The False Promises of Scientism
Terry Cross
> On 06/23/2011 09:28 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:37 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> :: Those robots raced across a wilderness desert with really rough
> >> :: terrain completely without outside direction.
>
> >> : Terry Cross<tcros...@hotmail.com>
> >> : And did those wonderful robots evade predators, find a mate, build a
> >> : nest, give birth, nurse, and care for young rat-lings, protect the
> >> : young from other rats with personal combat as necessary, forage for
> >> : food, and deal with parasites?
>
> >> No. But of course that's irrelevant unless you take the bizarre position
> >> that either they equal or outperform living things, or essentially
> >> nothing has been learned about how to navigate in the real world.
>
> > One of you boasted that your heroes had built a "simulated rat
> > brain." I countered that your "rat brain" would not be able to keep
> > a real rat alive for even a day in the real world.
>
> > Bill Snyder wrote in his usual nasty tone: "And you know this -- how,
> > exactly? And your proof of this is -- what,
> > exactly? Answers: You don't know, and you have no proof."
>
> > This is the proof that I offer: We know the general level of robot
> > competence is far below living creatures because of the minuscule
> > accomplishments of the best of them.
>
> That depends on "general level." They are able to go to Mars and
> survive years,
Since the robot was never alive, it cannot "survive." You may say
only that it "continued to function."
> and they are able to do symbolic math better than me and
> much, much better than you.
We were discussing its robotic talents, not computational.
> The list could go on.
No doubt you could also add to your list that the Lander did
preliminary analysis of mineral samples, converted sunlight into
electricity, and did not defecate. But your list is irrelevant to the
subject at hand. Since the goal of the other project was to "simulate
a rat brain" and it fell far short, it was what it was: a failure to
reach the stated goal.
What is more to the point, the boast that they simulated a rat brain
was a deliberate lie, just as the repetition of the boast is a lie.
One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
that science will one day Solve It All.
This pitiful article of faith cannot be falsified, of course, because
"one day" is an undefined point in the future. However, the
comparison of the boasts with the facts, as in this instance, shows
that Truth is not a required ingredient in Atheism. Atheists are
emotionally attached to their pitiful faith, and they become unhinged
very rapidly in the face of rational doubts.
The profession of modern scientists may seem to be the investigation
and discovery of the physical world. A careful analysis shows that
the real profession is writing successful grant applications, which
includes wrapping their pitiful accomplishments in bombast to win
continued grants and keep the money flowing.
The editors of Scientific American, Discovery, Science Magazine, and
other rags know this. They must convince the taxpayers that
Scientific Utopia is right around the corner if people keep paying the
taxes and giving the scientists a cushy living.
The system trades on truth, but the system is rigged to promote
falsehoods, leaving the truth tellers in the dust.
> Of course you would place no value on symbolic math -- you don't even
> understand what the term actually implies.
And this is the other arm of your propaganda: Anyone who casts doubt
on the false promises of Scientism is evil, stupid, or insane. It's
the same old dodge all the cults have used throughout history.
TCross
David Johnston
> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
problems.
Wayne Throop
: One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
: Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
Then I'm not one of these "Atheists" you claim exist somewhere.
I certainly do *not* have faith that science will solve all problems.
Do you know *anybody* who *does* actually have that as an article of faith?
As for "wonders", I wonder what counts as a wonder? Videophones with
voice command, maybe? Hows about the web in general? I think both of
these would be quite eye-catching to somebody first exposed to them,
with, say, a 1950s background. Would there be any similar wonderment
over anything produced by politics, nature, or religion over that time
period (the last 60 years)?
So. Sneer if you wish. But what wonders has anything *besides*
science and technology provided, that are new within the last 60 years?
Bill Snyder
That's ridiculous, Crosstard. Science will never be able to make you
honest, intelligent, or sane.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
huge
Pedantic much?
>
>
>> and they are able to do symbolic math better than me and
>> much, much better than you.
>
>
> We were discussing its robotic talents, not computational.
No, we were discussing intelligence.
>
>
>> The list could go on.
>
>
> No doubt you could also add to your list that the Lander did
> preliminary analysis of mineral samples, converted sunlight into
> electricity, and did not defecate. But your list is irrelevant to the
> subject at hand. Since the goal of the other project was to "simulate
> a rat brain" and it fell far short, it was what it was: a failure to
> reach the stated goal.
>
> What is more to the point, the boast that they simulated a rat brain
> was a deliberate lie, just as the repetition of the boast is a lie.
>
> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
> insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
> that science will one day Solve It All.
_My_ examples are all about what science can do right now.
I support what I say. You have refused (because you cannot) to support
any of the claims you have made for religion. That is because all
religion and supernaturalism is pure horse crap.
And many atheists (small 'a', asswipe) could care less about scientific
truth. Atheists simply don't believe in gods.
Go ahead, support your claims for supernaturalism with anything at all.
>
> This pitiful article of faith cannot be falsified, of course, because
> "one day" is an undefined point in the future. However, the
> comparison of the boasts with the facts, as in this instance, shows
> that Truth is not a required ingredient in Atheism. Atheists are
> emotionally attached to their pitiful faith, and they become unhinged
> very rapidly in the face of rational doubts.
>
> The profession of modern scientists may seem to be the investigation
> and discovery of the physical world. A careful analysis shows that
> the real profession is writing successful grant applications,
<scathing sarcasm>
Yes, my dear, heart transplants and the Mars lander were just that!
</scathing sarcasm>
> which
> includes wrapping their pitiful accomplishments in bombast to win
> continued grants and keep the money flowing.
I think you are talking about the horse crap religionists.
>
> The editors of Scientific American, Discovery, Science Magazine, and
> other rags know this. They must convince the taxpayers that
> Scientific Utopia is right around the corner if people keep paying the
> taxes and giving the scientists a cushy living.
>
> The system trades on truth, but the system is rigged to promote
> falsehoods, leaving the truth tellers in the dust.
Sure. Believe it when your doctor offers you a new lens for the
interior of your eye or a knee replacement.
>
>
>> Of course you would place no value on symbolic math -- you don't even
>> understand what the term actually implies.
>
>
> And this is the other arm of your propaganda: Anyone who casts doubt
> on the false promises of Scientism is evil, stupid, or insane.
No, only stupid. Although in your case, given your vile racism,
evil does happen to apply.
raven1
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
>Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
>insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
>that science will one day Solve It All.
I doubt very much that anyone, atheist or otherwise, believes that.
However, science has undeniably helped alleviate many such problems -
know anyone who's died of smallpox or polio recently? - and will
continue to do so, and get better at it, in the future.
Terry Cross
The boast was that those techies had produced a "synthetic rat
brain." With those words, the techies announced they would compete
with a rat on the rat's terms. The techies themselves set the
standard. But last I heard, real rats don't care much about symbolic
math, so the robot's accomplishments in that field are irrelevant.
Maybe the "synthetic rat brain" can play the violin and fold origami,
too, but rats don't care and neither should we.
The real question is how well does the "synthetic rat brain"
synthesize the mind of a rat. And as we find out with close
questioning, the answer is "not well."
Hence, the project was just hyped-up failure. No doubt, the grant
application tries to skew the results to pretend terrific success --
last week a rat, next week a chimpanzee, and tomorrow, dictator of the
world! Just give us money and we will build it.
Those techies read the back cover of too many comic books with all
those over-hyped ads; they know that double-speak and deceptive
language makes an easy buck. And the other problem is, the grantors
did not read enough.
TCross
huge
No, they did not. It is very clear to everyone that a simulation is not
the actual thing. Simulations are helpful in many practical ways, like
predictions, and it is this success that makes them valuable.
Predictions by supernaturalists are statistically no better than random.
You have no evidence for any factuality whatever of you supernaturalism.
> The techies themselves set the
> standard. But last I heard, real rats don't care much about symbolic
> math, so the robot's accomplishments in that field are irrelevant.
> Maybe the "synthetic rat brain" can play the violin and fold origami,
> too, but rats don't care and neither should we.
>
> The real question is how well does the "synthetic rat brain"
> synthesize
It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
> the mind of a rat. And as we find out with close
> questioning, the answer is "not well."
> Hence, the project was just hyped-up failure. No doubt, the grant
> application tries to skew the results to pretend terrific success --
> last week a rat, next week a chimpanzee, and tomorrow, dictator of the
> world! Just give us money and we will build it.
Then why don't you just throw out the computer that you are writing
from? Your ignorant racist rantings are of no use to anyone.
Howard Brazee
He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
bailiwick of religion. But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
tantrum.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >On Jun 23, 11:18 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> >> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
>
> >Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
> >problems.
>
> He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
> bailiwick of religion. But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
> will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
> tantrum.
Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist) in the
history of science has ever predicted would be solved by science.
Give us an example.
TCross
David Johnston
If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
are beside the issue.
Terry Cross
Simulations that do not simulate are good for only one thing: They
make money for the frauds who sell them.
> Predictions by supernaturalists are statistically no better than random.
> You have no evidence for any factuality whatever of you supernaturalism.
>
> > The techies themselves set the
> > standard. But last I heard, real rats don't care much about symbolic
> > math, so the robot's accomplishments in that field are irrelevant.
> > Maybe the "synthetic rat brain" can play the violin and fold origami,
> > too, but rats don't care and neither should we.
>
> > The real question is how well does the "synthetic rat brain"
> > synthesize
>
> It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
OK. Revise the question: How well does the computer simulate a rat
brain? And the answer is, "not well."
> These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
> that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>
> > the mind of a rat. And as we find out with close
> > questioning, the answer is "not well."
> > Hence, the project was just hyped-up failure. No doubt, the grant
> > application tries to skew the results to pretend terrific success --
> > last week a rat, next week a chimpanzee, and tomorrow, dictator of the
> > world! Just give us money and we will build it.
>
> Then why don't you just throw out the computer that you are writing
> from?
My desktop machine is not trying to simulate a rat. Running
Microsoft, my machine is simulating a computer. It does not do
"computer" very well, but it is good enough for some things, and cheap
enough to serve.
When and if it starts to simulate a rat, however, I will replace it in
a heartbeat.
TCross
Andre Lieven
> On Jun 23, 2:29 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> > <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 23, 11:18 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> > >> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
>
> > >Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
> > >problems.
>
> > He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
> > bailiwick of religion. But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
> > will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
> > tantrum.
>
> Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist)
BZT. Wrong, you lose, game over.
NO scientist, never mind the whole of science, is responsible
for some utterings of 'PRETENDED scientists'.
> in the
> history of science has ever predicted would be solved by science.
> Give us an example.
Fallacy Of Proving A Negative. Epic Fail.
Andre
Terry Cross
Why? 100% faith is not true of any other religion. Why is Scientism
so dogmatic?
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Jun 23, 5:37 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hysterical.kook> bullshat:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 2:29 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> > > <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 23, 11:18 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> > > >> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
>
> > > >Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
> > > >problems.
>
> > > He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
> > > bailiwick of religion. But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
> > > will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
> > > tantrum.
>
> > Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist)
>
> BZT. Wrong, you lose, game over.
>
> NO scientist, never mind the whole of science, is responsible
> for some utterings of 'PRETENDED scientists'.
Why not? You all credit every Christian with the actions of pretended
Christians. Isn't turn-about fair play?
TCross
David Johnston
I do no such thing.
Father Haskell
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
Kitty Hawk -- 1903.
Man on the moon -- July, 1969.
SkyEyes
Science isn't a religion.
> Why is Scientism so dogmatic?
It *isn't*. Everything in science is provisional. Show me a religion
with that philosophy. Please.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
David Johnston
Unitarianism. "Oh God, if there is a God..."
Wayne Throop
:: Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist)
: Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca>
: BZT. Wrong, you lose, game over.
:
: NO scientist, never mind the whole of science, is responsible for some
: utterings of 'PRETENDED scientists'.
Yes, the "pretended scientist" pretty much gives away what he's
going for there. And basically, it's easy to dispose of; even if
there exist somewhere "Atheists" or "Scientismists" who treat science
as a be-all and end-all Answer To Everything, almost nobody actually
holds that opinion. And skewing it by adding "(or pretended scioentist)"
means you can no longer accuse any and every body who says that some
scientific hypothesis Terry frowns upon is useful is a Scientismist
or a filty Atheist or whatever he rants about in any given week.
Wayne Throop
: It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
: that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
Which would be less of a simulation.
And no, Terry, nobody says you can pith a frog, plug in a silicon chip,
and still have it catch flies, swim, and croak on lilly pads. Yet.
Wayne Throop
: Why not? You all credit every Christian with the actions of pretended
: Christians. Isn't turn-about fair play?
I don't. But if turnabout *were* fair play, YOU would have to.
Or admit to your double standard.
SkyEyes
Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars - they've been there in excess
of 7 years now, and Opportunity is still running.
Terry Cross
> : Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> : Why not? You all credit every Christian with the actions of pretended
> : Christians. Isn't turn-about fair play?
>
> I don't.
But you (plural) do.
On Jun 23, 3:45 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:25222fe3-2235-4c3e-
> 8aa0-a12868c40...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> --
> One amateur theologian even swore that Death Valley was literally the
> roof of the Biblical Hell and that he could hear the "wails of the
> damned" crying out from the "Devil's Domain" below.
> -Richard E. Lingenfelter
TCross
Terry Cross
> :: Terry Cross <tcros...@hysterical.kook>
> :: Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist)
>
> : BZT. Wrong, you lose, game over.
> :
> : NO scientist, never mind the whole of science, is responsible for some
> : utterings of 'PRETENDED scientists'.
>
> Yes, the "pretended scientist" pretty much gives away what he's
> going for there.
Yup. Just for generosity, I am including Evolutionists, people who
pretend to simulate rat brains on computers, and Cosmologists, even
though I would not normally consider them scientists.
TCross
Terry Cross
> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
> : These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>
> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>
> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
bombast of miraculous accomplishments just around the corner. Making
inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. And
like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
comic book, you believe it all.
From the Wiki: "The Insult that Made a Man out of Mac"
In this, the full-length version, the protagonist, "Mac," is accosted
on the beach by a sand-kicking bully while his date watches.
Humiliated, the young man goes home and, after kicking a chair and
gambling a ten-cent stamp, subscribes to Atlas's "Dynamic-Tension"
program. Later, the now muscular protagonist goes back to the beach
and beats up the bully, becoming the "hero of the beach." His girl
returns while other females marvel at how big his muscles are.
http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/charles-atlas.jpg
And who gets rich? Charles Atlas, of course.
TCross
Terry Cross
> : Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
I am not a Christian, so no.
TCross
Bill Snyder
Oh, come now, Tardbot. Compared to you even a Cosmetologist is a
scientist.
Bill Snyder
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 23, 3:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
>> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
>> : These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
>> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>>
>> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
>> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>>
>> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
>> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
>> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
>
>
>"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
>bombast of miraculous accomplishments just around the corner. Making
>inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. And
>like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
>comic book, you believe it all.
A computer can't think like a man (yet), so a man must have
magical, mystical thinking woo-woo that a computer lacks. A
computer can't fly like a bird, so a bird must have magical,
mystical flying woo-woo that a computer lacks. A computer can't
swim like a fish, so fish must have magical, mystical swimming
woo-woo that a computer lacks. A computer can't lie like the
Crossbot, so the Crossbot must have magical, mystical shitting
woo-woo that a computer lacks.
Howard Brazee
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
>> bailiwick of religion. � �But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
>> will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
>> tantrum.
>
>
>Name a human problem that no scientist (or pretended scientist) in the
>history of science has ever predicted would be solved by science.
>Give us an example.
That is not at all the same thing as saying science will (in your
words) "Solve All Problems". Nobody ever said that.
Certainly there are small problems that have been solved to anybody's
satisfaction using science. Are there small problems that have been
solved to anybody's satisfaction using prayer?
Howard Brazee
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
>believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
>mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
>are beside the issue.
Which atheists? Could you provide me a quote?
David Johnston
> On Jun 23, 4:03 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
> > : Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> > : Why not? You all credit every Christian with the actions of pretended
> > : Christians. Isn't turn-about fair play?
>
> > I don't.
>
> But you (plural) do.
>
I am not plural. "You all" means every single individual. Not just
some people none of whom are necessarily parties to this thread.
huge
All simulations only simulate particular aspects of the target system.
What are the aspects of the target system that it is intended to
simulate does it not simulate well? Be specific.
>
>
>> These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
>> that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>>
>>> the mind of a rat. And as we find out with close
>>> questioning, the answer is "not well."
>>> Hence, the project was just hyped-up failure. No doubt, the grant
>>> application tries to skew the results to pretend terrific success --
>>> last week a rat, next week a chimpanzee, and tomorrow, dictator of the
>>> world! Just give us money and we will build it.
>>
>> Then why don't you just throw out the computer that you are writing
>> from?
>
>
> My desktop machine is not trying to simulate a rat.
The point is that you repeatedly bring up conspiracy theories about
science, but you are happy to use your computer and the network.
It appears you are using the very real benefits of these scientists who
are conspiring against you. The scientific method often works. The
supernatural practices never, ever work.
> Running
> Microsoft, my machine is simulating a computer.
No, it is simply being a computer, unless you are running a virtual
operating system under Windows. I doubt very seriously that you are
doing anything that sophisticated. It's probably all you can do to use
a news client.
Andre Lieven
> On Jun 23, 3:25 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> > > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> > > >Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
> > > >insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
> > > >that science will one day Solve It All.
>
> > > I doubt very much that anyone, atheist or otherwise, believes that.
> > > However, science has undeniably helped alleviate many such problems -
> > > know anyone who's died of smallpox or polio recently? - and will
> > > continue to do so, and get better at it, in the future.
>
> > Kitty Hawk -- 1903.
> > Man on the moon -- July, 1969.
>
> Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars - they've been there in excess
> of 7 years now, and Opportunity is still running.
Pioneer 10 was in contact with Earth from March 1972 to January 2003.
Voyager 1 was launched on Sept 5, 1977 and is still operating.
As for loonies who decry science while using science to stay alive:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2006/01/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/
Sod them.
Andre
David Johnston
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:44:03 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
> >believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
> >mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
> >are beside the issue.
>
> Which atheists? Could you provide me a quote?
>
Hunh?
Howard Brazee
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
>> >believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. �The
>> >mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
>> >are beside the issue.
>>
>> Which atheists? � Could you provide me a quote?
>>
>
>Hunh?
Which atheists have stated that they believe that every problem can be
solved by science? What did they say? I don't know of anybody
at all who believes every problem can be solved by science. Nobody.
William December Starr
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
> insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
> that science will one day Solve It All.
Seriously, where do you _get_ this stuff from? Not from sane
observation of reality, obviously.
-- wds
John Baker
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
><davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 23, 11:18�am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
>>> Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
>>
>>Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
>>problems.
>
>He knows that nobody believes it will solve all problems, that's the
>bailiwick of religion. But the nature of trolls is to say whatever
>will draw attention to him - kind of like an infant throwing a
>tantrum.
The only attention Crosstard got from me was to be unceremoniously
dumped into my killfile.
David Johnston
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:27:25 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >> >If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
> >> >believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
> >> >mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
> >> >are beside the issue.
>
> >> Which atheists? Could you provide me a quote?
>
> >Hunh?
>
> Which atheists have stated that they believe that every problem can be
> solved by science?
Why are you asking me? I never said any atheists have stated that.
Terry Cross
<snort!>
How well do you KNOW Microsoft?
TCross
huge
Well enough to double boot it with Linux, using Windows only to run my
favorite tax program once a year.
Bill Snyder
Starr) wrote:
The in-brain RSS feed came with the lobotomy.
Terry Cross
The prosecution rests.
TCross
Father Haskell
> On Jun 23, 6:49 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 3:25 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:18:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> > > > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> > > > >Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems. Disease, aging,
> > > > >insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
> > > > >that science will one day Solve It All.
>
> > > > I doubt very much that anyone, atheist or otherwise, believes that.
> > > > However, science has undeniably helped alleviate many such problems -
> > > > know anyone who's died of smallpox or polio recently? - and will
> > > > continue to do so, and get better at it, in the future.
>
> > > Kitty Hawk -- 1903.
> > > Man on the moon -- July, 1969.
>
> > Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars - they've been there in excess
> > of 7 years now, and Opportunity is still running.
>
> Pioneer 10 was in contact with Earth from March 1972 to January 2003.
> Voyager 1 was launched on Sept 5, 1977 and is still operating.
That was during what, the Carter administration?
> As for loonies who decry science while using science to stay alive:
>
> http://stupidevilbastard.com/2006/01/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/
>
> Sod them.
>
> Andre
Convenience matters most, I guess.
Michael A. Terrell
SkyEyes wrote:
>
> Science isn't a religion.
Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.
Quadibloc
> On Jun 23, 3:00 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is Scientism so dogmatic?
>
> It *isn't*. Everything in science is provisional. Show me a religion
> with that philosophy. Please.
But Science or Scientism or whatever can certainly *seem* dogmatic.
If someone comes along and says that Einstein was wrong, for example,
what is the reaction? That he is a kook, a crackpot, a nut.
Is that because Science shows even less respect for unbelievers than
most religions?
Well, scientists haven't been going around burning unbelievers at the
stake or beheading them, it could be pointed out. But it is true that
on a *good* day, even Islam acknowledges that religion is subjective
enough that followers of other faiths may need some time to see the
truth.
With science, though, the facts are all there. If you're willing to
listen, and are able to learn the math, the chain of reasoning from
Maxwell's equations to all the apparently bizarre consequences of
Special Relativity, and the internal self-consistency of Special
Relativity, are there - for anyone to see. Absolutely no faith is
required.
So rejecting Special Relativity is really no different from rejecting
the hard-earned practical knowledge of carpenters and cooks and
sailors - just as it's silly for someone who doesn't have knowledge or
experience in a practical field to set himself up as an expert better
than those who actually work in that field, *the same applies to
science*.
Science doesn't rest on faith - it rests on direct contact with
reality. Just as there's a right way and a wrong way to build a house
or trim one's sails, the theories that get accepted by scientists do
so because they're confirmed in practice.
Those who pretend that science is a game that anyone can play, that
nobody really is entitled to the authority that comes from actually
knowing what one is talking about, deserve to be ridiculed and held in
the same kind of contempt as they would if they set themselves up as
authorities in other matters about which they did not know.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Why? 100% faith is not true of any other religion. Why is Scientism
> so dogmatic?
Empiricism is the rejection as invalid, or unworthy of scientific
discussion, of anything that requires faith. Thus, when empiricists
identify things that have this characteristic, they may seem to be
dogmatic.
But just putting matters of faith aside, and excluding them from
science as such, does not necessarily involve the claim that
statements requiring faith are _false_.
Of course, the kind of Christianity with which a thoroughgoing
empiricism is compatible are those which view the presence of God as
something one feels inexpressibly in one's heart... and in which
conducting apologetics by finding pieces of Noah's Ark, or "debunking"
evolution is not even considered.
And the consequence of that, of course, is a significant undermining
of the *authority* of Scripture.
And so one gets a Christianity that applauds the Sermon on the Mount,
because it feels good to us, and which can then say with a straight
face that the gay rights agenda is demanded by the "true spirit" of
Christianity. Even though some components of it are in contradiction
to things that are found "in black and white" and "in so many words"
in the New Testament as well as the Old.
I can quite understand why some people see a harmless, toothless
Christianity as not "real", since it doesn't seem to have the force to
compel people to change their ways and do as God says.
But I also understand how it came about: through a lack of trust in
those who claim to interpret and explain God's Word. Unless you hear
God's voice coming out of your very own burning bush, it really does
come down to trusting men, not just trusting God alone.
John Savard
SkyEyes
wrote:
> SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > Science isn't a religion.
>
> Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
It isn't a cult.
Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
anthropogenic climate change.
Good grief.
SkyEyes
> On Jun 23, 4:46 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 3:00 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why is Scientism so dogmatic?
>
> > It *isn't*. Everything in science is provisional. Show me a religion
> > with that philosophy. Please.
>
> But Science or Scientism or whatever can certainly *seem* dogmatic.
Only to be who don't know how science works. And usually those are
people who come from highly religious backgrounds, and for whom every
system is "dogma."
>
> If someone comes along and says that Einstein was wrong, for example,
> what is the reaction? That he is a kook, a crackpot, a nut.
Nope. The reaction is, "Show us why you think that." If you've got
the chops and you've done the work, your hypothesis will slowly become
accepted. Especially if it is predictive and falsifiable.
I was studying science before "plate tectonics" was a buzzword. They
guy who formalized that theory had to present his findings and his
theory over and over again, but now PT is known to be as factual as
anything can be in science.
Everything in science is provisional, but you can't knock major
scientific theories down with a pea-shooter, and most especially you
cannot know it down with nothing but bald assertions with no work to
back it up.
>
> Is that because Science shows even less respect for unbelievers than
> most religions?
No, that's because people who want to knock down major scientific
theories want to do so using word games and superstition - they don't
want to actually get an education, then do the work that supports
their assertions.
>
> Well, scientists haven't been going around burning unbelievers at the
> stake or beheading them, it could be pointed out. But it is true that
> on a *good* day, even Islam acknowledges that religion is subjective
> enough that followers of other faiths may need some time to see the
> truth.
Science doen't deal in "proof" *or* "truth"; science deals in data,
and like I said above, everything is provisional
>
> With science, though, the facts are all there. If you're willing to
> listen, and are able to learn the math, the chain of reasoning from
> Maxwell's equations to all the apparently bizarre consequences of
> Special Relativity, and the internal self-consistency of Special
> Relativity, are there - for anyone to see. Absolutely no faith is
> required.
A-yup.
>
> So rejecting Special Relativity is really no different from rejecting
> the hard-earned practical knowledge of carpenters and cooks and
> sailors - just as it's silly for someone who doesn't have knowledge or
> experience in a practical field to set himself up as an expert better
> than those who actually work in that field, *the same applies to
> science*.
Please tell that to [M]Adman and Jabriol-Loirjab and Puke.
>
> Science doesn't rest on faith - it rests on direct contact with
> reality. Just as there's a right way and a wrong way to build a house
> or trim one's sails, the theories that get accepted by scientists do
> so because they're confirmed in practice.
Sing it!
>
> Those who pretend that science is a game that anyone can play, that
> nobody really is entitled to the authority that comes from actually
> knowing what one is talking about, deserve to be ridiculed and held in
> the same kind of contempt as they would if they set themselves up as
> authorities in other matters about which they did not know.
Totally.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 2:51�am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>> > Science isn't a religion.
>>
>> � �Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
>
>It isn't a cult.
>
>Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
>definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
>anthropogenic climate change.
>
>Good grief.
He knows. It's a standard fundie dishonesty to describe things with
the wrong words, deliberately.
Just treat him as the lying sack of shit he told us he was.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 5:41�am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 4:46�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 3:00�pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > �Why is Scientism so dogmatic?
The lying sack of shit knows there is no such thing as "scientism".
>> > It *isn't*. �Everything in science is provisional. �Show me a religion
>> > with that philosophy. �Please.
>>
>> But Science or Scientism or whatever can certainly *seem* dogmatic.
>
>Only to be who don't know how science works. And usually those are
>people who come from highly religious backgrounds, and for whom every
>system is "dogma."
And who both deliberately choose to be ignorant, and to tell everybody
just how stupid, dishonest and ignorant they are.
>> If someone comes along and says that Einstein was wrong, for example,
>> what is the reaction? That he is a kook, a crackpot, a nut.
>
>Nope. The reaction is, "Show us why you think that." If you've got
>the chops and you've done the work, your hypothesis will slowly become
>accepted. Especially if it is predictive and falsifiable.
None of them have done that.
Einstein has been confirmed over and over again, from the orbit of
Mercury which Newton got wrong, through the algorithms in GPS
receivers which use relativistic calculations to get their accuracy,
to nuclear weapons.
People who say Einstein was wrong ignore all this.
Which is why they're treated as the crackpots and idiots they are.
From Ira Glass's "This American Life" on NPR, about somebody who tried
to convince physicists that Einstein was wrong...
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge
The segment Crackpot MC Squared is at about 30 minutes.
Michael A. Terrell
SkyEyes wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2:51 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > SkyEyes wrote:
> >
> > > Science isn't a religion.
> >
> > Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
>
> It isn't a cult.
>
> Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
> definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
> anthropogenic climate change.
>
> Good grief.
So claims a member of the cult. :(
Colanth
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>> Science isn't a religion.
> Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
How do you explain the cargo cults if flying planes isn't a religion?
--
"Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 3:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
> >> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
> >> : These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
> >> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>
> >> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
> >> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>
> >> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
> >> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
> >> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
>
> >"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
> >bombast of miraculous accomplishments just around the corner. Making
> >inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. And
> >like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
> >comic book, you believe it all.
>
> A computer can't think like a man (yet),
What "yet"? Is this more promises about what a computer may do, one
day in the future if we just keep pouring money into woo-woo science?
What a surprise. (Theremin woo-woo from "The Day the Earth Stood
Still" swells in background, making all the kiddies think of insane
robots and computers plotting to take over the world.)
Seems you folks still can't stick to the facts.
TCross
Bill Snyder
Seems like you 'tards can't ever keep from snipping the substance. No
problem, here's what you had no answer for right back again:
A computer can't think like a man (yet), so a man must have
magical, mystical thinking woo-woo that a computer lacks. A
computer can't fly like a bird, so a bird must have magical,
mystical flying woo-woo that a computer lacks. A computer can't
swim like a fish, so fish must have magical, mystical swimming
woo-woo that a computer lacks. A computer can't lie like the
Crossbot, so the Crossbot must have magical, mystical shitting
woo-woo that a computer lacks.
David Johnston
> On Jun 23, 5:27 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jun 23, 3:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> > >> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
> > >> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
> > >> : These are different concepts, Gomer. You are so completely ignorant
> > >> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>
> > >> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
> > >> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>
> > >> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
> > >> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
> > >> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
>
> > >"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
> > >bombast of miraculous accomplishments just around the corner. Making
> > >inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. And
> > >like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
> > >comic book, you believe it all.
>
> > A computer can't think like a man (yet),
>
> What "yet"? Is this more promises about what a computer may do
It's not a promise. It's merely pointing out that the current
limitations of a computer are most certainly not what the absolutely
long term maximum capability will be.
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:15:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 24, 5:41 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 4:46 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 23, 3:00 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Why is Scientism so dogmatic?
>
> The lying sack of shit knows there is no such thing as "scientism".
If something disagrees with Christopher Lee it does not exist -- isn't
that nice? Meanwhile, the rest of the English-speaking word
recognizes the following definition:
++++++++++++++++++
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative
worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all
other interpretations of life. The term is used by social scientists
such as Friedrich Hayek, or philosophers of science such as Karl
Popper, to describe (and criticize) what they see as the underlying
attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and
methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology.
The term is used in either of two equally pejorative directions:
1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims
in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is
perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry; or there is
insufficient empirical evidence to justify scientific conclusions. In
this case it is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or
the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only
proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry," with a
concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of
experience." It thus expresses a position critical of (at least the
more extreme expressions of) positivism.
For sociologists in the tradition of Max Weber, such as Jürgen
Habermas, the concept of scientism relates significantly to the
philosophy of positivism, but also to the cultural "rationalization"
of the modern West. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
++++++++++++++++
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
In all that verbiage, what do you consider had substance and needed an
answer?
TCross
Bill Snyder
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 10:26�ｿｽam, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>>
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 23, 5:27 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 23, 3:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> >> >> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
>> >> >> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
>> >> >> : These are different concepts, Gomer. �ｿｽYou are so completely ignorant
>> >> >> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>>
>> >> >> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
>> >> >> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>>
>> >> >> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
>> >> >> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
>> >> >> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
>>
>> >> >"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
>> >> >bombast of miraculous accomplishments just around the corner. �ｿｽMaking
>> >> >inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. �ｿｽAnd
>> >> >like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
>> >> >comic book, you believe it all.
>>
>> >> A computer can't think like a man (yet),
>>
>> >What "yet"? �ｿｽIs this more promises about what a computer may do, one
>> >day in the future if we just keep pouring money into woo-woo science?
>> >What a surprise. �ｿｽ(Theremin woo-woo from "The Day the Earth Stood
>> >Still" swells in background, making all the kiddies think of insane
>> >robots and computers plotting to take over the world.)
>>
>> >Seems you folks still can't stick to the facts.
>>
>> Seems like you 'tards can't ever keep from snipping the substance. �ｿｽNo
>> problem, here's what you had no answer for right back again:
>>
>> A computer can't think like a man (yet), so a man must have
>> magical, mystical thinking woo-woo that a computer lacks. �ｿｽA
>> computer can't fly like a bird, so a bird must have magical,
>> mystical flying woo-woo that a computer lacks. �ｿｽA computer can't
>> swim like a fish, so fish must have magical, mystical swimming
>> woo-woo that a computer lacks. �ｿｽA computer can't lie like the
>> Crossbot, so the Crossbot must have magical, mystical shitting
>> woo-woo that a computer lacks.
>
>
>In all that verbiage, what do you consider had substance and needed an
>answer?
Do you in fact believe that birds have magic, non-pnysical flying
woo-woo because they can do that and a computer can't? Do you believe
that fish have magic, non-physical swimming (and
breathing-under-water) woo-woo, because they can do that and a
computer can't? Is magic, non-physical woo-woo required for
everything that a computer can't currently duplicate?
(Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
comprehension, and you don't have it?)
SkyEyes
wrote:
> SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 2:51 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > > > Science isn't a religion.
>
> > > Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
>
> > It isn't a cult.
>
> > Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
> > definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
> > anthropogenic climate change.
>
> > Good grief.
>
> So claims a member of the cult. :(
'Scuse me all to hell, Sparky, but "cult" has a meaning. From
dictionary.com:
"cult
[kuhlt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to
its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing,
especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness
cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing,
person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites
centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist,
with members often living outside of conventional society under the
direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.
8.
any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person
usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and
that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. "
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god or gods. Got that?
Atheists are not organized, we do not have rites, sacred symbols, nor
do we "venerate" anything. (In point of fact, atheists would be a lot
better off if we *did* organize.)
You can't make a thing be something it isn't merely by insisting on
using an incorrect term.
Now kindly fuck off.
Michael A. Terrell
Take your own advice. Those who blindly follow hollow science are a
cult. AGW is built on a huge pile of bad science and lies. If you
believe in it, you belong to that cult of followers who go on misguided
faith alone. Doctored records, data recorders in sites that were once
away from civilization, and are now next to paved parking lots, yet
believing the lies is the act of a deluded cult. Hell, some sensors are
on top of asphalt warmed by the sun when they should be in the shade to
get actual air temperature. I worked in Metrology, AKA building
telemetry equipment to gather the data and there is very little weather
data that is done properly.
Years ago I worked as an engineer for a large CATV MSO. The weather
station at our system in Cincinnati always gave odd data, because the
idiot manager was too cheap to buy an extra 25 feet of cable to mount
the instruments out over the wall, instead of over the roof. After I
moved them they track the local NOAA station to a fraction of a degree.
Now kindly fuck off.
Terry Cross
Funny how an essay that purports to discuss scientism drifts over to
Christianity, and spends the last five out of seven paragraphs there.
Such is the revealing picture of scientism in its unguarded moments --
it is a doctrine and political position radically hostile to many
religions, Christianity in particular. (Curiously, scientism is
tolerant of Judaism.)
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative
worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all
other interpretations of life. Though it pretends to a rigorously
empirical foundation, it happily indulges in wild speculation about
the origin of the universe, psychology, the origin of life and all
living creatures, and ethics.
The actual operation of Scientism is far from empirical. Since very
few people have the equipment to conduct their own investigations and
none have all the equipment for all fields, the vast majority must
trust the few.
As shown by every other realm of human activity, of course, when the
few must be trusted, abuses occur. Elaborate systems of checks and
balances are used in finance, politics, police work, government
regulation, union leadership, medical treatment, and big charities,
and still those fields are not free of abuse. But the scientism folks
are adamant that their system of peer reviews utterly prevents abuses,
and only the wicked, stupid, or insane would distrust the formal
pronouncements of scientism. The scientism folks put such childish
pathetic faith in their system, thye utterly trust the faceless
editors of scientism publications to provide absolute unvarying truth.
Scientism is far from benign or passive in its operation. In most
Western Countries, it works through government channels and laws
concerning public education to enforce its dogmas on the citizens. To
defy that enforcement is to risk fines, confiscation of children, and
even imprisonment. Thereby, to refuse to become proficient in the
catechism of scientism, a person is exiled from the prosperous strata
of society.
Though its propaganda arms proclaim that "science" is a requisite
aspect of education, the energy of the scientism cult in education
suddenly disappears when the problems of functional illiteracy are
mentioned. From actual cases, we must assume that belief in dinosaurs
is more important to scientism than basic literacy. It is more
important that critical thinking or math skills. Belief in the cult
dogmas is all-consuming and without equal, wherefore millions are
spent in lobbying, propaganda, and litigation, and nothing is spent on
literacy.
TCross
Alex W.
> On Jun 24, 2:51�am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>>> Science isn't a religion.
>>
>> � �Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
>
> It isn't a cult.
>
> Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
> definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
> anthropogenic climate change.
>
> Good grief.
If not a cult, it can certainly be decribed as a religion.
It has saints, martyrs and sinners as well as priest-equivalents
and both a mainstream and fanatic fringe "sects".
It has the concepts of sin and salvation.
It requires sacrifices and particular lifestyles from its
devotees.
It has doctrines, heresies, schisms and unbelievers.
It is most definitely proselytising.
It has clear notions of (im)morality and attempts to use secular
authorities to impose these on all society.
It has an object of devotion and venerates it with great zeal.
It is intolerant of challenges and resistant to even properly
scientific criticism.
In short, we are seeing the creation of a non-theistic religion
before our very eyes.
huge
<snip longish TCross rant>
The above rant comes to you from an ignorant fool who has proved herself
completely mathematically illiterate, who believes that evolution is a
conspiracy of scientists, and who is completely eaten up with racism.
None of it is supported with any kind of factual evidence whatever.
Cross is one of those sad Gomers who believe that truth comes with the
length of the rant. It does not, and she cannot support any of the
wild claims with evidence.
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:31:10 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
> >On Jun 24, 10:26 am, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 23, 5:27 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Jun 23, 3:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> >> >> >> : huge <h...@operamail.com>
> >> >> >> : It was not intended to "synthesize," you idiot, it is a _simulation_.
> >> >> >> : that you don't even begin to see how bonkers the things you write are.
>
> >> >> >> Yes yes, but he can latch onto the fact that it was simulated
> >> >> >> with synthetic neurons to try to confuse the issue.
>
> >> >> >> The interesting thing is, folks are already working on implantable
> >> >> >> synthetic neural nets, integrated with natural ones (ie, firings
> >> >> >> of biological neurons feeding into the synthetic ones, and vice versa)
>
> >> >> >"Working on" -- In other words, more promises and grant-application
> >> >> >inflated claims is the major source of income for those people. And
> >> >> >like a 97 lb. weakling reading a Charles Atlas ad on the back of a
> >> >> >comic book, you believe it all.
>
> >> >> A computer can't think like a man (yet),
>
> >> >day in the future if we just keep pouring money into woo-woo science?
> >> >Still" swells in background, making all the kiddies think of insane
> >> >robots and computers plotting to take over the world.)
>
> >> >Seems you folks still can't stick to the facts.
>
> >> problem, here's what you had no answer for right back again:
>
> >> A computer can't think like a man (yet), so a man must have
> >> computer can't fly like a bird, so a bird must have magical,
> >> swim like a fish, so fish must have magical, mystical swimming
> >> Crossbot, so the Crossbot must have magical, mystical shitting
> >> woo-woo that a computer lacks.
>
> >In all that verbiage, what do you consider had substance and needed an
> >answer?
>
> Do you in fact believe that birds have magic, non-pnysical flying
> woo-woo because they can do that and a computer can't? Do you believe
> that fish have magic, non-physical swimming (and
> breathing-under-water) woo-woo, because they can do that and a
> computer can't? Is magic, non-physical woo-woo required for
> everything that a computer can't currently duplicate?
To answer your literal question about "magic, non-pnysical flying woo-
woo" -- and given that you don't have a definition for "woo-woo" --
the only legal answer is "no."
> (Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
> comprehension, and you don't have it?)
You are obviously too emotionally wrapped up in this subject to deal
rationally with the people you encounter. A technician who boasts of
"simulating a bird brain" had better be simulating the majority of
bird mental functions, else she is a liar. Do you agree? If you
discovered later that the computer was emulating only the bird's
ability to play chess, would you say the technician had made an honest
boast of her work?
TCross
Terry Cross
So you allege that "most certainly" is NOT a promise?? Here is some
advice: If your employer asks you to write the text of a contract, you
should refuse.
TCross
Howard Brazee
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 23, 8:01�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:27:25 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>>
>> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
>> >> >believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
>> >> >mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
>> >> >are beside the issue.
>>
>> >> Which atheists? Could you provide me a quote?
>>
>> >Hunh?
>>
>> Which atheists have stated that they believe that every problem can be
>> solved by science? � �
>
>Why are you asking me? I never said any atheists have stated that.
Checking the thread, there is a post made by David Johnston that says
(after a quote):
If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
are beside the issue.
=============================
Was someone spamming your name?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Terry Cross
> On 06/24/2011 05:33 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> <snip longish TCross rant>
> The above rant comes to you from an ignorant fool who has proved herself
> completely mathematically illiterate, who believes that evolution is a
> conspiracy of scientists, and who is completely eaten up with racism.
> None of it is supported with any kind of factual evidence whatever.
And yet Huge demonstrates a curious reluctance to let the document
speak for itself. Huge obviously has no faith in his disciples' own
judgment.
TCross
huge
> On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, huge<h...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/24/2011 05:33 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>> <snip longish TCross rant>
>> The above rant comes to you from an ignorant fool who has proved herself
>> completely mathematically illiterate, who believes that evolution is a
>> conspiracy of scientists, and who is completely eaten up with racism.
>> None of it is supported with any kind of factual evidence whatever.
>
>
> And yet Huge demonstrates a curious reluctance to let the document
> speak for itself.
On the contrary, the document does speak for itself. It is an
unsupported rant. You have yet to do anything to support any one of the
accusations you have made in it. That is because you can't.
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:34:56 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
>
>
> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 8:01 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:27:25 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
> >> >> >believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
> >> >> >mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
> >> >> >are beside the issue.
>
> >> >> Which atheists? Could you provide me a quote?
>
> >> >Hunh?
>
> >> Which atheists have stated that they believe that every problem can be
> >> solved by science?
>
> >Why are you asking me? I never said any atheists have stated that.
>
> Checking the thread, there is a post made by David Johnston that says
> (after a quote):
>
> If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
> believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
> mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
> are beside the issue.
>
> =============================
> Was someone spamming your name?
It's lovely to sit back and watch these crab-jointed intellects try to
deal with a difference of opinion. You can hear them muttering to
themselves: "Everything's physical, no two ideas can occupy the same
space at the same time; no idea can be created or destroyed; the
absolute pressure of an notion is inversely proportional to volume if
the heat of enthusiasm is kept constant within a closed system; the
mating thesis and antithesis gives rise to synthesis ..."
TCross
huge
> It's lovely to sit back and watch these crab-jointed intellects try to
> deal with a difference of opinion. You can hear them muttering to
> themselves: "Everything's physical, no two ideas can occupy the same
> space at the same time;
Even your attempted mockery is outdated. You have obviously never read
anything about quantum theory.
Wayne Throop
: Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
: Checking the thread, there is a post made by David Johnston that says
: (after a quote):
:
: If it's an article of faith for atheists, that means they all have to
: believe that _every_ problem will be solved by science. The
: mutterings of crackpots not taken seriously by many or any atheists
: are beside the issue.
:
: Was someone spamming your name?
Well, let's compare. If I believed the clear sky was purple with pink
polkadots, that would mean I'd have to believe the clear sky was not
a uniform, even color.
Now, do you think I've just laid claim to a beleif that the clear sky
is not a uniform, even color? If not, why do you think David was saying
that atheists have stated every problem can be solved by science?
And if so, what did you think the leading "if" was all about?
Father Haskell
wrote:
> SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > Science isn't a religion.
>
> Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
Great band, love their song "Godzilla," NEVER too much
cowbell!
Wayne Throop
: You can hear them muttering to themselves: "Everything's physical, no
: two ideas can occupy the same space at the same time;
Similarly, the deluded fools who think the components of the atmosphere
are physical must be muttering to themselves that oxygen and nitrogen
cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
And of course, if Terry pursues the line of argument that a given oxygen
*molecule* and a given nitrogen *molecule cannot occupy the same space at
the same time, it illuminates how badly he misunderstands the concepts
he's scoffing at.
This is, of course, typical. Essentially all the things Terry scoffs at
are straw constructs of his own halucination.
Peter Huebner
davidjo...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On Jun 23, 11:18 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> > Wonders and one day it will Solve All Problems.
>
> Nonsense. Science does produce wonders but it will never solve all
> problems.
One of the big conceptual intellectual challenges for religious fundamentalists
is that they can simply not conceive of any weltanschauung that is NOT faith
based. They do not seem to want the ability to reason things out in that
particular respect and will often refuse the evidence of their own eyes, ears
and noses if it goes contrary to their belief system. Subsequently they try to
understand science as a faith, atheism as a faith and probably existentialism
as a faith, because the concepts of reasoning spiritual things out logically
and evidence-inclusive are just incomprehensible gibberish to them.
Trying to understand science or agnosticism as a faith of course does not work.
So they go and project all kinds of confused notions on to people who do not
think the way they do. Too bad. Sweet f.a. anyone can do about THAT.
I think the only article of faith that one may say atheists agree on is that
There Is No (allmighty, omniscient) God. Which may be inferred, but is hard to
prove with empirical evidence a.f.a.i.c.t. (For my first witnes I call the
human knee!)
-P.
Bill Snyder
So why is the total lack of a definition a problem for me, but not
for you? Other than hypocrisy, dishonesty, or insanity on your
part, I mean. Got any more bullshit in stock for that one?
>> (Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
>> comprehension, and you don't have it?)
>
>
>You are obviously too emotionally wrapped up in this subject to deal
>rationally with the people you encounter.
In my universe, the rational way of dealing with a lying sack of
shit is to say, "Wow, you're a lying sack of shit. Might as well
crawl back under your rock, because you're not fooling anyone."
The fact that your response to a lying sack of shit is to emulate
it, while mine is to abominate it, does not make mine irrational.
>A technician who boasts of
>"simulating a bird brain" had better be simulating the majority of
>bird mental functions, else she is a liar. Do you agree?
Of course not. The question is, as expected, insane, dishonest,
or both of the above.
To simulate a bird's brain function while catching a worm, they'd
also have to simulate the worm, the ground, the light and the
shadows, the grass waving in the breeze, nearby predators, etc.
To simulate its brain function while flying, they'd have to
simulate the air, including such obvious requirements as
temperature, humidity, wind, rain; and the sunlight and the
clouds; and the Earth's magnetic field, and . . .
Oh, and for either, they would of course have to simulate also
everything that wasn't hardwired into the overall structure of the
bird's brain by its DNA: everything it's learned about flying and
worms and sun and wind and grass, and the world around it -- its
entire previous life, that is to say.
This is moving the goalposts with a vengeance. Simulation isn't
really simulation unless you simulate the entire Universe. A
pathetic and obvious try at slipping back to your old, old
bullshit argument: if science can't do everything, then science
can't do anything; if science doesn't know everything, then
science doesn't know anything.
>If you
>discovered later that the computer was emulating only the bird's
>ability to play chess, would you say the technician had made an honest
>boast of her work?
Does it require mystical, non-physical woo-woo to play chess?
Christopher A. Lee
No, it's the Popperian falsifiable position.
And it's no different than the equivalent statement about Zeus, Odin,
Krishna or any of the others.
And _that_ is what theists are unable to understand because being
narcissists they are incapableof grasping how others see it.
>-P.
Peter Huebner
skye...@cox.net says...
>
> On Jun 24, 2:51 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > SkyEyes wrote:
> >
> > > Science isn't a religion.
> >
> > Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
>
>
> Don't you weirdos know that words have *meanings*? "Cult" has a
> definition - one that in no way applies to people who believe in
> anthropogenic climate change.
>
> Good grief.
>
I can see both sides here.
I most certainly have experience of the 'global warming cult'. They are mostly
congruent with the 'organic food' cult.
And if you don't know who I am talking about: it's the people who get "organic
salt" flown in from the Himalayas instead of using pure sodium chloride; people
who tell me that using anthelmintics on my cattle once a year makes me 'non-
organic' and will kill all the earthworms on my farm (fortunately the
earthworms haven't heard that yet, so they thrive under every cowpat).
Need I say more? They are just like L W-E's ignorant believers in scientism,
with a different flavour. People who think you can heal anything from dandruff
to parasite infection to pinkeye by putting a hair of the sufferer on a
radionics machine.
I've had to deal with these people entirely too much, having been a proto-
greenie and environmentalist for 40+ years, I am embarrassed and cringe to be
seen in the same corner more often than not. They don't understand what they
are talking about, and they make up a whole bunch of faith based little stories
about the subject and then go on believing them henceforth as dogma. I have
some of them as neighbours, my wife has some of them as friends.
----
By the same token I can see how maybe Michael Terrell is *maybe* taking the
very easy route of the scientism-ist of dismissing something out of hand by
slapping the 'cult' label on it, that actually has some very good bona fide
scientists presenting what looks like pretty good bona fide research and
evidence, all because it does not fit with HIS belief system. I don't know. I
am not in any way qualified to evaluate climate research, but I can read
between the lines. We've had "smoking is harmless" and "DDT is good for you"
and "we've got all angles of nuclear reactors covered" scientists for decades,
so if a scientist slaps the 'cult' label on some of his peers I feel
suspicious.
----
f.w.i.w. -Peter
Michael A. Terrell
But way too many bagpipes...
John Baker
He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of understanding it if he
did.
William December Starr
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> said:
> SkyEyes wrote:
>
>> Science isn't a religion.
>
> Then how do you explaing the Global Warming cult?
Oh boy.
-- wds
j...@xmission.com
> On Jun 23, 9:39 am, huge<h...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 09:28 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 1:37 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>> :: Those robots raced across a wilderness desert with really rough
>>>> :: terrain completely without outside direction.
>>
>>>> : Terry Cross<tcros...@hotmail.com>
>>>> : And did those wonderful robots evade predators, find a mate, build a
>>>> : nest, give birth, nurse, and care for young rat-lings, protect the
>>>> : young from other rats with personal combat as necessary, forage for
>>>> : food, and deal with parasites?
>>
>>>> No. But of course that's irrelevant unless you take the bizarre position
>>>> that either they equal or outperform living things, or essentially
>>>> nothing has been learned about how to navigate in the real world.
>>
>>> One of you boasted that your heroes had built a "simulated rat
>>> brain." I countered that your "rat brain" would not be able to keep
>>> a real rat alive for even a day in the real world.
>>
>>> Bill Snyder wrote in his usual nasty tone: "And you know this -- how,
>>> exactly? And your proof of this is -- what,
>>> exactly? Answers: You don't know, and you have no proof."
>>
>>> This is the proof that I offer: We know the general level of robot
>>> competence is far below living creatures because of the minuscule
>>> accomplishments of the best of them.
>>
>> That depends on "general level." They are able to go to Mars and
>> survive years,
>
>
> Since the robot was never alive, it cannot "survive." You may say
> only that it "continued to function."
>
>
>> and they are able to do symbolic math better than me and
>> much, much better than you.
>
>
> We were discussing its robotic talents, not computational.
>
>
>> The list could go on.
>
>
> No doubt you could also add to your list that the Lander did
> preliminary analysis of mineral samples, converted sunlight into
> electricity, and did not defecate. But your list is irrelevant to the
> subject at hand. Since the goal of the other project was to "simulate
> a rat brain" and it fell far short, it was what it was: a failure to
> reach the stated goal.
>
> What is more to the point, the boast that they simulated a rat brain
> was a deliberate lie, just as the repetition of the boast is a lie.
>
> One of the articles of faith for Atheism is that Science Produces
> insanity, production, transport, scarcity, ... The Atheist believes
> that science will one day Solve It All.
>
> This pitiful article of faith cannot be falsified, of course, because
> "one day" is an undefined point in the future. However, the
> comparison of the boasts with the facts, as in this instance, shows
> that Truth is not a required ingredient in Atheism. Atheists are
> emotionally attached to their pitiful faith, and they become unhinged
> very rapidly in the face of rational doubts.
>
> The profession of modern scientists may seem to be the investigation
> and discovery of the physical world. A careful analysis shows that
> the real profession is writing successful grant applications, which
> includes wrapping their pitiful accomplishments in bombast to win
> continued grants and keep the money flowing.
>
> The editors of Scientific American, Discovery, Science Magazine, and
> other rags know this. They must convince the taxpayers that
> Scientific Utopia is right around the corner if people keep paying the
> taxes and giving the scientists a cushy living.
>
> The system trades on truth, but the system is rigged to promote
> falsehoods, leaving the truth tellers in the dust.
>
>
>> Of course you would place no value on symbolic math -- you don't even
>> understand what the term actually implies.
>
>
> And this is the other arm of your propaganda: Anyone who casts doubt
> on the false promises of Scientism is evil, stupid, or insane. It's
> the same old dodge all the cults have used throughout history.
>
> TCross
I don't believe I have ever encountered such a load of meadow muffins in
one place. Amazing.
Peter Huebner
andre...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> As for loonies who decry science while using science to stay alive:
>
> http://stupidevilbastard.com/2006/01/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/
>
> Sod them.
>
Delicious, thanks for the link :-)
Interesting by-the-bye: my highschool teachers (biology and chemistry) were
predicting 45 years ago that there would be a problem with multi-antibiotic-
resistant strains of bacteria in the future due to antibiotica residues in
factory farmed animals getting into the human foodchain and 'educating'
bacteria on how to survive them.
Wholesale pre-emptive use of antibiotica in factory farming is something that
is still going on this very day. By the truck-and-trailer load. Talk about
stupid?
</sarcasm>
Also, the organic-food and the climate-change cultists haven't even picked up
on this issue yet. </sarcasm off>
-P.
Quadibloc
> Funny how an essay that purports to discuss scientism drifts over to
> Christianity, and spends the last five out of seven paragraphs there.
> Such is the revealing picture of scientism in its unguarded moments --
> it is a doctrine and political position radically hostile to many
> religions, Christianity in particular. (Curiously, scientism is
> tolerant of Judaism.)
This is a misleading appearance. What you call "Scientism" is as
intolerant of Orthodox Judaism as it is of some forms of Christianity.
On the other hand, it has no problem with Reform Judaism and many
other forms of Christianity.
In any case, those forms of Christianity which dispute matters with
science certainly do exist, and they are usually what motivate people
to make criticisms of "scientism". It isn't evading the topic to meet
an accusation by attacking the credibility of an accuser.
> Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative
> worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all
> other interpretations of life. Though it pretends to a rigorously
> empirical foundation, it happily indulges in wild speculation about
> the origin of the universe, psychology, the origin of life and all
> living creatures, and ethics.
I'm not sure if "scientism" even _exists_.
Certainly, the behaviors which you describe and associate with
scientism do exist. So what, then, am I doubting?
Natural science is the most authoritative... whatever.
Oh, I agree with that. English literature is... subjective. English
grammar is... prescriptive. Natural science deals with facts that
people can go out and check for themselves.
Therefore, large chunks of the accepted body of knowledge in natural
science, at least, deserve to be accepted as highly uncontroversial.
But I don't quite put the natural sciences on the pinnacle. Physical
sciences depend on observation, and observations can be wrong, or at
least limited. Thus, Einstein corrected Newton.
No. If you want *really* solid knowledge, where new knowledge adds to
what is already there, but hardly _ever_ contradicts what we
previously thought was true... look at *mathematics*. Mathematics is
#1. Natural sciences are #2 - with a hierarchy within them - physics
at the top, biology quite a way down, chemistry pretty high but a bit
more of an engineering-ish discipline than a science.
Compare that to religion.
There are respected serious Catholic theologians. And respected
serious Protestant theologians. And respected serious Jewish religious
scholars. And Muslim ones and Hindu ones. You would think that by now,
if they were so smart, they would have figured out which religion was
right!
Is it unfair or unreasonable to conclude that what these people are
doing is starting from a body of dogma, and drawing inferences from
it, without ever testing that body of dogma through contact with
reality? That the debates between different faiths are never going to
be resolved - because, like the debate between tropical and sidereal
horoscopes, or between the Placidus, Campanus, Morinus and Equal-House
systems of house divisions in astrology, what's being debated doesn't
really have much to do with reality?
You can call this "scientism". I call it plain common sense. If you
want people to treat religious dogma X (but not religious dogma Y or
religious dogma Z) as *authoritative*, you *will* be expected to
provide a good reason why - one that would make sense to an _unbiased_
individual, one who didn't grow up in *that particular religious
tradition*.
What can compel universal or near-universal agreement through the
power of fact... is respected by all. What cannot is in the realm of
private, personal belief. You can believe that, and we'll pat you on
the head and say "That's nice", but we won't change our divorce laws
or even our abortion laws because of that.
At this point, let's turn to _another_ aspect of "scientism".
Some people - _not_, by any means, all or even most working scientists
- and definitely not all the people who subscribe to the *first* tenet
of "scientism" noted, that science is more authoritative than other
bodies of knowledge - do think that since traditional customs and laws
and religions haven't produced world peace... we should take the
scientific studies of people studying the behavior of apes and birds
and other animals, and use them to come up with a "scientific" and
"biological" code of human behavior. (This is why I'm saying
"scientism" doesn't exist - because the term presumes a unified body
of ideology, whereas we really have several separate beliefs, some
highly likely to be valid, and others very dubious.)
This would be based on fact, and thus it would obtain universal
agreement, and thus everyone would live in peace - except for a few
obdurate fanatics who presumably would have to be suppressed.
I don't blame you for being against THAT.
I'm against it.
Studies of animal behavior, so far, have mainly produced platitudinous
confirmations of things people already knew. Science might add its
voice to Bob Hope and nearly all the major world religions in support
of the Golden Rule, but that event is not going to make much
difference to the tendency of humanity to obey it.
Science answers questions of "is". Philosophy answers questions of
"ought".
Back before atheism was a view that dared to "speak its name", a
distinction was drawn between "natural religion" and "revealed
religion". It's unfortunate those terms are little-used as old-
fashioned.
Natural religion can be described as a personal feeling that there
should be a purpose to human life, that how you treat other people
matters, that the fact of human consciousness indicates that we're
more than just biochemical machines.
Revealed religion is where large groups of people believe that
everything written in this or that set of holy writings is True... and
where they can be stirred up by their religious leaders to commit acts
of aggression against non-believers or those of other faiths.
The thing is, though, that while revealed religion is where the "bad"
part of religion is located, it isn't the _only_ thing that revealed
religion contributes. Revealed religion, even if it seems
transparently false to outsiders, is intelligible even to small
children - and it conveys the truths of natural religion to people who
would find natural religion by itself far too abstruse and
intellectual to be meaningful.
So, while revealed religion is a source of problems, condemning it as
an evil - and forgetting that an effort to try to eradicate that
"evil" would involve a far worse evil, basically brutal totalitarian
dictatorship, because people are rather attached to their creeds -
*is* a mistake. It's more complicated than that.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Also, the organic-food and the climate-change cultists haven't even picked up
> on this issue yet.
Actually, they _have_. It's just that it's drowned out in the noise.
John Savard
Terry Cross
Obviously for you, to read anything about it is to believe it. From
Gospel to faith in one easy sitting.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You cling to the hypothesis that all phenomena are physical. I doubt
it. The problem is yours.
> Other than hypocrisy, dishonesty, or insanity on your
> part, I mean. Got any more bullshit in stock for that one?
Nastiness to infidels is obviously an injunction of your faith.
> >> (Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
> >> comprehension, and you don't have it?)
>
> >You are obviously too emotionally wrapped up in this subject to deal
> >rationally with the people you encounter.
>
> In my universe,
Where is your universe, traveler?
TCross
huge
Your ability to understand irony is also stunted. What a sad case.
Quadibloc
> is more important to scientism than basic literacy. It is more
> important that critical thinking or math skills. Belief in the cult
> dogmas is all-consuming and without equal, wherefore millions are
> spent in lobbying, propaganda, and litigation, and nothing is spent on
> literacy.
Now, your agenda becomes transparent. You want the education system to
just shut up and teach the three Rs, and cave in the moment some
pressure group objects to something in the curriculum, rather than
fighting back.
John Savard
Bill Snyder
Does the following verbiage seem at all familiar to you? Does it
resemble anything quoted above? If so, who said it?
"To answer your literal question about "magic, non-pnysical flying
woo->woo" -- and given that you don't have a definition for
"woo-woo" -- the only legal answer is "no."
>> Other than hypocrisy, dishonesty, or insanity on your
>> part, I mean. Got any more bullshit in stock for that one?
>
>
>Nastiness to infidels is obviously an injunction of your faith.
Nastiness to inveterate liars is an aspect of my personality. Your
constant insistence that everything is religion is but one of many
things that stamp you as one.
>
>> >> (Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
>> >> comprehension, and you don't have it?)
>>
>> >You are obviously too emotionally wrapped up in this subject to deal
>> >rationally with the people you encounter.
>>
>> In my universe,
>
>
>Where is your universe, traveler?
It's the one where I'm about to do a "Paste" and put back all the
stuff you couldn't deal with:
Mike Jones
[...]
> You cling to the hypothesis that all phenomena are physical.
You want to demonstrate how they are not?
Try to be rational if you can. ;)
Wayne Throop
: You cling to the hypothesis that all phenomena are physical.
It's not "clinging" if there's no motive to give it up.
You've been asked over and over if there is any suvh motive.
Your silence on the subject speaks for yoou.
You sneer and scoff that little has been done with the hypothesis.
But it's not zero. So all you have to do is present a hyhpothesis
that's good for, or has accomplished, more than the tiny bit you scoff at.
But you can't can you?
huge
Is your extreme racism an injunction of yours, or are you just an ass?
Terry Cross
If the children were taught math, reading, writing, computer skills,
biology, music, languages, scientific method, culture, history,
physics, chemistry, law, lifesaving skills, hygiene, finance, and
vocational skills, they would not need your catechism and dogmas.
They could read and evaluate that mush on their own time.
A basic plank of the US Bill of Rights is that the government should
not mess with religion. The schools should stop teaching the Atheist
Cult and obey the law.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Jun 23, 5:35 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 4:03 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>
> > > : Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> > > : Why not? You all credit every Christian with the actions of pretended
> > > : Christians. Isn't turn-about fair play?
>
> > > I don't.
>
> > But you (plural) do.
>
> I am not plural.
Wow.
> "You all" means every single individual. Not just
> some people none of whom are necessarily parties to this thread.
Source?
TCross
huge
> If the children were taught math,
You weren't.
Olrik
I'm not an american, but I'm curious:
What is the "Atheist Cult", and what law should schools obey?
Thanks.
> TCross
>
Colanth
Taught, that is. Anything. Not even thinking.
--
Choose heaven for climate, hell for society. - Mark Twain
Colanth
To the Crossbot, that's "not inculcating Christianity into kids".
Anything not blatantly and deeply Christian is "atheistic".
>and what law should schools obey?
He wants "God's Law" obeyed. That would include stoning recalcitrant
children, so he'd be dead, but he's too stupid to realize it.
He wants them taught biology, scientific method, physics and
chemistry, but if they arrive at the conclusion that evolution occurs,
he'll scream that we're teaching them "the Atheist Cult". Thinking is
just not something he can get right.
--
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." -
Clarence Darrow
Michael Price
define
it. If you can't define it it doesn't exist end of story.
> > Other than hypocrisy, dishonesty, or insanity on your
> > part, I mean. Got any more bullshit in stock for that one?
>
> Nastiness to infidels is obviously an injunction of your faith.
>
We can be quite nice to honest dissenters, you're not one of them.
You're a hypocritical insane liar and pointing that out isn't actually
being
nasty.
> > >> (Perhaps magic, non-physical woo-woo is required to read English with
> > >> comprehension, and you don't have it?)
>
> > >You are obviously too emotionally wrapped up in this subject to deal
> > >rationally with the people you encounter.
>
> > In my universe,
>
> Where is your universe, traveler?
>
> TCross
You're the one theorising things not in the physical universe.