Comments by Brian English

201. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241389 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:10 am

Decius, well, you first made out like the standard interpreation was right, so I'd have to prove it wrong, but anyway(that's why I asked you to prove a negative), Boag's Premium. Not the best batch, but I'm so drunk I just might agree with you even though I can't philosophically justify it. :P

202. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241385 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:07 am

I just got done (or not quite done) with an email exchange with some anti-Zionist liberal whack job.

He repeatedly apologized for Islam, while saying Israel is fundamentally evil. Without commenting on the realities of Zionism, I will ask how someone can so blindly apologize for a flat earth religion that institutionalizes the subjugation of women? It is beyond comprehension, it is as if these people WANT to be deluded.

OK, I'm assuming by Liberal you mean some form of freedom that is not considered cool. Because in my country, liberal means conservative.

The problem is, in my opinion, embarrassment about colonialism, etc. We took their land, they were all happy and raping each other with abandon. Now, after colonization, they rape each other with angst. Therefore, progress, or colonisation, or western influence is responsible...........Hence, Islam is great...

203. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241379 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:01 am

Decius:

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

I asked you to prove the whatever interpretations you hold steadfast were coordinate with reality. You're the one with the burden of proof. I'm just the drunk guy who thinks philosophy has some worth. I have to show little. :)

204. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241374 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:55 am

Quetz:

It overlaps with science to a degree.

Splitter! It is science, and science is it.

Oh well, I'm drunk as a something. I have used you all tonight as an escape valve. Personal issues and all that. Thank you for helping me escape (it's not that serious, but how do you say that and say it casusally?)

205. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241369 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:49 am

Many independent lines of evidence as well as empirical observations have cemented their basic tenets beyond that possibility.

QM? That was my experience with first year (UNI) calculus. Show's what a dullard I am. :)

Decius:

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

you prove first that this isn't an extremely cunning simulation. :) (I love the way that you claim (science) natural philosopy and then compare it to itself negatively over the last 1000s of years. Science as understood is only a few hundred years old.)

Laurie: Penrose is Platonic as they come.

206. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241364 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:40 am

Many independent lines of evidence as well as empirical observations have cemented their basic tenets beyond that possibility.

And yet within the standard interpretations we don't know whether particles have a time and place or are everywhere. Copenhagen or other? We can say, statistically, what's happening, but what does this mean?
This is the point, humans need to find an understanding, and that means a way to know, and that is philosophy. You can call it what you like, but in the end, it will be some form of epistemology. (By the way, I don't have a lot of time for metaphysical shite that can't be measured, praise Hume!) But I do like to justify what I know (apologies Mike, I'm not claiming JTB, just justification!). :)

207. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241356 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:34 am

Anyway, this is all piss in the wind. I just find it annoying that people who claim inductive reasoning (Science, great as it is) is (apparently) deductive and broke no argument....

208. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241351 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:26 am

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 both have been observed and empirically inferred, contrary to your claim.

Philosophy isn't based on opinion. There's just a bunch of obstreperous, opinionated philosophers. The point of philosophy (as the word suggests) is to find the truth, whatever that is. You say Science is knowledge, but how do you know that what you measure and postulate has the slightest bit of a passing with reality? It's as possible that our best explanations are shite as are not shite. But with a bit of the useless philosophy, we can rule out the contradictions and much more.

You mentioned quarks and dark matter, they both have been observed and empirically inferred, contrary to your claim

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

Sorry about the delay, but my ADSL2 is working like a 64K modem.

209. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241347 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:18 am

Laurie, I'd argue that in common argot, and even in technical registers they're separate, but how can the exercise of justifying what we see and collecting (measuring) what we see be anything other than the manifold of the same pastime?

210. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241343 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:09 am

Decius and Laurie. Both of you have stubbornly refused to consider my point or I've not made it well. Science is Philosophy. It's all about wisdom (or knowledge as a substitute). Science came from Philosophy and every time science pushed the boundaries into the unknown then backed it up like postulating entities like Dark Energy, or Dark Matter to balance out what we see, it is Philosophy that we fall back on. After all is it a thing, or a non-thing? Is it material? or Ethereal?. It's about justifying our understanding. Or perhaps my understanding of philosophy is different from those who think it's about Immanuel Kant being a real pissant or Dave Hume being able to out consume....

211. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241336 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 6:03 am

You need to lay off the Bas van Fraassen...

Et quomodo eum intelligo?

212. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241332 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 5:53 am

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?

Ah yes, the baby's all grown up now and doesn't need to watch where it steps.....

If a physicist posits a particle, wave or other entitity to 'balance' our their observation, then please tell me how that is not philosophy. They are justifying their ideas, weighing up the evidence and postulating ontologies. Are they Quarks? Well bugger me, I've never seen one and neither have I plugged my heater into one, but scientists postulate their existence to satisfy their postulations, but I take their word for it. How is that not philosophy? I know the measurement and testing long were delineated from 'natural philosophy' and restamped science, but the ontological chin scratching that is now QM or similar are philosophic because it's still about what we postulate to exist, not what exists. How could we ever know what exists without stepping outside of the universe and measuring it?

213. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241323 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 5:36 am

isn't philosophy just an ol' bag o' shite! ;-)

Of course it is. Humans are just a bag of shite and the sun will expand and cook the Earth and none of this narrata will matter. But until then, I'd prefer philosophy instead of dogma....

Edit (too for to for instead of)

214. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241314 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 5:26 am

philosophy is useless and will be replaced by science

Oh, but it will. :)

I nearly slinked back under my rock until I read that load of shite. Decius, Science is philosophy, just like mathematics. Yes, the method has been more or less delineated, but where do you think it came from and where do you think it get's its justification? Not from religion or sooth-saying but from philosophers working out shite. Nowdays, every guy like Oystein (WIMPS or MACHOS) or Bonzai (Platonic or formal) (much to his chagrin) who probes the limit of understanding with their science are doing philosophy. The whole business of science is philosophy, it's about the method (justified?) of assuming that the natural exists and measuring its properties. Mathematics too cleaves its justification from philosophy, albeit like a black sheep. If that isn't philosophy (as in seeking and loving wisdom) then nothing is.....

215. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241299 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 4:59 am

Quetz:

On a separate note, if you're not going to blog any more, can you at least leave your blog up so people can still read it?

Uhm no, I can't. I deleted it. I did my usual thing and thought that it was time to throw out the rubbish. I thank everyone who made a comment. It helped me understand stuff but in the end it seemed nothing and I never got a lot of what the greats thought so I'm trying a new tact.

Laurie:

don't tell Brian things like that; you know how he likes to pretend that he's a total tyro when it comes to philosophy

Pretend as in try or pretend as in fake? I'm the latter. I honestly feel bad about the off the cuff remarks I made about Kant to Mike. I still don't get Kant, but I don't want to post about philosophy again until I get the gist, even if I don't agree. :)
Anyway, I suck at not posting! Apologies. And thank you all. :)

216. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241284 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

Steve

Sure, but the problem is that many journalists seem to define brutal or shocking as the most novel thing.

OK, I'm calling bullshit. I think you're a genius, but how could you think that any functioning society would be so brutal and shocking that brutal and shocking wouldn't be new (as in unexpected or novel)? Of course it's news. We love a car crash, what else could be new, except the colonization of Mars?

Addendum: Societies don't work if it's all brutal and shocking. Event the most cruel society has rules and standard behaviour, even the pigs in this article. For them, a few dead girls isn't new....

217. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241277 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 4:35 am

Sigh, how true. Gone are the days of headlines such as "Small war, not many killed"

What Epeeist said. I tried to say it but waffled. Reason, be concise or you're doing it wrong :)

218. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241272 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 4:28 am

Steve, apologies, I'm not not posting for any particular reason. But having stopped and looked, I realized that it's much more fun watching than being in the trenches, plus regulars like you and Mike and Quetz lob the reason grenades so much better. Reason, a spectator sport.

219. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241268 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 4:19 am

Steve:

This is a general problem in the media - it isn't restricted to any particular political stance. Journalists tend to be after the most exciting angle they can find in a story, and "we are making progress" doesn't shock you into reading the story.

Mistaking a tree for the Forest? OK, ignore this if you like, but the defintion of News is that is a new occurence. That is something unusual or novel. You'll never read a news report about things being normal, because that wouldn't be new (as in novel) so it wouldn't be news. The biggest problem with the news is not the angle, it's that people think that something new means that their life is affected as a brute fact. Simply, the news report the most novel (which can mean brutal) thing going on, but it doesn't mean that 500 al quaeda are in your bedroom, or down the street and are now drugging your cat to reveal all about the food you give your dog.....

Addendum: Which is not to say that some news, isn't News! (unfortunately you can't tell the trees from the forest).

220. The atheist delusion

Comment #241194 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 1:41 am

Neuronal apoptosis. Was it caused by a lack of NGF or too much C2H6O? You be the judge. :)

To be honest, I enjoy reading the debates (or shit fights between Steve and Fanusi) on this site and keeping mum more at the moment than blogging or posting. I only posted earlier because Carloss seemed to be a decent bloke who'd just got the wrong impression of the site. Cheers. :)

221. The atheist delusion

Comment #241144 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Gracias Carloss.

Buenas noches.

222. The atheist delusion

Comment #241140 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I don't like the "out campaign" I think it is an idea very similar to religious methods, I donÂ´t like the symbols or even Dawkins pictures on the banners, low angles shot wich emphasizes him as a "superior" person

La campana "out" existe para destacar que ser ateo no es algo anormal o abominable sino algo bueno. El 'God Delusion' en parte se trata de la identidad atea. Es decir, que tiene proposito de alabar lo que es ateismo y ser ateo. En algunos paises, ser ateo es ser excluido, por eso el God delusion y sitios como este tienen symbols de lo bueno de ateismo y como Richard Dawkins tiene la silla en Oxford de difundir informacion sobre la sciencia, hay muchos videos y articulos escrito por el en estas partes. Si no te gusta las fotos, bueno, no las hagas caso or escribe a Josh (el editor del sitio) y dicelo. A mi, me parecen un poco cutre or sentimental (como se dice 'cheesy'?) pero no las hago caso :)

223. The atheist delusion

Comment #241134 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 8:43 pm

A ver...

Creo que la mayoria de la gente aqui, se siente seducida por el ateismo, como si de una fe se tratase.

Es posible, pero no hablo con todos y a quienes con que hablo no lo creo. A mi me veo ateo por la falta de evidencia de algun dios....

Parece que cuando uno pronuncia palabras "malditas" aqui, comete una herejia y rapidamente aparece gente dispuesta a insultar y a segregar cuando esto deberia ser un "clear thinking oasis"

Lo que pasa es muchos religiosos pasan por aqui, dicen algunas tonterias y abusos y se van. Hace que la gente ataquen primero y pregunta luego supongo.

La remeras que se venden aqui, con simbolos, las fotos de Ricardo Doquins mirando hacia el mas alla, parado en la montaÃ±a improbable, mirando hacia el sol, parece la iconografia de un culto mas que de una pagina de tendencia cientifica.

se vera asi supongo. A mi, no me importa. Si voy a un bookshop (libreria?) veo un monton de Biblias y mierda religiosa, supongo que este sitio es una respuesta en alguna manera. No se vera muchos videos y libros de ateismo en los normales.

Aspiro a que no perdamos el pensamiento critico, que no pensemos que Dawkins a resuelto las preguntas fundamentales, solo es una opinion mas, validas como otras.

Tienes todas la razon Carlos. Estoy completamente de acuerdo.

Espero que entiendas mi castellano, hace anos que pase tiempo en Espana y ya no hablo.

224. The atheist delusion

Comment #241128 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm

No todos son ingleses y americanos. Hay algunos australianos tambien. ;)
De donde eres?

225. The atheist delusion

Comment #241126 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Carloss, cuentame lo que quieres decir.

226. The atheist delusion

Comment #241124 by Brian English on September 1, 2008 at 8:18 pm

But your all the spanish you know is "ay caramba"

Y tu que sabes?

227. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235562 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:21 am

Sorry decius, but he seemed so forlorn and lonely.

228. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235560 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:19 am

If you use the term "genuine transitional fossil", you presumably must have some idea what it means. I am asking you what you understand by that term.

by that term Joe understands anything that can be said to not agree with science, specifically evolutionary theory. Anything else you need to be cleared up?

229. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235559 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:16 am

If god exists, he would give a clear message
Joe doesn't give any message
therefore, if god exists he'd hate Joe.

230. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235555 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:14 am

He follows a rapist and worships a child rapist.

He surely can.

you're probably right. I like to give people a chance to amend their ways when they've fucked up. But to amend one's way one has to admit that one has fucked up. And good old Joe doesn't even understand the rules of the game he's playing, so he's not likely to realize that he's fucked them up. Sigh..

231. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235552 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:10 am

UNLESS HE ACCEPTS THE CHALLENGE WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE KNOWS THE GAME IS UP

UNLESS HE ACCEPTS THAT TODAY IS CHRISTMAS DAY THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE KNOWS IT'S NEW YEAR'S DAY.

Great logic. Joe, you seriously can't be that stupid.

232. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235547 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

Totally off topic. But an Aussie diver has just one the gold medal against the local favorites. Normally I detest the olympics, but this guy is a bit of a gay icon and so should pull the wind from the sails of the bigots. I can't wait to see how the TV stations try to celebrate his gold while trying to tip toe around his partner. I hope they have the guts to show both guys as a normal couple and not pretend something else or ignore it.

It would be a step up for Australia from the 'can we still get more medals than Great Britain' shite that's been going on.....

233. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235541 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

Joe, I see you've taken the path of the ignorant guy who'd like to consider himself knowledgeable but can't be bothered studying. You've become a believer in a conspiracy. I really think you should stop talking to us and go study for a while, you don't even know that you don't know....

234. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235534 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:35 am

Joe, what evidence or arguments do you present for the existence of god? The Quran or Bible rely on the existence of a god so are useless. We cannot adduce that there is a designer of the world without knowing everything about each organism and how it came to be. There are many uncaused things so we cannot assume the universe was caused. So, what evidence or arguments do you have to convince us that there is a god?

235. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235528 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:18 am

Phasmagigas:

actually i did see that, its quite a depressing film.

So that wasn't the divine tool?

236. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235527 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:16 am

Night Laurie. I probably should disappear. I still have an assignment to do, and I'm quite drunk so I'll probably waste most of tomorrow.....

237. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235524 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:13 am

You've lost me Laurie. I sang the higher octave, then sang the lower octave to match. Unless you're calling me a freak who's matched the timing perfectly, what more can I do? Except to double track and shift the timing of the second track (for each vocal) by a short period?

238. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235518 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 7:06 am

239. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235510 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:55 am

I've edited the above to be compressor/expander.

I may have the gear, but buggered if I know how to get the sounds I 'hear' in my head. So, generally I just use the effects that I know and work with that.....

I believe Cubase does a lot of Midi, but I don't get that either. :)

If you were to produce my crappy tunes: to gain a good chorus sound, you'd have to double track the vocals then offset them by a fraction of milliseconds wouldn't you?

240. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235506 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:47 am

Phasmagigas, haven't you seen Boogie Nights yet?

241. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235505 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:46 am

Cool Laurie, how about you help me then? I use Cubase LE, have a Tascam us122L audio device and just play the instruments or sing through a condensor mike which is connected to a compressor/expander thingy which I don't understand at all but sometimes makes me sound good.

All of this occupies a few square meters in my spare bedroom. I would like to point out that the cool guitar sounds would most likely be due to the gorgeous Stratocaster I bought last week. I'm in love, but don't tell my wife! (I think she's twigged!)

242. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235501 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:39 am

Pointing out that the Pope accepts evolution (although an appeal to authority and irrelevant in the first place) says nothing to non-catholics. Saying "hey these religious people believe in God and evolution" says nothing to people that don't subscribe to such views.

But the Pope only accepts evolution as a divine tool. If one were to take a scientific view and say that evolution requires no intelligence and has no purpose or end, then the Pope categorically does not accept evolution. And he's said so.

243. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235499 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:29 am

Laurie, isn't my voice eerie enough man? are you a sadist?

244. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235489 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:15 am

OK, you got me, Brian. I am so, so, sorry for my one typological error in 1469 posts!

Laurie, a bigger man would have taken your exemplary record into consideration. I am not a big man. Oh! Yes I am, just not big on compassion for old bastards like yourself! :)

By the way, if you'd like to hear me sing a duet with myself and play all the instruments except drums......

www.myspace.com/wearethecrap

New tune called 'Procrastination'.

245. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235484 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:07 am

Et tu Brute!

246. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235481 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 6:03 am

Laurie:

To say that there is no no consensus about the relationship between religion and Darwinism is a non-statement

A double negative is a positive I believe, thus:

To say that there is consensus about the relationship between religion and Darwinism is a non-statement

Cool! makes sense and easier to parse!

247. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235431 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 3:49 am

DrCogSci you give yourself away. You assume he made a mistake. Others don't. We're all biased as you would know being a Doctor of Cognitive Science. Critiquing anyone because of how you view their actions is as biased as anything you accuse the members posting until now. Only you have assumed the position that you are above it all, which is just another bias. We probably need corroborative evidence to sort something out.

248. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235426 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 3:16 am

The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts

Darwin may or may not have said this. But, Darwin wasn't a psychologist. Nor am I, but from the psychology I've studied, there are stages of emotional and moral maturity. The stage where things have to be black and white and people must obey regulations and comply with rules like you desire Miranda is the early teenage stage. Mature people understand that rules can be broken morally and sometimes it's moral to break the law. Examples of why this is so are so easy to come across that I won't waste your time enumerating a few.

249. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235425 by Brian English on August 23, 2008 at 3:13 am

Why does the final sentence about praying remind me of this post on my blog (forgive the self-promotion):

http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/2008/07/science-fiction.html

250. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234873 by Brian English on August 22, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve, you were using a word that we took equivocally (a la a certain David Robertson). It's not your fault that you can't spin your comments.