1851. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122307 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #122305 by home8896

I find myself cringing now when I hear people use "theory" in place of "nutty idea I thought up while I was drunk, last night" which goes to show my consciousness has been raised over the last few years.

1852. A Letter From Hell

Comment #122306 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:05 am

Comment #120030 by irate_atheist

Are you solid or oil fueled? (If you say 'gas, actually', can I call you a crafty little beggar?)

Well, gas actually...

It isn't that difficult really. What you do is change the height of the shelves depending on what temperature you want to cook at. You also use the warming oven as well. Anyway, must go pop my beef in beer with caramelised onions in the oven.

1853. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122303 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #122297 by Mbee

A scientific question for the experts here.
At what point does a theory become fact.

You are confusing two things:

1. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed directly in the laboratory and indirectly in the fossil record.


2. The mechanism that Darwin put forward to explain how evolution works is a theory. It started out life as a hypothesis, was tested over a long period of time by a large number of people in a large number of different ways and these tests failed to falsify it. As such it was then accepted as being a theory. The thing about a theory is that it is contingently valid, a new experiment may come along next week which falsifies it. Because this is the case what a theory never becomes is a law, i.e. something that is regarded as true.

1854. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122290 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 6:03 am

Comment #122289 by Tyler Durden

I agree 100%

I'd elaborate on my point but I have a meeting to attend ;-)

1855. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122288 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 5:45 am

Comment #122281 by Quetzalcoatl

Not to nitpick, but given the amount of resources that would be required to actually throw a shell around a star, if you're already running low on resources then you've missed the opportunity already.

1856. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122276 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #122272 by mmurray

Continuing on in my depressive vein here is an article about how big the universe is and how it is likely to be impossible to communicate with other sentient beings even if there are some:

1857. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122264 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 3:12 am

Comment #122251 by Laurie Fraser

it is nigh impossible to calculate the occurrence of abiogenesis. We are simply suffering from a complete lack of data. (For example, even within our own solar system we have yet to find extra-terrestrial organic material that even looks like coming anywhere near the conditions for molecules to spontaneously reproduce.)

I came across this http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=1
Another interesting surface chemistry idea.

As for extra-terrestrial molecules, there are loads out there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_in_interstellar_space

1858. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122232 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

Comment #122226 by Steve Zara

I think this guy is really a good debater:

These must be some new definitions of the word "good" and "debater".

1859. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122224 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:27 am

Comment #122222 by AllanW

re; comment #122206 wipeout

Sigh. Now marked as troll. Evidence? DNA soup; oh dear, not again.

1860. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122223 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:25 am

Comment #121146 by yyuryyub

Let's not forget the fact that this guy Simmons is a medical doctor!

Which doesn't make him a real doctor, all it means is he spent some extra time as an undergraduate. Real doctors have to do some research.

1861. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122217 by epeeist on February 4, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Comment #122187 by dsaltarelli

"all gods speak Aramaic"

If this is an example of the quality of the arguments in the book then it doesn't say very much for its quality.

What Day is doing is only taking half of Popper's ideas, i.e. the use of modus tollens, the white swan argument is the standard one used for this.

What he is neglecting is the idea of empirical strength of a hypothesis, i.e. the predictive quality and parsimony, and the idea of testability.

The argument for the language of the gods may be parsimonious, but it has no predictive power and is not testable. Since it can never be tested then that takes it out of the domain of science, it can never get beyond the status of a conjecture.

1862. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122006 by epeeist on February 4, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Comment #121875 by Barry Pearson

I have only read a few chapters, and skim-read the rest, so I can't give a comprehensive review. Inevitably what I say will be selective, and I risk quoting out of context. But I am certainly not mis-quoting.

Good start. Are you going to add this to the Amazon reviews for the book.

Strangely enough that has 8 reviews all giving it 5 stars. Some of the reviews were from mid-January. It would be good to have some other views on there.

O

1863. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121676 by epeeist on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #121576 by hes2@usa

Measuring Infinity by scientific method "an observable fact", would be difficult in any area

No, this is what Feynmann diagrams are all about. Manipulating those allows you to do infinite order perturbations sums on quantum systems.

Have a look at the "Sum over histories" approach to quantum mechanics

1864. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121413 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

And of course it is a first step. Accept this opt out and where do we go next? Muslim doctors refusing to treat women who are menstruating? We have already had a dentist refusing to treat women who didn't cover their hair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7011120.stm). How about treating patients for alcoholism or dispensing contraception?

1865. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #121401 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 11:04 am

Comment #121391 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, that may well be what some people believe, but the idea that we get to heaven by behaving in a certain way is not a Christian belief. I agree that those who believe it are deluded.

So this isn't rational or reasonable?

If people could get to "heaven" - if they could be accepted by God by believing a certain way - then it wouldn't have been necessary for Jesus Christ to come. Christianity would therefore not have needed to exist if people could make it on their own.

But this is? And who decides?

1866. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #121385 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #121383 by Artful_Dodger

OK Baeoz, let me rephrase this. Rationalised self-interest can be mistaken for reason.

Of course it can - think of all those people who believe that by behaving in a certain way that they will get a reward in some putative heaven.

1867. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121382 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 10:40 am

Dr. Katme is correct of course. Exposed arms can pick up germs, which is why you wash them. And of course, fabrics will pick up exactly the same germs, how do you guarantee they remain sterile?

Plus that the vision of women with transparent latex gloves up to the elbow is obviously going to lead to lust in any man who sees them.

1868. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121182 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 4:30 am

Comment #121151 by keith

I'm not sure what you found good about Ian Buruma's piece.

I suppose that "nice" is too ambiguous a word these days.

I only linked to the article because he points out the inconsistent way that democracy is supported, e.g. by invasion, diplomacy or not at all. If intervention in Iraq can be justified (a posteriori) by the idea that it is to introduce democracy then why isn't such intervention justified everywhere? And if it is so justified, then why is not being done?

1869. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121144 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 2:25 am

Comment #121061 by October Mermaid

I decided to look up his book, What Darwin Didn't Know, at amazon.com.

It's got mostly positive reviews! What's up with that? Apparently William Dembski co-authored it, so that makes it even less likely to be factual.

Have a glance at the entry for Vox Day's (sic) book "The Irrational Atheist", published on the 1st February, 8 reviews all with 5 stars and the large majority of the votes claiming the reviews were "helpful".

In other words, there is a lot of astroturfing going on. I suspect the same is true of the Simmonds book.

1870. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121114 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 1:18 am

I have just been over to Amazon to see what is happening with the book there.

I am afraid MPhil that you must be a moron. There are 8 reviews all of which give the book 5 stars and claim it to be logically unassailable. On top of that virtually everyone who voted found the reviews helpful. Given this the weight of evidence is definitely against you.

Alternately of course it could just be a case of astroturfing.

1871. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121104 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #120821 by hayesky

People like Christopher Hitchens (more or less) and I support the war for humanitarian reasons.
We will not be complacent with humans rights abuses, genocide, or fascism.

The problem with this is that it can be used to give carte blanche to intervene in any other sovereign country. It also opens the question as to why there have only been diplomatic interventions in Burma or Zimbabwe and no interventions at all in China or Saudi Arabia (nice article in the Observer today which asks the same question - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2251492,00.html)

[snip]

This really only scratches the surface of Sadaam's past, or what it was like living in a country where Sadaam's hands reached through every corner of society.

I accept all your material, though I think your cut off date is far too soon. I think you need go at least as far back as 1951 and the appointment of Mossadegh as Prime Minister of Iran and look at the subsequent events.

There were lots of lies and bullshit spoken by politicians in their attempt to sell the war, this is deplorable and is a fight all in itself.

But can't you see the same sort technique now being used against Iran? And what country after Iran?

Why we support the war is not for those reasons, we do not wish to give Sadaam another shot at making things right in Iraq. We believe every human deserves the right to a decent life, a life without fear, without oppression. And this means that wherever fascism rules the land, wherever human life is forced to kneel to power, we will not stand for this.

You will invade and implement a power structure from outside?

1872. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #120719 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 11:27 am

As many people here are aware I am a fencing coach, my wife is a teacher. Both of us are therefore involved with children on a daily basis.

If either of us committed offences against these children we would be rightly convicted in a criminal court. If our employers colluded in our actions by covering them up they would also be criminally liable.

I find the fact that nobody in this case has had to face anything but civil penalties utterly and totally reprehensible. Vile, utterly and totally vile.

1873. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120692 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #120688 by hayesky

The anti-war movement cares only for what Bush or his administration said or did, the lack of planning and execution of the war, the fear mongering, Abu-Gharib, Guantanamo, and all the half-truths and propaganda used.

You are wrong.

Saddam was a monster, he killed a significant number of his fellow countrymen (though possibly not enough to be legally classified as genocide). I am certain that given half the chance he would have restarted chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes.

If this justifies invasion of Iraq then it justifies war against any other dictatorship that might be deemed a threat against a country's interests. That is why I was against this particular war.

1874. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120687 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #120683 by Steve Zara

Everyone telling a consistent story, and not just believing their own gut feelings.

Steve, I am going to disagree with you here. This was what I was trying to quiz MPhil about. From all that I have read both here and elsewhere theists seem to take a "coherence" theory of truth, all they are looking for is consistency. The difficulty with this is that, as Betrand Russell said, it is easy to provide a consistent view of a fairy tale.

What we should be looking for is a correspondence theory of truth i.e. the correspondence of a proposition to a fact. Consistency is only one facet of this.

1875. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120678 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 9:46 am

Comment #120669 by Artful_Dodger

It is reasonable to believe that the universe actually had a beginning, and that that beginning could have been the action of a personal, intelligent Creator. There is nothing in science per se that actually contradicts that thesis

1876. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120675 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #120643 by Artful_Dodger

I would commend Wittgenstein's advice to those on this site who have had no experience of God
"whereof we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent".

Given that Wittgenstein was speaking about the impossibility of framing any meaningful questions about metaphysics I am not sure it actually supports your position.

1877. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120673 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 9:29 am

While I agree with Hitchens (and Falusi) that Islam is an enormous threat to both the peace and progress of the world I think in the case of Iraq he is wrong.

After 9/11 virtually the whole of the world was sympathetic to the States. I am not completely convinced that the action against Afghanistan generally was fully justified but it was clear that there was at least some level of association between the Taliban and the bombers.

With Iraq there was no evidence of WMD and no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the twin towers bombings. There was obvious propaganda being promulgated by the PNAC (in a similar manner to the current briefings against Iran).

As a result of the war there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths, the west (not just America) has lost much of its influence and we now have the beginnings of grossly intrusive surveillance systems. All of this for what seemed to have been personal grudges and a greed for resources.

And note this, both the Taliban and Saddam were essentially discarded tools in a wider geopolitical agenda (and this is not anti-Americanism, other societies also use this type of proxy).

This type of conflict will occur again until we move away from the 19th century view that "states only have interests" to a foreign policy that is both global and ethical.

1878. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120593 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 5:03 am

Comment #120589 by ericcolumba

It depresses me to see that even on this forum there are those among you who can't see through Galloway.

As someone who considers himself a socialist and an internationalist. I am dismayed by the actions of the pseudo left personified by Galloway and Ken Livingston.

I don't know how socialist you are, long years ago I used to be a member of a Trotskyist organisation. Two of the major things that caused me to leave were the internecine squabbling that went on and the support for some significantly nasty people and organisations because they looked vaguely anti-capitalist (Oh, and the fact that the organisation's printing press was owned by a single individual who effectively censored anything that went in the paper).

I agree with you about Galloway, but I wasn't prepared to allow an unsubstantiated accusation stand without pointing people at something more evidential.

1879. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120576 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #120375 by Artful_Dodger

A hypothesis cannot be held indefinitely in the absence of evidence.

Agreed. Methodological naturalists are quite happy to accept that if the evidence is at odds with the hypothesis then they hypothesis is wrong.

Theism in many instances seems to take the opposite view, that if the evidence disagrees with the revelation then the evidence is wrong.

1880. Belief in Belief

Comment #120353 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Comment #120345 by al-rawandi

Whenever I learn a new word, I see it in a book or article within a day or two.

1881. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120235 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #120226 by BAEOZ

Is Modus Tollens the logical method that employs one counter example to destroy an inductive argument?

1882. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120219 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #120200 by 82abhilash

The soul comes into the world at conception.

1883. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120207 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #120203 by Richard Morgan

Has anybody read the studies that suggest that there may a genetical basis for fundamental grammatical structures?

1884. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120171 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #120155 by al-rawandi

What does, "eats, shoots, and leaves" mean anyway. I can't tell when you Brits are insulting me. Put on a red coat and fight like a man!

I have to wear a black coat so the holes don't show

Personally I think you ought to wear a Truss, I am sure Lynne will give you one if you go and search for her.

1885. The Pagan Christ

Comment #120166 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #119575 by Steve Zara

I've suggested that the burden of proof should be on you since my belief is the incumbent so to speak and you are wanting to effect a change.

Belief in a God can be positively harmful. Therefore you don't just have the scientific burden of proof, you have an ethical burden - to show that your harmful belief at least has the merit of being true.

Steve has it right. You haven't established your god exists, all you are doing is committing an ad populum fallacy.

The Greeks had a goddess called Selene, a Titan who embodied the moon. Lots of Greeks obviously believed in her, but it doesn't mean she existed. She obviously fell out of favour and was replaced by Artemis and Diana, so much for belief.

1886. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120144 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 9:42 am

Comment #120139 by al-rawandi

Anna, Grammar Nazi! LOL

1887. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120120 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 9:22 am

michat - another bowl of petunias moment :-( I have started a thread on amazon.com with regard to this thread, pointing out the astroturfing that is taking place.

1888. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120114 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #120103 by Fanusi Khiyal

That is, that Galloway provably took money from Saddam, from the Oil-for-food program, in exchange for defending Saddam.

For which accusation he was investigated both by the police and the parliamentary committee on standards and privileges. Their report is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90902.htm

Now personally I think Galloway is a loathsome creep, but I think the report from parliament holds more weight than your post.

1889. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120019 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #120011 by MPhil

I think the cases of Pi and rotation are very good indeed - I might have to revise my position. But I'm not entirely convinced. I don't see where Pi represents a quantity of things that are not conceptual constructs (units of measurement).

My problem is the mathematics I used to have is tucked away in backup storage and the software to restore it isn't that good.

On the matter of truth - Tarski semantics is very interesting, but is "only" about language.

Interesting Popper actually thought that Tarski was offering a correspondence theory of truth

Yes, it seems the theists also employ a correspondence theory as default

I don't know whether you misread me, but I actually said "coherence"

1890. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120004 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #119992 by MPhil

I'd say that's right. But not all numbers represent something real (quantitiy). Only positive integers do.

I am going to disagree with you here, there are certainly non-integer numbers that do represent quantity and other real things. Pi is an obvious example, the square root of -1 is another in that it represents a physical rotation. Kronecker was wrong...

I would probably disagree with you to a certain extent on the separability of logic and mathematics. I am not convinced that there is complete separability, especially if you allow deviant logics.

On a totally different tack - you have talked about truth in one or two of your posts and truth-apt sentences. Given my background the theory of truth I tend to find most congenial is Tarski's semantic theory. From what I have seen of theists they seem to use a coherence theory of truth. Your knowledge and experience of logic is deeper than mine, what do you mean by truth?

And yet one more aside, this message was brought to you using the paragraph "p" tag.

1891. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119940 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #119934 by BAEOZ

The thing is, I suck at critique, so whilst I may vehemently disagree with vox virus, will I be able to express it coherently?

1892. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119936 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #119929 by Peacebeuponme

I only joined late, and saw Karda confess to hearing voices. I think that makes him game.

A naive hunter walking through the woods comes across a young lady posing in an alluring fashion. "Are you game?" he says. "Oh yes," she replies. So he shot her.

Sorry, but it is Friday. Yes, I agree with you on this.

Oh great, you all get to talk about BTA's ostentation.

You didn't miss much, brain the size of a small peanut.

1893. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119913 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #119910 by LorienRyan

can a child who has no concept of god be dubbed an atheist if an atheist is the negative of a theist conceptually?

1894. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #119912 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 2:29 am

Comment #119907 by Adam Morrison

epeeist I agree, but I'm fairly certain that the Afghan gov't (and Islamic gov'ts in general) do not want the population educated to what the rest of the world is like.

1895. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119909 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 2:23 am

Comment #119905 by Steve Zara

I do suggest we ignore it. It is a sales technique, nothing more.

Agreed, he sent his astroturfers over here to generate quotations for his site, this is just another ploy. To paraphrase RD, it would look better on VD's CV than anyone's from this site.

Could I say that I am somewhat sorry the way that Karda was treated, I am sure if he had come here on his own then the responses to his posts would have been somewhat different. I suspect it was the fact that he arrived with a whole parcel of buffoons that got him tarred with the same brush as them

1896. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119900 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 1:44 am

Comment #119896 by Becomethearrow

Oh yeah delete my comments, cowards.

If you look you can see they have merely been moved to the alternate comment thread. They haven't been removed from the site or censored.

1897. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119898 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #119895 by Artful_Dodger

There is no such thing as an "atheist child"

1898. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119886 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #119878 by AtheistAspy

epeeist: Why are you responding to this turd? Just report him to administration.

To be honest all the attacks are just water off a duck's back. The guy (though I still think he might be a program) hasn't enough acumen to land a telling punch. The only time he managed to raise my ire to the extent of me marking his post as offensive is when he made a loathsomely sexist remark to a woman the same age as one of my daughters.

One of the great coaches I have worked with, Zbigniew Czajkowski, talks about two extreme kinds of fencer (it probably applies to all combat sports), warriors and technicians. The warrior tends to win initially, relying on speed and fitness to overcome their lack of technique. However, they are eventually overtaken by the technicians, who use tactics and intelligence. Some people never grow out of the warrior phase...

1899. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #119877 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 12:29 am

There is a claim that the Internet sees any attempts to block it as damage and attempts to route around it (an analogy to the underlying protocols).

Perhaps another alternative would be to attempt to route around the barbarities promulgated by the religionists, something that is mooted upon keeping the general population ignorant.

To this end I wonder whether some of the aid money should be diverted into providing an OLPC laptop to each child in the country (http://laptopfoundation.org/). Start educating the children, show them what the outside world looks like.

1900. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119869 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 12:03 am

Comment #119865 by Becomethearrow

peeist You remind me of the teachers pet, bringing the apple. You marked my post as offensive like a good little brown shirt.