51. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241447 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 8:57 am

I finally brought myself to watch this clip.
Brown may well be a good lobbyist, but she is totally humourless and went in ill-prepared for the predictable barrage that she was going to withstand.
I cringed when she mentioned the 'list of artists at her office' and threw in Picasso insecurely and half-apologetically. She came through as ignorant and slow-witted during the entire interview, and there is no other way to interpret her regrettable performance.

52. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241414 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #241412 by Brian English

talk to the physicists who claim their postulations are reality.

Name one.

53. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241399 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 7:22 am

. Comment #241395 by Quetzalcoatl

Jackass, my dog, is a peacenik. At most, I could hope that he would lick Brian to death.

54. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241394 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 7:17 am

Comment #241389 by Brian English

It's just out of respect for your present conditions that I don't unleash Oystein and set him on you.

55. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241384 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #241379 by Brian English

I was referring to your challenge to prove that we are not part of a simulation.

What are you drinking, BTW?
It seems good stuff. :)

56. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241371 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #241369 by Brian English

Brian, QM undoubtedly is counter-intuitive and still needs to be satisfactorily squared with relativity. However, its predictions yield some of the most precise results of all science. Therefore it works.

Yeah, I ought to prove a negative, nice try.

57. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241366 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:45 am

Comment #241364 by Brian English

And yet within the standard interpretations we don't know whether particles have a time and place or are everywhere.

Ahem.

This is the point, humans need to find an understanding, and that means a way to know, and that is philosophy.

Then prove it. Science has dwarfed thousands of years of philosophical enterprise in a couple of centuries.

58. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241358 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:34 am

Comment #241351 by Brian English

Philosophy isn't based on opinion.

I apologise, my statement was too strong, and you are right, there are some standards of strictness in philosophy, too.
I am not suggesting that philosophy is entirely useless, and I made this clear elsewhere (those links in the previous comment).

And you can categorically confirm they exist, that at no later date scientists will have different measurements that will contradict these postulations?

The likelihood that the Standard Model and modern cosmology will be entirely rejected, or will undergo such major reassessment is, quite frankly, null.
Many independent lines of evidence as well as empirical observations have cemented their basic tenets beyond that possibility.

59. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241349 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #241343 by Brian English

Sorry, but that's factually wrong.
Again, astronomy comes from astrology and is not astrology.

Science isn't about wisdom, it's about knowledge not based on opinion (contrary to philosophy) and the two are not interchangeable.
You mentioned quarks and dark matter - they all have been predicted, observed and/or empirically inferred, contrary to your claim.

60. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241342 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:09 am

Comment #241338 by Laurie Fraser

Great comment, Laurie.

61. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241337 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #241332 by Brian English

Well, you haven't read my comments, and I am not willing to restate my position here.

62. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241327 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #241314 by Brian English

Thanks Brian.

To reassure you that I know all that, read this past comment of mine.

You might have missed the emoticon, too.

Apart from that, astronomy comes from astrology, and chemistry comes from alchemy. Does this in any way validate astrology and alchemy in the modern quest for knowledge?

Anyway, I am having this same discussion with MPhil in another thread. You can examine what my position is in this thread. Please, read also my next comment, there.

Edit- You are most welcome to add your input.

63. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241320 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 5:35 am

Comment #241313 by John Locke

nukes asside i dont see how england over-reacted?

Sorry, I was under the impression that the deployment of at least one tactical nuclear weapon had been ascertained.
I have no other major criticism.

64. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241309 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #241303 by Steve Zara

philosophy is useless and will be replaced by science

Oh, but it will. :)

65. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241305 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 5:09 am

Comment #241300 by HunterZolomon

I would contend that England over-reacted. The deployment of nukes in the war-theatre demonstrates it beyond doubts, as well as the general disregard for contingency plans.

66. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241290 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #241288 by Laurie Fraser

The Argentines were stupid enough to serve her with the perfect opportunity, though.

67. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241278 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 4:35 am

Comment #241271 by Steve Zara

I think dropping sensationalism from the headlines and producing cheery content are two separate things.
Some news blogs and other alternative media have shown that you can keep interest high, without spinning and blowing issues out of proportion.

68. 'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

Comment #241261 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 4:08 am

More evidence for the Flood, that will once and for all silence the critics who claim that the ark couldn't possibly hold all the kinds on Earth.
Of course it couldn't!
That's why Noah had to leave out some of the largest animals, like the mammoth.

69. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241050 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Comment #241048 by Hellene

His scorching attack on the domesticated press is also remarkable.

70. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241043 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #241038 by keith

since Colbert is a very good at what he does and has a large, sympathetic audience behind him.

You should see what he does in front of a hostile audience.
Really, the TV format doesn't do him justice.

Watch how he treated Bush in front of the world, if you haven't already- it's an incredibly brave performance.

Video


Article

71. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241029 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Comment #241026 by Donald

Hello David.



What did you think of it?

Surely you jest, sir.

72. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240822 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #240641 by MPhil

Oh dear....

Sorry if I sounded rude. :)

I think you're falling into the trap of being both simplistic and circular. some questions just aren't empirical, and thus, you will never
get uniequivocal answers.

Could you please show how the problem of existence isn't empirical and what is amiss in the provided scientific answer? Do we have separate layers of reality to deal with? In other words, can you prove that anything exist outside space and time?
Until then, I don't think I have been circular, I have addressed the example of your choosing.
There may be problems left that are better investigated by philosophy. Existence doesn't appear to be one, at this point, unless proven otherwise.

Please, concede that this is an internet forum, where I intervene in a conversational manner, typing at lightning speed - not having the time nor the inclination for writing complex essays. Being simplistic is inevitable, under these circumstances.

If you want to opt for logical empiricism and say that only empirical questions are meaningful, that's your prerogative, but that's a bad choice.

Not exactly. I want to opt for not wasting time with meaningless questions. Provided that a question is shown to be meaningful on a case-by-case basis, I'll gladly accept the need for an answer, by whatever effective method. This implies the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, as well. Mutually-conflicting results beyond reasonable approximation demonstrate the failure of all methods adopted, except perhaps one.

Bad choice - meme theory is nothing more than a useful metaphor, an interpretational device...it's not science... or would you care to tell me what the ontological status of memes is?

I partly agree, it is protoscience, to date. One day it will be proven or disproved as a valid scientific theory, by science itself.

I take issue with your attempted sleight of hand - philosophy of science has already indicated the parameters within which a theory can be considered scientific. The ontological status of memes is an artificial problem with regard to the validity of the theory.

And your claim about what meme theory reveals philosophy to be is just factually wrong, and frankly, quite arrogant.

If the theory is proved sound, my claim will be correct. Until then it's my arrogant personal opinion. I thought you valued personal opinions.

I couldn't live without either philosophy or science

That's commendable and I partly share your all-encompassing enthusiasm.
Yet, I find that you rather rigidly apply your considerable intelligence and thinking skills only to one side of the board.

Thanks for your attention, my friend, I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss things with you.

73. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Comment #240791 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 3:47 am

Many thanks, Quetz and Oystein.

74. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Comment #240780 by decius on September 1, 2008 at 3:12 am

The fact that dark matter does not slow down in the collision

How could they determine this?

75. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240625 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Comment #240346 by J Mac

Science informed the above argument, but science alone could not make it. Some criteria had to exist outside of science for premise two.

Which, again, was my original contention. This discussion wasn't taking into account how science can inform philosophy in the process of pruning bad theories.


Comment #240349 by MPhil

Not true - some questions of philosophy are just not something to which empirical science can contribute anything, like "how to words refer to objects", or "what is existence"

With all due respect to you, to your amazing philosophical scholarship, and to philosophy for its undoubted merits, I find these statements amounting to little more than hogwash.

Philosophy has run around in circles to that question (and similar ones) for millennia, without being able to provide an unequivocal and satisfactory answer. What philosophy has had to show for it is diametrically opposed opinions of competing groups of thinkers, each one claiming to have refuted the others.

Science has answered it satisfactorily in less than 150 years, and I honestly doubt that there is anything to be add by anyone to the fact that, for something to exist, it has to be made of matter (anything that has mass and volume, if you prefer) or energy, which at closer scrutiny are one and the same.
I shall pre-empt your objections concerning ideas, fictional characters, and hypothetical entities pointing you to Meme Theory, unsurprisingly ostracised by many philosophers, because it further reveals philosophy as an obsolete tool for investigating many of the ever-shrinking complexities of reality. As for mathematical entities, let math take care of itself, which it does wonderfully.

Through the perfectly satisfactory reductionistic approach of Sheehan:

Automatic translations of patterns from substrate to substrate to substrate, and back again, provide looping pathways by which patterns can iteratively replicate, mutate and evolve. Many such looping pathways exist both within a single brain (to create an intelligent mind) and among many brains (to create culture, language and technology). We speak words through vibrational patterns of the larynx, which get translated to pressure waves in air, which then get translated to vibrations of a listener's ear drum, which then get translated to waves of cochlear fluid inside the inner ear, which then get translated to patterns of neural firings, which then get translated to patterns of neural connections, thereby establishing a memory of the spoken words in the listener's mind.

but I think you misunderstand philosophy.

It is most certainly the case, I am by no means an expert. I have studied with some attention what was required of me by my curriculum, and a certain deal more. I found science so much more informative, clear and personal-opinion-free, that I have devoted myself to what by all objective standards is our most effective tool for unlocking the secrets of the universe.
This doesn't and shouldnt' detract from the respect that I have for you and for many great philosophers, some of which I blame for being unable to recognise the failures of their methods, and for a degree of self-aggrandising attitude in the face of defeat.

We first need to morally value life and health in order for science to be able to tell us that we shouldn't commit incest, because all science can say is "incest is detrimental to life and health" - but it doesn't and can never tell us that life and health is morally good, that's prescriptive ethics.

Actually, I totally agree here. Earlier, I must have again expressed myself poorly.

A few minor quibbles, though. Isn't it most likely uncontroversial, by now, that health is preferable to sickness, or are the philosophers still debating over that one?

Secondly, to further my point on how science must inform philosophy: how could you even establish that a person is healthy without science to show it?
Take for example symptomless malignant cancer, where only clinical examinations can provide a realistic picture of a patient.

Concerning my "refutation" of utilitarianism

That will have to wait, sorry.

Paula


I hope this answers your question, too.

76. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240338 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 11:19 am

Comment #240284 by J Mac

Actually, I never said that or implied that much. I apologise for the lack of clarity.

What I meant is that there were lacunae in this discussion, and science (including E P that has had some success) should be taken into account also when discussing abstract concept such as morality and ethics.
In fact, my main point is that philosophy uninformed by science fails to answer any question satisfactorily, and when it does, this can only be established beyond doubt with the aid of science. BTW, this is the main reason why Dennett is such a worthy philosopher, compared to most other.

You are right about our brain often leading us to wrong conclusions, but I was making only very general points for the purpose of expanding the narrowness of the conversation.

If you want a practical example where EP shows a moral universal -which happens to be also a biological imperative - to be hard-wired within our kin-recognition system take this study concerning the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest.

MPhil wrote:

science can only describe why we behave as we behave - it cannot say anything about "should" or "shouldn't"

I disagree both with your refutation of utilitarianism (I will gladly go through it point by point, just not now, sorry), and with this statement.
Again, let's take incest. Science incontrovertibly shows that you shouldn't have sex with your relatives, and I am sure I need not to explain why.

My friends, I'll reply and expand on this tomorrow, many apologies.

77. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240250 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 6:28 am

OT

The irony kills me.

A couple of weeks ago, the wingnuts were praying for rain in the hope that it would disrupt some Obama event.

What did they get?

A hurricane shutting down the Republican convention.

78. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240208 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #240205 by Steve Zara

I have no doubts that all healthy humans will feel that certain things are wrong. We can, pretty much, objectively test that they have these feelings, and that they suffer.

That's exactly it. Science has already shown that some of those feelings are indeed hard-wired, therefore, in a sense, they needn't exist outside, nor are they exclusively a social construct. If you prefer, in a sense, they objectively exist as neural networks.

There you have the middle ground.


Fanusi, please read the chapter that I indicated, and I am sure that you will renounce the more naive part of your reasoning.


Good luck to both parties, and cheer up, for fuck sake.

79. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240199 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #240197 by Steve Zara

Perfectly.

Then why getting entrenched on two unreconcilable sides, when perhaps we could concede some points to Fanusi while helping him out of his platonic misconceptions?

After all, no one here would consider female genital mutilation to be morally neutral.

80. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240195 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #240193 by Steve Zara

Science can say why healthy people feel empathy and discomfort at the thought of others suffering, but it does not give us ethical standards.

I agree, but in doing so it provides backing or elements of refutation for competing models.

81. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240190 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 3:07 am

Comment #240188 by Fanusi Khiyal

On the subject of Utalitarianism, a good starting point is the End of Faith that has a whole wonderful chapter dedicated to it. Harris thoroughly debunks moral relativism.

82. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240186 by decius on August 31, 2008 at 2:55 am

Steve and Diacanu

I haven't been following this thread much. Are you guys seriously attempting to make a case for moral relativism?

Moral values needn't to exist in some sort of platonic realm to be universal for a species, yet they can be proven almost as objectively true and compelling. Indeed, that's what evolutionary psychology has been doing with a certain degree of success.
So, why trying to discuss the issue on purely philosophical grounds, when science is so much more successful at just about everything?


And if you really need to stick with philosophy, why is no one here citing utilitarianism? (Except perhaps Fanusi, who falls short to mention it, but uses some of its arguments).

It is quite easy to imagine an intelligent creature that lived in such a style. Then, not just killing, but eating offspring would be considered decent and moral - indeed, the species would not survive without it.

If the practise were necessary for survival, then it would be utilitarianistically justified on grounds of greater good of the species. On the other hand, I contend that without such need, the practise would relegate the community indulging in it to a primitive level of civilisation, most likely a blood-thirsty, unenlightened theocracy leading a terrorised populace towards self-destruction.

83. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239810 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 11:13 am

Go and edit wiki, then. :)

84. A flea we missed?

Comment #239800 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #239797 by MPhil

logical positivism - in it's strict form - is indeed what Robertson says it is...so Robertson's failure was attacking a strawman.

I agree on both accounts, but his refutation is nevertheless fallacious, unless I miss something.

Edit- To clarify, he treats it as an axiom, which most definitely is not.

85. A flea we missed?

Comment #239796 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 10:47 am

Steve, I am all for it.


Thanks, AllanW.

86. A flea we missed?

Comment #239778 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 10:32 am

Dodgy Chequerson wrote:

I guess thats what happens when you can't cope with reason and logic

Emphasis preceding a tu-quoque logical fallacy based on a false premise (lack of faith equals faith).

I think the problem is that you too have a faith

A hush falls over the audience, as the denying-the-antecedent logical fallacy is wheeled out. He firsts dismisses empiricism, then he uses it as an argument.

You adopt the philosophy of logical positivism which is inherently self contradictory - because the statement that the only truth is that which can be demonstrated by scientific empirical evidence, is itself a statement that is not empirical or scientific.

Drum-roll introducing moronic argumentum ad populum.

The fact that the majority of human beings have been theists is of course only because of their stupidity

Again denying the antecedent and doubletalk.

I think that it is a mistake to see the Bible as a rule book from which one gets ones morals. rather it is the story of Gods dealing with human beings - including moral guidelines and principles. From the sermon on the Mount I would take basic principles such as respect for life, faithfulness, anti-materialism, loving your enemy and then see how these can be incorporated into various societies. Your question about who gets to define the rules is not answered by removing the Bible as a source of the rules.

Grand finale with a non-sequitur coupled with the most classical special pleading and inconsistency of christianity. (Jesus died for you, but he resurrected, therefore he never died for anybody).

If people choose the alternative offered by God - through Jesus Christ and what he has done for us in dying for our sins - then that is what they get.

What were you saying about logic and reason, Davieboy?

87. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239737 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 9:23 am

What do you even mean by "go greener"?

To adopt stricter measures directed at effectively curbing CO2 emissions.

88. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239670 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #239666 by Border Collie

Thank you very much. It couldn't be otherwise, since you always champions reason, too.

89. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239663 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #239659 by Kamus

The facts are already in. Further research will just confirm them and add greater detail. Hopefully, technology will help to ease the problem in the future. In the meantime, we should act as well as we can, both at private and public level.

a lot of the green movement has very little scientific knowledge behind it, and yet they have a very significant impact on society.

The implication that we shouldn't go greener for those reasons is a non-sequitur.
Also, who has more impact, really? The green movement or the oil and industry lobbies?

90. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239655 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #239649 by Kamus

You are right, there are plenty of crackpots in the green movement, the rhetoric they use is often wrong, and the carbon-offset scheme is ineffective and ill-conceived. In fact, it is little more than a propagandistic move conjured to hide American unwillingness to positively act on excess emissions.

How does any of that detract from the hard reality that man-made GW is damaging the planet, while deforestation is adding to the damage, and immediate action is required?
How does any of that absolve us from our responsibilities?

91. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239647 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #239644 by Kamus

Which point? You made unsubstantiated assertions backed by a reference to the opinion of stage magicians.
If you have an actual valid point, feel free to submit it to the relevant scientific venues.

92. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239643 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:47 am

Comment #239640 by Kamus

Nevermind the fact that 97% of these greenhouse gases come from nature right?

Nevermind that you haven't got the fucking clue.

And again, i strongly suggest you take a look at that Penn and Teller episode so that you see where i'm comming from.

Unfortunately, I already did.

Yes, I know where you are coming from: a fantasy world where stage magicians carry more weight than the scientific consensus, and where people can't spell.

93. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239641 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #239637 by Steve Zara

I trust Penn and Teller on the science of global warming as much as I would trust Richard Dawkins to be a skilled conjourer.

I trust them even less than that. They are among those sceptics who are trying to impose their narrow ideological agenda onto the sceptical movement, treating libertarianism and scientific scepticism as if they were the same thing.
Needless to say, they are deadly wrong. Contrary to scepticism, libertarianism isn't informed by evidence, but by blind ideology, just like all politics.
Unsurprisingly, they are causing division and weakening the movement as a whole. Eventually, Randi and Plait will have to formally distance themselves from those twats.

94. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239635 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #239634 by Kamus

Yeah, great point, isn't it?

How could anyone suggest that to counter excess CO2 in the atmosphere we should reduce CO2 emissions?
I mean, what the hell, where is the science behind such a wild claim? It surely must be religion.

DUH

95. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239631 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 4:41 am

Carto

your Wildean wit is superb. Thanks for the good laugh.

96. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239596 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #239593 by Steve Zara

The amount of support the BNP are getting is worrying.

They will keep on growing as a result of mass defections from the herbivorous left, that prefers to bury the head in the sand to even begin to recognise the problems created by unbridled multiculturalism.

97. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239589 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 1:20 am

Comment #239523 by Titania

Thanks, you are too kind. I was just trying to lighten up the atmosphere.

98. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239398 by decius on August 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Thanks.

99. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239394 by decius on August 29, 2008 at 2:14 pm

This discussion is going nowhere and has been lasting for too long across many threads.
Therefore, I will henceforth put an end to it by suggesting an easy-to-implement solution that will satisfy all concerned parties.
Needless to say, its unassailable logic conceived by my perfect intellect will render any alternative laughable by comparison.

- Substitute all imams with pre-programmed peace-loving imam-bots. After hearing their perfect Friday sermons, no muslim will ever want to go back to human hairy imams afflicted by halitosis and imperfect eloquence.

- Destroy all existing copies of the quran and the hadiths, and upload all scripture to Wiquran.

- Edit all relevant passages and make it look as if Mohammed married Aisha when she was 79. This way, a granny frenzy will spread among the muslim community, ridding Islam of its inherent support for paedophilia, and easing the overcrowding of elderly houses, while providing relief to the sexual urges of older ladies.

- Produce forgeries of hadiths exalting Mohammed's cynophilia, passion for greyhound racing and canine beauty contests, with an appendix dedicated to a detailed biography of his pet swine.

- Amend all misogynistic passages and substitute "woman" with "car", and "homosexual" with "motorcycle". This will nullify our criminal need for oil, magically ridding our streets from evil vehicles. Those surviving few will anyway be forcibly covered by a burqa, ceasing to offend our sight.


I challenge anyone to try and spot any weakness in my bullet-proof logic.

100. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239292 by decius on August 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Usheen, sorry to hear that, but you did eventually recover, didn't you?