1. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146313 by PsyPro on March 18, 2008 at 11:47 pm

mundusvultdecipi writes:

A case CAN be made that those who provide a service open to all in the PUBLIC domain, (albeit for a fee) have to a limited extent diminished their ability to pick and choose. As a result many countries prohibit discrimination in provision of goods and services on the basis of certain criteria such as sexuality, religious belief, sex and so on and so forth.

2. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146266 by PsyPro on March 18, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Just so we are clear about what is being said here:

A private:

employer may refuse to hire someone because he or she is an atheist, a woman, a member of a racial minority (or majority) group, ...

landlord may refuse to rent to someone because her or she is...

restaurant owner may refuse to serve...

bar owner ...

...

billboard owner ...

I just want to be sure.

3. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109330 by PsyPro on January 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Thats the thing, Christopher Hitchens has always seemed to me to be the bad cop. His take on religion is always to focus on its moral aspects, and its role in history. He loathes the idea of a god. Whereas Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true. His critique of religion is very much science based. To me, he seems the more reasonable of the pair. I too dislike Hitchens for some of his politics (mostly his anti-monarchism), but I still like his views on religious matters... I just consider Dawkins to be more moderate.

4. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91002 by PsyPro on November 26, 2007 at 11:23 pm

OK. Third attempt (and I apologise to all sundry if, except for me, you have seen this now 3 times). I think the trick is always to ``Preview'' first, before hitting ``Submit''. Here goes:

I think what the naysayer atheists are saying is simply that they can't see what possible reason there could be for Mr. Harris' linking charity with atheism. My espousing of atheism has nothing at all to say about my stance toward charity. Theism is different, it has (at least most religions do) a creed regarding charity. But what possible creed could a stance against theism have? Atheists aren't anti-charity any more than we are pro-charity, and any more than we are pro- or anti- the social qualities of Gilligan's Island, Desperate Housewives, or Girls Gone Wild. It is not a contest. And it is the alleged possibility of that being a meaningful comparison between atheists and theists that has many annoyed with Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous remark. Even if NO atheists ever gave to charity (and think how unlikely that is among the atheists or even the theists you know), what of it? What would that prove? Aside from an amazing, but irrelevant consensus (but one well worth exploring if it had even a remote possibility of being true: perhaps atheists assume personal charity is a bad thing, and that the state should accept its appropriate role? And only by explicitly forgoing charity will that ever happen? And so on.) But, and I mean BUT: atheists share one and only characteristic that we can be sure of: a-theism. All the rest is is irrelevant speculation and inappropriate inclusion.

Now, I know you are thinking: did I support Mr. Harris' request for security funds? You will never know, nor will Mr. Harris, because it is irrelevant. Any donations I make are anonymous, and especially so if I make none at all. Do I support Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Of course, and fully. She is a brave woman attempting to do the right things I am not sure I could do. Atheism or theism at that point (as Rick Warren's donation makes eminently clear) is not the issue. Mr. Harris has made a mockery of Rick Warren's donation, and twisted it to be the exact opposite, I am confident, of what Rick Warren intended. Indeed, if I were Rick Warren I would be more offended by Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous comment than the usual rabble (me included) on this site.

5. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90998 by PsyPro on November 26, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Strange. According to the RD main web-page, I posted twice to this thread. I meant to do so only once, but at any rate show up not at all, even if one clicks on the links from the main page. Not that what I said amounts to much, but still...

6. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90991 by psypro on November 26, 2007 at 10:24 pm

I think what the naysayer atheists are saying is simply that they can't see what possible reason there could be for Mr. Harris' linking charity with atheism. My espousing of atheism has nothing at all to say about my stance toward charity. Theism is different, it has (at least most religions do) a creed regarding charity. But what possible creed could a stance against theism have? Atheists aren't anti-charity any more than we are pro-charity, and any more than we are pro- or anti- the social qualities of Gilligan's Island, Desperate Housewives, or Girls Gone Wild. It is not a contest. And it is the alleged possibility of that being a meaningful comparison between atheists and theists that has many annoyed with Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous remark. Even if NO atheists ever gave to charity (and think how unlikely that is among the atheists or even the theists you know), what of it? What would that prove? Aside from an amazing, but irrelevant consensus (but one well worth exploring if it had even a remote possibility of being true: perhaps atheists assume personal charity is a bad thing, and that the state should accept its appropriate role? And only by explicitly forgoing charity will that ever happen? And so on.) But, and I mean BUT: atheists share one and only characteristic that we can be sure of: a-theism. All the rest is is irrelevant speculation and inappropriate inclusion.

Now, I know you are thinking: did I support Mr. Harris' request for security funds? You will never know, nor will Mr. Harris, because it is irrelevant. Any donations I make are anonymous, and especially so if I make none at all. Do I support Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Of course, and fully. She is a brave woman attempting to do the right things I am not sure I could do. Atheism or theism at that point (as Rick Warren's donation makes eminently clear) is not the issue. Mr. Harris has made a mockery of Rick Warren's donation, and twisted it to be the exact opposite, I am confident, of what Rick Warren intended. Indeed, if I were Rick Warren I would be more offended by Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous comment than the usual rabble (me included) on this site.

7. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90990 by psypro on November 26, 2007 at 10:21 pm

I think what the naysayer atheists are saying is simply that they can't see what possible reason there could be for Mr. Harris' linking charity with atheism. My espousing of atheism has nothing at all to say about my stance toward charity. Theism is different, it has (at least most religions do) a creed regarding charity. But what possible creed could a stance against theism have? Atheists aren't anti-charity any more than we are pro-charity, and any more than we are pro- or anti- the social qualities of Gilligan's Island, Desperate Housewives, or Girls Gone Wild. It is not a contest. And it is the alleged possibility of that being a meaningful comparison between atheists and theists that has many annoyed with Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous remark. Even if NO atheists ever gave to charity (and think how unlikely that is among the atheists or even the theists you know), what of it? What would that prove? Aside from an amazing, but irrelevant consensus (but one well worth exploring if it had even a remote possibility of being true: perhaps atheists assume personal charity is a bad thing, and that the state should accept its appropriate role? And only by explicitly forgoing charity will that ever happen? And so on.) But, and I mean BUT: atheists share one and only characteristic that we can be sure of: a-theism. All the rest is is irrelevant speculation and inappropriate inclusion.

Now, I know you are thinking: did I support Mr. Harris' request for security funds? You will never know, nor will Mr. Harris, because it is irrelevant. Any donations I make are anonymous, and especially so if I make none at all. Do I support Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Of course, and fully. She is a brave woman attempting to do the right things I am not sure I could do. Atheism or theism at that point (as Rick Warren's donation makes eminently clear) is not the issue. Mr. Harris has made a mockery of Rick Warren's donation, and twisted it to be the exact opposite, I am confident, of what Rick Warren intended. Indeed, if I were Rick Warren I would be more offended by Mr. Harris' allegedly humorous comment than the usual rabble (me included) on this site.

8. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88137 by PsyPro on November 14, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Most of the comments here have focused on the issue of the title to the piece (``theory'' vs. ``law''). Yet, there is a more disturbing and more damaging terminology that the article raises that many of the scientific persuasion use, namely: I (we) believe that x...

As a scientist, I avoid the word ``believe'', as it has prosaic connotations that almost always undermine my (or any scientist's) intent. To the typical lay person (ok, my students, at any rate), it seems, the use of ``I believe that x'' is always offered in the context of NOT having evidence; it is used to ward off logical or empirical rebuttal, as in: ``I have no evidence, but I believe it, so it is inviolate: it is not nice (appropriate, politic, etc.) to attack another's beliefs''. In common parlance, it is rarely used to mean ``I have a solid evidentiary basis that x''---which, in contradistinction, is how scientists use the term ``believe''.

I always admonish my students that neither I nor any one else who reads their essays cares what they believe (their sense of the term), but only what they can defend. So, there is no point in in using ``I believe" as the prefix to any claim, especially as it is used almost always to advance claims in the absence of evidence (``I think'' is used similarly). Rather, say, ``It is the case that x, and here is the evidence...''. If you can't, then don't say it at all.

9. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76733 by PsyPro on October 7, 2007 at 12:29 am

Thank you Veronique. I was worried my message would be lost in my often oblique verbiage.

I do not know what to do about high-school education. I have lobbied to have it removed; indeed, I have advocated that non-university education should cease at grade 6 (Canadian system---age 11-12 years). Then, at age 18, all interested individuals could join the universities. What happens between age 11-12 and 18 could be very interesting...

10. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76730 by PsyPro on October 7, 2007 at 12:12 am

Quoting scripture is a mug's game, and best avoided. The only sensible thing worth quoting in CHear's post is ``As for why the gods found human women so comely—just look around you, man!'' I couldn't agree more.

Not that CHeard doesn't say many sensible things, only that it appears to be assumed that there is a biblical translation worth paying attention to. The texts from which it is transcribed contained neither vowels nor punctuation (see ``Eats, shoots, and Leaves'' for just minor examples of the consequences of punctuation differences, or Pinker's latest book for the billions at stake over a single comma), and we can only guess at what most of the transliterated text (assuming even a modicum of accuracy) meant anyway (have you read Shakespeare lately?).

11. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76726 by PsyPro on October 6, 2007 at 11:28 pm

I may be alone on this, but I see both the original article and most of the posts here as over-the-top reactions. I have yet to see any students pay more than exam-time lip-service to anything ``taught'' in high-schools (or the UK equivalent). And a good thing, too.

As a university professor, I pride myself in professing, as is my job-title. I tell my students what I think, and why I do so; they are free, indeed, encouraged, to do the same, but in the same fashion I offered my opinions: give me the argument. In their essays, I cross-out any statement that is predicated on ``I believe'', ``I think'', etc., and tell my students that I really do not care one wit for what they think, or believe, or ..., except as their arguments compel me to do so. After a few weeks of this (I use weekly essays), the cheap tactics (``I think...'') disappear and real, argued thought appears. There are many really smart students out there, who just need a nudge to realise how to express themselves, and to realise how what they were doing previously wasn't argument at all. It is a cheap, Wittgenstein-like victory, I admit, but a victory nonetheless.

I also admit, it doesn't do wonders for teaching evaluations (inevitably bimodal; but one hopes the higher mode accumulates the greater frequency). But, it does allow one to entertain *anything* in a classroom setting, and avoids the unfortunate deontology inherent in the original article and almost all the posts.

12. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67817 by PsyPro on September 4, 2007 at 11:59 pm

I apologise if this point has already been said (or understood), but is the missive of this article not a quintessential example of what Dan Dennett referred to as belief in belief? I, too, think the beliefs of children are charming and sometimes evocative*, but please note the age prerequisite.

*I recently heard second hand of a delightful belief of a young child that left me rethinking many things: the child was listening to CBC (Canadian public radio), and was enthralled by the reports of the major fires in Greece. He, a child living in Lethbridge in southern Alberta, was now hearing these reports on a radio he knew as having been purchased in Red Deer, Alberta. He opined that wasn't it terrible that all these fires were taking place in Red Deer. He just assumed (correctly?) that the source of the machine (the radio) was the source of what it reported. Don't rush to judgement: give it a moment. Doesn't it give you a chill about your own assumptions?

13. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63797 by PsyPro on August 16, 2007 at 12:00 am

Comment #62805 by Moridin on August 11, 2007 at 1:45 pm opines:

Stock Market Analysts actually use evidence-based methods. Most of them anyways.

14. When did the police start collaring television?

Comment #63782 by PsyPro on August 15, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Just another example of why ``hate laws'' are always wrong and indefensible: if nothing else, they are everywhere and everywhen abused, distorted, and eventually used to attack and suppress what originally (in their utterly racist/sectarian/phobic ways) they were meant to protect. As a Canadian sadly forced to accept even worse ``hate law'' legislation, I expect the same or even worse here in the near future. It has reached the point that even if one were to attack publicly what the ``hate laws'' were meant to outlaw (Nazism, holocaust denial, anti-semitism, etc.), one can be seen to be promoting hatred.

We CAN NOT advocate using ``hate laws'' to go after misogynists, homophobics, sexists, anti-semitists, etc., etc., because such laws are precisely what we should be fighting in the first place. They are part and parcel (e.g., laws against blasphemy) of the problem, not the solution. I do not like, indeed, I despise (hate?) what many groups and individuals espouse about other groups and individuals. What of it?

``Hate laws'' are about controlling debate and free expression, and not about freedom (even, and especially, freedom ``from''). It is one thing when some knuckle-dragging local preacher gets up on (by fiat) his hind legs to declare some public statement to be ``evil'' or ``hateful'', or blasphemous (no scare quotes needed), it is quite another for the police by virtue of the state to do so. Shades of the Inquisition...

15. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61351 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 11:08 pm

I apologise: I should have read the comments before I commented. Apparently, I am not alone; many are having problems viewing the last half of the discussion. My only excuse is that I don't comment or even read comments until I have viewed/read the focal piece; clearly, in this case, that strategy failed.

16. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61349 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 10:48 pm

I can't get this discussion, either via streaming or download; in both cases it times out at about half-way through the file. Does anybody have it on a server that does not use a 1980s RS Tandy?

17. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61346 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Brilliant. I appreciate most the ultimate paragraph, it could be a common mantra (if atheists could be conceived to even have such):

In an e-mail message from the American Association for the Advancement of Science I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.

18. Who's Minding the Mind?

Comment #61321 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Benedict Carey (the author of NY Times article) unfortunately conflates two distinct issues or phenomena, especially when citing the Vicary ``study''. Most of the research Carey cites involved perfectly supraliminal stimuli (e.g., hot vs. iced coffee) of which the research participants were no doubt perfectly aware (i.e., had they been asked, all could have reported the correct type of coffee, or the presence or absence of the scent of cleaning fluid, or, yes, there was a briefcase or a backpack, and so on). The lack of awareness here is with respect to the effect of these clearly perceived events on their own subsequent behaviour, similar to the early studies of Nisbet and Wilson.

In the remaining research cited, the research participants are (allegedly) unaware of the effective stimuli themselves; that is, they would be (allegedly) unable to detect and report the stimuli even if directed to do so. The former phenomenon (priming with supraliminal events) is well-known in psychology, and not a subject of debate. The latter, however, subliminal perception/priming, is also well-known in psychology (going back as far as some of the very first published experiments in experimental psychology: Pierce and Jastrow, 1884), but much more controversial, and critically dependent on the definition of ``awareness'' and how it is assessed.

19. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60436 by PsyPro on August 2, 2007 at 12:16 am

As much as I agree with Hitchen's defenestration of religious nonsense, I haven't seen this elsewhere, and sometimes warning stickers (as rock album producers of the 80s and 90s recognised) can be useful for sales: <http://bp1.blogger.com/_IWn1UTEW0RY/RqeHZxAVowI/AAAAAAAADZ4/chPZekPJdxM/s1600-h/bible_fiction.jpg>

20. Face to faith

Comment #58463 by PsyPro on July 25, 2007 at 12:33 am

stag (Comment #58237) opines regarding Comment #58153 Bonzai in which a claim is made about the close-mindedness of this list that, it is alleged, fails to appreciate the criticisms of Sam Harris's polemic by Scott Atran. stag writes: ``Point well made.''

Hardly. Bonzai made a point, but it was not well-made by any standard except that of the incoherent. It may be that Scott Atran's comments on Harris deserve, perhaps, more discussion from the usual suspects than heretofore has been the case. But it is a non sequitur to go from Comment #58153 Bonzai to that conclusion.

21. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52717 by PsyPro on June 27, 2007 at 10:45 pm

"Evolutionary biology shows the transition from animal to human to be too gradual to make sense of the idea that we humans have souls while animals do not," wrote Dr. Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren. "All the human capacities once attributed to the mind or soul are now being fruitfully studied as brain processes — or, more accurately, I should say, processes involving the brain, the rest of the nervous system and other bodily systems, all interacting with the socio-cultural world."

22. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47894 by PsyPro on June 6, 2007 at 12:52 am

krogercomplete writes about my response that the question asked was not even rhetorical:
``I was just curious. If you don't want to answer the question, fine. You said that torture is never justified because we can never now for sure whether the person being tortured has the requisite information. I was not sure if that implied agreement with Sam's hypothetical or not (or that you simply thought his hypo was unrealistic, or both). If it does imply agreement, then is ABSOLUTE certainty responsible for the distinction? Is there any circumstancial case that could raise the probability high enough for you to accept torture?''

No. There is no circumstance, because we can NEVER KNOW a priori that a) the to be tortured individual actually has the information sought, or b) that torture would necessarily reveal it in any case. So, as a means to veridical information (as if that were the only issue), torture is just a non-starter. I understand that some people start from the premise that the to be tortured individual actually has the information sought, but I fail to see a) any situation in which we could know a priori that the premise was true, and b) that torture would or could ensure either the truth of the premise or the subsequent revelations derived from torture.

But, there are the ethical issues as well, that heretofore, apparently to some, I have avoided; but, they are not in any way relevant to the question of whether or not information obtained via torture is reliable. It is not. Period. Given that answer, equivocations about other morally questionable activities and beliefs (e.g., Harris's collateral damage) play no role at all.

You and Harris may believe that some young, red-haired woman is a witch and thereby has much to reveal about the nefarious goings on in the neighbourhood. That belief under no circumstances, even if those circumstances included the collateral belief that thousands or billions or the entire human race was at risk, would justify torturing that young woman. Just because a) you do not know and cannot know for a fact that the belief is true, and, at any rate have b) no reason to believe anything obtained via torture.

23. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47887 by PsyPro on June 6, 2007 at 12:13 am

Ms. Pamela Bone opines:

``Religion is not going to die out soon no matter how educated people become, or how many books explaining it away are written.''

Really? And she knows this how? Data, facts, revelations from the future, what? Drivel. One could just as easily write:

``Religion will die out by noon, Saturday, no matter how educated people become, or how many books explaining it away are written.''

She also opined:
``Billions of people derive comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good).''

Really? And she knows these alleged facts how? Where are the data? Let us write them again:

``Billions of people derive no comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are never motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good).''

Equally, no data. And, thereby, equally plausible. Indeed, had the words been mine, I would have written:

``Billions of people are tortured by religious belief, and they should have some relief from this.'' And so on. In the absence of facts, one can claim any damn fool thing one wants.

24. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47883 by PsyPro on June 5, 2007 at 11:40 pm

I was asked by krogercomplete:

``What would be your answer if we actually could know for a fact?''

My answer is not relevant (the issue was Sam Harris's), nor is the question: as we can never know, the issue never arises. And, I fail to see how torture would ever play a role in answering this prequestion. Sam's nuanced response in the quoted url amplified his equation of torture with collateral damage. What the hell is the connection? Give me the money, or the bunny is toast? Yes, all sorts of people accept collateral damage, the death penalty, and what all. So what? What has that to do with torture *as a means of gaining veridical information*? Nothing. Side-tracking nonsense is all that argument is. And Sam is much smarter than that. I am disappointed in his (lack of) reasoning here, and especially his use of a classical fallacy of argumentation highlighted in Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi: Equivocation. There is no necessary relation between the public acceptance of collateral damage and torture, and there is certainly no relation between the two concepts themselves.

25. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47880 by PsyPro on June 5, 2007 at 11:07 pm

On Sam Harris and torture:
Some have pointed to his response <http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/> as if somehow that answered the concern, but it doesn't. Mr. Harris still argues that torture is justified sometimes, and, as usual misses the point of his critics. His justification scenario assumes that the to be tortured actually knows what the torturer wants to know: that we can KNOW that for a fact. But, how can we know that? That tortured people ``reveal'' all sorts of things under torture is not surprising, but the veracity of those revelations, as always, is highly questionable. Because you can *never* know that the to be tortured actually has the knowledge you seek, torture is never justified. Period. And Sam should just say so and back off from his indefensible position.

26. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46322 by PsyPro on May 30, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Australia isn't even included in this chart.

Nor is the second largest (geographically) country on the planet, Canada. (Mind you, that may be less embarassing than what might have been revealed!)

27. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46314 by PsyPro on May 30, 2007 at 10:40 pm

The images and comments are compelling, but few of us realise just how easy it is to be mistaken about what one should conclude from such mostly uncontrolled or poorly controlled observations. For those who think there is really something in this piece and the associated video clips that forces the conclusions proffered, please see, e.g., Povinelli, D.J. (2000). Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee's theory of how the world works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, and many subsequent Povinelli publications for compelling demonstrations of just how easily fooled we are into thinking these non-human primates are demonstrating anything particularly ``deep'' in their behaviours in these tasks. Mind you, the same applies to many similar claims about human behaviour in the same or related tasks: simple mechanisms can often provide what appears to be profoundly deep or abstract behaviour where no such depth or abstraction is required.

28. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46295 by PsyPro on May 30, 2007 at 8:28 pm

There are at least two points to be made in response to this piece. The first, and most important, is that our attitude toward whether or not we should prevent the extirpation if not extinction of a harmless (to humans) species should be so closely (if at all) tied to whether or not some members of that species are human-like in some otherwise thought to be uniquely human capacity or another. The second, of course, is quality of the evidence that they are indeed so, especially when the referent capacity is alleged to be language or explicit thought. The evidence here is woefully inadequate, not different in kind or quantity from the much earlier, but no less hyped, language learning in chimpanzees such as Washoe.

Edit: one too many "not"s

29. A conversation with journalist Christopher Hitchens

Comment #38663 by PsyPro on May 8, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Quintessential Hitchens, and I loved every bit of it. Oh, yes, he aggravates the hell out of me, but I never feel he dismisses me or any one else a priori; rather, I suspect he is just waiting for me or others to lob some, no doubt, sophomoric nonsense that he has already cut to shreds, and will do so again with relish. I loved the book, railed against almost every political point in the book, and loved it even more so. An intellectual tour de force that needs to be read and reread truly to appreciate. If you need vindication for your ideas, test them against the arguments in this book. If you don't, sorry, you still need to do so.

30. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33969 by PsyPro on April 22, 2007 at 11:29 pm

``Atheists split on how to not believe''

Let's ignore the split infinitive, and get to the issue: I, as an atheist, don't believe, which is the point of atheism: it is a declaration of non-belief; but that is all it is. I do not belong to a club of ``fellow atheists'', or fellow-believers, as a declaration of non-belief is not one of alternative belief. I have no idea what other atheists believe about anything, nor do I care. Indeed, I usually have nothing to do with them. I objected at the skeptics conference in Seattle a few years ago (and left, sadly disappointed), head-lined by the late Carl Sagan, that, despite his professed claims to a commonality among us (apparently, we were all joined in some great enterprise), to be a skeptic is to be just that: one does not thereby join a club of like-minded belief. I am a skeptic and an atheist, but for anyone to take this as a declaration of common belief or purpose, is a mistake. We may indeed have beliefs and purposes in common, but to assume so a priori is just an error.

31. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #28956 by PsyPro on March 31, 2007 at 11:14 pm

It can't be a Sokal hoax, as he signed the last one, submitted it for publication, and had it accepted *without review* in one of the (if not THE) top journal in this sadly demented field. This missive is not even as entertaining as that hoax, however polite it may be (who can tell?) because it emanates from, sadly, a Canadian university. The Sokal hoax at least used English, and claims that were demonstrably false. The impenetrability
of the prose in the current missive has not even the virtue of being false; it is not even coherent.

Still, I loved this line opening a paragraph of equally nonsensical bilge: ``Anyone who understands the ways of native hypertext knows that the point is not to struggle against hypertext.'' Really? I guess I don't know the ways of native hypertext, whatever the hell that might mean! But, to be honest, I do struggle against hypertext, such as this POS, obtained as hypertext.

Poor RD: even his hyperbole gets tested in the most ironic fashion. All the more warning: never say that ``even the most idiotic and stupid would never say that x...''---you are inviting just such a pronouncement.

32. A History of Violence

Comment #28950 by PsyPro on March 31, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Of course it is NOT a truism that religion is the cause of all wars anymore than it is the source of all evil---as Dawkins took pains to explain in that he did NOT choose the title of the TV series of that name that he hosted. And nothing is; that is, there is no one thing that is the source of all evil. Indeed, as much as I would like to blame the world's evils on the mendacity of President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, or even the (``Yes, I can be as stupid as them!'') Prime Minister Harper of Canada---and yes the mendacity of them is legion---that would be foolish and of no import.

I wish I could attribute it even then in whole to stupidity and irrationalism, but even that isn't true; some very intelligent and rational people have provided literate cover (if not the justification) for some of the world's worst evils, past and present, and offered as justification what was accepted at the times as both intelligent and rational.

Any attempt to discredit evil (currently unacceptable) acts as religiously or irrationally-based is doomed to failure. Irrationality (or religion) may be more susceptible to the acceptance of such acts (or not, that is an empirical question), but regardless that is NOT the basis for the preferred acceptance of enlightenment rationality. It is enlightenment rationality that provides for the dispassionate evaluation, judgement (and, most important, re-evaluation) of any and all such acts.

We do not object to religion and other irrationalisms because they provide the *wrong* answers, but because they provide no solid reason to believe that the answers they do provide have merit.

33. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27476 by PsyPro on March 24, 2007 at 8:07 pm

All I follow of postmodernism is this line about a postmodernist Mafioso: he makes you an offer you can't understand.

34. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27438 by PsyPro on March 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Colour vision and our 3-dimensional colour space is not strictly a matter of having three colour sensors, but rather how the input from those sensors is organised into three opponent processes. So, even if someone were found to have a fourth retinal colour sensor (as has been claimed for some people, although I have no idea how solid the evidence is), it would not lead necessarily (or even likely) to a 4-D colour space; nor is it the case for the mice that by adding a third colour sensor, their visual space went from 2D to 3D: it was probably 3D to begin with, as three independent dimensions is all that is needed to capture the important covariances of natural light.

For example, human dichromats (i.e., those whose colour ``blindness'' is the result of lacking one colour receptor---typically the long- or red-wavelength receptor---the same one added to the mice retina) are not actually colour blind in the sense that they fail to see some colours at all; red/green dichromats, for example, still experience reds and greens, they just fail to make all the subtle distinctions trichromats do. As Edwin Land demonstrated in his ``retinex'' experiments, wavelength intensity records from just two wavelengths (of almost any combination) are sufficient to provide for the the full range of colour experiences (if not always their intensities), assuming the display is complex (unstructured) enough. See Wendy Carlos' web-pages on colour vision and colour blindness for some fascinating demonstrations:
<http://www.wendycarlos.com/colorvis/color.html>

35. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #27311 by PsyPro on March 23, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Hitchen's anti-theism, unlike atheism, is more a political, rather than a scientific perspective, and, as such, can make claims of morality, and all the more justifiably so! Despite his ability to infuriate me to no end before, and sometimes even after, I think his many positions through, I value Hitchens highly, and view his willingness and talent to speak clearly and forcibly as all the more reason why *any* restriction on free speech is an egregious error.

36. Faith

Comment #23015 by PsyPro on February 25, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Janus is right, apparently.

We should do our best to rise to the challenge. So, what are our best arguments against theism? Yes, Dawkins and Dennett (and innumerable others over the centuries) covered 99.99% of the ground, leaving open only the ``well we can't prove a negative'' (and then showing how they can disprove any negative worth holding).

But there is apparently something left that we still need to challenge (nutbars always have their day). Apparently. And that would be? Something like, well, it just feels good to me? C'mon. I am a past-parent (my son is now 22) and we dealt with this when he was about 4. If you encounter any one older that is still so confused, I recommend false sympathy and sight-lines to a fast exit. You really have a life to live and better things to do.

37. Faith

Comment #23012 by PsyPro on February 25, 2007 at 10:09 pm

The last paragraph claims, in essence, that we should all be *reasonable*, *respect* the opinions of others, and then, *something*.

It is the something that disturbs me. In my country, Canada, often considered the most tolerant country on the planet, we also have a tradition known as``uncivil obedience'', borne of one of our civil libertarian leaders, Alan Bovoroy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Borovoy>. We do not tolerate bullshit: we fight it. Unlike civil disobedience (which we decry), we (Canadians) do so within in the law: but, we also do so in as nasty a way we can. If we can make the nutbars out as nutbars, we do so.

Tolerance does not mean NICE; indeed, nice is NOT the issue, truth is. That is only way tolerance of any kind can survive. The Canadian model of tolerance has often been misunderstood, even within Canada, but NICE is not its root. That which is still open for debate (or, importantly, of no consequence-- you want to colour yourself purple?) we Canadians as a group and constitutionally don't care, and don't rule upon. But, if you require that somebody other than yourself colour themselves purple? We get upset. And we invoke our constitution, which, unfortunately, in a weak moment by one of our most otherwise enlightened leaders (Trudeau) includes god garbage. What can I say? I am shamed. The rest is good though. ;-)

38. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #23005 by PsyPro on February 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Please don't misread me here: I don't intend to defend Wilson. I am merely trying to assist in the interpretation of the sentence. The principle of charity suggets the interpretation I proposed; that's all.

Otherwise, intellectually, I am totally opposed to his position: because we share outcomes, we should not debate reasons for those outcomes is mealy-mouthed nonsense in my opinion. It is at least as bad as Gould's nonsensical ``separate magisteria'' position, and possibly even more damaging. What is important is NOT that we (or any other damn thing) survive, but that truth does; otherwise, there is no point. Well, actually, as we know, there is no point, but the one I just articulated is one I think spending at least a moment on ;-)

Again don't misread me: I think we should do our best to maintain all the biological diversity we can, and can afford. Period. But that affordance is not the licence many assume.

39. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #23004 by PsyPro on February 25, 2007 at 7:49 pm

All of science is transcendental in the sense of transcend: the whole point is to provide statements or summaries that transcend the particulars. Indeed, it has been argued that transcendental (again, reading in the transcendent sense) realism is the *only* coherent model of science.

40. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22990 by PsyPro on February 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

You have the wrong root, try `transcendental' with the root-meaning of `transcend'---to go beyond or surpass