GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 13:07   #76
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Ok, that was funny.
Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:10   #77
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
One person's thoughts that are in disagreement with the thoughts of a second person, are always considered harmful by the first person.
You're a 'nihilist?
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:18   #78
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Or rather should we pass laws based upon our scientific communities findings such as global warming?
From the scientific standpoint, we should try to figure out what's actually going on (i.e. we should let the actual science being done, still get done). From a religious standpoint, people should be free to believe what they want inasmuch as they are not harming other people (i.e., "my religion believes murder is ok" doesn't legally get you off the hook for murder, etc).

From a legal standpoint, it's my opinion we pass too many law for all *sorts* of bad reasons. Someone intentionally fudging a scientific finding would be one of them. However, I think that the opposition to global warming is borne more out of economics than it actually being bad science (although I don't think we should be, at the moment, necessarily be passing laws even under the assumption that it is *good* science.).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 13:18..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:28   #79
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.
When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland) and someone takes offense because they don't feel it's a joking matter (which is not really what you did, but...) then the come back is "too soon" which expanded equals "Too soon to joke about the tragic event?"

Take Roering with a grain of salt. It's been my experience that at least half the time he is just joking around (but you were still right on the unequal comparison call).
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 05-02-2012 at 13:33..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:30   #80
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 17,301


Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
You're a 'nihilist?


No. I'm simply saying that to get two people to agree on anything is difficult because they both think they are right.

Good luck.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:35   #81
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland)
Eh, I guess that's why I didn't get it, because it didn't look at all like a joke to me, it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:39   #82
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Have you really missed the whole 'We have to teach intelligent design' debate? Really? You missed the law they just passed in Tennessee? The court case in Pennsylvania? (which, imho, came out the right way, but it certainly points out that people are still trying)

Honestly, I think you think that because I brought up Galileo, you have to jump in and knock me down. This isn't about the Catholic church, it's about learning the lessons of history.
Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?

Void I make no attempt to knock you down. I have no problem with you bringing up Galileo as it is a valid point to your assertion.

As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong. I can also point to religious organizations trying to reign in scientific theories and research for good and bad reasons.

However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?

Example: Is it OK to keep a woman's legs tied together while in the act of giving birth to see what will happen to both mother and child for the sake of science?

This was an actual experiment Void. And if the scientific community is not going to speak out against it I would hope that the Church, Politicians, or some body of authority would.

In doing so you may think that this "harms" or "hinders" scientific advancement but I am willing to take that risk.

We live in a time where science has come to a point where we can do things with and to human beings that perhaps should not be done. It is fantastic, fascinating, and at the same time frightening. I think that we should not just do things because we think we can. Our ability to alter our very own DNA can cure an identified problem yet cause numerous unidentified problems. Patience can be so important at times like this. Unfortunately that means having to actually stop and do things slower than we can otherwise do.

Science itself does not stop to ask moral questions. I believe such questions need to be asked though. Such moral issues that arise need to be debated. Even if that is a hinderance.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 13:54   #83
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?
Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.

Quote:
As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong.
Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach "The electric universe" alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?

Quote:
However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?
I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 13:58..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:00   #84
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.



Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach ""The electric universe"* alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?



I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".
Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:11   #85
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?
The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 14:12..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:23   #86
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).
So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:29   #87
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?
Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:30   #88
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.
Oh, that is exactly what that part was.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:34   #89
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.
So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:38   #90
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.
Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:40   #91
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity. How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?
Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding

Last edited by Roering; 05-02-2012 at 14:41..
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:45   #92
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.
Actually, no, in Brave New World the population was brainwashed and drugged, not encouraged to do science.

Edit: in fact they had various close-to-religious customs that were part of the brainwashing.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 14:49..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:50   #93
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?
Scientific research includes experimentation and testing. To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress. And you and I have already shown that various organizations do that. Including the scientific community as you have pointed out.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:55   #94
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Scientific research includes experimentation and testing.
Yep.

Quote:
To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress.
You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 14:56..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 14:56   #95
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.
Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 15:12   #96
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.
To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.

Which was my point that you seem to keep trying to argue against.

Look Void. You have obviously lost this round. You can either admit it with a...

"Yeah, I guess there are lots of organizations that harm scientific progress including it's own community"

Or go with

"Stupid religious zealot, what the hell do you know about science, you still think the planet is only 4,000 years old"

Or slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there.

I'll only respect you for choosing the first though. Unfortunately many atheists take the second, and the prideful go with the third.
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 15:12   #97
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

Would Gattaca have been better?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 15:16   #98
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Would Gattaca have been better?
I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 15:18   #99
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.
It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

Kind of like complaining that since accidentally stepping on a nail attaching your carpet to the floor draws blood and someone stabbing you in the face until you die draws blood, they are equally harmful to a person and we should treat carpet nails as mass murderers.

See, Roering, there's a difference between saying "You can't study that because we disagree with what you've found" and "We don't want that experiment performed because it harms people". If you can't recognize that, then hey, that's on you, and I'll still be over here when you figure out that presenting a false trichotomy doesn't mean you win.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 05-02-2012 at 15:21..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 15:19   #100
Roering
Sorting nuts
 
Roering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.
I don't think I've read any of her work. I think my son has that book though. Any good?
__________________
=================================
Warranty voiding
Roering is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:42.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,336
408 Members
928 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42