1851. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130861 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I think Al-rawandi may be judging AHA too harshly.

I could be wrong, but to my knowledge AHA never endorses any neocon policy of the AEI aside from being on its payroll.

I think she has basically only one message and would go wherever she is given a platform to air it.

She started off with a left wing party in the Netherlands but she was shunned because she was deemed too confrontational and her anti-Islamic message collided with the "multi-cultural" ethos of many on the left. She then join the centre right liberal (?) party because they gave her a platform.

I think it was the same kind of considerations that eventually led her to the AEI. I don't think she necessarily buy into their ideas (She is an atheist and pro gay right while the AEI is full of Christian fundamentalists.) It seemed more of a marriage of convenience. When no one dared to touch her either out of fear or out of political correctness, the AEI thought it was a good publicity move to get her on board and she accepted, not having anywhere else to go where she would be given a platform to broadcast her message.

1852. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130827 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

Do you also dismiss Daniel Dennett?

I have only read one book by Dannett, it was "Darwin's dangerous idea". I am not particularly impressed. I found the book very verbose, repetitive and never got to the point. He made one clumsy "everyday" analogy after another just in order to convey a simple point, but never got to the biology, it was as if he was afraid that the readers were too stupid so he had to be extra gentle with them. The book kind of went on and on but always beating around the bush, so to speak, It is very frustrating to read if you hope to learn some key ideas of evolution from it, I felt I was drowned in a torrent of words and bad analogies without knowing where it was all heading. For a relatively thick book it contained remarkably little of substance that one can chew on. Dawkins does a much better job in explaining evolution to the non biologists. "The blind watch maker" is a real treat.To be fair though, DDI may not be one of Dannett's best. (I read from others on this site that Danett's debating style is kind of like that too, verbose and meandering. Though I have never heard his debates myself)

One thing in Dannett's book stood out in my mind. It was his contention that real science was like a crane rather than a skyhook (yet another analogy) He must have felt pretty clever for inventing this analogy because it has been used again and again by him and other people since. He was probably correct regarding biology, but biology is not the only science. I don't think that is true for physics.The greatest works in theoretical physics do often convey the impression of skyhooks. Giants of physics such as Newton, Boltzmann, Einstein and Dirac were all master skyhook builders. What is general relativity if not a glorious skyhook? Einstein had no data when he worked it all out, the data caught up with him much later.

Not to be too negative about philosophers, I read Philip Kitcher's " Abusing Science" as an undergraduate. In it Kitcher made a direct assault on creationism.The book contained a short introduction to evolutionary theory, a sketch of the scientific method, a point by point rebuttal against creationism and some background information of the creationism movement. It was well written, lucid, tightly organized and ideas flew naturally and smoothly, quite the opposite to Dannett's book (DDI).

1853. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130729 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 7:51 am

First you're completely misrepresenting what I said (first response), then you just go on and on and on insulting the discipline I study while you have obviously not a clue about it,

I think you give me enough information already.

, you make ridiculous dogmatic claims about the nature of theories (in this case you are making a hopeless attempt at philosophy of science yourself, namely metatheory)

How is it ridiculous? I am skeptical of people who claim to know "the nature" of theory in general while obviously don't even understand the most elementary content of the theories (math and physics in this case) they are supposed to deliberate on. On what ground do you make your proclamations?

and finally you actually manage to repost your most stupid (I'm sorry, I cannot be kind about this) statement of all. "So? does it yield any new and interesting physics" - like accusing a geologist that his discipline is bullshit because it doesn't form rocks.

Geologists may not make rocks, but they do make more than hot air.

You tell us you build metatheoretical models, but the practitioners of the "theory" can hardly recognize their own disciplines in your rendition. It is like a cartographer making a map for a village while the villagers themselves cannot even recognize it and all he tells them is, "but, look at the details, they are well drawn and the colour is beautiful" I think a real geologist or a neuroscientist would not be able to get away like that. So your comparisons were inaccurate.

OK, it may be unfair to ask you to produce physics result, But neither did you shed much light on physics other than making some inane complaints about "problems" in physics which are not problems at all except for the fact that they don't fit into your schema.


You then raved about Ramseyfication, which as far as I can tell can be applied to any formal system. So exactly what does this tell us specifically about physics? That you can replace all of particle mechanics (to the extent your formal system can capture) with one super long, incomprehensible sentence?

I may be missing a gene somewhere but I really can't get excited about that.

How does that tell us about the nature of physical laws? How does that have anything to do with the justification or rejection of physical realism, for examples?

if it gives you a false sense of victory in denying the validity of the scientific research and construction of valid theories that is going on in philosophy of science.

In what way are you guys engaging in scientific research and by what criteria do you judge your theories as "valid"?

1854. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130700 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 7:12 am

Steve,

I feel that if we suggest that mathematics and physics are one, then we open up the possibilify of someone claiming that mathematics somehow arises only out of the physical world, and hence that it could in some sense be part of "creation".

I see your point. But I think he was also enjoying a bit of rhetorics and you can see, you shouldn't take it too literally.

I have seen the man in action, he has a taste for drama. In a seminar he came in, drew a big circle on the blackboard and said, "this is the brain, the left side does geometry, physics and all useful things, the right side does algebra," He then draw a big line in the middle and said, "the two sides don't connect!"

1855. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130686 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 6:48 am

Oh, the "confusing form with substance" thing again, the magical mystery of living, breathing mathematics and physics. No argument in this, sorry. It doesn't appeal and fails to account for the beauty of the living thing - I have reason to assume that you are scientifically minded, but I'm sorry to say this reminds me of anti-scientific propaganda.

Well speaking of cheap shot. Einstein, Feynman and Dawkins all use words like mystery and beauty in describing science, Are they now all promoting anti-science propaganda?

So, mathematics is dynamic and changing and beautiful - I agree wholeheartedly, but to say that studying what theories are for empirical sciences in a formal way "fails to capture the rich texture" and is thus "missing the point" is just like saying that botany is missing the point because it fails to capture how beautifully the flowers sway in the soft breeze.

Wrong analogy.

Your approach is like studying a great fiction by analyzing its sentence and paragraph arrangement and counting the occurrence of words while completely oblivious to the plot, the character development and stylistic innovations.

Not only that, you insist that this is the only legitimate way of approaching the novel because all books are texts,--collections of words laid out in a certain way. "What else is there? It is technically true but only a typographer who doesn't know any literature would find that to be the most remarkable attribute of the fiction.

The point of the section from stanford was the problem of theoretical terms - which is a real problem..

It is a problem only because you insist on casting physics into a formal system on which you can play your logical games. There is no problem whatsoever for anyone who actually understands the physics.

You are like someone complaining that his feet are too big because they don't fit into his shoes. Does it occur to you that maybe your shoes are too small?

To which you proposed an answer - which I found to be missing the point. There are scientific research programs, and schemata (methods) of investigation, but a proposed law is no such thing.

I didn't "propose an answer". This is the standard explanation of Newton's second law. Go to your university library and check out, for example, Haliday and Rensnick's first year physics text book where you can find a very careful discussion adorned with nice pictures. It is hardly anything cutting edge or controversial.

You think there is a problem only because you are too hung up on semantics,--not that surprising as the philosopher's only tool is words.It may be called a "law" but it is actually a scheme or a "program", if you don't like it just change the word "law". "Problem" solved

Arnold's case - even if he doesn't say so explicitly, and even tries to obscure it, is one of definition, of description, of semantic conventions (which becomes entirely obvious when we talks of matrices and "axioms" vs "properties").

Wow, now you actually accuse one of the greatest living mathematician not knowing his definitions, it is quite something.

Whether it is "definition", "description" or "properties" he publishes hundreds of papers on the best mathematical journals and no one finds that it is a problem. That way of presenting mathematics is completely acceptable. The kind of horrendous formal system you play with doesn't correspond to real mathematics. It is the philosopher's distorted image. Sorry if we don't live up to the philosophers' standard of rigor in the way we describe things.

You dislike the term "axiom", and talking of axiomatization and so forth. That's your prerogative, but it is irrelevant. That fact is that the modus operandi you dislike is succesful and therefore appropriate.

It has nothing to do with dislike.

No one writes his or her papers starting with axioms and deduces every consequence using first order logic. Axioms are just conventions used for summarizing certain facts and establishing common grounds, Unless you work in areas like set theory or mathematical logic you rarely have to care about foundational axioms. Real mathematics is more flexible than your lousy model, get over it.

Theories in physics do include observational terms, theoretic terms and underlying conversion rules. You can't get around that - and I supposes you see no need to. But from this, problems arise - such as the problem of t-theoretical terms. There was no false definition, none that missed the point, for reasons already stated.

There is no problem if you understand the physics as I said before. "Problems" only arise when you insist on fitting physics into your artificial and rigid scheme. The division into these terms are only approximate and I truly don't see what purpose it serves. What is potential energy? Into which category does it fall? In classical mechanics it is defined in terms of conservative force, in QM it is taken as primary while force is defined as the negative gradient of the potential. How about em field? This apparent confusion in assigning logical roles in "T" doesn't arise in physics because it is completely irrelevant. If it is a problem in philosophy because of the peculiar and pedantic way you set things up it is not physics' problem and physicists shouldn't loose sleep over it (and they won't)

Ramseyfication consists in the replacement of the theoretical terms of a finitely axiomatized theory by bound higher-order variables. This involves combining all the theoretical postulates (which define theoretical terms) and correspondence rules of a theory (which link some of these theoretical terms with observational ones) in one long sentence and then replacing all the theoretical predicates that occur in it by bound higher-order variables. This is the so-called Ramsey-sentence of the entire theory; in it no theoretical terms appear, but it possesses the same explanatory and predictive power as the original theory: it has the same observational consequences.

So? You can play that game with any formal system apparently.What does it have to do with physics? Does it yield any new and interesting physics?

I would be more impressed if you guys are able to produce some real results rather than just playing games with formal strings. From your description basically you started with a system which probably doesn't capture too much physics in the first place, and then come up with an equivalent(?) one by incorporating some formally cooked up, horrendously long "sentence" using some "high order" variables.I am sorry that I can't really see the excitement in that.

Now formal games sometimes can be useful. Model theorists do get some important results in real algebraic geometry by fooling around with quantifiers and projections. But their focus is much more narrow (not to axiomatize all of mathematics or anything like that )

Furthermore, there is no confusing of form with substance, as it's not about what the theories model (their substance), but about what theories are (their form) - there's no confusion. Your objection is like saying that a neuroscientist studying how the brain represents the world is missing the point because he is not investigating what the brain models.

I am saying that you don't even get the form right as far as physics is concerned. For mathematics it is easier to get the form, but

1) that has been done ever since Godel and before so it is nothing new. This is standard fare in mathematical logic (to quote Yuri Manin, --a branch of mathematics where it contemplates upon its own caricature, something like that)

2) Even if you find anything interesting about your model it doesn't have to have anything to do with real mathematics and even knowing some properties of mathematics as a formal system you still can't say anything "philosophical" about it (what is mathematical truth etc) as you originally claim. I maybe wrong, but fooling around with formal systems is usually considered a branch of mathematical logic (or symbolic logic for philosophers), not philosophy of science. I think of people like Ian Hacking or Popper when I hear philosophy of science.

1856. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130635 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 3:50 am

Mphil,


About the Standford link.


The author is correct that F=Ma is circular if you view it as a single statement. But to see it like that is missing the point.

Newton's second law is not a single empirical statement, but rather a "schema" or a program, I use these words loosely, I don't know what is the term you philosophers use.

The key idea is that F is a function only of position and (perhaps) velocity (and time). The assertion of the second law is that it is always possible to find such a function (a force law) so that the particle's acceleration is completely determined by its current position (where it is) and its velocity(how fast and in which direction it is moving) according to F = MA, where the factor M is the same for the same particle no matter where you put it (regardless of force law) and how fast the particle moves (this is not true in relativity where the mass grows with speed)

This is highly non trivial, mathematically, what it means is that the zeroth and first derivatives of position with respect to time completely determine the trajectory (position as a function of time),

Of course we cannot empirically test all possible environments where we may place our particle but we accept it as a "law" because (with usual assumption of non relativistic and non quantum mechanical motions) in most physical situations we can indeed find such a F so that F = MA.(we can also derive Newton's second law from Hamiltonian or Lagrangian mechanics as a theorem, in that case a similar statement would be the assertion that it is always possible to define a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian so that the least action principle holds)

The author's way to resolve the "problem" was completely wrong. The equality (or proportionality) of inertial and gravitational mass cannot be just "assumed",--which (s)he alluded to in the following paragraph. It is the equivalence principle in Einstein's general relativity. There is no a priori reason why this should be the case (this amounts to say that all particles in free fall under the same "gravitational field" map out the same trajectories in spacetime)

The author was correct that "Similar problems arise in the formulation of almost all fundamental physical theories" But the "problems" only arise because (s)he looks at physical laws just as stand alone propositions in some formal system. All these "problems" can be "resolved" in the same way as Newton's second law.

For example you may find the same "problem" in conservation of energy in its elementary formulation (it can be derived from symmetry in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics) and field theory.

The truly remarkable point is not whether something is "real" or just book keeping or how it fits into some logical scheme of definitions, but that it is possible at all to device "book keeping schemes" that the whole thing is self consistent.

For example, electromagnetic field is introduced as a mathematical device to avoid "action at a distance", but what is not trivial is that you can actually do your "book keeping" by assigning "missing" momenta, angular momenta and energy to the field in such a way that they are completely recoverable so that momentum, angular momentum and energy conservation still hold. This reveals something new about nature that we didn't know before because there is no purely logical reason why this can be done at all For me this is the true mystery (well actually they can be derived as theorems from symmetry in the Lagragian and Hamiltonian formulations of field theory, but it is a mystery if you only know the elementary treatment and that is what you should find amazing)

It turns out that instead of defining fields through force and test particle, it is much more natural in advanced physics to start with fields and describe them by the appropriate field equations, completely by passing the force and test particle set up.

So is em field "real" or just a mathematical fiction? How does it fit in our scheme of definition? Is it a derived concept or a primitive one? These are futile questions as far as I am concerned and quite uninteresting. To nitpick over these is confusing the map with the landscape.

Physics is not an axiomatic system, It is not just a collection of "propositions". It is an organic, expanding body of knowledge. Even if it is possible,--it is, though perhaps not in the way that a philosopher would go about it,-- I really don't see the point of turning classical mechanics into some dead, rigid formal system. Even classical mechanics is not a dead subject, it,--in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations,-- continues to make contact with other branches of physics such as quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory and even string theory.

On another point.

Boubarki's vision of mathematics is a very sterile one, it fails to capture the rich texture of mathematics as it is actually done.

That is a central point of Arnold's criticism.

When mathematics is presented like that, aspiring mathematicians without the deep insights and encyclopedic knowledge of the Boubarki masters would be lost in a maze of inessential formal details and lose sight of what is truly important.

The casual philosophic observer would be similarly misled by this way of presenting mathematics as merely a deductive system of structures and propositions.

The Soviet school sees mathematics as a fluid and open ended subject which has rich interface with the natural sciences, not something that can be neatly cordoned off and casted into some "structural theory". In particular there is no strict demarcation between mathematics and physics.

Mathematics in the Soviet tradition is messy but full of vitality and energy. To use Nietzsche's terminology, the unsuspecting outsider often only sees the Apollolian face of mathematics, but there is actually also a Dyonesian side to it and it finds its most powerful expression in the Russian school.

Arnold expressed his ideas beautifully and passionately in http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html

Aside from lambasting the Boubarki approach he also argued eloquently for what I would call "the poverty of axioms".

Boubarki styled "structuralism" which lopsidedly highlights abstraction, formalism, axiomatics and the deductive link between propositions appeal to philosophers because it is so clean. But I agree with Arnold that this is not a true representation of living mathematics, Any attempt to reduce mathematics to some formal schemes is necessarily missing the point, confusing form with substance.


To others,

My apologies for dragging this on, but it is difficult to stop when you feel you do have something that needs to be said.

1857. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130561 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm

It's not about absolutes. What you don't seem to understand is that we can study that. We can actually form well-founded theories on whether scientific realism is true or not. A private opinion is not 'just as good' if it isn't as rigorously investigated.

You can of course create and study any model for science, some models may be more interesting than the others, but that is a field completely unto itself, it doesn't mean that it has any relation to real science.

Some of the most interesting work in studying formal systems actually fall under mathematics, not philosophy (logic, some aspects of set theory, model theory, computation theory)

By interesting I mean yielding non trivial theorems. The activities of philosophers are primarily in constructing elaborate systems, mostly with words, sometimes with symbols as well. There are papers published in philosophical journals of a more mathematical nature, but according to my set theorist colleagues who keep track on these things they are at least thirty years out of date comparing to what you find in the mathematical journals.

They would be pragmatically able to do it, but provide a scientific justification? What I was saying was - if they do, as soon as they talk talk about demarcation criteria, they are doing philosophy of science.

By my definition philosophy of science arises when scientists reflect on their own fields of research. It is not a separate, disembodied discipline divorced from science as it is actually done if it is to have anything of substance to say about actual science.

I should have said "What about the actual trustworthiness and explanatory power of induction and deduction - another question of philosophy

Same answer as above. I trust that any working scientist would consider this distinction to be quite elementary and wouldn't need to study philosophy of science to figure that out.

Btw, ever heard of the Bourbaki program for mathematics?

Well the Bourbaki program was not about metamathematics. While the collective's views on foundational issues certainly affected their presentation, their books are mathematics books written for mathematicians, not books written about mathematics from the "outside" like Bertrand Russell's. Also, all members of the Boubaki collective were top notch mathematicians, they were not generalists making observations on the sideline (now one of them, Rene' Thom, later did quit mathematics and became a philosopher, perhaps you can take comfort in that)

In any case not everyone is impressed by the Boubarki school.The great Russian mathematician V.I. Arnold, my mathematical hero, has some very scathing things to say about its hyperabstract mathematical style and its insistence on communicating mathematics at the highest level of generality. Arnold said its fixation on formality and generality sapped mathematics of its vitality. He said, perhaps with a little exaggeration, that the Boubarki movement has single handedly destroyed French mathematics. I am definitely not a fan of Boubarki styled mathematics.

EDIT: Incidentally, you may be able to sense from the above that the Boubarki school and Arnold's Moscow school have very different answers to the question "What is mathematics?". I don't believe philosophers of science who are completely divorced from actual mathematical research can tell us what it is.

1858. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130550 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 8:20 pm

What reason is there for assuming scientific realism?

This is just a working hypothesis.

You see, philosophers want absolutes. Science doesn't give you absolutes. Such questions can never be answered definitively. The reflective scientist would have a private opinion and it is just as good the philosopher's, even though he may not be able to buttress it with big words and citations.

Demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience for example - a metalevel question which empirical science itself cannot answer, it's a topic of Philosophy of Science and everytime a scientist says something about it - he's doing Philosophy of Science. And mostly just taking things for granted

You think scientific community wouldn't be able to ferret out pseudo science without asking the philosopher? Gimme a break.

How about induction versus deduction?

And what about it? Is this a trick question?

How about commensurability or incommensurability of scientific paradigms? How about the Ramseyfication of empirical claims? T-Theoreticity and set theoretic predicates?

More big words. They may be interesting models that fall within the realm of mathematical logic, but these things are just models and they take on their own lives.

It's mathematical logic including set theory applied to provide a metatheory and foundation of empirical theories.

Again confusing models (formal systems) with what they are intended to model.

Even in most areas of mathematics the sophisticated results of set theory are not particularly relevant. The role of set theory is actually quite mundane for the most part even in mathematics, namely it basically provides convenient symbols and a vocabulary.

The fact that you can construct the natural numbers from the empty set by iterations means absolutely nothing for the number theorists who investigates really interesting properties of natural numbers. The set theoretical construction only tells you that numbers can be coded as sets (rather than numbers "are" sets, the latter is a metaphysical statement about what numbers "really" are) Most number theorists don't think of numbers as sets, I can assure you that.

Mathematicians working on areas other than set theory probably don't need any more set theory than Halmos' "naive set theory",--a first or second year text book. The foundational issues usually don't arise in interesting mathematical problems (which typically are about rather "concrete" objects) and should they arise, they can be easily circumvented (say by being more specific about the kind of objects being discussed)

1859. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130542 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

MPhil,

So, providing a theoretical, formal logic foundation for empirical sciences is worthless?

Let me know when you succeed.

Science in practice is fluid and organic. What arm chair experts such as those people you worship do is to take a snapshot, make an observation which has a kernel of truth,--usually rather unremarkable for the scientists,--and spin them into some overarching "systems" of "-isms". Science has never been helped by such "-isms" and they provide only bad caricatures of what science is.

This has been the case ever since Francis Bacon ( he was basically a journalist reporting what scientist did and not a very accurate reporter at that, but falsely credited by philosophers as the inventor of the scientific method as if scientists were learning their trades from him), then the positivists, empiricists and whatever -ists that you may care to name. Science is always too rich to be captured by these petty -isms.

Just goes to show that you're incredibly ignorant and arrogant. It's not about 'making a direct contribution', but about metalevel explanation and actually putting empirical sciences on a theoretic groundwork that is logically and epistemologically sufficient

I know. I am saying that you can't do that.

You can write long winded books full of fancy words and symbols for other philosophers to admire but the working scientists cannot even recognize that this is a depiction of science. What makes you think that the generalists are even qualified to construct a "metatheory" if they don't even know exactly what the "theory" is? That I call "arrogant and ignorant". This reminds me of our exchange on mathematics, your characterization of mathematics completely misses the point, typical of someone who get the idea from nth hand accounts by philosophers..

You can make a "scholarship" out of anything, it doesn't mean that it has any real intellectual depth or worthiness.

1860. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130536 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm

al-rawandi,

Are you making a general attack on philosophy, or the more specific field of Philosophy of Science?

Just philosophy of science because it is a parasitic activity.

Metaphysics is quite useless too IMO.

1861. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130531 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:22 pm

". Just go to a university library, see if they have Joseph Sneed's "The logical structure of mathematical physics" and try to read and understand it. It's not a philosophical caricature,, it's an attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for theories in empirical sciences in general, and mathematical physics specifically.

Thanks but no thanks, I get better things to do than to waste my times with arm chair philosophers and their verbal diarrhea.

EDIT:
It strikes me as incredibly arrogant for some generalists, remote from any actual scientific research to claim that they have ways to work out the general foundation,--note the big word,-- of all empirical sciences and mathematical sciences. This is a sure sign of the highest order of crackpotism. They usually quickly drift off to some formal or verbal masturbatory tangents. I was just listening to one such guy on the radio and he was so full of shit that I have to turn it off.

The contribution of philosophy of science to real science = 0, maybe negative if you take into account the distractions.

1862. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130513 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 6:35 pm

False. I don't think you have really done your homework on this one. I don't know what it is like over your way, but food companies are required to label all warnings as mandated by the FDA (thank-god they are finally doing something about all the "natural" supplements). Coca-cola does not claim health, nor does McDonald's, etc...

Yes, they have to label and what do you find on food package labels? Patent #23078 and other chemical names which mean very little to the average consumer. Mcdonald's does claim health.

When fundamental environmental groups (specifically a British group) goes to Africa to confront leaders of the "poisons" that are in DONATED GMO products and said leaders turn down already accepted donated supplies then it isn't about the resources these people have. In fact, they try to grow organic crops all the time. However, the soil to plant such crops just isn't good enough, needless to say the supplies they cannot afford to keep an organic farm alive. When a GMO crop comes along that can withstand these conditions and need the most minimal of supplies (this time donated) then it isn't really about economics anymore. I suggest you research Norman Borlaug.

I don't know about this particular case so I can't comment on the specifics, but I can't help but think that there may be more to your account,

I find it odd that a supposedly starving country would insist on organic farming while chemical and pesticide use is not exactly a taboo in the developing world. However there may be good economical reasons to turn down "donations" by GMO companies.Do some research on terminator seeds if you have so much time to do homework.

1863. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130503 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Juxtamonkey,

GMO's are HIGHLY regulated and tested and groomed, and retested, and observed, and examined, and then they do it again

Of course they tell you that. They also tell you all the junk food you eat are good for you. Not that it is a big deal, but I would be more skeptical about what the PR man says.

By the way, what did you eat tonight? If we are going to weigh the risks and benefits, I'm sorry, the benefits has to rest with saving MILLIONS of lives.

Sorry, that is just pure bs. The world has excess production capacity and there is too much food, that's why farmers are going broke all over the world. People in the third world cannot afford to put food on the table because the argricultural basis of these countries are destroyed due to dumping by the rich countries and resources are diverted to grow cash crops for export, it is an economical problem, not a scientific one. Read Susan George to understand the political economy of food.

Do you know that there are countries such as India which are net food exporters even when some of their own citizens are suffering from famine?

what did you eat tonight?

Actually I eat a lot of processed food and I had bamboo shots in hot chilly oil out of a can on prepackaged noodles tonight. This is an ad hom which really doesn't have anything to
with the points discussed.

1864. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130498 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Steve,

Actually I am not big on organic, not for any particular reason. I just won't pay three times the price for my fruit and vegetable and honestly I can't taste any difference.

While I acknowledge that some of the concerns for GMO are valid, I eat whatever that taste good.

1865. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #130495 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 5:36 pm

dloubet

WTF? When did "bashing" become synonymous with promoting? These aren't Baby Bible Bashers, these are Baby Bible THUMPERS! Baby Bible Bashers presents the unlikely image of a bunch of atheist children insulting the bible.

My question exactly. Here "gay bashing" literally means the sport of beating up gay people with base ball bats and figuratively applies to violent verbal attacks of homosexuals as well. It doesn't mean enthusiastically promoting gays.

1866. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #130487 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Steve,

I am not sure that pro-organic, anti-GM attitude is intrinsically tied to religion or a belief of an inviolable nature.

The reasons are more complex.

Some people are unease about the ecological implications of releasing GM creatures and crops into the environment, the effects of it is not very well understood. Some are concerned because the political economy of production, you don't have to be a religious loony to oppose Mansanto killer seeds. There is also a justified mistrust of the environment of corporate secrecy in which GMO is created. I think all these are valid concerns.

We should be cautious about very powerful technologies and their implications.

Science is about knowing the world, technology is about changing it. Often technology pushes ahead even when the science is not well understood because of powerful profit motives or political agendas.

The deployment of technology is not a scientific question, it is bound up with politics and power and is coloured by cultural prejudice, often in a way that we are not even aware of. Eugenics lost its appeal only after Hitler, but there was a time when it was promoted as a great way to "improve" the human race and transhuman type would probably have cheered it back then while dismissing all opponents as religious zealots. I am sure some religious people did oppose eugenics because of a deeply ingrained notion against playing God, but that didn't invalidate their oppositions, nor did it vindicate eugenics enthusiasts.

Track record proves that we are not very good at seeing the implications of adopting new technology on mass scale and there is a tendency for futurist types to be blinded by the promise of new technology while paying little notice to its possible down sides.

I don't believe being "pro science" means blindly cheer leading any new technology and gadget that come along.

1867. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130404 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 1:07 pm

My theory is that Bishop is a bot that has apparently fooled all of you into thinking that it is a real person.

Some AI guy is doing the Turing test on this site. Expect a new AI thread announcing that someone in RDnet has successful created a machine that passes the Turing test.

Bishop is the name of the android in Alien 2.That gives it away.

1868. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130379 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Actually the "tests" are more often like entrapments and the people who suffer the consequences of some people's "free will" are seldom the perpetrators but their victims. A PR firm which can only come up with such lame spins would have gone out of business long ago.

1869. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130357 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 12:08 pm

A few words on falsifiability in science.

While Popper's criterion of falsifiability (as a necessary but not sufficient condition for a scientific theory) is a sensible one but as it is often the case real science is more nuanced and complex than its philosophical caricatures.

In practice the application of the falsifiability criterion is not as straight forward and unambiguous as some people may believe, especially in the frontier of the "big sciences" such as high energy physics.

Roger Penrose offered the example of Dirac's magnetic monopoles.No one has ever seen one and attempts to search for them have failed so far.But that doesn't disprove their existence because all you need is one magnetic monopole somewhere in the vast universe. So even though logically the statement "magnetic monopoles exist" is either true or false, in reality one can never empirically establish its falsehood because that would require an exhaustive search throughout the universe.

If Popper's criterion strictly applies any theory that predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles (as a key prediction) is in fact unfalsifiable and should be discarded, But that is not how most working physicists think. Penrose pointed out there are often other compelling theoretical and mathematical reasons to consider such theories, even though one cannot give a list of crisp criteria for rejection like Popper did,

Science is always in a flux and the final word is never spoken, it is always a work in progress, This is especially true in the frontier where there are often several competing theories with varying degrees of completeness and maturity while there is no definitive theory in sight. As Penrose noted, in such cases lack of falsifiability in some key predictions alone is rarely enough to kill a candidate theory if it has promises in other fronts. Instead one would continue to try to modify it or tease out its consequences, hoping to connect with empirical tests. A good candidate theory has to be sufficiently robust to allow such modifications, yet sufficiently rigid so that it doesn't become ad hoc. In some sense, a candidate theory is a process, not a finished thing. In practice science is very much an art.

Popper's criterion applies to the end product,--in a rather obvious way to scientists,-- but active research must incorporate broader considerations.So while some lay people and philosophers put him on a pedestal he didn't really say anything particularly insightful that the research scientists don't already know.

1870. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130021 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I find what he said about the book of Ecclesiastes quite interesting. Based on his description it almost sounds like an atheist manifesto.Who would have thought that it is a book in the Bible.

1871. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129621 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 11:40 am

Mphil,

Remember, our introspective, first-person accounts are not more authoritive than third-person accounts. In fact, introspection has proven to not be very reliable.

I don't know how does "reliability" come in in the context of the exchange. No one argues that introspection is a reliable way to discover "truth" (at least scientific truth, are there other kinds of "truths"? That is a tricky problem depending on definition and I don't want to get into it)

Richard describes science in poetic and aesthetic terms, as do other great scientists such as Einstein and Feynman. Many scientists relate great moments of discovery, those moments of great inspirations when something sudden just clicks. Now these are first personal accounts of why they do science and what led to some great scientific discoveries. These are "irrational" impulses and factors,--or rather "arational",--in that they cannot be reduced to rationality and logic.

There maybe a theory for the "irrational" impulses behind the creative and discovery process, which is a rational explanation for what goes on in the deep psychological, neurological or chemical level, --take your pick,-- but that such an explanation exists doesn't prove the point that science is "rational" all the way and that we can do great science,--not to mention the arts,--by simply being rational. The scientists themselves say this ain't the case.(To quote Feynman, "you gotta have taste to do physics or you'll be lost in a maze of irrelevant details". "Taste" is not reducible to logic) That was my whole point,

A rational theory of what is beneath our irrational or "arational" impulses may be interesting, but it doesn't address the question of whether science (or the arts and indeed civilization itself) is possible without these impulses, It addresses entirely different questions at other levels.

1872. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129603 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 11:11 am

Steve,

Thanks.I'd better get back to work. :)

1873. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129585 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

82abhilash.

You offer rational explanations to why people do things which to their minds cannot be captured by logic,--such as aesthetics and passion, compulsion etc,-- this is not the same as arguing people, even scientists, are motivated by rationality.

What you give, citing Dannette, is a third person account of an observer, not what people actually experience when they go about living their lives, doing science etc. I was talking about what actually motivates people to do what they do, not theories of how these motivations may arise.

I think a civilization of DATAs is impossible because all of arts and sciences would be pointless, I don't disagree that we can manage our primitive urges and should. The point is that there is no "cure" and that a "cure" is not desirable if that means eliminating all our propensities that would lead to religion,-- broadly the "irrational" urges.That is what the word "cure" is commonly understood, you don't "cure" diabetes by putting someone on a daily regime of insulin treatment. That is management.

DATA does not manage his primitive irrational urges, he has none. He is "cured".

Incidentally, "curing" irrationality by turning people into drones also smell of the brave new world and social engineering gone mad, But I won't get into that.

1874. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129580 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:38 am

Podaar

Except perhaps: reason, evidence, scientific discovery and discussion.

I am not exactly sure how science, reason and evidence would remove that inner world.

For many people what they experience is more "real" than explanations. It is visceral, just like most people believe in what they see even though somewhere back in their minds they remember their grade 12 physics teachers have told them about optical illusions..

1875. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129573 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:26 am

Podaar,

The fact is we live in the 21st century where there is a wealth of explanations based on evidence.

What if your purpose of believing is personal and you are not interested in explanations of physical phenomena?

I don't know how many religious people you actually talk to, but in my sample many are not awefully interested in scientific kind of explanations, of how things work. To them religion is not a poor substitute for science. They seek something else, something more subjective, like comfort and meanings. It is a psychological coping mechanism, To them science is just about riddles, they are more interested in a personal God that speaks to them,

I gave my mother TGD as a Christmas present and she went hysterical on me after looking up the word "delusion" from a dictionary. She said it as much, her belief might be opium but she was addicted and it was rude and unkind for me to take it away from her. No discussion and logical arguments really, that was something extremely personal to her.

Most people in my experience don't have a consistent religious belief. The everyday Christians are more vague in their beliefs than what Church pronouncements may lead you to think.

1876. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129567 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

hao,

That's misleading. Not all religious beliefs involve an after life

But most do. I would say early Judaism is an anomaly.

Our awareness of our own death might be one reason why such ideas and beliefs appeal to a lot of people but it can not be the central 'reason' for the evolutionary development of religion. It's an important distinction.

You're right that it is not the only reason, but I think it is still a most important reason, another one, which is not unrelated, is that as an intelligent species we do experience and inner world.

1877. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129564 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:09 am

Ian Bamlett,

Not hard to see how this all got started really is it?

Coping for external hardship is only one reason for belief, certainly it is more than that.

Even if all external challenges are overcome we still can't escape the fact that we experience an "inner world" in our mind quite apart from the outside world. This makes it possible for us to engage in introspection and conjure up a simulated world in our head. The divide of the internal world of mental representations and the external physical world gives rise to a feeling of other worldliness. It is the source of existential anxiety and a fertile ground for religious belief.

There is no "cure" for that short of a lobotomy.

1878. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129550 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:42 am

Steve

It's all about how our minds model other minds. This is far from perfect, but allows us to function as social beings. The problem is that our filters for determining what has minds and what doesn't aren't that good. This leads to the idea of Nature being full of spirits - in the animals, the trees, and rivers...

Well put. There are some autistic children who were born without the ability to model other minds, as you put it. While we know that it is very difficult for them to interact with others and have a social life, it would be interesting to find out if they also tend to have a lesser propensity to imagine Gods and spirits, if that can be somehow formulated in a scientifically testable hypothesis.

1879. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129544 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Geoff

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find a cure, though?

Well I am not so sure about that.

I don't think gullibility alone accounts for religious beliefs and sentiments. There are other traits which bias people towards religion such as the desire to find deeper meanings, the tendency to make associations, the awe for existence, the ability for introspection and abstract thinking. For example, the ability to anticipate our own death and imagine an afterlife is the most potent driving force behind all religious beliefs. This would not be possible without the capacity to abstract thinking and mentally simulate situations beyond our immediate environment.

There is an upside and downside to everything. Traits such as ability to think abstractly, to feel awe, beauty and passion underly not only religious beliefs, but also all arts and sciences. None of these can be captured by logic and rationality,

Science is a rational enterprise in terms of its methodology, but rationality alone doesn't explain why people do science. Richard talks of awe and beauty and describes science in a language which is almost poetic. These are all subjective and appeal to the emotion. Passion and aesthetics cannot be reduced to rationality and logic, neither are the creativity and the compulsive obsessiveness that are necessary for great science.

I think civilization would be impossible if we are "cured" of our "irrationality" and all become like DATA in Star-Trek. He is just a glorified information processor.

1880. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129532 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

al rawandi,

I didn't mean you were an idiot. I meant that people who still hold on to irrational beliefs are generally known as "idiots".

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My apologies for the snide remark.

1881. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129515 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:43 am

al-rawandi,

The blockquote you provide. In layman's terms "idiots".Religion had some evolutionay value, granted

However people hold on to it in a way we haven't seen anywhere else. It isn't like the religious also like to climb trees and fling feces.... oh wait nevermind.

Well I am the idiot who wrote the origin message,

I didn't say what people should do, I was only suggesting a reason why people do what they do.

Also, I didn't say religion itself has evolutionary value, but it is a byproduct. In the end it may have some value or not, but that is a scientific question which can only be settled through evaluating the data and evidence, not whether we like the conclusion or not.

1882. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129508 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

An attempt to justify religious belief in scientific terms. Its just a marketing ploy.

How is it justification? Belief may or may not be "genetic",--depending on what you mean by that,--but that is a scientific proposition which can only be evaluated by looking at data and evidence, You are saying that it should be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't like the conclusion. It is not a scientific attitude,

BTW, there is nothing supernatural in this study.

1883. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129502 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:21 am

avatarIt seems obvious to me that people believe in a god because they're told it has merit and virtue by their parents! Is this really in need of study? Would my granddaughters come up with a god figure on their own if their mother didn't take them to Sunday school? Hardly! I know my granddaughters well and they think their mother *is* God

I find this kind of dogmatic attitude distressing. It is true that many people subscribe to religious beliefs because of their cultures and upbringing, but how do you explain people who convert to other religions or "ex-atheists",--yes, they do exist,--who become religious in adulthood?

Even though I don't have the data, but anecdotal experience seems to suggest that culture and upbringing in itself cannot explain the intensity of belief. Those who come to their faith through what you call indoctrination tend to be lukewarm believers and many actually drift away from their religions in later life, at least that seems to be the case in the developed world where individuals are not coerced by law to remain religious.Based on their testimonies, people who believe fervently seem to go through some kind of searching process on their own, especially those who are a bit older and have some experience in life . While we may not agree with their reasoning process, it is wrong and unscientific to simply say that they believe because of childhood indoctrinations,

I don't think religious belief itself is hardwired, but it is very likely that it is a byproduct of some traits that are. For examples, the tendency to see patterns even when there is none and the propensity to ascribe agency and intentions. These are probably very important survival instincts for our ancestors: if you mistaken a predator for a rock, you will surly be eaten so there is certain advantage in being cautious and seeing things as alive, even though sometimes you may err in thinking that there is a saber tooth tiger while it fact it is only a rock.

If I remember correctly Justin Barrett is a Christian but he has done some interesting work on the origins of religious belief with Scott Atran, who is an atheist.

1884. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129215 by Bonzai on February 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm

qster,

Further to that, To assume that a mind requires a brain is to simplify the issue a bit isnt it? why do we think that the mind exists in the brain only

What does a "mind",--at least what we can identify as a "mind",-- consist of if it doesn't have sensory input? What is "pure consciousness" like? Imagine yourself, detached from all bodily experience , all that is physical. We know it is the physical that endows you with your unique personality, for I can drastically change all that is you by changing your physical state,--through frontal lobe surgery, drugs, hormones etc.

So without the physical what is left of your "soul"? Pure computational power?

1885. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #129192 by Bonzai on February 18, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Steve,

Also, it looks like the entanglement argument (favoured by people like Roger Penrose) is wrong - it seems to have been clearly dismissed by Lawrence Krauss (sadly!)

I don't think that is Penrose's argument. Even exploiting entanglement, the notion of computability does not change. QM computers may speed up some computations, but they still define the same set of Turing computable functions. Penrose argues that consciousness,--whatever that means,-- involves (Turing) noncomputable mechanisms, thus Quantum computers would not address his concerns (if those concerns are valid)

He goes further than that. His idea has to do with some kind of gravity induced collapse of the wave function,--objective reduction.

Based on my decidedly sketchy understanding Penrose's "theory of the mind" consists of two parts.

1) Models based on Turing computability,--whether with "classical" or quantum computers,--are in principle incapable of explaining consciousness because, he argues, consciousness must involve Turing non computable mechanisms. 2) Objective reduction may provide the key noncomputable mechanisms, somehow, if it is true.

I think Penrose's main interest is still physics, in particular the relation of QM and gravity. He is convinced that there is something wrong with QM in the way it is understood today. His "theory of the mind" sounds like just an interesting side alley which he thinks an overarching new QM might shed some important light on, but I don't think that is where he invests his time and energy.

Also, I think we shouldn't confuse Hameroff's ideas with Penrose's. It seems that Penrose found something interesting in Hameroff's micro tubulars and wrote a paper or two with him on that but that was it. Penrose never endorses Hameroff's more outlandish ideas such as those he espoused on the Beyond Belief conference.In fact he is quite skeptical of ideas along similar lines as he explained in his book "the road to reality".

1886. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128700 by Bonzai on February 17, 2008 at 5:13 pm

JDCherry,

His beliefs are truly religious. "Singularitarianism" is an eschatology, and a misanthropic, dehumanizing one at that. To these people all that humans basically are is computers. We need to build more computers and stronger computers for computers sake. Eventually the whole universe must become a computer. I find it offensive.

Hear, hear. Exactly my thought.

The geeky types do often fall into the trap of thinking that humans are just brains in jars. The brain may be our central processor, but it is our bodily experience that makes us who we are. There is something graceful and beautiful about an agile human form or an expressive face. There is something noble and romantic about struggling against one's limitation and transcending it. There is more to life than barren functionalism and increasing brain power through technological fix. It would be a pity if all that is left of humanity is a disembodied mind.

1887. Sharia fiasco

Comment #128061 by Bonzai on February 16, 2008 at 2:30 am

oisha

I attributed this to the fact that the swastika is not as abhorred in her society as it is in most of Europe and indeed Australia, and I attempted to communicate to her the tacit endorsement of certain Nazi behaviours which it symbolises

Growing up in Hong Kong I think I do understand where your friend is coming from.

Nazi symbols such as the swastika don't have the same significance in Asia because of the different historical context. These items are widely available in novelty stores and hobby stores. They are simply seen as collector items and memorabilia by many people. The people may be naive but they are quite innocent.

On the other hand, symbols of imperial Japan have much more profound connotations in Asia.

A few years ago a Hong Kong fashion magazine published pictures of young female models in seductive posts, dressed up in WWII German military uniform. They were pulled after complaints from the German and Israeli embassies. The locals seemed to have no clue what the big fuss was all about. However, I cannot imagine any Asian company using Japanese imperial army outfits and symbols as marketing gimmicks, though I have seen that quite often in novelty stores in North America. My late grandmother would shake with horror when she saw a Samurai sword because she had witnessed Japanese soldiers beheading people with such swords.

Cultural sensibility has a historical context.

I know this is not your main point, I just find it interesting so I want to make a comment.

I agree with you and al-rawandi on Islam/Muslim.

1888. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #127132 by Bonzai on February 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

Cmon, at least the Muslims have to stones to call me what I am

Sure sound like you're stoned.

1889. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126123 by Bonzai on February 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm

We should always keep an open mind.

That is rich. Open to what? The idea that you are right because it is written in some old books even when all evidence and experience say you are wrong? That we should open to the possibility that declared dogmas and half baked spins trump observations, data and careful analysis?

How does your position represent open mindedness if you reject all evidence contrary to your dogmas from the get go?

1890. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126075 by Bonzai on February 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

agn:

These people will only balk at one thing:
Become too terrified to engage in criminal acts.

al-rawandi:

But I thought they longed to die and go to heaven?

Maybe we can force feed them roast pig and pork chops for dinner if they don't confess?

1891. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125597 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Maher is not even funny, just comes across as a smart ass IMHO.

1892. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125560 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm

HughCaldwell,

It's just inconceivable that in all of Jewish and Islamic culture, there is no applicable input to legal proceedings in the UK.

There might be. But in that case why should these features be applied only to Jews or Muslims? Shouldn't they be incorporated into the general legal code if they are indeed valuable to the U.K as a whole?

IMO it is hypocritical (and probably even racist)for a "mainstream" British to endorse Sharia courts for Muslims but would not allow himself to be subjected to laws based on the same philosophy of judirispudence.

1893. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125493 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I'm surprised an enlightened university such as Oxford still has a mandatory retirement age. In America those rules have generally been abolished.

I don't know if he is retiring as in taking a pension and stop being a professor. He probably just meant vacating his post as the Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science, it is probably a position with a fix term like a research chair.

1894. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125492 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 12:52 pm

They can in China - so I read. Can I find the article? Can I hell!

Here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3656180.stm

To echo your point about the Chinese model

Beijing's tight control over religious practice means Chinese Muslims have been isolated from trends sweeping through the rest of the Islamic world.

According to Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl from the University of California in Los Angeles, that means that ancient traditions like female jurists - which have been stamped out elsewhere - have been able to continue in China.

"The Wahhabi and Salafis have not been able to penetrate areas like China and establish their puritanical creed there," said Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl.

1895. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125428 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:57 am

I should add that my issue of Sharia goes beyond applying different laws to different communities, though that is a major objection.

In addition, Sharia is based on a philosophy (regarding gender in this context) which is utterly repugnant to the modern mind, It is not a system that we would subject ourselves to as non Muslims, thus it comes across as doubly objectionable.

It is as if saying that Muslim women deserve less rights simply because of the culture they were born into. If this is not racism I don't know what is.

Another message is that you, Muslims, can and should stay in the bubble we create for you as long as you keep your objectionable practices to yourself and leave us in peace. "Keep your shit to yourself" is perversely euphemized and marketed as "tolerance" and "social harmony" This is patronizing and despicable. It does injustice to Muslim women twice.

1896. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125416 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

HughCaldwell,

Why bother having Beth Din Jewish courts? If there is no call for such courts, they'll just fade away. Since, I believe, they are flourishing, there's obviously a demand for them, however pointless you may think they are. A little tolerance, please.

Jewish courts were banned in Ontario, Canada, as well. How is it "intolerant" to insist that there should be one law for all and that all citizens should be protected by the law to the same extent regardless of religion? I think you are trying to push hot buttons here. It may work in other websites but not here.

Recourse to community courts would be voluntary and national law would take precedence.

It has been pointed out numerous times that "voluntary participation" is only in theory. If Sharia is recognized Muslims would be pressured into participating, especially Muslim women who newly emigrate and don't know their legal rights and their way around. In Ontario, even when incorporating Sharia into family law was only in the discussion stage some Imams already told their congregations that it was apostasy if Muslims chose to go to Canadian courts while the Sharia option was available.

For how "voluntary participation" works in some real life situations, see http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2245,What-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination,Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown-The-Independent,page1#125385

1897. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125394 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:05 am

Well just heard in the news that the ArchBishop has backtracked, This morning he said that he was merely posing a question and inviting discussions. He reiterated his right to "talk about the issue".


I am sure you can find a link.

1898. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125388 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:57 am

HughCaldwell,

If the Bishop is saying that only those parts of Sharia that are compatible with British law should be incorporated why bother introducing Sharia in the first place? There is already the real court system.

And who is to decide whether a Sharia ruling is compatible with British law or not? I don't presume your Sharia administering Imams would have British Law degrees. Would we allow people without legal training to sit as judges in any real British court?

In addition, the law is not just about applying rules mechanically in situations. There is an entire philosophy behind any legal system. Based on what I understand the philosophy behind Sharia is entirely alien to the Western secular legal system.

1899. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125385 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:50 am

Rastararians?

I think pot should be legalized for everyone.

1900. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125370 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:35 am

HugeCaldwell,

I'm having trouble figuring out what we mean by 'laws'. Beth Din (Jewish courts) lay down all sorts of rules which consenting Jews are supposed to obey. I imagine anything Islamic would be the same. This is my idea of multiculturalism.

Well people make private agreements and settlements out of court all the time, But these agreements are not automatically legally binding. They don't have formal legal status and participants can always back out in case a court decision is sought,

If this is how "Sharia courts" work then they don't require any legal recognition. But by enshrining them into legal system the state is granting Sharia special status that other private agreements don't enjoy and effectively formalizing Sharia court rulings in the law. That must not be allowed to happen.

I don't know how Jewish courts work but in my province Ontario, Jewish courts are stripped of their legal status as well after the rejection of Sharia. As our Premier puts it, there is only one law in Ontario, no religious courts, period. I think that is great.