Comments by Brian English

1201. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232887 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Goldy, consider these two propositions:
1. I do not believe any god exists because I see no evidence of any god.
2. I do not believe any god exists because I know that no god exists.

The first statement is reasonable, based on lack of evidence you can't say necessarily that something doesn't exist, all though in all likelihood it doesn't. You just get on living your life as if it doesn't until shown otherwise.

The second statement is no better than saying I believe in God because I know that God exists. There's no evidence for the existence of any god, but there's no logical necessity that there could not be a hidden god who takes no interest in the universe, or is very shy and scared of Goldy.

Basically, 1 is scientific, 2 is a faith claim, unless you can prove that any god is logically impossible.

Your definition of a god not being isn't one any theist would accept. They go along the lines of a personal spirit that created and sustains the universe and can get all pissy with you when you don't suck up to it. That most certainly is a being, just one we've never evidenced.

1202. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232881 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Goldy, as much as it pains me, you are stating a faith position. The idea that there's no reason to suppose there are any gods, due to lack of evidence, so therefore it's reasonable to say there are no gods until evidence arrives is different from saying there are no gods full stop. Unless of course you have an irrefutable argument that proves the non-existence of god(s).

/scurries away.

1203. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232873 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Goldy, the formatting and structure of your essay was very poor. You did not meet the required word count (2000 words /- 10 %). Please resubmit with necessary corrections/additions before I assess the content.

1204. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232867 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Lauria, APA essay format will be sufficient.

1205. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232862 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Goldy, to demonstrate that you understand the subject I expect more than just cutting and pasting of others' work. This is not primary school.
Please give a critical analysis demonstrating you understand the issues involved and the arguments for and against. In particular, I want you to cogently express your opinion based on your analysis, citing evidence to support you position. Formating and references as per the required standard.

Extra marks will be awarded for novel insights that are well supported.

1206. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232858 by Brian English on August 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Goldy, Laurie, the topic is Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls.

Discuss.

1207. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231359 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 7:09 am

Quetz, when one holds a social ritual, one does so because it is customary. Thus I want my 10 ^ -23 of sympathy.

1208. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231351 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:50 am

our affair was meant to be secret.

Your's and Lauries? Or your's and mine? And in that case why wasn't I informed? I'm sick and tired of being treated as a sex toy and not being informed. No respect these days....

1209. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231350 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:49 am

Did or do? I logged on a few hours ago. Most of my day was divided between sleeping ('till 11am), cooking, studying, and other stuff....

1210. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231347 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:35 am

Nite Laurie. Thanks for the interaction. Have a good one.

1211. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231346 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:33 am

And you have all my sympathy and friendship, of course. :)

Bastard! Where's my quantum of sympathy?

1212. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231339 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:23 am

Bonzai, how did I know you'd agree with Decius' statment? I agree with it too. I'm sort of stuck in an untenable position. I think science has precedence of all knowledge (if a logical contradiction is demonstrated by empirical methods I'll go with the empirical methods e.g. Kant's every effect has a cause has been shown wrong by virtual particles having no cause.), but philosophy can justify science's claim and correct it when it staggers into the purely speculative (M theory?). But the trouble is, to me anyway, most philosophers don't understand the science, at the cutting edge at least. In Kant's, Liebnitz' or Hume's time, the philosophers could know the state of the art.

1213. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231335 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:15 am

The id popping up again Laurie? Well, the mind keeps popping up again, doesn't mean it's a part of our ontological inventory does it?

1214. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231332 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am

Decius, I don't think anyone can claim to be the father of something that was so inter-temporal and collaborative. Perhaps the greats could claim to be ushers of the truth or something. The ancients, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, (and so many who deserve mention but have been forgotten) etc are all just candle bearers or guides of the slow, refining method of approximating what may be the truth that we can understand...science.

1215. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231323 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:03 am

Beware the Jabberwocky? Well,I haven't watched any python for a while (although I read it may have been Lewis Carrol's idea).

1216. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231322 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:01 am

frabjous

A combination of Fair, fabulous and joyous.
Usually defined as wonderful.

I thought it wasn't a common word so never looked it up before...

1217. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231321 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 6:00 am

I've not read any Nietzsche. Apparently Christians think he's the devil, but philosophers don't. Why is that?

1218. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231316 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:57 am

(oh frabjous joy),

What does frabjous means? The only time I've see that word before was as part of Richard Morgans email address....

1219. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231315 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:56 am

Those birds were sparrows, not finches.

1220. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231311 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:51 am

Laurie, don't be sorry. I would think that reading my meanderings would drive any sane person to distraction. I use the net as a sort of catch up place/discussion place/work out stuff place. I probably am more erratic than I imagine. :P

1221. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231308 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

Some would say they look like this:

others would say like this:

1222. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231302 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:41 am

8teist, if those are finches, then I have no idea what a finch looks like. :)

1223. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231300 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:37 am

Bonzai, yes, I guess I am doing a psy major not that we term it thus here. That book looks interesting. Probably better than my two statistics books. However, today I bought the only material item I've coveted for the last 20 years. It was quite expensive, and to be granted such a luxury I have agreed to call the item my next 2 birthday and Christmas presents and not buy books for a year.

I'm happy, yet sad. Such is life. :)

1224. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231296 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:34 am

Jeez, you're into a bit of self-flagellation tonight, Brian

Laurie, you have done the same thing as Mike did a while ago. You assume that because I don't claim genius or expertise that I think I'm useless. Must be a Kantian thing. Anyway, I thought it was Socrates who said that 'I know that I know very little' and that was supposedly something worthy. I claim that tradition!

1225. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231285 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:10 am

Why not Laurie. He can't be any less knowledgeable than I. :)

1226. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231282 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:06 am

Bonzai, correct again. The idea that we can randomize a sample and then claim it be representative of a population and our significant result be generalizable to that population seems to me to be a bit unjustifiable.

But I want to finish my degree so I don't argue that point too much. :)

1227. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231279 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 5:02 am

to utilise the synthesis of empiricism and deductive and inferential rational method. In other words, it's arguable that it was Kant who was the genuine father of modern science.

This is what I don't understand. Hume correctly said that time and space weren't infinitely divisible, presaging the Plank time and distance using logic alone, and he followed Newton. Kant reinterpreted Newton and for all I know held that there was an infinitely divisible time and space etc like reality was mathematical infinitesimals. Why was that the key that unlocked the scientific revolution?

1228. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #231278 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:58 am

Brian, if you cannot see the design in the universe and designed creatures and in us, just watch the movie, evolution.

How could I see design? I have not seen any designer. I have not seen any designs. Where can I meet the designer? Where can I see the designs? Do I need to buy a shuttle ticket to Galactic central?

Wooters argument:

If one sees a painter creating a painting, one can say the next painting one sees has been painted by a painter.
If one sees a creator creating a universe, one can say the next universe one sees has been created by a creator.

So, how many creators and created universes have you seen?

1229. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231276 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:49 am

Bonzai:

Of course pyschoanalysis is not science, but then it doesn't mean it can't be useful.

How does this disagree with my point that psychoanalysis is not scientific? I'd say a lot of psychology isn't scientific. I had a recent discussion with one of my lecturers (by email, as I am off campus) because Piaget's ideas didn't seem scientific, they just seemed to be rationalist justifications for his observations. I agreed with the observations, just not the justification. I asked what evidence, or neurological correlates there were to support Piaget's ideas. I was told that it has never been investigated. This doesn't mean that Piaget was wrong, just that you can't call it science, just arm chair philosophizing I think. Oh well.

Also, I agree with your comments on statistics. What I found difficult in studying psychology is that the p value ( p < .05) can get so many false positives (but they do it so as not to get type II errors) that some person on the normal distribution can be classed as abnormal by a significant result. It would be nice if the p value was (p < .0001) like physics or something.....

I guess this is why when you get a test result that states that it's 99% likely you have a disease most people think they have the disease. Without taking into account the base rate, the positive result could be meaningless.

1230. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231274 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:43 am

Mike, I've been told the Bible is the greatest book ever written, but I don't get it. I've read the first 100 or so pages of Kant's (not cant) critique and it doesn't resonate. It might be fantastic, but a lot of it to me seems well, just assertions. I failed a lot of math because it was just assertions, not anything that I could experience. This is not a criticism of Kant (or math), just perhaps a limit of my understanding.

Doesn't matter. I embarrass myself when I point out that one of the greatest thinkers ever can't speak to me (yet!).

1231. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231270 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:32 am

No dramas Laurie. Don't fall into the trap from my comment that I'm unhappy or whatever. I just am skeptical of all things, perhaps that's why I like Hume. ;)

1232. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231268 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:31 am

Hume repudiated it first as far as I can tell. But then again maybe I missed it. When you read the first part Hume's treatise (which Kant never read and preceded Kant's critique by 30 years) you get arguments that to me anyway, shred rationalist thought. Hume was arguing against Malebranche and other rationalists.

Forget it, this happens to often with me. I get Hume, he thinks like I think (but I don't think on the level he did). I don't get Kant. I'm waiting for the Cambridge guide to Kant to explain why his thought was so important.....I don't want to argue with people who are not ignorant like me. I do that too often. :)

1233. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231265 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:22 am

and still managed to produce undeniably coherent theses about what consciousness is. Thanks Laurie, make me feel stupid. :)

I don't see the coherency. I just struggle with the rationalist idea that because we think something is clear that it must be so. I can't count the times I've had a clear and definite idea of something and been so wrong it's not even close....I think that's why I like Hume (not saying he was right), but at least he didn't assume a clear idea had any relation to the truth.

1234. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231258 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:06 am

Kant/Freud/Beckham

Only if Beckham's right foot published in a peer reviewed journal.

1235. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231257 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:04 am

Just as Hume woke him from his turpitude, he woke me from "ordinary" thinking. I owe him a great debt.

I just don't get his distinction. I understand (I think) what he means by synthetic a priori but it seems to me to be a distinction that makes no difference. (And a lot of his examples are plainly false, like every change has a cause). But, as I've already said, it's because I lack the understanding, not because he was wrong (all though he may have been) that I don't agree with him.

1236. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231254 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 4:00 am

Bonus Question:

(a) 1. Kant. 2. Mike. 3. Hume.
(b) 1. Kant. 2. Hume. 3. Mike.
(c) 1. Mike. 2. Kant. 3. Hume.
(d) 1. Mike. 2. Hume. 3. Kant.
(e) all of the above?

1237. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231253 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:57 am

Mike, pop quiz, which order would you choose?

(a) 1. Kant. 2. Freud. 3. Brian.
(b) 1. Freud. 2. Kant. 3. Brian.
(c) 1. Kant. 2. Brian. 3. Freud.
(d) 1. Freud. 2. Brian. 3. Kant.
(Hah! you'd never put Kant after me!)
(e) 1. Brian. 2. Kant. 3. Freud.
(Ditto!)
(f) 1. Brian. 2. Freud. 3. Kant.
(The ultimate insult?)
(g) 1. Brian is a moron who's a pain in the arse.

1238. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231250 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:54 am

Mike, you should read some of my biological neuroscience texts. My last exam was on perception and the various parts of the brain involved and their interactions. Then again, your texts are probably much more advanced than mine. :)

1239. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231248 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:51 am

Thanks Mike, fixed. Laurie and MPhil, I made the point yesterday of saying that we can recognize great thinkers and still say they were wrong in many things. Tyler was the proponent of the idea that psychoanalysis was scientific. I have no argument that it is fundamental in the young 'science' that is psychology, but I would not call it scientific by any definition I understand of science.

By the way Laurie, all my anti-Kantian comments have been because I just haven't yet understood what he means to say, except in the analytic a priori Boag's premium vs synthetic a priori Cooper's Sparkling Ale debate. Beer always makes things seem more intelligible, until the 4th or 5th beer then I don't care. :)

1240. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231240 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

Tyler, Psychoanalysis has created great problems in the treatment of patients. For example, it was posited by psychoanalysis that Autism was caused by an uncaring parent. The fact is Autism has been demonstrated to be genetic as well as environmental. Many loving parents were made to feel guilt and remorse because the prevailing psychoanalytic method said it was so. Evidence for this conclusion? None. Quite unscientific.

From one of my 3rd year texts*: Although most of it remains unproven, psychoanalytic theory has had a strong influence...A major criticism of psychoanalysis is that it is basically unscientific, relying on reports by the patient of events that happened years ago. These events have been filtered through the experience of the observer and then interpreted by the psychoanalyst in ways that certainly could be questioned and might differ from one analyst to the next. Finally, there has been no careful measurement of any of the these psychological phenomena and no obvious way to prove or disprove the basic hypothesis of psychoanalysis. This is important, because measurement and the ability to prove or disprove a theory are the foundations of the scientific approach.

*Barlow David H, Durand V. Mark. Abnormal Psychology.

1241. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #231232 by Brian English on August 16, 2008 at 3:31 am

Tyler:

Just so I'm clear on this: are you saying that Freudian psychoanalysis is "unscientific"??

Yes, unless you can show the science. How were the theories of psychoanalysis tested? What criteria are in those theories the allow for their falsification? For example, how does one test that there is an ego, id and superego? How would one falsify such? Otherwise it's not scientific in any meaningful manner.

Case studies are useful, but are the least reliable form of gathering evidence because the gatherer is deciding what is interesting and what is not? Also, how do you know that someone's memory hasn't altered in the interim?

1242. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230805 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:57 am

Tyler, how am I digging? What grounding does Freudian theory have in physiology, philosophy, mathematics or any other science?

What blind studies have been done to confirm the existence of the ego, id, or superego?

1243. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230802 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:51 am

And if you think Freud's case studies were "Very unscientific", you haven't read Freud.

How many blind studies did Freud do? Or did he take down his notes and ideas in his case studies? So they were just his assertions? Not a chance of there being a bit of the old
confirmation bias going on there? That's why it was unscientific. Freud didn't try to disprove his theories, of make them falsifiable, he just interpreted his case studies to suit his thinking.

How do you falsify Freud's concept of the subconscious?

1244. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230801 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:49 am

Well, I believe I've done my job of being contrary (self appointed task) here so I bid you all a good night/day. If I've upset you it was mostly because I'm a contrary bastard, the other possibility (false dichotomy?) being that I was joking but my wooden sense of humour translated into an annoying thud, not smooth Mahogany....

Fare thee well good men and women of the Barque HMS Richard Dawkins.......

1245. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230798 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:43 am

Sorry, I should have said "boys hate their fathers at a certain point in their development".

The biggest problem with Freudian theory is that it's all just speculation. The idea of the id, ego and superego are just pure speculation, no relation to the human brain.

I think Freud was a great thinker, and worthy of respect, just like I think the same of Plato or Descartes. These great men gave us many insights, but it's OK to say they were wrong on many things.

1246. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230793 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:32 am

Apologies, I'm a Freudian

Seriously? You believe that people fixate on shit and sex? You belive that boys hate their fathers because they desire their mothers? If so, how's about a little evidence, because Freud's theories were derived from a sexually repressed society based on case studies. Very unscientific.

No stressor can have an effect without a person being susceptible to that effect. So it's never one dimensional.....What causes that susceptibility? Genes? Upbringing? Environment? All of the above or something else?

1247. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230783 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 6:08 am

This could be simply down to a single experience that you had that now affects only you.

Which could be partially due to a familial disposition to stress that occurred during your life when exposed to a stressor, so it may be reasonable to say it is partly genetic, but just has not presented in such a manner before. I'm not really making a point, except that single dimension explanations are not de jour these days in psychology. They're too simplistic and miss important interactions.

1248. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230772 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:53 am

A major problem with me is, I KNOW a lot of my asthma is psychosomatic, and I loathe it.

Also, I don't know where my asthma comes from

You KNOW but don't know? Doesn't quite follow for my liking. ;)

1249. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230759 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:22 am

Tyler, take congenic? leglessness for example, I think you'd be naturally selected for lion food if you had to drag yourself across the Serengeti for a few hundred meters while a lion was breathing down your neck.

The point is that some things are caused by mutations and aren't psychosomatic. Unless you're a Berkelian follower and think all reality exists in minds....

1250. Big-brained Animals Evolve Faster

Comment #230754 by Brian English on August 15, 2008 at 5:13 am

Echinoderms, you camel-faced nincompoop, which have their evolutionary history in bilaterally symmetrical creatures. This can be readily demonstrated in the embryological development of let us say, the starfish - as opposed to your starfish, which is likely to developed weeping, painful hemmorhoids, due to the constant insertion of your own head.

Such poetry. All I had was that he was talking about idea of a 'starfish' not any species of starfish.

Genius Reverend. Genius. :)