I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
The very simple difference is that science makes predictions that CAN BE TESTED and is falsifiable. No religion can do that. Claiming that people 'believing' in science, no matter how strongly, qualifies any science as 'a religion' is seriously moving the goalposts. So little children have the 'Santa religion'? What about 'Tooth-fairyism' and 'The Grand Church of the Easter Bunny'?
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
You really have an f***ed up system there. Why not take a leaf out of the NRA playbook and arm all doctors and nurses too, so they keep a steady supply of 'customers'? Maybe the medical industry is bankrolling the NRA?
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
At best it's the store owners suspecting that some people have crack in their pockets, but they have no way to be sure. Unless they have some legal duty to report anyone and everyone to the police on pure suspicion... they don't.
I'm pretty sure that anybody's motivation to spend money is because they have to, or it gives them something that they want. So what is wrong with something being free at the point of use (think OTA TV) but paying is possible for a 'better' experience (think HBO)?
Plenty of products are 'free' and do quite well - because they are selling or buying something else (such as your attention).
Wow, who butthurt you enough to want to insult Mike over something that probably 95+% of the population don't know, and possibly half even of the tech-literate population?
It's a shame because that was otherwise an Insightful, informative answer.
Yes, but red-light laws are there because two cars hitting each other at an intersection is a proven and predictable harm. In the case of planes and phones, there are apparently no logical predictions, and precious little evidence. It's like a municipality has super-long reds, because somewhere they heard that a Tin Lizzy couldn't get across in time somewhere else 70 years ago.
Re: It's not that hard
I think this being 'MURICA, SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) would be perfectly acceptable.
Just try to keep the warhead level down.
And remember, if it gets one inch out of your yard, your neighbour might deploy his Super-Targetted Anti-Random Whack-A-Robot System.
Re: Re: Re:
Do we really have to Godwin you here?
I'm no fan of objectivism here, but really, so long as what someone does is generally legal and moral, what do their particular beliefs have to do with their ability to run a business? You may 'hate' someone for being 'a baby-killer' because they support abortion, but it doesn't mean they are suddenly unable to run a business - just that it's a business you may choose to not support (like many here feel about the MAFIAA).
Re: No Nutella for me
Couldn't you have picked a closer day, like one in the near future, not 8 months away? :(
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
Ooo, where are they? I don't know of any in Scotland...
Re: Re: Re: TIL...
Ooo, where are they? I don't know of any in Scotland...
Re: Re: Einstein didn't publish a theory of relativity
The very simple difference is that science makes predictions that CAN BE TESTED and is falsifiable. No religion can do that. Claiming that people 'believing' in science, no matter how strongly, qualifies any science as 'a religion' is seriously moving the goalposts. So little children have the 'Santa religion'? What about 'Tooth-fairyism' and 'The Grand Church of the Easter Bunny'?
Arguments like these, while they do have some good philosophical elements, largely boil down to people who have issues with science trying to drag it down to the level of religion. Possibly there are philisophical issues with science, but in the end, it WORKS, and unlike religion generally, it self-corrects and advances. Not since the early days of Islam have I seen any religion trying to actually advance science and the knowledge of Man.
Yes science is only a tool, but it's a damn effective one, and for many of us it's infinitely better than authoritarian hand-me-downs from the Bronze Age.
You can't complain that science is no use because it's not perfect - that's the point of science. We learn, we add to it, and we develop new ideas and theories.
I've also noticed a lot of science-deniers fixate on "what ideology is needed for funding", conveniently ignoring that many of the 'anti-science' positions are equally well-funded, if not more so. Science funding is not some sinecure for life, where one has to just publish one thing and lay back in comfort (join the RIAA for that). Science requires justifying everything you do to people who also know the topic, and relies heavily on being published, which only happens reliably if you *convince* people of being correct. It's not logic games or appeals to authority like religious apologetics and debate often are. Unlike religion (or even philosophy), Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers, especially not 'right now'.
Gravity happens. Evolution happens. In this sense, they are factual statements of what happens about us. There are hypotheses and (scientfic) theories about these which need investigated, but it doesn't invalidate it. As they are different sciences, there are differences in the levels of these. Gravity is more observable than Evolution, but we probably have better theories (and more evidence of mechanisms) of Evolution.
Natural selection is just one element of evolution (see Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"). Just because you can subdivide Evolution, and some bits are better understood than others, doesn't mean you can invalidate it as an incredibly powerful description of historical, current and future life any more than doubts about black holes invalidate the ability of an airplane to fly.
Re: Re:
Well, they may not understand being limited to time in a particular way. It's all a big ball of timey-wimey stuff after all.
Dr LaPierre calling...
You really have an f***ed up system there. Why not take a leaf out of the NRA playbook and arm all doctors and nurses too, so they keep a steady supply of 'customers'? Maybe the medical industry is bankrolling the NRA?
While they're at it, they can keep pushing AGW denialism, so more extreme weather will harm more people too. I'm just surprised the Big Medicine conspiracy isn't pushing Romneycare so that more people can 'afford' their tender mercies?
AS usual, I am thankful for living in my 'socialist heaven' that is the Tory wasteland I inhabit.
Re: Still
Not all of us outside your mad echo chamber do, so not naming them is working outside the US.
Re: Re: Said it once, will say it again....
if it's a bogus takedown though, chances are it isn't theirs to penalise them with, so you need alternate penalties then.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At best it's the store owners suspecting that some people have crack in their pockets, but they have no way to be sure. Unless they have some legal duty to report anyone and everyone to the police on pure suspicion... they don't.
Re: Re: convicted
Didn't stop His Shrubiness...
Re: Re: Re: Lawyers aren't bad enough; now Mike embraces convicts.
Blue is Cardassian. Charged == Guilty.
Re: Re: Liability Slipery Slope
Precisely, that's the whole point that Julian Assange doesn't want to go to Sweden - your mutual extradition process works far too well...
Re: It's funny
I'm pretty sure that anybody's motivation to spend money is because they have to, or it gives them something that they want. So what is wrong with something being free at the point of use (think OTA TV) but paying is possible for a 'better' experience (think HBO)?
Plenty of products are 'free' and do quite well - because they are selling or buying something else (such as your attention).
Re: Order 66
So if you type your Zip/Post code wrong, or mis-spell a name, you're a criminal? Excellent!
Now, just look for politicians publishing 'false' information...
Re:
Wow, who butthurt you enough to want to insult Mike over something that probably 95+% of the population don't know, and possibly half even of the tech-literate population?
It's a shame because that was otherwise an Insightful, informative answer.
Re: Re:
So your digital calculator watch is ok, but your old Zune isn't. Crazy.
Re: Re: Educational ....
Just like books and baby bottles and... oh wait...
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but red-light laws are there because two cars hitting each other at an intersection is a proven and predictable harm. In the case of planes and phones, there are apparently no logical predictions, and precious little evidence. It's like a municipality has super-long reds, because somewhere they heard that a Tin Lizzy couldn't get across in time somewhere else 70 years ago.