Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #258894 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #258890 by GoatBoy36

No, it is called democracy.

Anyone can campaign for any change in the law. It is a dangerous precedent if we start to say that certain people don't have the right to propose changes in law simply because they happen to be Muslims.

However, those changes have to be put through the democratic process, and they have to be compatible with international legislation that the UK has signed up to, such as regarding human rights.

1502. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258891 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #258886 by Peacebeuponme

The point I was trying to make was that Shariah is not based on reason, it is a religious system. I don't think the environment is one where people would feel free to question matters, because parts of Shariah are supposed to be divinely ordained and timeless. It is not a situation about fairness or fact-finding.

1503. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258881 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #258880 by Peacebeuponme

You would not be dealing with a court where the ruling was faith-based.

1504. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258852 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #258691 by al-rawandi

I am way off to the bottom left - Left/Libertarian. "Libertarian" seems a bit odd considering how much government intervention I approved of.

1505. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258838 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Comment #258831 by decius

Another reason I have thought of is that such courts and their decisions affect more than just the participants. By re-inforcing certain attitudes and calling them "just" and "fair", it will surely influence the participants dealings with others in society. If someone finds that their views that women have fewer rights than men is formally recognised, that is not going to help them deal with women, both within and outside their culture, in a way which society generally considers fair.

1506. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258821 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 11:38 am

hungarian-

If people are happy to accept the outcome of arbitration, then it is none of your business, or mine, whether we consider the result to be "unfair". What matters is protecting the rights which the participants wish to be protected, and avoiding coercion.

This is where we will have to disagree. I think the rights of others is my business. There should not be formally recognised courts in the UK that don't operate according to national standards even if people chose to use them.

That is my opinion.

Thanks for the discussion - it has been interesting.

1507. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258809 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 11:27 am

Comment #258802 by mjr1007

Because if variables are dependent you are making a positive claim that there exists a relationship. We normally assume that claims of existence are not true until evidence is provided.

1508. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258791 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 11:09 am

Comment #258770 by hungarianelephant

So is the English legal system. It got over it. So will the Sharia courts have to, if they want their judgments to stand up.

First, I think that is a very problematic attitude. You are happy for people to potentially experienced prejduced judgments until the system sorts itself out.

Secondly, you still seem to be assuming that anyone is seriously going to challenge the judgments. If someone is deluded enough to consider such courts reasonable, why should they change their minds?

There is a real problem here. People have set up Shariah courts because their interpretation of laws and their principles differ from conventional courts. In other words, the conflict with the existing system is the very reason for their existence. If Shariah courts change so that they are equivalent in fairness and interpretations to other courts, they will serve no purpose.

Shariah courts encourage and help maintain cultural difference. That is the point.

1509. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258788 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 11:05 am

mjr-

See Steve this is why I really don't like statistical arguments for either pro or con for the existence of God. They are just too damn messy.

No, they aren't. They are actually very clear. However, I note a tendency amongst theists to fudge things to try and make gaps for God.

You would have to show a linkage between humans and God. No such linkage is needed. We have evolution to produce people.

The converse would be that God created life.

That doesn't work at all. A god is far more complex that any living organism. It is more statistically feasible to say that the first living organism spontaneously arose than to say that god just existed and then made it.

I would be interested in hearing from people knowledgeable in stats about the whole dependent verses independent variable thing.

That would include me. I have published papers using statistical mechanics. You can look them up if you like - should be easy enough.

You can't just declare certain variables dependent. You have to provide a reason for the dependence that makes sense. You have not.

I could just as easily declare that the existence of humans and fairies is linked, so there are fairies.

1510. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258736 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 10:11 am

Comment #258729 by Old Sarum

A perfect summary of how I feel!

1511. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258728 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #258718 by mjr1007

Sorry, but bringing in Many Worlds does not help. There may well be universes in which a naturalistic supermind exists, but those will occupy a vanishingly small fraction of the multiverse, so it is exceedling unlikely that we inhabit such a universe.

Just because someone wins the lottery, it does not make it reasonable to assert that you will.

1512. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258721 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #258704 by hungarianelephant

You have no evidence of this.

I can't see how a court which provides judgements contrary to the spirit of British Law, because it is based on a system which had different views of the rights of women, for example, can't be considered not to be problematic in terms of human rights.

I'm talking about a world where people are left alone to sort things out for themselves, and can call on the courts for assistance when that isn't working.

And the courts assist with judgements based on a system of law which include principles of inequality and discrimination.

I can't accept that.

1513. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258701 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #258693 by mjr1007

Really I got it. I'm merely pointing out that you examples need work if you want to be rigorous.

You seem to be really working hard to get labelled as a troll. If that isn't your intention, I suggest you change tactics.

1514. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258689 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

Comment #258678 by mjr1007

I am not talking about proof or disproof of the existence of God.

I am talking about whether or not it is reasonable to invoke God in any discussion of what actually exists.

If you accept principles of probability and complexity that form the basis of all modern science, then, sorry, God just doesn't enter the picture.

I have given a clear explanation why.

If you are talking about possibility rather than probability, I assume you also consider it reasonable to propose the existence of unicorns and dragons.

1515. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258682 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #258674 by hungarianelephant

It would have most likely been different in a normal British court. Principles of equality and fairness that form the core of British law are being abandoned, and people are being denied their rights simply because they happen to be part of a certain culture.

Sure, there are some rules to protect dependent children which Sharia courts should never be allowed to override,

I think you are discussing an ideal world where any unfairness will be immediately reported and corrected. I think that isn't the way things are going to work, especially after reports of what has been happening.

1516. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258671 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 9:19 am

Comment #258670 by Frankus1122

Are you saying that it is possible that God exists but it is just extremely, extremely, really, really, almost not even worth thinking about unlikely?
(Just trying to make the point for the hard-of-understanding).

Yes. That is the argument I am using here.

I have a stronger reason to not believe in the existence of God and that is that God is almost always considered a supernatural being, and I think that "supernatural" is a meaningless idea.

However, if someone is trying to use "God" to mean a naturalistic supermind, I will use the probability argument.

1517. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258661 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #258649 by hungarianelephant

What I can say is that you would also be forbidden from introducing many aspects of sharia, namely the bits which are incompatible with English / European law.

That appears not to be the case. There is the example of an inheritance case where the division of goods between children was different (biased towards the male heirs) from that which would have been the case in non-Shariah arbitration

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Whether or not the letter of British Law is being neglected, the spirit certainly is.

1518. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258655 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #258651 by mjr1007

OK. Imagine a very, very, very big lottery. A hundred billion trillion million zillion tickets sold. Someone offers to sell you a ticket for 100 dollars.

Would you buy it?

1519. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258622 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #258617 by mjr1007

I'm not trying to disprove the existence of God. What I have shown is that to suggest the existence of God is not reasonable. It is a wildly unlikely suggestion (to put it mildly).

The facts are the facts and the lead where they lead.

Indeed. God is so vanishingly unlikely that we can safely assume he/she/it does not exist in any working model of reality.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

1520. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258607 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #258598 by mjr1007

I just don't think you can apply it to symbolic logic the way you would De Morgan's law or the way IT did.

You can't. But symbolic logic does not describe what exists. To find out what exists you have to come up with hypotheses and perform experiments.

That is where Ockham's Razor and matters of probability come in.

Now as far as simple structures and complex structures and how they relate to probability goes, even though simple structures are more likely it does not preclude the existence of complex structures. The classic example of this is that the chances of winning the lotto are vanishingly small for any individual but yet there are winners. Hopefully there is nothing too controversial in all this because I just don't have the patients for it anymore.

You have just made my argument for me. This isn't about possibility, it is about probability. Gods have vanishingly small probability as explanations or origins for things.

If you lost your car keys, and someone said that they had spontaneously jumped up to the moon, you would not believe them. According to quantum mechanics, that spontaneous jump is possible. Just very, very, very unlikely. So you reject it as an explanation for why your keys aren't where you thought they were.

Take the probability of that key quantum jump, and multiply it a million billion trillion times, and you still haven't got anywhere near the improbability that describes the spontaneous existence of deities.

1521. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258582 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #258577 by mjr1007

This does not involve any discussions of replicating structures. What we are talking about the original states. Causes. Beginnings. Explanations.

Because simplicity is more likely to be found than complexity, then simple explanations and assumptions are more reasonable than complex explanations and complex sets of assumptions.

That is all Ockham's Razor is really about. It is about probability.

1522. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258574 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 7:19 am

Muslim women would have ANY recourse to ANY other court of arbitration?

They do. The European Court. But that really isn't practical, as it takes a lot of time and effort.

1523. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258564 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #258561 by mjr1007

SZ, I answered you Boltzmann question, at least I tried to.

Perhaps you could point out your attempt at an answer, or to save time, answer this question:

Do you believe that one of the foundations of all thermodynamics - that complex structures form spontaneously less often than simple structures - is valid?

You surely don't need a citation for that. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

1524. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258550 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #258546 by Peacebeuponme

So you think it is quite reasonable for you to intervene in a private dispute, which has nothing whatsoever to do with you, because you don't agree with the basis on which it is conducted? Never mind whether it could be between two heterosexual males, about something that has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation.

Yes, I do.

I used to think you were a liberal.

I am. I am not a libertarian, however.

In the UK, the state intervenes in our lives all the time to protect us from ourselves. An example of that is the law requiring use of seatbelts. I see no harm in the state ensuring that even private agreements which involve people signing away their rights are null and void.

1525. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258540 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #258534 by hungarianelephant

So how are people's rights lessened by Sharia courts, in your view? Just to pre-empt one point, if a Sharia tribunal tried to give lesser weight to the evidence of a woman or a homosexual (does Islam even recognise this concept, as opposed to the homosexual act?) simply because of who they are, it would undoubtedly be breaking national law and its decision could be set aside.

But who is going to ask for it to be set aside? Why allow a parallel system that may need to be constantly reviewed to see if it breaks national law?

1526. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258518 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #258512 by hungarianelephant

But what exactly do you mean by this? What is a "cultural group"? Are you saying that because someone is born into a Muslim family, they can't as an adult be treated as a "willing participant" in that group?

All cultures impose pressures on their members. Legal systems should not provide a framework where people's rights are lessened because of that pressure.

1527. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258513 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #258510 by Peacebeuponme

If me and a second person wanted to resolve our dispute using Sharia Law, it would be most unfair if we were not allowed to do so.

No, I don't think so. It would be quite reasonable to prevent people using methods of resolving disputes which are based on principles of inequality of gender and of sexual preference, for example.

1528. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258509 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 5:59 am

Peace-

As a member of 'the people' I'd like the state to leave as much in my hands as possible, thank you. So long as there is the option of asking for state intervention, I don't think the bullies should win.

I don't see how that works. You would need there not to be bullies in the first place so that people feel they do have the option of asking for state intervention.

1529. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258508 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 5:56 am

Comment #258503 by Peacebeuponme

Coercion of any kind is surely contrary to English Law. By stopping Sharia because some people put pressure on others, you are actually admitting defeat, rather than addressing the problem.

I think it is addressing the problem. You ensure that arbitration is only provided in ways that are fair.

In any case, lots of people will be under pressure to resolve disputes in lots of different ways. This is not restricted to Sharia Law.

Sure. I am not restricting my criticisms to Shariah.

1530. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258498 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #258492 by Peacebeuponme

On the other hand, a muslim has equal access to state laws as I have.

In practice, I think that isn't true. There will be pressure to use Shariah practices if you are a Muslim that would not be present for others.

1531. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258497 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #258491 by hungarianelephant

The point is that, in each situation, no one has put forward a good reason for treating Muslims as a special case.

I'm not. I would have the same problem if any cultural group attempted to set up its own systems of rules in this way. We aren't talking about some sort of club that adults willingly join, we are talking about a situation in which intimidation and prejudice are frequent occurrences.

1532. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258486 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 5:20 am

decius-

However, it's far more likely that a woman who has made up her mind will find her way to a real tribunal, if we leave only that option available.

Yes, that is it exactly.

This is isn't supervision by Nanny, it is a simple matter of democracy. The way you get treated by legal systems and the facilities available for resolution of disputes should not be a "cultural lottery". If there are certain principles within Shariah that people consider are beneficial, then they should campaign for those principles to be incorporated into general British law, so they apply, and are available, for everyone.

1533. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258462 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 am

Comment #258455 by Peacebeuponme

Women and homosexuals can be under very strong pressure to conform in certain cultures.

1534. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258451 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #258446 by Peacebeuponme

A better analogy would be rock/paper/scissors where women only get half as many goes, and homosexuals get none.

1535. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258426 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 2:45 am

Comment #258345 by mjr1007

Any progress on coming up with your views on Boltzmann yet?

1536. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258412 by Steve Zara on October 2, 2008 at 2:08 am

I don't much like Pat Condell's simplistic rants, but banning him was wrong.

1537. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258160 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm

omment #258159 by al-rawandi

I have posted sarcastic comments that Richard Dawkins has misinterpreted

Apparently ';)' means sarcastic.

1538. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258157 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #258151 by al-rawandi

Light on Steve pics though, don't you think?

My husband is cute. I am not. I censor my internet presence.

1539. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258153 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #258148 by al-rawandi

So I am disgusted by IPV4's support for Saddam.

My friend, you need to step back a bit from such statements.

Lack of support for the US position in Iraq does not mean support for Saddam, it just means that someone is not prepared, or able, to support the current US action. You and I have had, in the past, intense (and useful) debates about the Iraq situation, but that has not meant that I supported Saddam. The default position is "I don't know".

1540. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258147 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Comment #258145 by mjr1007

So what meets your existence of God, and how can we experimentally test for it?

And, do you agree with Bolztmann's ideas?

1541. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258144 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #258143 by God fearing Atheist

I was taught that each investigation into data should involve the least assumptions. I am cautious even about commonly used statistical measures such as means and standard deviations. I avoid such "parametric" statistical measures.

1542. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258141 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #258139 by decius

My husband Jon is the photographer. He has a real talent for it. I am trying to persuade him to use his talents for astronomical pictures, but to no effect.

Xena is a labrador. All labradors are cute. She has recently had cancer, but today we had news that she is probably cured, so I am in a good mood.

1543. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258140 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #258137 by IPV4

Al is many things. I disagree with him about many issues, especially in terms of politics, but he is certainly not a troll.

1544. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258138 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #258136 by epeeist

It seemed pretty obvious to me, but I am pleased to have my thoughts backed by academics.

(I have to admit I am also a not an enthusiastic Bayesian, even though it seems increasingly fashionable)

1545. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258135 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #258126 by Cartomancer

He/She/It has made irregular appearances in the series ever since.

"It" is a 6' bearded Yorkshireman.
You can see him (and me) here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mistdog/

1546. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258121 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm

mrj1007

Deist seem to come close to fitting the bill, but not exactly what you were asking for.

Don't worry. I am an equal-opportunity anti-Goddist. I am harsher even than Richard Dawkins. Deists will come in for my attack too.

One last comment about the tone here, no one, not me and not you, could be nearly as clever as you think you are.

Is anyone? We have to have aspirations and hopes.

What I was asking for was a citation for Occam's Razor being used in symbolic logic in the way you or maybe IT was using it. More along the lines of how De Morgan's law is used.

You are persistently ignoring a key point that has been made again and again.

Occam's Razor is not involved in symbolic logic. It is about probability, as I showed.

Start talking about Gods being real, and we are entitled (according to Boltzmann) to say "don't be silly - that is ridiculously unlikely".

A simple question for you to answer. Do disagree with Ludwig Boltzmann?

1547. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258115 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Comment #258105 by IPV4

The point that I was trying to make which went over your head is how would you feel if someone took out your leadership for good or bad reasons and as a result you had to lose everything.

The phrase "your leadership" implies that the citizen has some ownership of the situation. That is not the case in a dictatorship.

1548. Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

Comment #258112 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #258108 by decius

Indeed, but all we could see of the universe was the view from within our bubble, which may be distorting things.

1549. Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

Comment #258099 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #258094 by decius

I don't think that is necessarily true. A local bubble of space could have redshifted photons from outside the bubble, even if space was collapsing in that region.

1550. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258095 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #258088 by al-rawandi

That is an interesting question, Al.

Sooner or later, Saddam would have been removed, either by assassination, or natural causes. What would have happened then?

I have extremely conflicted feelings about Iraq. I support the idea of freeing populations from tyrants, but I also think the consequences of the removal of Saddam were not well thought through, and the post-war situation very badly planned, but I stick to my general attitude that life is complicated, and anyone who simply says that the US and UK presence in Iraq is wrong is being wildly simplistic.

Although I disagree with much that he says, I think the views of Christopher Hitchens about this matter should be heard. I think he has important things to say, even though they haven't entirely convinced me.