My beliefs are what the evidence and logic lead me to. Haven't you seen, in science fiction, what happens when intelligent computers and robots operate entirely on evidence and logic? Made up stories aren't actually evidence you know. Oh! Of course you don't know because you think made up stories in religious books are evidence. Did I miss the memorial service for your emotions, or should we be planning one? ;-) Creeds, dogma, holy texts, Papal infallibility, God revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad - this is all extremely close-minded and not open to discussion. You either accept it or you're not part of that religion. There is no open-mindedness there. Try having an open- minded discussion with a Muslim about whether Muhammad might not have been the last prophet, or a Catholic about that 'every sperm is sacred' gibberish. You're just wrong. You're basing this on the false idea that everybody is conservative. They are not. For example, you are entirely welcome in my church and many others. The only requirement for entrance is to walk in the door... and we'll lend a hand with that if you need it. And you can keep coming back without subscribing to any of our beliefs. Would it make you happy if I added the occasional (almost all) here and there? Try having an open-minded discussion about faith with an extremist atheist ;-) Nick I've never met an extremist atheist. They're all moderate and reasonable like me. Almost all religion is evil Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Two years from now, spam will be solved. - Bill Gates, 2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality
Creeds, dogma, holy texts, Papal infallibility, God revealing the Qur'an to Muhammad - this is all extremely close-minded and not open to discussion. You either accept it or you're not part of that religion. Try having an open-minded discussion with a Muslim about whether Muhammad might not have been the last prophet, or a Catholic about that 'every sperm is sacred' gibberish. William T Goodall You're basing this on the false idea that everybody is conservative. They are not. Try having an open-minded discussion about faith with an extremist atheist ;-) Nick william does seem to be saying that all catholics and muslims are narrow minded, which is not true. there are many catholics who question the papal infallibility, and many moderate muslims who do not follow sharia law. according to asimov there are a billion names for god and many of their followers are not true believers. martin luther is one of many heretics who turned from the corrupt catholic church and it is still going on. some of the cults are even more dogmatic. some, like some unitarians and reconstructionist jews do not even require a belief in god. i may be an extremist atheist, but i will respect your faith, nick, especially since you do not attempt to force it on others, despite some of us who try to convince you to abandon your faith. i just have a hard time understanding why anyone with your obvious intelligence (whiich is superior to my own) is so easily duped into believing in a deity that is born of a virgin and is ressurected from the dead. jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, jon louis mann wrote: william does seem to be saying that all catholics and muslims are narrow minded, which is not true. there are many catholics who question the papal infallibility, and many moderate muslims who do not follow sharia law. according to asimov there are a billion names for god and many of their followers are not true believers. I thought it was Clarke, not Asimov. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
I have tried several times to join the weekly chat, but despite following all your instructions and trying every approach I could think of, I can't seem to get it to work. - Original Message - From: William T Goodallmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Weekly Chat Reminder As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.htmlhttp://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.ukhttp://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Nick said: And just what Kauffman (or is it Axelrod) suggests is signified by the mathematical relationships between gene counts and cell differentiation counts, if I am remembering it correctly. I'm struggling to recall (and away from my books), but isn't the mechanism of cell differentiation still quite a mystery? Of course, with all the stem cell research going on, perhaps there's a lot of new evidence coming out all the time. If you're interested in that sort of thing, I can highly recommend Sean Carroll's _Endless Forms Most Beautiful_, a good recent popular book on evo-devo, the evolution of development. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
On 6 Dec 2007, at 19:23, Olin Elliott wrote: I have tried several times to join the weekly chat, but despite following all your instructions and trying every approach I could think of, I can't seem to get it to work. It works on Mac OS X, Windows XP, Linux and other OS's using the Safari, Firefox or even Internet Explorer web browsers. You do need to have Java installed and enabled which is by default on Mac OS X but not on Windows XP. Linux users can sort themselves out I trust :-) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality
according to asimov there are a billion names for god and many of their followers are not true believers. jon I thought it was Clarke, not Asimov. Julia you are right, julia, i stand corrected. the title was, `the NINE billion names of god', by arthur c. clarke c. 1953. jon - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Most people is stupid _and_ most stupid people have an instinctive drive to mindlessly obey the orders of those that they believe are more intelligent - and this is what prevents extinction. This is an interesting pair of claims and I'd be intrigued to know what evidence you have to support either one of them, Evidence? None, except accumulated experience that comes with old age. Which can be translated as curmdgeonhood. ;) and more particularly why you've arrived at the conclusion you have. What I mean is that it almost looks like you've made a decision and are doing a post hoc analysis to support it. Which decision? That people are stupid. The argument you offered suggests you decided that people are stupid, and were doing an after-the-fact expansion on the point of view. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that the structure of what you wrote seemed to be justifying a conclusion rather than building a foundation for it. It might help to define what you mean by stupid, but what I'm reading here could be inverted as this: Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish. Oh, that's not stupid; it's surrealism! :D More seriously, though, even the term not able to think clearly doesn't necessarily indicate much about a given person's mind or mental faculties. Many people are not able to think clearly when they're angry, for instance, which renders temporary stupidity; as Julia pointed out some *choose* not to think clearly, which tends to lead others into ... anger. Some people don't have the tools to think clearly but that's only because they lack the training; others are genuinely organically dysfunctional and blameless about their inability to think clearly. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. Ah, the relativity of evaluation... Yes, that's correct. Were you rebutting the validity of the above? And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal interpreter of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters. During the Enlightenment? Not so much so. Inventing physics from nothing was a heck of an achievement, but the literalism he tried to justify was much more than simply a hobby or something he was doing to save face. He was genuinely committed to proving the literal truth of the Bible. If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something - after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) Yeah, you're probably right that everyone is probably guaranteed to be incapable of total comprehension of *something*; I was being a little narrower in intent, though, as in Totally incapable of comprehending X, where X is something presumably simple to grasp, such as number lines or the dangers of lighting firecrackers and swallowing them. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:54 PM, jon louis mann wrote: in that sense stupid is not only relative, but its definition depends on what one chooses to believe to be true knowledge. perhaps how you determine what is truth is genuine wisdom. Or at least one aspect of it, yeah, maybe. one who chooses to remain ignorant about arguments that logically refute their belief system may instead excercise their consider intellect to rationalize their belief just as newton tried to resolve religion with science to keep the church off his back. I'm not convinced he was doing it to avoid evangelical persecution. There appears to have been a little too much zealotry in his pursuit to make it seem entirely like a cover story. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: If you're thinking of stupid as meaning inclined to mental laziness, I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of stupid is (more or less) totally incapable of comprehending something. I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't believe most people fit that definition of stupid. I have several categories for people who don't have given information or knowledge: 1) Ignorant (but probably willing to learn, or at least not rejecting the information) 2) Willfully ignorant (actively rejecting the information) 3) Stupid Ignorance can be cured with information. Stupidity can't. Willful ignorance is the worst, IMO. Brittle dogmatism leads to willful ignorance in a number of cases, hence is a very negative thing. I like the categories. Willful ignorance is inarguably the worst. Stubbornness in general is frustrating, but when it's combined with wealth and/or power, and particularly with willful ignorance, the combination is much more than annoying; it can be actively, aggressively dangerous. For instance, CNN reported today that Bush was told back in August that Iran had dismantled its nuke program -- yet he continued pushing the panic button and beating the war drum, *exactly as he did with Iraq*. And yet no one is commenting on the obvious inability he has to either (1) learn from history; or (2) give a shit.* Of course it goes both ways -- Huckabee's rising in popularity despite the fact he's clearly an even more deranged, fundamentalist wacko than Bush. Despite the last seven ghastly years, there are people in the US who want even *more* of this kind of garbage. And no, you can't fix stupid. ;) == * Either choice works, and of course it doesn't have to be either/or. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Warren Ockrassa wrote: For instance, CNN reported today that Bush was told back in August that Iran had dismantled its nuke program -- yet he continued pushing the panic button and beating the war drum, *exactly as he did with Iraq*. And yet no one is commenting on the obvious inability he has to either (1) learn from history; or (2) give a shit.* Bush did that because he's a genius, who sees far into the future, much clearly than any of us. The panic button raises the price of oil, etc, etc. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
At 05:47 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Dec 2007, at 00:55, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. Other institutions don't necessarily require people to believe untrue things. Some religions require that, yes. That does not justify tarring the entire field with the same brush. The UU church, for instance, doesn't particularly have any articles of faith (which could be one reason membership* numbers seem so low) and doesn't particularly care if you ascribe to any given belief system. Furthermore there are ample cases of individuals being motivated to perform good deeds as a direct result of religious teachings, which is pretty much inarguable proof that the statement religion is evil is simply not correct. It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. Agreed. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 09:55 PM Tuesday 12/4/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Anthropic principle aside, sexual selection might go a pretty decent way toward explaining why we have such vastly oversized brains with which to observe the universe, make deductions and inferences about it, and contemplate a nice cup of gyokuro tea. Sexual selection in birds, for instance, appears to be the reason for a peacock's tail; an analogous mechanism in primates might have led to a positive feedback loop that resulted in a ludicrously disproportionate enlarging of the brain. So, alas, size might matter after all. Yes. Most of us have observed how the high school coeds all flock to the big-brained geeks and nerds and leave the jocks to sit home alone on Friday nights. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality
snippits: I'm not convinced he was doing it to avoid evangelical persecution. There appears to have been a little too much zealotry in his pursuit to make it seem entirely like a cover story. Warren Ockrassa people, after all, built the Parthenon, the Soyuz and nukes, so there must be something that forces people to act non-stupidly sometimes. But since it's impossible to define stupidity, it's also impossible to prove that most people are stupid. If we take an average brinller as the measure, it's obvious that most (other) people are stupid... human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) most people *are* incapable of comprehending simple things... due to a lack of education or lack of nutrients during an early phase of the life; otherwise, the future of mankind will be horrible. Alberto Monteiro newton had to adapt to the context of his times and find a way to resolve mathematics and the church. he didn't succeed, but he wasn't burned at the stake. social insects create incredible engineering marvels, and so do humans, but few individuals can understand relativity. our scientists stand on the shoulders of giants, and with the help of guided research and quantum computer modeling, we may be approaching the trans human singularity. ayn rand believed the masses of humanity were morons and would return to bestiality if not for the altruism of the elite who were kind enough to harness their labor so we plebians could reap the benefits of civilization. jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 08:07 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, jon louis mann wrote: ayn rand believed the masses of humanity were morons and would return to bestiality if not for the altruism of the elite who were kind enough to harness their labor so we plebians could reap the benefits of civilization. jon Whereas various Christian religions teach that man is a child of God or was made a little lower than the angels and so that every human being has worth first of all and foremost because s/he IS a human being, and that we should treat them as having that worth. Again Practice Sometimes Falls Short Of The Ideal Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 08:30 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want to know. I suspect, however, that if your curiosity ever gets the better of you entering that term into a (non-net-nannied) search engine would turn something up . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want to know. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: It might help to define what you mean by stupid As opposed to common working definition used by many people of disagrees with me . . . ? ;) It's not true that everybody that disagree with me is stupid! There are those that are really smart, but disagree because they are evil, and want to deceive other people into their evil ways. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Julia Thompson wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Ok, Satan's pawns. Or Satan's claws, if you want to get methaphorical :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Julia I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . Hot As You-Know-What Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lies and Damn Lies
At 09:10 AM Thursday 12/6/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 5:45 AM, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May be helpful if those are not good enough: http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/statplus/ Cool, thanks... Never heard of this site before. Nick You're welcome. As with everything, much of what is offered there may not be useful or interesting to any given user, but if you're patient from time to time you may get something you can really use. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 06:07 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: It might help to define what you mean by stupid As opposed to common working definition used by many people of disagrees with me . . . ? ;) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Which decision? That people are stupid. The argument you offered suggests you decided that people are stupid, and were doing an after-the-fact expansion on the point of view. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that the structure of what you wrote seemed to be justifying a conclusion rather than building a foundation for it. No, I _observed_ that people are stupid. This conflicts with the data that people, after all, built the Parthenon, the Soyuz and nukes, so there must be something that forces people to act non-stupidly sometimes. Stupid = not able to think clearly. People who believe that a fairy may turn 2 + 2 into fish. Oh, that's not stupid; it's surrealism! :D Of course you don't have pre-teen children, or you would not miss the reference :-) More seriously, though, even the term not able to think clearly doesn't necessarily indicate much about a given person's mind or mental faculties. Many people are not able to think clearly when they're angry, for instance, which renders temporary stupidity; as Julia pointed out some *choose* not to think clearly, which tends to lead others into ... anger. Some people don't have the tools to think clearly but that's only because they lack the training; others are genuinely organically dysfunctional and blameless about their inability to think clearly. Ok, so we are just diverging on the _number_ of stupid people. And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to strict Biblical interpretation. Ah, the relativity of evaluation... Yes, that's correct. Were you rebutting the validity of the above? The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. But since it's impossible to define stupidity, it's also impossible to prove that most people are stupid. If we take an average brinller as the measure, it's obvious that most (other) people are stupid... And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or brilliant? At that time? He was extremely brilliant! Not being a literal interpreter of the Bible had dangerous consequences those times, like having his brain physically separated from his heart by more than 2 meters. During the Enlightenment? IIRC (I could wikipedia for it, but it's not worth it), Kepler's mother had some problems one or two generations before Newton, for being accused of witchery. England, around the time of Newton, had a bloody revolution. Those were dangerous times - freedom of speech was bought with the blood of martyrs [ouch, I sound poetic...] Not so much so. Inventing physics from nothing was a heck of an achievement, but the literalism he tried to justify was much more than simply a hobby or something he was doing to save face. He was genuinely committed to proving the literal truth of the Bible. So? Maybe he thought he had the mathematical tools to do that. Maybe everybody is totally incapable of comprehending something - after all, human knowledge is much bigger than the size of human brains :-) Yeah, you're probably right that everyone is probably guaranteed to be incapable of total comprehension of *something*; I was being a little narrower in intent, though, as in Totally incapable of comprehending X, where X is something presumably simple to grasp, such as number lines or the dangers of lighting firecrackers and swallowing them. Ah, now we agree. From what I have seen, most people is totally incapable of comprehending those simple things. I just hope this is due to a lack of education or lack of nutrients during an early phase of the life; otherwise, the future of mankind will be horrible. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
William T Goodall wrote: It works on (...) Linux (...)( No, it doesn't. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 06:00 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of non-overlapping magisteria there are bound to be cases where you simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells you and how the world appears to actually be, no? My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of compartmentalisation? The usual answer in practice to that question: If » I « do it, it's because they genuinely don't collide. If » you « do it, it's because of compartmentalization (aided perhaps by rationalization and/or self-delusion). ;) -- Ronn! :) People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality
It's not true that everybody that disagree with me is stupid! There are those that are really smart, but disagree because they are evil, and want to deceive other people into their evil ways. Alberto Monteiro no, alberto, the evil, smart people you are referring to want to deceive evil, stupid people into their evil ways, even though the poor fools are reaally victims who are paying high gasoline prices and losing homes they didn't really have the credit to purchase. jonathan mann - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 10:06 PM Tuesday 12/4/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 7:55 PM, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, are you referring to the strong or weak anthropic model? Strong. And I just have to add, to be reasonably silly... the weak one is doomed -- survival of the fittest. Nick Does that reasoning apply to nuclear forces, too? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 08:30 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Dec 6, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . This should not, of course, be confused with Satan's pr0n. I'm not sure what that would be, and I'm quite confident I don't want to know. I suspect, however, that if your curiosity ever gets the better of you entering that term into a (non-net-nannied) search engine would turn something up . . . Very likely. Which is why I'm not even going to try. Hysterical blindness is not something I want to experience. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
On 7 Dec 2007, at 00:46, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall wrote: It works on (...) Linux (...)( No, it doesn't. It works in Firefox in Ubuntu Edgy Eft with Java installed. I just tried it. Here is a .png of it working:- http://idisk.mac.com/williamgoodall-Public/UbuntuChat.png -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Two years from now, spam will be solved. - Bill Gates, 2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 09:47 AM Thursday 12/6/2007, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Dec 2007, at 15:17, Nick Arnett wrote: But thank goodness that people with scientific beliefs never have any trouble confronting information that conflicts with their beliefs.If scientists weren't so open-minded and willing to abandon old theories in a flash, science would hardly move forward at all! This is completely irrelevant misdirection and entirely typical of the faith-addled response to a reasonable discussion. No, it is an inevitable observation of anyone who has actually worked in scientific research and seen that Sturgeon's Law (and its corollary) applies equally as well to new scientific ideas (including ones they themselves come up with) as it does to the contents of the in-basket at any publisher of FSF . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weekly Chat Reminder
At 08:38 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, William T Goodall wrote: Two years from now, spam will be solved. - Bill Gates, 2004 Is that anything like Fusion power is only about thirty years away (ca. 1970) ? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 05:10 PM Tuesday 12/4/2007, hkhenson wrote: snip I favor direct selection via a primary mortality mode in the EEA, EEA? European Education Association? Early Early A.M.? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not gossip.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: It *can* be evil, there are myriad times when it *is* evil, but your statement that religion *is* evil is functionally equivalent to saying that, since some people are anaphylactically allergic to shellfish, all shellfish are lethal poisons to all individuals. It's just not true. Agreed. What, no Satan's prawn reference here? Or was that just too obvious? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Julia I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . Hot As You-Know-What Maru Not so bad if there's pickled ginger around. At least, that's the case if the hot is from wasabi Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Correlation v. causality
Does Satan have retractable claws at the end of his paws? http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Now is the winter of our discontent Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:24:41 -0600 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Correlation v. causality At 07:06 PM Thursday 12/6/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Julia I thought it was a reference to satan's prawns: seafood prepared with an extra-hot spicy coating . . . Hot As You-Know-What Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not gossip.) And this seems to be the case in general with people who drink in their youth and drink a lot less as they grow older. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Ok, Satan's pawns. Or Satan's claws, if you want to get methaphorical :-) Claws works. Thanks! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:22 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: The datum can't be refutted: YEC would consider non-YEC as evil, stupid or satan's paws. I don't know how to connect this to the argument, namely, the measure of how many people are stupid. Do you mean satan's *pawns*, or have I just been exposed to something new? Ok, Satan's pawns. Or Satan's claws, if you want to get methaphorical :-) No, no, no, you logic-addled fools, you Science-benumbed dupes! They're Santa Claws, with which he holds the reins of his magical sleigh! Sheesh. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Dave Land wrote: They're Santa Claws, with which he holds the reins of his magical sleigh! Slay. SLAY! Sheesh indeed! -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
