Friends/Romans, science, and math people: lend me your eyes

[originalpckelly]

Two or so week ago, I unfortunately lured some of the members of DU who are also distinguished members of the science/math profession or just rational people into some bullshit threads intended to prove a point.

Only about a week or so later did I post a thread luring the more irrational and religious among us into a thread bullshitting about religion.

The threads about bullshit science, which included repeated personal attacks and attacks on the profession of members of our forum were never locked (I eventually just gave up, after concluding that I could post any bullshit about science and it would never be locked.) The thread about religion was locked promptly.

Why is it that we can attack rational thought with such venom, but irrational thought receives nearly universal protection?

I have another question, why is it that a scientist studying ants in Brazil must prove his statements in a paper, but the President of the United States, who makes life and death decisions every single day, doesn't?

No offense to the bug guy, but his research may only tangentially impact humanity. He's not making decisions that include whether or not to end all of human civilization, like the President has the capacity to do with nuclear weapons.

Why does the President, and it doesn't matter which President, have such a low burden of proof with such important things, but the bug guy has such a high burden of proof?

I'm not implying the bug guy should be believed without evidence, I'm saying the President shouldn't be believed without evidence.

I think we are entering into a new age of reason, but in this one we will not ask why God has selected certain people to be King, we'll debate why it is the President (or politicians in general) may use irrational persuasion, while any real scientist must use rational persuasion.

I would provide a full hyperlink to cite the bug guy's paper, it is not possible for me to do that for free:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2559817

I'm going to have to assume the paper is about ants in Brazil from the abstract, because I don't have access to the paper for free. I also cannot ascertain whether or not the paper contains a good argument in defense of the claims made, but I'm going to hope that if someone's charging for it, then it probably does.

The real battles in life are never fought on battlefields or in the streets with violence, they are fought in our minds with persuasion. Terrorism and the ineffective fighting of it, demonstrates this so clearly. One cannot target a thought with a bomb/missile dropped/launched from an F-16. One is dramatically less persuasive when one is killing of the members of the target of persuasion's family.

In the war of minds, irrational/violent persuasion is comparable to primitive humans throwing spears, rational/peaceful persuasion is a nuclear bomb. It's time to bomb the shit out of ignorance.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Homo Scientificus According to Beckett

For a serious yet light hearted discussion on the role of scientists in society, read this 1972 essay by Max Delbruck, a PhD physics student under Max Born (1930) and Nobel prize winer in Physiology (1969) for pioneering studies on bacterial viruses.

Some of the questions addressed:

Is science beneficial?

Is science potentially harmful?

Should society pay for research?

Should society control research?

http://www.ini.uzh.ch/~tobi/fun/max/delbruckHomoScientificusBecket1972.pdf

[originalpckelly]

3. I am not a scientist, just a concerned citizen who wonders...

why it is the bug guy has to work so hard to prove even the most basic things about the ants, but the President has nearly unilateral authority over the ability to exterminate the entire human race.

I do not have any legitimate ideas about science, that's not the point here. I'm asking why it is we do not expect Presidents to use rational persuasion, rather than making pleas to irrational things like emotions, patriotism, or tradition.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Then read the essay

It is the best description of what being a scientist is all about, and you don't have to be a scientist to understand it.

The bug guy is not motivated by the the approval or opprobrium of society.

[originalpckelly]

10. Maybe I should have used lawyers...

but the problem is that there are many lawyers who play to irrational persuasion. I will read the essay. Thanks.

[alarimer]

16. It's because people do not respond to rational persuasion.

They respond to appeals to emotion, to vanity, to any number of other things that are not rational. Why do you think the Republicans are so popular (even though they are much less popular now, there is still a core set of true believers)? They are certainly not rational, nor are their followers.

They routinely stack juries with irrational people (or people the lawyers think might be easily swayed by emotion, so no scientists or engineers usually and no other lawyers) because both sides want the jury not to be logical and rational.

We are a particularly irrational society, compared to most other western nations. This is because of religion, largely but also due to poor education and a vast suspicion that the educated are "elitist".

[mike_c]

2. what an excellent post!

I second your question: why are irrational ideas afforded protection from criticism?

[originalpckelly]

4. This thread is so going to sink like a stone.

But I'm very grateful that you've taken the time to ask the same question. I think that's the power of rationality, because it's the truth or at least the pursuit of the truth. People will get curious and start asking the same thing, even though this thread is going down like a stone in a pond.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. You can attack science because it can defend itself, religion can't

Science requires evidence and will eventually correct itself and find the correct answer.

Religion is just opinion and requires no evidence. There will never be any resolution to theological debates.

Therefore it is OK to attack science and not OK to attack religion.

[mike_c]

14. FAIL

"Therefore it is OK to attack science and not OK to attack religion."

Please explain how that follows from your first two premises. :rofl:

That's like saying:

1. The president is the highest ranking office holder in the executive branch.

2. Members of congress belong to the legislative branch.

3. Therefore, Barack Obama is president of the united states.

They might or might not all be true statements, but (3) certainly does not follow from (1) and (2)!

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Wrong

OK, I should have said "debate" instead of "attack" but I was using the terms used in the OP

your argument makes no sense.... 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with each other. That isn't even a good example of the logical fallacy.

You can attack/debate Science because science requires evidence. Opinions don't count. I would even go so far as to say that attacks/debates in science are welcomed. It is a good thing to express a different point of view and try to back it up with evidence. If you are right you will be proven correct and if you are wrong you will be proven incorrect.

You can't attack/debate Religion because religion does not require evidence. Opinions are all that count. Attacks/Debates in religion are seen as Heretical and are punished. If you are right you will never (in this life) be proven correct.

There is no point to debating religion, it is simply an endless, pointless and baseless argument.

Debating science is different, it is the basis of scientific advancement.

[Buzz Clik]

6. From the science side, there are many answers to your questions, even some that would surprise you.

But, before I immerse myself into a rhetorical discussion, would you mind providing the link to the DU discussions you mentioned in the OP?

[originalpckelly]

8. Here's the religion thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5429265

Forget it, any personal feelings I may have about this are a side issue, proof is proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5376224&mesg_id=5376224

They just take anything anyone says without actually any proof. Drop a few names, point to a few things, use a few pictures, and even make a plea to one's superiority, and the people will fall for anything.

"And yes, since I hang out at DU, it does mean we're better than the freepers. There, I said it. :P Progress always wins out in the long run. This IS progress, big fucking progress."

:rofl:

Oh and by the way, although I don't know very much about science, I find it laughable that anyone could find a theory of everything after only observing one planet up close, a moon through a few guys/telescopes/probes, other bodies through probes/telescopes, and everything else through telescopes. If it was possible to look at everything and just know beyond a reasonable doubt what's going on, then why send a probe? If the human race is still discovering new species on Earth, if we are still figuring things out about Earth, then it's probably not possible to know enough about the universe to approach a theory of everything.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Yes, please PM it. I'm very curious.

[originalpckelly]

12. No, I shouldn't, I posted it for everyone to see with their own eyes.

Even though it contains many personal attacks on me or on the people who posted in it, I have to prove what I'm talking about.

If I can get away with that, and just be totally full of crap and literally insult scientists personally, and attack members of DU, why can't I do that with religion?

Everything in that thread is absolute nonsense. It might make a good science fiction book, but nothing more. The links are in the post in reply to your asking for proof.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Sweet Jeebus! Reading that is going to take more time than I have right now.

Time to shower, go to an awards reception (to give congrats to the winners), and go coach a soccer game an hour to the south.

If, after I prepare for tomorrow's trip back to the real world, I have time to finish reading, I will.

[originalpckelly]

23. Look how long that is, look how short the religion thread is.

:-(

[glowing]

9. Science/ religion and Power/ politics is unfortunately different. there is no good reason

other than its the way its always been... AND don't think science and religion have not tipped their hand in destroying or propping up Power.

I think we need to learn simplicity within a technological age. Everything is on supper speed, yet many long for time, peace, tranquility. Perhaps this is the age we are entering. This is what I struggle with and many here as well.. Time to garden, prepare nutritious food, quilt, sew, paint, take a walk, play with kids, but keep in touch with the speed of information and gadgets. Time Management and Peace of mind perhaps is our next step.. either that, or nuclear annihilation.

[Reterr]

13. Wow I missed them but you geta recommend from me for this

The threads about bullshit science, which included repeated personal attacks and attacks on the profession of members of our forum were never locked (I eventually just gave up, after concluding that I could post any bullshit about science and it would never be locked.) The thread about religion was locked promptly.

Why is it that we can attack rational thought with such venom, but irrational thought receives nearly universal protection?

Thank you for this! Bruce Alberts, currently the editor of Science I believe, lamented the educational deficiencies that leave most people incapable of understanding enough science or the rules of evidence to know what is wrong (Alberts B <2009> Redefining Science Education. Science 323:437).

It is sad...if you go to the youtube video of Susan Boyle's songs (the latest shiny distraction) all you will find is people swooning in admiration. The Large Hadron Rap, clever little bit of rap by Alpine Kat that actually is a great way to playfully get some particle physics across, mostly gets comments from people who can't spell ranting about how the LHC will destroy the world! We are stupid and we embrace our stupidity. I don't care if saying that makes me a joyless, self-righteous curmudgeon or whatever. Lefty embraces of stupidity and ignorance are no more charming than the Freeper versions.

[Odin2005]

17. IMO the source of the BS comes ultimately from the anti-rationalist under-currents in some...

...philosophical circles, namely Postmodernists, Neo-Conservatives, and Religion/New Age Apologists; with the latter 2 taking talking points from the Postmodernists. It's the modern expression of the 2400-year-long rebellion against Reason and the Free and Open Society started by Plato and his brutal and tyrannical uncle Critias, the later of whom was the leader of the short-lived aristocratic regime put in place by the Spartans after Athens lost the Peloponnesian War.

[undeterred]

19. "we can attack rational thought with venom, but irrational thought receives universal protection"

Your belief in your own bigoted point of view is impressive.

[struggle4progress]

20. So far we have established that you post bullshit on various topics

[BlooInBloo]

28. Yup.

[SidDithers]

38. Most excellent observation...nt

Sid

[NeedleCast]

39. +1

[sarcasmo]

21. A kick for Science.

[originalpckelly]

27. This is not about science, it's about evidence.

The point of this post is not to back slap scientists, but to spank politicians for not using rational cases like scientists. If I post about this again, I'm going to have to put that in there. Unfortunately I cannot edit the OP to include this.

My point is to ask why the bug guy has to prove himself, but the President doesn't. And it's not just the President, it's all politicians.

[The Straight Story]

22. It is actually quite simple

"Why is it that we can attack rational thought with such venom, but irrational thought receives nearly universal protection?"

First - you said:"The threads about bullshit science" - so if they were bullshit, they were not rational and people were not attacking rational thought.

Second - you equate irrational thought with religion, which is really irrational thinking on your part. People infer things exist often, and then go about attempting to prove them with the tools they have. If those tools aren't good enough they wait until we progress far enough that such tools do exist and then work on proving our beliefs/inferences.

We build huge particle accelerators trying to prove this theory or that. In math we went on the assumption for many years that Fermat's last theory was true, even though it had not been proved (it has now of course, Riemann Hypothesis has not but it is 'believed' to be true).

People who have a faith in a higher power operate essentially the same - they want to prove such a power exists, they believe it does, but can't prove it. Just because one cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist.

I am a programmer, I create things that don't exist (applications) out of something that does (code). Someday I can see having enough computer power to create a virtual universe filled with planets and AI beings. Those beings would be bound by the physics of that universe, I would not be. If they searched for their creator they would find that they just appeared out of basically nothing, evolved from one type of coding to the next. They would probably come to the conclusion that I do not exist, and that the big bang was when I turned my computer on.

While I was out having lunch, a thousand years of their time could pass.

They could not prove I exist. But I do.

Einstein once said imagination was more important than knowledge - I think by that he meant it takes people with a vision to get the big breakthroughs because they don't themselves into a box where the only things which exist are the ones we have proof of, and that sometimes to prove something you have think outside of the box.

[originalpckelly]

25. Excuse me?

"First - you said:'The threads about bullshit science' - so if they were bullshit, they were not rational and people were not attacking rational thought."

I was posting the irrational bullshit that was a venomous attack on rationality, the people who attacked me were the ones with common sense. In return, however, I fought back to defend the irrational, after all 1 is = 0. Why wasn't that locked, when it included so many flames, when a single joke about religion was locked in less than 15 replies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5429265&mesg_id=5429265

"Second - you equate irrational thought with religion, which is really irrational thinking on your part. People infer things exist often, and then go about attempting to prove them with the tools they have. If those tools aren't good enough they wait until we progress far enough that such tools do exist and then work on proving our beliefs/inferences.

We build huge particle accelerators trying to prove this theory or that. In math we went on the assumption for many years that Fermat's last theory was true, even though it had not been proved (it has now of course, Riemann Hypothesis has not but it is 'believed' to be true).

People who have a faith in a higher power operate essentially the same - they want to prove such a power exists, they believe it does, but can't prove it. Just because one cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist."

Hey, just because we didn't convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt in a court room, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them away for the crime. Am I supposed to believe that it's rational to build an entire method of thinking and living one's life on such an irrational claim as a virgin birth?

"Einstein once said imagination was more important than knowledge - I think by that he meant it takes people with a vision to get the big breakthroughs because they don't themselves into a box where the only things which exist are the ones we have proof of, and that sometimes to prove something you have think outside of the box."

Here you are attaching credibility to all a person says based upon prior work. Why should you do that? Does his credibility as a man mean everything he said was worth quoting? Is Einstein here to say that he agrees with your use of his words or to say they are being used out of context?

The credibility of the claim is independent of the credibility of the person making the claim.

A bathroom stall wall is often not thought to be a credible source of information, however, if someone writes 2+2 = 4, does it automatically mean 2+2 is not equal to 4 because it is on a bathroom wall? If Einstein were to have said that 2+2 = 5, would you have believed him because he was Einstein?

The claim must be taken independently of the claimant, and the evidence to back up the claim evaluated to determine the claim's credibility.

Perhaps in your particular profession this is not necessary, but as it pertains to the application of rational thinking to political discourse, this idea is everything. I'm not entirely certain, but believing Fermat's claims or Riemann's claims without evidence is not going to result with anyone dying. I could be wrong about that, and perhaps your training would be able to explain why that is. :P

On the other hand, taking the word of a politician as true, without requiring a politician to provide any evidence, may end up with a country turning into a dictatorship. This is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany, among other things, the Nazis forwarded the idea of the Fuhrerprinzip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip

The principle is basically that the leader knows best so do not to question them.

The Furherprinzip was the Nazi's bullshit uniting the law of a nation with the people serving in the government of a nation. It wasn't the first time the sickening idea appeared in history.

Perhaps you have come across the phrase Lex Rex. The opposite is Rex Lex. Translated, Lex Rex is "law is king" and Rex Lex is the "king is law". In the times before the first age of reason, people were lied to and told God chose the king. The king's decisions were often the law. So one couldn't criticize or question the laws or the king without questioning God. God forbid someone do that, after all, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.

This is referred to as the divine right of kings. This disgusting idea has returned in the last decade, with some in the far right accepting that President Bush was specifically picked by God. Mr. Bush on many occasions played to this, you may remember him saying that God spoke to him. Either Mr. Bush did hear God, he was mentally ill, or he was full of crap.

I tend to think the last possibility was true, although noting his various facial ticks, mental illness is not out of the question. I know I do not hear God talk to me, perhaps I don't have the right number. Do you know it? Do you think he'd send me to voicemail? "Hello, this is God, I'm not here right now, leave a message after the beep."

I return to one of your comments out of sequence, because it applies here:
"Just because one cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist. "

As a brilliant DUer pointed out, not too long ago, you could say an invisible/unfalsifiable gorilla lives on your roof. You do not say that, because it is irrational. If someone claimed to have seen an invisible gorilla on their roof, we would all have to ask why it is they got to see it, if it's invisible. "Well, he's not fond of people." Why did all the people in the Bible get a clue about God's existence, but not us? Wouldn't that be so much easier for God, if he was going to inform anyone as to his existence?

I'd be cool with the invisible gorilla, unless it was telling the person who was delusional to harm/kill themselves, then of course it would become a problem.

It's when the unfalsifiable has consequences for real people that it becomes unacceptable. Around the world people are being told that unfalsifiable (and interestingly mutually exclusive) deities command them to kill one another or to discriminate against people.

I know this first hand, as throughout my life I've had to deal with the discrimination. Being gay would never be easy, being different never is, but being gay in a country in which irrationality predominates the political discourse is even more difficult.

t's difficult, I suggest, because of things like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-Leviticus 18:22

But really, if that's made my life more difficult, this could be criminal:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
-Leviticus 20:13

You're asking me to accept that this claim, basically calling for me to be killed, is OK based upon the absolutely unfalsifiable thing, God.

Fermat/Riemann didn't call for me to be executed for being different, the Bible does.

It's when these people stop making harmless claims, and move into calling for someone's death that troubles me, it's like a mentally ill person hearing voices that tell them to kill gay people. Only, it's a mass delusion, instead of one person's delusion.

I refer back to your quotation of Einstein one last time:
"Einstein once said imagination was more important than knowledge - I think by that he meant it takes people with a vision to get the big breakthroughs because they don't themselves into a box where the only things which exist are the ones we have proof of, and that sometimes to prove something you have think outside of the box."

Do not compare the innate harmfulness of vicious religions to the benefits of a new idea that might be falsifiable. I dream myself of things like new trains systems, but I do not use those dreams to justify the murder of human beings.

The lies in the Book of Leviticus and elsewhere in the Bible further the kind of atmosphere where that poor little gay boy was psychologically tortured until he finally committed suicide.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/?ref=opinion

I'm sorry that I believe my inalienable human rights shouldn't be dependent upon the unfalsifiable claims of a religion.

[surrealAmerican]

24. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Science is about finding truth. This needs to be accomplished in a rigorous manner, or you will not know what is true.

The president's job is not to determine what is true, but to establish policy based on what the citizens want. In some instances this will be based on what has been proven scientifically, in others he will need to act weather or not there is adequate data to prove anything.

Religion, being completely unprovable, is completely outside the scope of science. It's about human emotion more than anything else, which is why it elicits emotional responses from its adherents when you criticize it.

[originalpckelly]

26. It's only apples and oranges because you've defined it as such.

Science may be about finding truth, but to do so a rational case must be presented to prove that truth has been found.

The President's job is to take actions that profoundly affect my life and the lives of everyone in the world, I'm suggesting the President should have to prove his case before he can act unilaterally, if he should even be able to act unilaterally.

Religion is one of many tools politicians use to prove their cases without directly using evidence. Religion proves its case without even providing actual evidence.

For all three, one must provide a case to be persuasive, and in the case of religions or politicians the persuasion is irrational, in the case of science or some courtrooms, the case is rational.

The rationality of a case is dependent upon the reasoning of the case, with the reasoning being determined by the evidence v. the claims. In other words, a reason for something.

In this video, you will see a demonstration example of a rational v. irrational explanatiom/case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

The ghost moving the lampshade is an irrational case, while the actual reason it happened, the heater being on, is the rational case. Of course, these things are not cases in the sense we believe, but they demonstrate the variation in rationality.

Rational, Princeton's WordNet:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rational

Irrational, Princeton's WordNet:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=irrational

Reason, Princeton's WordNet:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reason

[BlooInBloo]

29. I know Alan Sokal. You're no Alan Sokal.

[originalpckelly]

30. 1. Intelligence is still not a license to asshole.

2. You still cannot prove someone's intentions.
3. Intentions are still vitally important to political debates.
4. This is still a forum for political debate (even with the Susan Boyle threads) and it is a proper forum for demonstrations regarding intentions.

[RoyGBiv]

31. Regarding "the bug guy"

This is mostly a tangent, but I wanted to make sure this is clear.

You do have access to the article for free. It's called a library. Most towns have one. You probably even have access to JSTOR via a nearby university or college library or, perhaps, even a public library.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit digital archive of academic journals intended to provide long-term accessibility. Universities, colleges, and other public institutions pay for it via service fees. They don't charge for the article. They charge for the use of their vast archive to defray the extensive costs of maintaining it.

The article itself is, vastly simplified, about what studying the ants can help us understand about fauna reclamation in areas previously devastated by human exploitation of resources in the area and how helpful our efforts are to assist in this reclamation. The study of the ants is used as something of a guideline and is based on similar studies in Australia.

As to the subject, the conclusions of this paper actually do have rather far-reaching consequences and would be used to inform policy backed by governmental institutions.

[originalpckelly]

32. JSTOR should adapt to the 21st century.

I think it's a damn shame that the bathroom wall of knowledge, Wikipedia, is free to all without restraint, but a real repository of knowledge has such funky rules placed on it.

Something like JSTOR should be a part of a publicly funded national encyclopedia, where knowledge is open to all for free, even outside of libraries.

The problem here is that I couldn't link to this for free and provide the text of the article for free. I understand that a vast archive of papers must be maintained, but if something like Wikipedia can do it for free to every user (with those who can afford to donate supporting it), allowing anyone to copy/paste/hyperlink to articles, why can't something with actual merit do it?

I'm not sure of JSTOR's bandwidth needs, but I do know that links to Wikipedia are vast, and probably suck up lots of bandwidth.

"The article itself is, vastly simplified, about what studying the ants can help us understand about fauna reclamation in areas previously devastated by human exploitation of resources in the area and how helpful our efforts are to assist in this reclamation. The study of the ants is used as something of a guideline and is based on similar studies in Australia.

As to the subject, the conclusions of this paper actually do have rather far-reaching consequences and would be used to inform policy backed by governmental institutions."

I had no clue about that after using Google Scholar to find a paper about ants in Brazil to make a point.

In addition to that, if these conclusions do indeed have such wide ranging implications, why shouldn't there be a common sense explanation of them available for free for all to see/quote/cite without restriction? Certainly, individuals who pursue the truth for a living would have no problem with knowledge being free to those working to educate themselves.

Why should I be limited to the days a library is open when learning?

I actually live right next to a fairly good university, DU. No, I'm not shitting you, it really is the University of Denver! Of course, Condi Rice went there, so I guess that's a mark against it. :P

If it were up to me, I'd give myself the $25,000 a year for tuition.

Scholarships were out of the question for me, as the current system views a presence of ignorance as an excuse to ignore it and continue it. After all, good grades don't just reflect one's willingness to do work, but one's understanding of a subject. So, the determination of scholarships based upon good grades and aptitude tests, means that people who already have an advantage in knowledge are further educated for free or at greatly reduced prices, while people who need to learn something are ignored or go on to institutions of B-movie quality, if they have any post-secondary education at all.

You might think about that. I would urge you to consider the idea that not all ignorance in America is the byproduct of laziness, but also the product of bad teachers and an education system that pushes people into a new lesson, without first ensuring that the previous lesson was fully comprehended.

I would also suggest that there is a segregation in many American high schools, between students who have the benefits of wealthy/upper middle class parents, and students who do not. If we truly believe that everyone is created equal, which we do not, then this should not be true.

In my old high school, the Advanced Placement classes and the International Baccalaureate classes were filled with upper middle class students, many were Caucasian. The "College Prep" ( :rofl: yeah, right) classes were filled with poor white kids (like me) and many African Americans and other minorities. My guess is that the classes are called college prep because we're a 1984-ass nation, and instead of being honest with people about society throwing them away like human trash, we'd rather lie to them.

"Bobby, what's that word?"
"Beeee"
"Because!"
"Now class, let him sound it out..."
"Well, that's the bell! Bobby are you going to homecoming tonight?"

This nation ought to be ashamed of itself. It allows young people to graduate* from high school without even being able to read the English language. You know what though, no one wants these poor kids (human trash like me) to know what's actually going on. They might get uppity and have a revolution of some kind, and get the idea that they have inalienable human rights and the right to control their lives. The people who really own/run this country, might actually have to fork over power.

*That's assuming students don't drop out.

This much was concluded by George Carlin, America's first stand up philosopher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGyObuH3WTY

The state of America stands as an indictment of itself. Torturegate is just the logical conclusion of this sick and inhuman system. All those torture memos explain themselves, right at the top before anything else:


"TOP SECRET"

Well, the secret is out. It's not possible to have a democracy where secret laws are made about issues as fundamental as torture. Government in secret is government without the most important checks and balances, from the branch of government first mentioned in the US Constitution:
"WE THE PEOPLE"

[RoyGBiv]

34. JSTOR ...

JSTOR *is* in the 21st century. This is why they have worked to place vast collections of articles previously only accessible in print form into an online format that can be accessed from anywhere in the world without having to wait for an ILL request.

Getting access to JSTOR is trivial. All you have to do is walk into any decent library, university affiliated or not, that is a participating institution. With a quick Google search and without going off the first page, I found three libraries in the Denver area that provide on-site access to JSTOR, EBSCO, and WoldCat. Off-site access is generally limited to those affiliated with the institutions, but some public libraries do provide it if they have adequate funding, and you can gain access to it if you have a disability that prevents you from physically going to the library.

The costs involved have far less to do with bandwidth than with publisher rights. Wikipedia provides an apples and oranges comparison, but it is instructive.

These journals are copyrighted. You can't just go scanning the articles and putting them online without the expressed permission of the copyright holder. What JSTOR has done involves working with the publishers to provide open access to the articles via a digital format. The publishers had to be paid.

Wikipedia, by contrast, pays none of its contributors and only accepts non-copyrighted contributions, or more properly, contributions for which the GNU Free Documentation License can be applied. This is why you might be able to do a Google image search for some individual and find a picture of them but not be able to find a picture of that individual on their Wikipedia page. The picture has to be free of copyright restrictions for Wikipedia to display it legally.

[hunter]

33. Things always go rotten when you expect people to be rational.

:eyes:

Everyone, even persons generally regarded as rational, will have their very own brand of whack, maybe stuffed away in a closet somewhere (for the moment) but it's still whack.

The nice thing about ideas is that they can be poked and prodded irrespective of the source.

Good scientific journals are places where ideas that have survived a certain sort of poking and prodding are published.

But if you are looking for meaning in any aspect of life, the one certainty is that the resolution of the human mind is far too small to comprehend anything more than the most basic patterns of this universe.

We're very dim bulbs in a universe of stars. We choose what we care about, and lucky people choose to care about one another.

[Laelth]

35. Interesting experiment.

Just out of curiosity, what's your theory? Why is it that we make scientists back up claims with evidence while we do not require the same standards of proof from politicians?

Or, is that really your question? Are you instead asking, why will DU protect the religious sensitivities of its members, but not the "truth" as it is expressed by science? Or, are you asking, why would a mod shut down a religious flame war, but not a scientific one?

Either way, you're asking good questions. I just want to make sure I respond to the right one.

:dem:

-Laelth

[one_true_leroy]

36. As one of your unwitting subjects...

a few points.

I was incensed, in the extreme, to find that I had WASTED the better part of a day trying respectfully to correct fallacious, specious, and non-sequitor arguments that had been deliberately constructed to be obfuscating. At the very least, you should have PM'd me to let me know there was something going on behind the curtains. It would NOT have invalidated your hypothesis. It was tremendously RUDE of you to have wasted my sincerity and time. To continue to spew non-sense IN REPLY to my replies was NOT appreciated and to know that this was some "experiment" only adds to my disgust.

In regards to your "experiment," mathematics asks for one and ONLY one article of faith, encapsulated in the various guises of the Axiom of Choice. In that regard, it is the central tenant of mathematics, the cosmic "OM" that breathes life into the subject. Barring this, math, as I described in my last reply to your previous post, is inarguably precise and structured. As mathematicians well know, math proceeds from accepted definitions and axioms, which are constructed to be specific, minimal, and precise. From these logical deductions are made to formulate and prove theorems. Once a theorem is proved, it is inarguably, unretractably true. That is not to say that proofs themselves are sometimes found to incorrect. Flawed reasoning is the bane of mathematics, but it happens. Sometimes, the axioms are strengthened, the definitions revised, in order to prove more interesting and specialized theorems, but to argue with a non-flawed proof is to deny to foundations of math itself, which as I said, requires only one article of 'faith' and then proceeds to constructed a reasoned, logical, unimpeachable system.

Science, on the other hand, is a method based on inductive reasoning and observation. In science, a hypothesis is proposed based upon observation. A clever scientist then designs experiments to test this hypothesis, then interprets data to modify or refute the hypothesis. This leads too often to a misunderstanding amongst lay people that all of science is "just a theory" (a la the evolution/creation or global warming "debates"). The (seemingly) ad hoc modifications of a theory (as opposed to mathematical theorem) in response to data is NOT the sign of a incorrect theory. Instead, it is the sign of a good scientist. With adequate theories in place, theoretical scientist them proceed similarly to mathematicians, using the strengthened theories as axioms. The most readily understood example of this is the formulations of quantum mechanics and relativity in the twentieth century from the pre-existing theory of Newtonian mechanics from the 17th century. Newton was NOT disproved. His theory enabled us to put a ship on the moon and get it back home with computations no more complex than those handled by slide rules. Instead, his theory was seen to be limited and (so far) inapplicable to situations unimagined by Newton (namely speeds approaching that of light and scales of magnitude of atomic radii).

Religion, though, is a different beast altogether. It requires, often, many articles of faith governing beliefs and actions (taboos and rituals) across various realms of human life. Unfortunately, the complexities of life are nearly impossible to analyze in a purely analytical way, and religions are often confronted with many intractable contradictions (e.g., "If God loves me, why am I suffering..."). While simple rules (or guiding principles) are spelled out (Ten Commantdents, Eight-fold path, etc), the applicability of these rules is often murky in "grey area" cases. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that humans see themselves in their deities (whether it's because humans were created in God's likeness or because an anthropomorphic God was conjured by narcissistic humans), so that any extrapolation of the universal truths encoded by the great books of religion becomes subject to the selfishness, irrationality, ignorance, and arrogance of humans. As is the progress of humans, wise men are replaced by clever men and the resounding social truths of religions (peace, love, harmony) are corrupted into the dogmas (xenophobia, intolerance, subservience) delineating the fractured communities of the faithful.

Finally, I raise a glass to you. I had written you off as a grad student who'd snapped. I've seen it happen in real life, and thought you were one of them. Your gibberish had too many pearls of knowledge to be completely random, but the thread binding them was disturbingly incoherent. More frightening, though, was the number of people who had no clue as to what you were posting, but still kicked and recommended. That level of compliant ignorance is what cults are made of.

edit: to/too

[sudopod]

37. HAHAHA

You had me going a few weeks ago, man. Epic win.

[mudesi]

40. There Are Certain Groups Here That Are Protected

The religious, the feminists, and the gun nuts come immediately to mind.

It's not so much that they're protected, but that they are the loudest and the most incessant at bitching about every single fucking thing that offends them.

[one_true_leroy]

41. I don't agree entirely...

I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that when you argue tenants of faith, there are too many "grey areas" that are not mutually agreed upon. Belief systems such as those you listed have too many extrapolations subject to individual interpretation. While, as i argued above, scientists and mathematicians agree on what is and, especially, is not relevant to their domain, other systems are no so precise.