Comments by Steve Zara

2151. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199770 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 10:43 am

Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all

Pure tosh.

Collecting vast quantities of data alone isn't science. Venter presumably had models of what would be sufficient genetic difference to qualify as the identification of a new species.

Collecting huge amounts of data and statistically analysing this has always been part of mainstream science. There is no change in the scientific method that results from that.

2152. A War On Science

Comment #199766 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 10:39 am

The Christian God at least is not supposed to have that many parameters:

size -> infinite
goodness -> infinite
power -> infinite
extension in time -> infinite

2153. A War On Science

Comment #199738 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 9:18 am

As far as the question of god is concerned, I think the evidence speaks for itself and the razor is largely unnecessary.

I think it really helps, once one understands that minds are of necessity hugely complex.

2154. A War On Science

Comment #199715 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 8:30 am

One good reason I like regarding Ockham's Razor is that it is literally economical. Fewer entities to investigate means less requirement for grant money :)

Science helps to overcome limitations of human nature. We do sometimes hold ideas dogmatically, even as scientists. The scientific process, which includes things like peer review, forces us, in the end, to deal with reality.

2155. A War On Science

Comment #199691 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:43 am

Comment #199688 by rationalE

Facts fall on both of this line, depending on the source you take side with.

They don't. There is a very well-established process of investigating reality. Perhaps the most powerful principle of that method is Ockham's Razor - don't unnecessarily multiply entities. That puts God out of the picture in any useful discussion of reality.

A detailed discussion of why is possible if you wish.

Relax, the thought of a higher power isn't weakness

It is either ignorance or arrogance. Ignorance of the scientific method and how it works, and what it has revealed, or arrogance to dismiss that method and put personal beliefs first.

2156. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199684 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:31 am

Comment #199683 by Scot Rafkin

Hi Scot!

It's ever worserer. If they don't like people, God will do nasty things to those people:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/ray_comfort_answers_a_question.php

I loved the way Comfort finished things off:
"You live in an imaginary world. I suggest you get out more."

2157. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199681 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #199676 by Vaal

I think it is worse than that. It is more like that the universe loves them so much, it arranges for the ball to go into the hole just for them.

2158. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199673 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:17 am

Al -

It has taken me some time to realise the full implications of a belief in theism. I doubt most religious people realise them either.

2159. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199669 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:12 am

Steve you're a man of extraordinary endurance

I was just so utterly fascinated by that worldview, and its resistance to reason. After a year or more, I think I understand it a bit more, and I would be far less patient. This whole strange idealistic structure was built on the idea of Jesus and the Trinity, and yet it still managed to stand somehow even though every attempt to justify it scientifically was shown to be flawed (and there were some pretty weird justifications).

2160. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199667 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #199660 by Shmeezers

the arrogance of the atheist comes out in stark clarity...

You are the one claiming the universe centres around you. That it cares for you.

You believe that you have an ability to identify when a phenomenon is forever beyond rational natural explanation. That is a pretty astonishing capability.

You rate your own thoughts and feelings above those of some of the greatest scientists and philosophers.

And you call atheists arrogant?

2161. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199611 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 4:19 am

Comment #199609 by phil rimmer

Further, it occurs to me that we can better pressurize others to change if our own house is fully in order?

Indeed, that was my thinking.

2162. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199600 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 4:00 am

You are probably too polite if anything.

That has been pointed out before!

(Yet another failing to deal with :)

2163. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199590 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 3:27 am

But I recoil, I denounce and I vomit over such a disgusting proposition as that. That you are unable to see that the disgusting tenets of religion are not to be given even the first time of day - not the slightest fucking nod towards acceptance in any form whatsoever - makes me question your knowledge, experience and thinking.

You are probably going to have a problem with Richard Dawkins' occasional collaborations with the Bishop of Oxford, working to help promote science teaching in the UK.

2164. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199587 by Steve Zara on June 26, 2008 at 3:23 am

Sorry for the last post or two. I have an allergic reaction to generalisations. I will have to learn to not rise to the bait. I admit suffering from hurt pride when told I am not arguing well in terms of rationality, but pride is a failing!

I have been following issues of equality for some time; both in terms of women's rights and gay rights. I agree that things have progressed significantly. However, I have always thought that it was the bit of inequality that would be hardest to achieve, because of complacency. Equality does not mean having the same roles, or doing precisely the same jobs. But it does mean having the same worth in society, and not being excluded from opportunities, and that goal has not yet been achieved, as I have seen from the experience of friends.

I don't think this is a matter of having issues of relative importance: there is no reason why equality should not be fought for on all fronts.

Anyway... I rose to the bait because I have friends who have experienced this inequality.

2165. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199150 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

I am quite calm - that only took a minute ...

however, I have noticed a tendency to put my foot in my mouth in the last few days, so more considered and careful posting may be necessary, after I had a think about things. No offence intended - I thought I was posting quite politely.

I am not saying Al's post was out of line at all. He has taught me a lot, and changed my mind about many things. But sometimes I need to step back and review my thoughts and arguments in order to see that.

So, apologies if my post seemed abrupt or rude. That was not the intention. I just thought it would be rude to simply disappear for a while, even if it is just a few days!

2166. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199113 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:39 am

Comment #199111 by al-rawandi

Is this the kind of rationalism you promote for making social change?

I always think that when I get that hot-under-the-collar-annoyed feeling when posting, it is time for a short break :) (at the very least I need to consider why my thinking here has been labeled as poor rationalism - this could be correct)

Back sometime soon (you know I can't resist)! No hard feelings to anyone - enjoy your conversations!

2167. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199106 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:29 am

Thanks for the link. It looks like a conference focusing on Indigenous Australians. However, I think I was talking about American feminism... which I think epeeist addressed.

But that is something to be concerned about, isn't it? This is an international website, and if you use terms like "feminist" and "liberal", then many are going to assume more international interpretations.

This is one of the problems with even well-intentioned generalisations.

Comment #199094 by AllanW

I realise any given set of statistics has to be questioned, but it is illustrative of a general problem. I should have qualified that I was not considering the article necessarily accurate, but indicates an issue that still has to be addressed, in contrast to TOCT's original statement.

There is still considerable work for feminists to do.

2168. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199087 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 7:12 am

Comment #199077 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

re: equal pay

As far as I can tell that just isn't true.

Sadly, it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/01/1968theyearofrevolt.gender1

"Forty years on, many campaigners are asking why it is that men and women are still paid such different rates. The UK is one of the worst in Europe in terms of the gender divide, with women in full-time work being paid, on average, 17 per cent less than their male counterparts. When it comes to part-time work, the figures are much worse. The gap is enormous - a 36 per cent gap between the sexes."

2169. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199070 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 6:55 am

No problem. Simply show me one instance where feminists are talking about priorities in the world and are ranking problems like the ones I mentioned ahead of whether they can get together and smoke cigars at the Elks club.

http://www.brisfeministconference08.org.au/

2170. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199058 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 6:29 am

I have a problem with language.

I believe strongly in equal rights for women in every respect. I just can't believe that they still get paid less for the same work in many supposedly civilised country.

That makes me a feminist, doesn't it?

It is like my politics. By any standards, I am a "liberal".

I find any phrase that generalises about feminists or liberals difficult. I have to overcome the barrier of the generalisation first.

Perhaps there is a way of being more specific? What to people think?

2171. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199039 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 5:37 am

Comment #199035 by decius

Anyone who could recapitulate his story for me?

1. Atheists are nasty.
2. David Robertson's posts are a guilty pleasure.
2. Funny experience (haven't bothered to read, to be honest).
3. Therefore God.

2172. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199030 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #198988 by Richard Morgan

Why would I be interested in a conversion experience?

You know as well as I do about the nature of subjective experience and how it should not be trusted.

Do you have any logical or rational arguments for a belief in the supernatural?

2173. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199015 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:45 am

The problem is that in everyday use...

"philosophy" = "just finkin', innit?"

2174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #199012 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:26 am

Comment #198985 by epeeist

That is fascinating. It always amuses me when people say we only use 10% of our brains, or something like that. Then you see people walk more slowly when they are using a mobile phone!

2175. Carlin on Religion

Comment #199011 by Steve Zara on June 25, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #199010 by latsot

I apologise because I did not get the appropriateness of the comment in the context of Carlin.

But also because I could have been offended quietly, and not had the arrogance to post about it.

2176. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198881 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Comment #198880 by Goldy

"You lookin' at me?"

Corylus gives wise advice.

2177. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198823 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm

But I think there is something to be said for being reminded about what this site's mission is and why I want to contribute *here* and not somewhere else ^_^

I think the site's mission is being accomplished with great success. I see "memes" about how to recognise and deal with irrationality spreading here. I have learned a phenomenal amount from conversations here, and with people I have met here. I hope and believe others have too.

This site clearly must be successful in this respect, as posts here have influence - just look at the recent reaction the Discovery Institute to an article.

2178. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198810 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #198805 by Sciros

I have been using the internet since the 80s, and chatting on forums since the early 90s. This is just the way things are. It really isn't going to change. There are people here who may sound strident, but you get used to them, and sometimes you discover they have a very good reason for being strident.

I have to say I do find it rather amusing to see people debating furiously with a combination of passion, strong language and an amazing knowledge of facts (yes, that does include you, Al!)

Each site has its own nature. I think there is generally a good atmosphere here, certainly far better than on some other sites I have visited.

This is what you get with freedom of speech - an open site, with very little moderation. I think it is valuable.

2179. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198776 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Comment #198773 by Urim

I don't pick up that meaning. What I read into what she wrote was that faith isn't about thinking (cognition) but feeling (perception). Faith is when you trust feelings over reason. That makes sense to me. Both are neurological.

2180. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198758 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #198750 by Urim

She wrote this piece in the Saturday Guardian faith column a few weeks ago which read like warmed over Alister tripe.

Actually, It seems mostly pretty good to me (apart from the assumption that the "selfish gene" idea is teleological). I think it describes the psychology of things pretty reasonably.

What I can't understand is how someone can realise all this, and still believe.

2181. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198753 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Comment #198752 by phil rimmer

Sorry. I was kicking a corpse, wasn't it?

2182. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198748 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #198747 by clearmind

How does God create things?

2183. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198717 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:46 am

George was also in
adventures with Bill and Ted
historically

2184. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198696 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

The scavenger flies
to the hydrocarbon peak
to show us our doom

2185. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198683 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:13 am

You have a preconceived bias that colors what you saw and heard.

I did not say who was considered to have won the debate. I simply said that I happened to like Atkins' style most of the time.

This debate illustrates why I think such events are pointless, and why I would not take part in one. You can't get reasoned live debate between people who won't agree the rules about what constitutes reason and evidence.

2186. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198664 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:56 am

fatalistic wit
bypasses a solo mind
a learning follows

2187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198644 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #198639 by epeeist

What a good point. He also places himself above theologians and popes.

Just to extend this a little before I go and let people hit me with bits of metal.

Aren't you supposed to... you know.. stop them a bit?

2188. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198617 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

Ah well.

Foot in mouth again.

Sorry. Especially to Teratornis.

2189. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198612 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #198608 by Teratornis

I am not actually a huge fan of Carlin. I did not know his work that well. This is not about what is sacred. I do know that many were upset by his loss, and to say that "Everyone is replaceable" is just crass, no matter who died.

2190. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198596 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #198556 by clearmind

(Sorry people, I can't resist just this once)

Hey - how did God make the "art" in the world?

2191. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198571 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #198569 by Teratornis

What an appaling and tasteless comment.

2192. Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

Comment #198560 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 8:58 am

Where DID those other women come from that Adam's and Eve's son married?

There is an answer to that:
http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html

2193. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198552 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

theIdiot-

You do seem to have got things all twisted up.

There aren't just two options - religion or hard rationalism.

We aren't vulcans or robots. We live emotional and lives, and that is good. Our feelings are vital for our interactions with others.

The problem with religion is that it prevents open discussion of certain feelings, and it gives them divine backing.

"I don't like gay people" can be discussed.
"My religion does not approve of homosexuality" becomes protected by both the speaker's own feelings that God is on their side, and also by the taboo against criticising religion.

Religion is a serious problem in a society that desires fairness, as it allows groups to claim privilege.

As for Atran, I am not a fan, I am afraid. I find his denial of the clear evidence of the testimonies of those who commit acts in the name of religion puzzling.

2194. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #198520 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #198518 by theIdiot

And next time someone wants to pass this vile rubbish, this dimwitted secular myth, as scientific, or informed, pass me the bucket so I can vomit.

Sorry to upset your stomach, but it is not just scientific, but the only rational way to deal with an understanding of reality.

Belief in God is dangerous because it gives people the feeling of certainty and divine authority. It bypasses conscience and self-analysis.

2195. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198515 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #198496 by Am I Evil?

Very nice!

But, you have missed out a section:

"from my experience of kitchen, and the nature of kitchen, and what I see within kitchen, I view the tables and the chairs and having viewed them, I see that I have the understanding - the realisation - that the context of the furniture and all it entails, embodies the very essence of what I feel to be leading up to [and so on for about an hour ...] the feeling of a belief that I would like egg and chips, and so this provides a foundation for my appetite."

2196. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198511 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:17 am

I am surprised at the negative comments regarding Atkins. I thought Atkins was great - I like his abrasive personality, and direct statements.

2197. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #198463 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #198461 by Oystein Elgaroy

I think I vaguely remember something from a Scientific American article a year or two back, which said that black holes produced by the LHC would be unstable even if Hawking Radiation does not occur, and would soon disappear in a burst of particles.

2198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198370 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Do you mind if I contact you in private with some suggestions, so that we don't bother the others? Web design is actually part of my job

Sure. I am also a web designer, but I struggle with the obscure proprietary LiveJournal design language. Advice would be welcome.

2199. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198367 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Comment #198328 by Cartomancer

With the combination of wit, sarcasm and polari, it is astonishing that any gay man ever managed to have a bona time with anyone.

2200. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198365 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Then it is up to me to post:
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/

However, I was serious. I get the impression that blogs, and, increasingly, communities of blogs, are important.