Comments by Quine

751. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162847 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Finally, let me say this. I find the tone of this discussion becoming a bit heated. Let's take it down a notch. I respect what you have to say, I just don't agree with it. I've kept my posts free of inflammatory adjectives and personally directed rhetorical comments. I ask for the same in return.

I am going to outright steal this and program it into a hotkey so I can append it from time to time on a single stroke.

752. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162833 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Did you know that the Bush administration sided for immunity from legal action against the Pope?

753. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162809 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Also unfortunate, Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, got this crap into the Seattle Times today.

P.S. A nice counterbalance just went up at the Chicago Tribune that lists the stars of the film as "Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler."

754. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162799 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm

The thing has yet to open and it already is providing for crap like this which claims the movie "pulls their fancy pants down and spanks em good."

P.S. And more crap like this.

755. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162772 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 12:39 pm

The Expelled guys may get away under a satire ruling. However, if the distribution does go forward, and Yoko experiences a loss of income because Imagine is linked to Nazi atrocities by these falsehoods, then (after the fact) she can take action against them under the libel laws. I do not see this as likely, but if it comes to pass, these jerks should be held responsible for the damage that they do to any reputation that was in their way. (I have mentioned this before with regard to the reputation of Prof. Dawkins.)

P.S. How long do you think the Disney lawyers would have sat still if Stein had had Mickey Mouse goose stepping his way through a concentration camp?

756. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162741 by Quine on April 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

The clips from Gibson's film used in The God Who Wasn't There were to document (time, actually) the senseless use of blood gushing special effects. This was clear criticism under Fair Use. The Lennon song has nothing to do with the alleged job loss of these academics (not playing in the background in the dean's office), or the opportunity to criticize Darwin in the establishment, or the scientific validity of Evolution. The use of the song is just to tart up the movie, so Fair Use is not clear (but they may get away with it).

This is another example of the religion "wedge." They are claiming that they are standing up for scientific freedom, but are against the song because it suggests "imagine no religion." They are hypocrites form the tops of their heads right down to the tips of their self-righteous toes.

757. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162322 by Quine on April 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Cartomancer, the deletion of his comment history makes me doubt that he is playing DR. However, if so, it would be nice if he PMed a few of us to let us in on it (hint hint).

758. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161443 by Quine on April 15, 2008 at 9:53 am

( G-d??? What is that by the way, are you so scared of your god that you can't even type his name?)

Yes, there are Jewish law restrictions about this. I friend of mine was a systems programmer who had an obnoxious user who abused a system command string to take over other people's terminals. The user was orthodox Jewish and so changing the string to "GOD" stopped him for a while. The guy then went back to his old ways by setting his own terminal to "no echo" before typing the "GOD" on the theory that the LAW only applied if he could see "GOD" actually spelled out.

759. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160947 by Quine on April 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #160773 by Bonzai

epeeist

,.. enough about the philosophy of science to know that Intelligent Design isn't science (though you would want a professional philosopher like MPhil, Quine or Spinoza if you want more depth).

No you don't. "Professional" philosophers have a tendency to be tricked by their own words. You don't need to know the big words to make a sound argument. Kant said such and such, according to so and so doctrine blah blah are basically invoking authorities to cover the lack of argument,--though often done just as a way to show off, in that case they are unnecessary distractions.

Bonzai did something bad happen to you as a child at the hands of a philosopher, perhaps a Jesuit? Generalizing from Kant to modern philosophers is just silly. There is a simple book by professional philosophers, The Web of Belief by W.V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, that I recommend to you and all here, re the subject of ID trying to be science. It is an introductory book from 1970 with no big words chasing other big words, but it cuts right to the heart of the problem (though written about other junk science long before) as you can see from this excerpt taken from the introduction:

Often such doctrines are accompanied by defiant attacks on the scientific establishment. Science is said to be in the hands of vested interests. Now there have indeed been vested interests that have blocked progress; so such attacks can strike a responsive cord. But there seems to be no end to how far such accusations can go. Not long ago there was a pamphlet available that "proved" π to be expressible as a fraction. The scientific aristocracy, so it claimed, had had its purposes in suppressing this result. But now, for a small price, the truth was out.

When it is a mathematical truth that is assailed there is likely to be a definitive way of settling the issue; so, happily, it is with π. For many doctrines, though, there is this protective argument: you (pointing to the follower of the scientific establishment) can't disprove it! And to be sure, many of these theories that lie on or beyond the fringe of believability cannot be definitively shown to be wrong. Indeed many of them are cast in terms that are so cloudy that it is hard to know what would count as a refutation of them; for they are not intelligible in the first place. And here the naivete of the believer may blend with his instinct for giant-killing. He thinks that the fact that his belief can't be knocked all the way over is additional ground for embracing it; and he may rejoice in finding that all the mighty scientists can't put him down. A victory, of sorts, over those in power.

760. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160319 by Quine on April 14, 2008 at 12:07 am

Well, there goes Santa as an art subject.

761. A New Flea

Comment #160171 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

According to this posting the following is coming up:

DEALING WITH DAWKINS That may, or may not, be what we eventually call an evening
lecture on Wednesday December 3rd to be given by Keith Ward, but Richard Dawkins has
questioned both the truth and the morality of Christian faith and Keith Ward has written responses to him. Keith Ward was Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. He is Joint President of the World Congress of Faiths, Professor of Divinity at Gresham College in London, and a fellow of the British Academy. He is also an excellent communicator and well worth listening to. This evening is aimed particularly at Christians who want to think about some of the critiques of Christian faith made by Dawkins and others and how to respond to them. The lecture will be chaired by the Bishop of Bedford, Rt Revd Richard Inwood, and be held at Priory Methodist
Church, Newnham Ave, Bedford.

Anyone in the area willing to read the book and be ready to go after them in December?

762. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160119 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Goldy:

Talking of Lying for Jesus, anyone seen this?
http://www.barriewilson.com/hjbc.html

I don't know this source, but just looking a the blurb it tends to line up with my own digging into the history (i.e. Saul/Paul invented the Christian religion, not having much to do with the historical Jesus). I will probably read it.

P.S. There is a nice video at that site.

763. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160004 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Kardashovel:

Who would want to be a prophet, unless it was for profit?

Well, for community status and/or to win favor in some cases (then there is the power over others thing). I wonder how many just made stuff up to see how gullible their neighbors were, and then were forced to stick with it? Also, some of the prophets claimed not to want that position, but just could not stop the voices in their heads.

764. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159757 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 3:28 am

Styrer, are you here for the full argument, or just the five minutes?

765. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159751 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 3:16 am

I have always assumed it meant an impersonal universe that does not have the welfare of man kind at heart.

It depends on the deity you have in mind. If it is one of those really nasty kind that is into all that smiting, a Universe with lots of catastrophic events and pointless suffering might be just the thing.

766. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159743 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 2:56 am

I am of the understanding that no christian evolutionists (like Ken Miller)were included in the film. Wonder why that was? Oh yeah, it would piss all over the notion that you have to be an atheist to believe in evolution

In the interview of Mathis by the SA staff he was asked this about Ken Miller. He proceeded to go (reflexively, it seemed) into weasel wording and complained that Miller was not a real Catholic.

767. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159730 by Quine on April 13, 2008 at 2:16 am

My take on Prof. Dawkins statement is that he has in mind the typical intercessionary deity or deities that we see in common religion. Of course, if the proposal is about a deity that just starts the Univese off, and then dies or has no interaction, it might not look different at all.

768. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159321 by Quine on April 12, 2008 at 12:20 am

I read Collins' book. It went along fine while he was putting forth the message that evolution is real, and I often use it against creationists and IDiots. However, once he gets to the part about seeing the three part frozen waterfall, it goes straight down the drain.

769. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159291 by Quine on April 11, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Also, I know for a fact that they have one of the best intellectual property attorneys in the business.

If he or she stood by when they took off the copyright notice, there is a risk of disbarment.

P.S. I hope taxonomists don't see that Limbaugh piece; they might bust us down from Homo sapiens, sapines to Homo duh.

770. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159203 by Quine on April 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Quiddam, very nice indeed.

Frankus1122, Just upload your image to an image sharing server (plenty of free ones) and when you get the URL you put it in the "img" tag such as:

<img
src="http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8354/howtofakerepo1285175226xl8.jpg"
border="0" alt="IDiot"/>

Which will get you this:

IDiot

771. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159173 by Quine on April 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm

It is important to remember that the copyright issue is a side show to the central fraud of the movie. If they had done their own animation, it would have made no difference. I am happy to have this "problem" for them, but do not want to let it distract from the core attempt to misrepresent science to the public.

772. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158626 by Quine on April 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm

I just finished listening to the Mathis podcast. It is worth the time, if you can stand it. As others have noted, he spends most of his time weaseling around the direct questions. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be able to understand how completely the SA staff have cut him to ribbons.

773. Fleabytes

Comment #158425 by Quine on April 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm

... it was actually DOS underneath.

"Oh, very witty, Wilde ..... very, very witty."

Edit: P.S. Both NT and 95 had multitasking in protected mode, a substantial advance on DOS.

774. Fleabytes

Comment #158410 by Quine on April 10, 2008 at 12:57 pm

The sockpuppet tradition goes deep. We do not know how much of our picture of Socrates is just Plato's sockpuppet. IMHO the greatest sockpuppet of all time was given to us by the writers (Edit: and redactors) of the NT.

775. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158351 by Quine on April 10, 2008 at 11:29 am

Thanks Fedler, I love the last line:

State Rep. Jack Franks was chairing the hearing that day and says Davis' outburst was uncharacteristic, adding "she was having a bad day."

I often wonder if civilization might fall due to the coincidental alignment of the right collection of people, all "having a bad day." Perhaps we should put some defense research effort into the anti "having a bad day" missile.

776. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158002 by Quine on April 10, 2008 at 12:51 am

Hopefully, the Expelled producers have taken steps to cover up the infringement. If so, given their level of competency, they will be caught at it, and that would cross over to the criminal law side of the fence.

777. Beware the Believers

Comment #157983 by Quine on April 9, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Cartomancer:

As PZ Myers might say, we've got a veritable motherlode of stupid to deal with in the above post. I've got to go to sleep now, unfortunately, but I'm sure someone is just itching to take this one to task.

Agreed. In this case, I don't see why any of us should have to bother. Perhaps someone could write a chatterbot to process comments on this level.

778. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157955 by Quine on April 9, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Davis anti-atheist tirade goes national

779. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157369 by Quine on April 9, 2008 at 2:07 am

Once again, well done Paula.

780. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157324 by Quine on April 8, 2008 at 11:21 pm

As others have posted, I must admire Richard's suffering of fools on this show. I suppose he is now ready for The View on the next trip to the USA (assuming he does not fall of the edge of the flat Earth on the way there).

This is the first time I heard the argument that The Devil must exist because that is the only way to explain the evil in the world. It sounds a bit like the Irrefutable Perplexity argument from the IDiots. It starts with a first part that is Argumentum ad ignorantiam where we are charged to refute the existence of The Devil, then this is backed up with a form of the Sherlock Holmes Fallacy where The Devil must be the cause of evil because the speaker can't think of any other.

When people of faith try this kind of thing on me I like to quickly remind them that before Newton it was thought that angels pushed the planets around the sun; like, what else could it be?

781. Fleabytes

Comment #156145 by Quine on April 7, 2008 at 12:40 am

Not all who mislead are lairs. Some of the greatest damage is done by those who disseminate, to large numbers, that which they do not understand is not true.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

782. Fleabytes

Comment #155832 by Quine on April 6, 2008 at 2:48 am

Well, I am not ready to go through the cases at this time. You will find something for the thread, and I will let you know when I have more on this.

783. Fleabytes

Comment #155756 by Quine on April 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Dr. Benway

I smile and politely tell the door-to-doors I'm not interested, buh-bye.

Back in college, one of my friends used to try to sell them his vacuum cleaner. (Kept close to the door for this very purpose.)

784. Fleabytes

Comment #155754 by Quine on April 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Comment #155139 by jac12358

Quine, I know your comment and Steve's are a bit old in this thread, I am late coming into it. I read the main article a while back but focused on other threads at first. I find your posts interesting. I think when it comes to imagining what would happen were the cosmological constants to change there is a bit of faith involved when we see the numbers. It SUGGESTS what might or might not happen, but we can never know for sure since we can never live or run the experiment in such a different universe.

Hi jac12358; welcome to this vast (tar baby) of a thread. Steve got me into reading the background literature for this so I could respond to the specifics; I am currently working through Just Six Numbers by Rees, which is where you can find the epsilon quote. So far, it still looks to me like a presentation of a big picture of perfectly wonderful physics, followed by a logical disconnect to a faith position. This happens in mathematics when someone gets up and writes Euler's equation on the blackboard and then says "therefore God."

At some point I expect to find what I want to say already published, but if not, I may write a paper on the nature of the disconnect. I suspect it will boil down to the difference between speaking about a model of something inside the Universe v. a model of the Universe. Enough for now; I am sure there will be a "fine tuning" thread in the comments, at some point, as there already is over at the RD Forum.

785. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #155575 by Quine on April 5, 2008 at 12:14 am

Meanwhile, the President of the USA does what he can to help school kids:

IDiot

786. Beware the Believers

Comment #155564 by Quine on April 4, 2008 at 9:37 pm

This afternoon the Marketplace program on public radio here in the USA ran a piece on the movie Expelled. You can listen to it here. It was interesting in that it really shows that the thing is about getting money from the faith community. Unfortunately, no mention was made of the underhand tricks, or the basic mendacity of the central theme.

I encourage all here to email the producers of the radio program and demand coverage of the other side.

787. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154728 by Quine on April 3, 2008 at 3:59 pm

The history of people following the mentally ill goes back thousands of years. If only it were more commonly known.

788. Fleabytes

Comment #154622 by Quine on April 3, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #154303 by Steve Zara

I am going to have to apologise. I have just run out of energy for dealing with idiotic creationists in debates here. How many times do we have to go over the same arguments, ...

I feel just the same. Unfortunately, they feel they can win by wearing us down with the same old same old.

Edit:
Perhaps this comes from all the repetitive prayer, or those childhood drills of catechism questions and canned answers.

789. Fleabytes

Comment #154211 by Quine on April 2, 2008 at 10:12 pm

That is Hitchens in Grand Rapids tomorrow.

790. Fleabytes

Comment #154061 by Quine on April 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Peacebeuponme:

"My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore."

Not a very nice thing to say about whores.

791. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152998 by Quine on March 31, 2008 at 8:21 pm

However, it does look like publishing TGD, now, makes you an international criminal. Get ready for trials in the ICC.

Not sure if you were just making a joke -- but I read that this Commissions resolutions are non binding. This is not (yet ?) international human rights law.

I should have used the <qusaifacetious> </qusaifacetious> tags.

792. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152989 by Quine on March 31, 2008 at 7:59 pm

The straight up observation that religion is stupid is not from contempt, but from reason. Limiting speech that calls for violence is one thing, speaking against religion that does violence cannot be on the same level.

However, it does look like publishing TGD, now, makes you an international criminal. Get ready for trials in the ICC.

793. Beware the Believers

Comment #152184 by Quine on March 30, 2008 at 11:21 am

Okay, so now we have rap memes replicating and mutating all over us.

794. Beware the Believers

Comment #152181 by Quine on March 30, 2008 at 11:14 am

Frankus1122, keep the bling; looks good on you.

795. Beware the Believers

Comment #151979 by Quine on March 29, 2008 at 8:40 pm

With Nova, I fear that Poe's Law will impact more viewers than not. It seems to me that the maker has assumed an audience of his/her own level and has forgone the usual safety exit disclaimer as was used at the end of the movie Spinal Tap.

796. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151541 by Quine on March 29, 2008 at 12:33 am

I am starting to feel sorry for these guys. Wasn't it F. Gump who said, "stupid is as stupid does"?

797. Fleabytes

Comment #150048 by Quine on March 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Jonestown is no joke for the friends and families of those sad people. It has given us a "modern times" lesson about the dark side of devotion, and put the "drink the Kool-Aid" expression into the language, but it is a great heartache none the less.

798. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150019 by Quine on March 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Happy birthday Richard! Don't let those Vogons grind you down! (Or read poetry at your party, either.)

799. Expelled Overview

Comment #149438 by Quine on March 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I expect Mathis to rake in fist-fulls of the faithful flock's funds on this fatuous failure. Content notwithstanding, the opportunity to put something in this niche and collect the cash preconditioned that someone was going to do it.

Bottom line: Follow the money.

800. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149367 by Quine on March 25, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Yes, it is, and a good example of morals that humans can recognize without help from invisible friends.