Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 11:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following: > >> > > >> >A) Insanity > >> > > >> >B) Desire for power, control, and wealth > >> > >> > >> None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror. > > > >You think religious extremism is the result of fear ? > > Yes. Fear of losing control. Whose control ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 11:10 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a > >sin. > > So did Islam. So DOES Islam. Graham
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 11:25 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:13:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:r84bj29ks79pg0usm3m1gckgv430imkd0d(a)4ax.com... >> >> It's surprising to me, in this newsgroup, how hard it is to get people >> to brainstorm, to riff on ideas. Rigidity rules. > >I agree. I think the problem (at least on sci.chem) is that people will >present a new idea as a fact, rather than as a speculation. A post that >says "here's how I say it is" garners a very different response than one >that says "hey, guys, I had this new idea, and I'd like your thought on how >to refine it". People need to find better ways to get a brainstorm like >that going. I've also found, through years of using it as a tool in my >science, that to do brainstorming well and productively takes a phenomenal >amount of discipline, and people do have to agree to abide by rules (for >example, the main rule is "you can only present new ideas, not >criticize/critique what someone else has presented".) Refinement of the >ideas generated in a brainstorm also takes discipline, but not quite as >much. That sort of discipline just ain't possible in a free-form forum like >Usenet, particularly in unmoderated newsgroups. > My apologies for not being more aware of the crosspost... I'm writing from the s.e.d. perspective. Scientists are trying to discover the rules of nature, and engineers are usually annoyed by them. Actual recent exchange: "Nice circuit, but it violates conservation of energy." ... "Ooh, I really hate that one." But the problem is the same, in that we both need new ideas, and most of the easy ones were found a long time ago. If you get a bunch of people together, groupthink lowers their mean IQ, with mob violence, or maybe politics, being the extreme expression. Brainstorming is a mechanism to increase mean IQ, but as you say, it's fragile and not easy to arrange. One bad player can poison a brainstorming session, and on usenet there are plenty of bad players available. One on my brainstorming "rules" (and all brainstorming rules are better kept hidden, enforced by stealth) is that no ideas be supressed until they've been exposed and considered. The way to make that happen is to substitute the enabling rule that there's no difference between presenting an idea and making a joke. A good brainstorm is recognizable by the laughter it generates. Lots of the jokes turn out to be excellent ideas, after a little kicking around. Yesterday we evolved an absurd speculation on the subject of dac trimming into a new product idea, absolutely unrelated to the original issue, one we can charge a heap of money for. Brainstorming is magical when it works. It could be done on usenet if the players had the guts to keep it up and not be intimidated by the wedge-heads. John
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 11:35 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> > >> >> You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their > >> >> actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to > >> >> use guns and soldiers against their own people. > >> > > >> > You could blame the US gun culture too. > >> > >> I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to > >> arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about > >> every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those > >> soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU. > > > >For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example > >here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule > >either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ). > > > >Graham > > The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time > quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in > emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency > workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural > disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a > civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend > warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be > activated by the Federal government in times of national need. > > Do you have anything like that? Nothing comparable at all. I guess our natural disasters aren't usually bad enough to need that kind of thing. Other than disasters what are they actually needed for ? It's always puzzled ne what their role is. It's not like there's any foreign threat. Graham
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 11:42
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:40:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:irbbj21g2kpf26j9k453j93a17hpmei2ik(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe >>>> unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to >>>> scientific inquiry. >>> >>>Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific >>>exploration >>>in that manner. >> >> Exactly. >> >>>The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer >>>scientific questions. >> >> Science shouldn't be so fragile that it is threatened by peoples' >> beliefs about stuff like this. > >It isn't. However, considering the abysmal state of US primary science >education, we need to make sure it is taught where it belongs--in religion >classes, not in science classes (see below). > > >> Until it is proven otherwise, the >> universe may have originated in intelligent design, vacuum fluctuation >> or (as one serious theory has it) time is an illusion and the universe >> had no date of origin. > >It may have, but you know darned well that what is taught in high school >science classes is generally very well-tested theory, as students at that >level don't have enough of a basis of understanding to evaluate untested >theories. I don't see anyone wanting to slip vacuum fluctuations or >illusory time into high school science classes, and teach it as "The Truth", >while relegating other explanations to "just theories". You know perfectly >well that that just plays off the difference between the scientific (a >hypothesis that has withstood tests and attempts at falsification) and lay >(unproven and probably false) definition of the word "theory." > >By the way, the onus for providing evidence for a theory and making sure it >is a proper theory is not on its critics, it is on the authors of the >theory. Thus, "until it is proven otherwise" has no place in a discussion >of a theory...that would put it in the realm of science fiction at best. > > >>Why are so many amateur scientists so hostile >> to the idea that the universe was designed? > >I wouldn't say "hostile" (that was be another strawman), but rather they >(correctly) insist that it not be taught as a scientific theory. Part of it >is precisely because those who are intent on teaching ID have acknowledged >that it is just a euphemism for Creationism, and is just an end-around on >the Constitution. As such, it is being used to close off scientific >discourse at a time when the US is suffering from some of the worst primary >science education in the developed world. It ain't all that bad... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/18/national/a003840D92.DTL&hw=math+education&sn=001&sc=1000 Science isn't done by the average high-school grad, it's done by the exceptional few, and the best is done by rebels. Mentioning ID or creationism as options for the origin of the universe won't poison their minds... these people will be scientists or engineers because it's their destiny. As someone pointed out, many of the great scientists (Newton, Einstein) were Believers, and it didn't damage their creativity or math skills. I bet both were taught Creationism big-time. > >If you're suggesting that ID is a viable scientific theory, then the onus is >on *you* to come up with the experiments that will test that theory. I'm suggesting that, given a big problem (and the universe is a *big* problem) and no viable much less testable theories, there's no cause for being hostile to any suggestion, and more than for being convinced of any truth. >You >must make a serious attempt to falsify the theory, as the very definition of >the appelation "theory" demands. Until then, it is a religious belief, and >has no place in a science class. > > >> The Jesuits have a long history of science and mathematics. They >> somehow didn't find them mutually exclusive to belief. > >Another strawman. The Jesuits aren't dogmatically Creationist, and as such, >their beliefs aren't aimed at shutting down scientific inquiry. What concerns me more is dogmatic anti-Belief, wherein people violently reject possibilities because they are afraid of even slightly sympathizing with "religious nuts." This probably kills more potentially good thinking than would a few lines in a high-school physics text that says that some people think the universe was designed. In other works, relax. John |