Comments by decius

Comment #242009 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #242008 by Deedee

She has a solid foundation

In what precisely? Not in reality, not in knowledge - she can't even speak proper English.

Is foundation in ignorance and superstition what turns you on?
Why do you even bother to let us know?

952. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241953 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 8:51 am

And the only reason I would vote for Obonga is so that the Republicans cannot appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

You know al, I really believe that - considered the current state of affairs - that is certainly a good enough reason, as Tabash has clearly demonstrated. A reason that can deeply affect the future outlook of the US.
By the way, whom would Paul appoint?

953. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241943 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 8:41 am

Comment #241940 by Fanusi Khiyal

Like Utah, you know, where the state University is so dumb that it has Mario Cappechi in it who earned the Nobel Prize for his work on embryonic stem cells.

Is he enough to offset the nefarious dumbfuckness of 1.5 million mormons?

954. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241933 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #241925 by al-rawandi

I agree with most of what you say here. Unfortunately, there isn't such option available to the voter, and I understand that a protest vote carries no weight.

You seem to lend some support to the defunct Paul's programme, and I may even agree to parts of it, but I find Obama's pandering to faith way preferable over the risks entailed by the election to office of a reality-challenged religious fanatic. Let's just agree to disagree over this one.
It's a hypothetical scenario, anyway.

955. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241916 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 7:57 am

Comment #241909 by al-rawandi

I am as short-sighted emotive and dogmatic as Sam Harris, then. I was merely paraphrasing the End of Faith.

The point is that if someone is reality-challenged or unable to properly evaluate evidence, he is by extension disqualified from taking important decisions.

I think it's a perfectly valid point - the public would never elect someone who thinks he is being visited by aliens or who denies the holocaust, and rightly so.

Making a special case for creationism is where short-sightedness resides.

956. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241897 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #241892 by al-rawandi

Also being a creationist does not disqualify him in my mind, especially if he doesn't want to wade into the debate at the executive level.

What if he believed that Elvis is still alive, that he is Napoleon, or that the Holocaust never happened?
Would any of this equally preposterous propositions disqualify him in your eyes? And if so, why do you make a special case for cretinism?

957. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #241887 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #241870 by victorhm21

I guess, magic is something you heathens just don't get...

Contrary to what you might suspect, we would love to live in a magic world of miracles, and enjoy eternal life - although absolutely not the sort of boring distasteful and brainless ideal advanced by christian mythology.
The difference is that we don't let our wishful thinking cloud our reason, until evidence proves us wrong.

958. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241874 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #241859 by Quetzalcoatl

I agree. We need to update the relevant taxonomy.

Genus Homo

Subgenus Creotardus

Species ignorautogratus

959. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241856 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 6:47 am

The illiterate clown actually finds solace and amusement in his own ignorance. I think we are looking at a new type of creo-specimen, different from those previously encountered here.

960. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241836 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #241833 by reallife

First of all, it's EVOLUTION, you ignorant fuckskull.
No one here desires to discuss anything with someone at your primitive level of cognition, don't bother.

961. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241834 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 6:16 am

Comment #241824 by epeeist

someone with the intelligence of a turnip and the attention span of a small goldfish.

Beware of a possible turnip class action.

962. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241795 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #241790 by Parmesan

I would damage the volumes, repack and return them to the post office as rejected unsolicited mail.
The sender will have to foot the bill and won't be able to re-utilise them.

Edit - I know, it sounds awful and, normally, I wouldn't advocate damaging books. A collection of lies and propaganda doesn't qualify as a piece of human wisdom, though.
We didn't start this dirty war, they did.

963. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241788 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #241783 by tocqueville

What an ill-conceived and unfitting comparison.

The executive has enormous powers to set the course, to influence policies, to remove and replace people in office etc - even beyond its nominal powers.
You can see the distinct footprints left behind by all past administrations that strongly reflect the ideas of any given president and of the lobbies which supported him.

964. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241766 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #241764 by Fanusi Khiyal

I agree with Christopher Hitchens, that the Christian Right is just incapable of taking over the country,

McCain-Palin are the christian right taking over the country, like it or not.

965. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241758 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #241752 by Philip1978

He holds no rational political opinions. The best candidates are revealed to him during what can be described as an epiphany.

966. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241744 by decius on September 3, 2008 at 2:59 am

Fanusi

What is your point, here?

She belongs to the dominionist movement, a doomsday cult if ever there was one.
Has your condemnation of islam blinded you to the point that you would vote for the ticket McCain-Palin, and turned you into an apologist for this theobimbo with a shoe-size IQ?

967. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241552 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Sharon and Steve

I'll get them all but I hold you personally accountable for any disappointment. :)

968. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241544 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #241537 by Steve Zara

I had more or less the same feeling regarding British comic actors.

An American film which I found discretely funny, perhaps because it touches on a taboo subject such as mental illness, is What About Bob (Bill Murray & Richard Dreyfuss). It has its lame moments, but otherwise is more than watchable.

969. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241531 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #241527 by Steve Zara

You made me to download it right away.

Edit- I can't believe a Brit recommending American comedy, it must be great.

970. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241525 by decius on September 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Comment #241517 by keith

Hard to say. I watched the Party in an altered state and it nearly choked me. There is something brilliant to it. However, at second viewing I didn't find it that funny.

Probably Chaplin has to figure somewhere in the list.
Other British comedians make great series and tend to appear in rather lame movies.

971. 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.

972. 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.

973. 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.

974. 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.

975. 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. :)

976. 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.

977. 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.

978. 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.

979. 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.

980. 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.

981. 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.

982. 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.

983. 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.

984. 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. :)

985. 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.

986. 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.

987. 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.

988. '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.

989. 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.

990. 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

991. 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.

992. 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.

993. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

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

Many thanks, Quetz and Oystein.

994. 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?

995. 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.

996. 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.

997. 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.

998. 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.

999. 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.

1000. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

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

Comment #240193 by Steve Zara