1. Fossil reveals oldest live birth

Comment #186104 by Copernic on May 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm

If creationists knew what "pareidolia" meant, I suspect they would raise that accusation. It just looks like a pile of bones to them.

But then they'd have to admit that the fossil existed in the first place. Oh wait, the flud.

J

2. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185587 by Copernic on May 28, 2008 at 6:33 am

Alana said "We told them we would buy a car somewhere else unless they took the prayer request off their website. They wouldn't. We bought a Hyundai instead. We wrote to Toyota about this dealer, but they never even answered the letter. Incredible. "

Why on earth would you do that?

3. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161585 by Copernic on April 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

For every topic that gets the Catholic Church's imput (stem cell research, AIDS education, embryologic research, etc) there should be a resounding response of....
"No one gives a shit about what the Catholic Church thinks, so shut it!"

4. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124107 by Copernic on February 8, 2008 at 11:24 am

Great article.
However, I don't understand the continual caution about using the term "fittest".

The fittest do largely survive and pass on their genes. This is largely Evolution by definition.

Rather than warn against ideas like social darwinism or free-market economies finding themselves in the discussion about evolution, why not better explain what "fittest" means?

Fittest isn't just stronger, faster, sexier, and more fecund. Those who are fittest are always so in the context of their environment which may require organisms to use strategies such as cooperation, symbiosis, reciprical altruism.

I wish he'd stop tapdancing around this topic and expand the definition of "fitness" altogether.

5. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123997 by Copernic on February 8, 2008 at 6:10 am

To righton

You called those giving constructive criticism and a tongue in cheek reference to his PhD pursuits "losers".

You were the first to get ugly and received a just response.

J

6. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #112654 by Copernic on January 17, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Colbert has always had a soft spot for scientists. He's typically given them a bit more leeway even with writers on board.
J

7. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #109201 by Copernic on January 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Re: Wolpe's reference to the teapot

Why should it matter if it's verifiable (essentially, falsifiable)? Unverifiable claims should be accepted?

Certainly not. However, Wolpe comes from the mindset, as all religionist do, that just because it isn't verifiable by scientific methods, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Russell's ultimate point is valid but the example is not. A teapot orbiting the sun can be verified scientifically, perhaps not with today's technology, but it is possible. Wolpe's God cannot be verified.

That's why I said Sam should have remarked that his teapot was etheral or that he should have used the IPU or FSM example.

The argument beteen the two was on the ability to scientific verify the existance of God. Both agree that it cannot. For Wolpe, this is not a problem (probably a saving grace for him). For Sam and us, it is.

8. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107341 by Copernic on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I thought Sam did a fine job. This was his most difficult debate todate I think. I found myself really liking Rabbi Wolpe although he did get fuzzy around the issue of religious belief being unscientific and yet still deserving of any objective acceptance.

Wolpe did a fine job of countering Sam's (B. Russell's) teapot analogy in that the orbiting teapot can be verified yet God cannot so the analogy fails. Sam should have retorted that the teapot he is referring to is no-doubt etheral, or that he has an IPU in his garage, or that the FSM is touching him right now.

Very civil discussion between two very smart men. I really enjoyed it.

9. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106395 by Copernic on January 2, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Says al-rawandi,

It should stay here. Atheists need to debate morality. Hitch supports an immoral war and he is a famous atheist. I think history will be unkind to Hitch. AtheistJon disagrees. This is the perfect place for that discussion.

I don't disagree that this site is a perfect place for this discussion. I'd find myself on the opposite side of your perspective by the way. In fact, your statement is a perfect OP for a new thread.

My point is that Dawkins has made an interesting observation about a strong mechanism within evolution and we end up with two pages of the same old-same old Hitchens and Islamic shi'it that goes on in half of the threads on this site....regardless of the OP.

This site is lightly moderated. I'm just pointing out that perhaps we should moderate ourselves and keep on-topic.

Star Spangled Eagle makes an honest observation that he's changed his mind on a couple of things about world islamo-politics. Little did he know that the words "Hitchens" and "Iraq" together will make any thread derail faster than a Hyderabad-bound train.

Jason

10. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106192 by Copernic on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Hey look, I did it.

By the way. Can we take the "Hitchens supported the war" and "root of terrorism" comments to another thread?

Oh wait, they are in every thread. Never mind...please continue.

Jason

11. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106077 by Copernic on January 2, 2008 at 10:34 am

Steve said:
"I had such a momement when I read "The Extended Phenotype", when the point was made that beaver's dams were part of their phenotype. "

Love that point. I bring up the beaver's dam every time someone has trouble wrapping their mind around human behavior having evolved.

By the way, can someone tell me how to make the "quote" boxes?

12. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106062 by Copernic on January 2, 2008 at 10:08 am

Zahavi's "Handicap Principle" is on my top ten list of "Aha" books; those that have dramatically shifted my perspective on things. (Incidently, "The Selfish Gene" is on there as well)

It should be read by anyone who has an interest in biology. You'll never look at Steeler Safety Troy Polamalu, migrating geese, or a lady's seamed stocking the same way again.

13. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #105212 by Copernic on December 30, 2007 at 10:45 pm

castletonsnob,

Shaking his girlfriend means he ditched her, as best as I can tell.

With regards to Cuba...not uncommon for Brits and Europeans to go to Cuba. Hitchens used to be a Marxist you know so it shouldn't surprise us he took a jaunt to his version of Eden at the time.

I'd love to vacation in Cuba. Let me know when we get smart and lift the embargo.

Also, stick around. Lots of different viewpoints.

J

14. Monkey, Business

Comment #105202 by Copernic on December 30, 2007 at 9:45 pm

Shermer is arguing that economics is an emergent property of human social interaction.

Our ability to trade, judge fair deals, identify and exact punishment for cheaters, reward honest brokers, save for the near future, act "altruistically", reciprocate, etc are behaviors that, on a small scale, make for successful bands of humans. On a larger scale, they make for "economics". Regardless, they are the behavioral phenotype of an evolved brain.

He also notes where our evolved behavior can get us into trouble. We are built for operating in the small familial clans where we spent the vast majority of our evolutionary past. It is when we are asked to operate within communities of 10,000 - 6 billion people that we occasionally find ourselves in trouble. We are faced with hedge funds, slot machines, dollar cost averaging, mortgages, pawn shops, insurance policies. All based upon principles that we intuitively grasp via our evolved mind; time value of money, probability, risk/reward, fair trade, etc....but complicated enough that we often make judgemental errors that occasionally work against us.

It is through these exceptions to the rule, where we make our financial and fiscal policy mistakes, that shed light on the biological underpinnings of economics.

He is casting light on an area of study that has been floating around since Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, that we can understand economics better by understanding human society, biology, and psychology.

Traditional and Classical economists turned this subject into the "dismal science" with their IS/LM models, perfect rationality assumptions, and demand curve shifts. All are empty when removed of the context of human nature.

As another poster mentioned, he touched on this in "Why Darwin Matters" and I've been excited about this release since he talked about it at TAM5.

J

15. Monkey, Business

Comment #105196 by Copernic on December 30, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Says Cassdeneta..."It would be completely economically beneficial for me to dump that waste in the Mississippi river. It would mot harm me because it flows downstream and I would be gotten rid of a costly waste. Now, the fisherman who have made a living in the Mississippi delta for years are no longer in business because all the fish has died from that waste and they have a right to that fish. There is no Magic feedback mechanism that will get the factory owner to play nice."

All sorts of agents would have a beef with this manufacturer. Local communities, individuals, competing corporations, affected businesses, consumer advocates, environmental advocates, etc. Each armed with a lawyer, blog, judge, or media outlet could make life miserable for the offender. So I don't follow.

"...why an organization that represents the greater society needs to step in."

Who is arguing that there is no agent that represents the common interest? Local, state, and federal entities are not magically poofed away when we start talking about how market forces act on human societies.

J

J

16. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #101973 by Copernic on December 21, 2007 at 10:23 am

Best Dawkins in a while.

Dawkins needs to drop the "misfire" example and pick a better metaphore. It confuses the lay public and is not a helpful explanation.

He needs to rework it, although the sexual lust is a good parallel.

J

17. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97457 by Copernic on December 12, 2007 at 6:02 am

Sharrow,
you say "....the romantic view that the Pilgrim Fathers came to their shores in order to flee religious intolerance in England. This is not true. It was religious tolerance they were escaping from not intolerance. Charles II on his ascencion to the throne announced an end to religious strife and decreed that all citizens were equal. The sect which formed the Pilgrims could not stand to see Catholics let off the hook and left..."

I don't doubt the crux of this story but am curious if you or anyone has any references or good sources for details on this.
Thx

18. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30996 by Copernic on April 10, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Can you imagine the reaction this kid's folks would have if he received dozens of Xmas presents from anonymous atheists?