251. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181879 by Mitchell Gilks on May 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

This disgusts me. This reminds me of a dark moment in Canadian history, when a plan was passed by the government known as "white paper" that forcefully removed native children from their homes, and attempted to essimilate them by putting them into catholic schools. Where they were taught that their cultural traditions were evil, their families were hell bound, and were beaten for speaking any native langauges, some of which didn't know english. They were physically mentally and sexually abused under catholic reign, for I believe more than a decade before it was defeated in court. I believe pyschologists have pointed to this event to explain the increase and violence in native communitees in the decades following.

It seems that the catholic educational system is where society's sick and twisted find their home.

252. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181325 by Mitchell Gilks on May 17, 2008 at 12:22 am

The only fault I can find with RD's original statement, is that he clearly thought that the good Rabbi was far more intellectually mature. He allowed for a statement that could be easily misconstrued, and played for emotive purposes, and from my experierence, some people really can't seem to understand what context and conditional statements even mean.

So, I think his misatake was that he thought too highly of Boteach. From the general tone of this reply though, I highly doubt that will happen a second time.

253. The amazing intelligence of crows

Comment #181173 by Mitchell Gilks on May 16, 2008 at 2:24 pm

5. Comment #181071 by Richard Dawkins

The work was done in the lab of my Oxford colleague Alex Kacelnik, and he should have been given credit.

Looked like Betty was the one that bent the wire and fished out the food to me.

254. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181159 by Mitchell Gilks on May 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm

This is old, I watched this some time ago. It is pathetically biased, and idiotic. First the interviewer is a pompus ass, and then he brings on some people to attack RD without him being present to defend himself.

255. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #180610 by Mitchell Gilks on May 15, 2008 at 10:21 am

Bonzai, I also don't know what "non-physical" is supposed to be. As I understand it, it is just a way of talking about things that some people think exist in some sense that can't be described, alluded to, explained, or demonstrated.

I also don't understand materialism, despite constantly being accused of it. If taken as a metaphysical position I will contest it, when taken as a methodology, I won't. The former because I take not metaphysical positions, and the latter because it is rather a truism that we only have the material world to work with.

Now, I'm not a mathematician, and frankly I have no idea what any of the things you said even mean. Though I do think that you misunderstood MPhil.

Mathematics is tautological? Yes? It is build on definitions and abstractions that if properly adhered to their conclusions are necessitated? Mathematics is a refined and formalized version of reason, yes? It requires animals with big brains or programs with well defined and established parameters to perform, yes?

If you agree with that then I think you agree with MPhil no matter what else you may think about mathematics, and it's applicability to reality.

Just as your example with colour, in any case, colour does not exist without visual perception. No matter how abstracted or derived from reality it is. It is still dependent on, and the result of agents like us. I see MPhil as saying nothing more than this, although I may be misunderstanding him.

Especially when both of what you say is heavily jargon-ladden and hard for a poor layman like me to follow.

256. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180133 by Mitchell Gilks on May 14, 2008 at 8:55 am

"There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.) Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the "miracle" without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it . I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that --weakened by age--I have fallen prey to the clergy "…

This quote is simple to understand, and Hume (I believe it was Hume, I'm really bad at remembering names) addressed this very topic in his argument against theism. A miracle is a suspension, or violation of natural law, the only problem with this is that without a complete understanding of nature, we cannot say when something was a suspension or violation or simply a natural event that we did not know about, and had no wittnessed before.

If a limb spontaneously grows back, we have no cause to call this a miracle merely because it has not been wittnessed before this point. If we have defined this impossible by natural law, and then it takes places, clearly our definition and knowledge about the world was flawed. Without omniscience, it is impossible to appraoch a proposed miracle and decern whether it truly transcends nature, or was merely an extremely improbable event.

257. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180128 by Mitchell Gilks on May 14, 2008 at 8:46 am

It's clear that Einstein was a atheist in the exact same sense that I am one. If you read the Wikipedia page on him he lables himself an agnostic more than once, and repeatedly affirms a disbelieve in a god that is a person.

In other words, he doesn't know, but he personally does not think it is the case. I am willing to bet that almost (at least the intellectually honest) every person on here that calls themselves an atheist is an atheist in this sense.

You cannot possess knowledge of something's non-existence. You can only ever say that you personally don't believe it, and there is absolutely no rational way to get from disbelief to belief. There are atheists that pertend to knowledge that they do not possess, and he clearly meant to seperate himself from those people. Especially being a goos scientist, it is of paramount importance to appraoch everything that you don't know tentatively, despite how far you may personally lean toward one direction.

His quote about an intelligence is nature is clearly hyperbole... quite clearly. It's like saying isn't nature brilliant? You don't mean it literally. That would be a clear contradiction to his many statements saying that he thought that a believe in a god that was a person was childish, and his claim that he was a spinozist.

Damn, you really do have to be super careful with what you say if you are a clever guy, there will be tons of people out to quote mine you in an attempt to make it look like you support their position.

258. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179767 by Mitchell Gilks on May 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Saying that he didn't believe in a personal god meant that he didn't believe in a god that was a person. If me wants to call perhaps a singularity that bore the universe god, then fine, whatever. If he wants to call nature god, then that is fine.

Though if you really want to know what he meant by god it is extremely clear, as he said that he believed in Spinoza's god, and spinoza is quite clear on what that is and isn't. Spinoza was also no pantheist. Pantheists consider somethings sacred, and worthy of more than just awe and reverance, where Spinoza did not.

He could have perhaps considered himself a deist, but he would have just been using words differently. If he was refering to something that exists as god, like nature, then he could consider that deism, there is no law that says that he can't define "god" in that way. He would be an atheist though to people that don't share his definition of the word "god" though.

259. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179765 by Mitchell Gilks on May 13, 2008 at 4:57 pm

(*Sigh*) since theists only believe what they would like to be true, naturally nothing is incompatible with what they would like to be true, because they wouldn't like that.

260. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178923 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 8:25 am

Oh yes, I forgot my absolutely favorite proof of god "this orange isn't my dogs grandfather, thus god exists." Yes, it's so obvious now.

261. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178920 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 8:22 am

Well I think that it is equally valid. Theists are always pointing at random things and claiming they are evidence of God. "You, that tree proves god" "babies being born proves god" "bananas prove god" "rationality proves god" "morality proves god" "typos prove god"

I'm beginning to wonder what doesn't prove god. Maybe they should start with that, it would surely be a shorter list.

262. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178910 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 8:10 am

No, we make mistakes because our brains are far from perfect. I'm dyslexic, so I make a great deal of mistakes. This is a result of the language areas of the brain not have as well established connections as other parts of my brain. I'm pretty good at math, and I think I grasp logic alright though, so I have better connections in those parts of the brain.

Our brains are often a jumbled mess. Retreiving only particial memories, and then storing them in a different place than last time. It's because of how connections in the brain form during developement. It's what you'd expect from a blindly evolved system.

There are some people that have crossed connections. Like their number recognition center crossed with their colour recognition center. So that seeing certain numbers also makes them see certain colours.

263. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178897 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 7:56 am

It is the position held by many numerous philosophers,

Many numerous philosophers eh? Wow, that many people hold that position, and believe it? Oh then it must be well supported, and have good reasons to accept it is true...on wait...really? Oh right, that is completely fallacious reasoning. I forgot.

264. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178886 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 7:39 am

You're romanticizing consciousness, morality, and rationality. You are superimposing layers on them that are not required, not evident, and only serve to make you feel special.

There is nothing missing from the puzzle, you are just claiming there is an trying to jam your favorite piece into the board.

265. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178881 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

This is quite a work of sophistry? Where did you get it?

1. No belief is justified if it can be fully explained as the result of nonrational causes.

I don't know what this is suppose to mean. A brains operation being controlled by chemicals and what not is nonrational, but a brain is rational (somewhat anyway). It's a build up, you can't reduce down, and then jump the middle on your way back up.

2. If naturalism is true then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.

On some levels yes, on other levels no. This is denying rationality.

3. Therefore, if naturalism is true no belief is rationally inferred.

You've denied rationality, the word doesn't exist or applies to anything. This is clearly not true, rationality is something we do, it exists, that thing we do when we infer stuff we call rationality. This is question begging

4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, thn it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

Well you forget that not if "naturalism" is true, then this belief isn't rationally infered either, and you have no more reason to accept it than you do to not accept it. This premise clearly assumes that naturalism is false. This is question begging as well.

5. Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

Clearly question begging, and a warped kind of reductionism that is harder to spot.

266. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178873 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 7:17 am

Why posit such a thing without evidence? Why even bother to talk about something that can never be varified or falsified? What's the point? What is the difference between that and sheer imagination? Brain candy? Whimsical speculation not bound by any established parameters? What good is it?

What is your criteria for "best explanation"? What do you consider an explanation?

267. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178868 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 7:08 am

As I noted on an earlier page, no explanation will be "satisfactory" to you if you consider the only satisfactory answer to be "god did it".

You can call all the answers, explanations, and well supported theories of the brain and moral foundations insufficient, unsatisfactory, and not credible all you like, but the truth of the matter is that you simply don't like those answers. You would rather it be something else, God sits well in your gut, while natural explanations do not. So you base your decision on what you would prefer to be the case.

In which case you are immune to rational discourse, and the best way to sway you is to make you feel better about a natural answer emotionally. Something I don't think many people on here are up to.

268. Computer game's high score could earn the Nobel Prize in medicine

Comment #178784 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 3:33 am

What? A game eh? Well it just so happens that I've yet to meet the game that I couldn't completely obliterate on the hardest difficulty. Nobel prize, here I come!

269. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178779 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 3:09 am

What an excellent interview. It was extremely refreshing to hear RD talk about stuff I've rarely heard him discuss. It was an breath of fresh air from the same old same old. One that I breathed in deeply.

270. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178741 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:43 am

Trying to show me up Epeeist? With your far better formulated explanation of the same thing? Also with your apposite (had to look that word up) lemmata (...that one too)?


One mistake I did notice though, there is actually an estimated 400 billion stars in our galaxy, not 100 billion.

271. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178732 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:20 am

Seriously? What world do you live in were things are assumed true until proven false? That is not this one.

Cats are omnipotent entities hiding their true potential. Are you going to assume this is true until you can disprove it?

Or are you going to use your actual method for determining truth from fiction? Your gut. Whether it feels right to you or not. (*rollseyes*)

272. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178726 by Mitchell Gilks on May 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes.

I'm afraid that is a question begging charlatan assertion. How could you possibly know that?

For your acknowledging the possibility of god thing, I acknowledge the possibility of fairies. I'm still going to need good reasons to think that they exist. Otherwise I'd be begging the question.

Science since Aristotle has always been driven the observation of rationality at the heart of the universe.

Primate projection, and anthropomorphication. Reason is a facualty of the a brain.

Along with many scientists and philosophers I contend that this rationality points to an extra-, non-material origin of the universe.As Paul Davies (not a Christian of course) said: "The impression of design is overwhelming". Scientists (Kepler, Newton et al) looked for and found scientific laws because they believed in a Law-giver.

Appeal to authority/the people fallacy, and a bald assertion. Contend it all you like, try demonstrating it or giving me more than "you feel it in your gut" for me to take you seriously. Uninformed intuition is notoriously unreliable.

Even that aside, say that I did accept the the universe was created, now give me a reason to think it was Yahweh and not Allah.

What you don't seem to understand is how truth about the world is most accurately and reliably determined. It is by coming up with an idea, and then attempting to disprove it. Gathering support for it or falsifying it in this manner. Just presupposing the truth of your ideas is counter to arriving at the actual truth. As any discovery, or any break through, or any amount of aquired knowledge will attest to, the people that discovered it were wrong hundreds of times before they got to right. Admitting, and realising you are wrong is the most important step to getting to right. You require a mechanism for establishing when you have reached a false conclusion. What is the mechanism for religious mode of thought for determining this? If you were wrong, how would you discover it? What do you do in order to deserve true assumptions from falsehoods?

You can't guess or imagine reality. It requires invesitgation, and observation, and always assuming the negative, and attempting to prove yourself wrong. The religious mode of thought is the exact opposite to a scientific mode of thought, and that is why science is proven to work, and religion has never supported any of it's assertion about the world.

Beyond simply presupposing this or that, it is impossible to rationally get from disbelieve to belief. That is where faith comes in, and I think you know it. You must at one point simply take at least one step for granted. That is what is required in every theologian's arguments. They all have at least one controverisal premise that you must just assume, or take for granted, and then they have proved it! Well guess what, I could prove anything I wanted to if I was given just one too. It is hardly impressive.

Come to me when your assertions don't require faith (i.e. question begging, presupposition, acceptance without rational or evidentiary justification) and I'll be completely willing to take anything you have to say seriously. I always am. I not not adverse to the idea of a god, or the supernatural at all, it might exist. I still will require good reasons to believe that it does. Just like UFOs. They could exist, and I have more reason to think they do than supernatural things, but I need good reasons to in fact believe that they do. I will not just question beg and assume they do without jusitifcation. I actually care about holding true beliefs about the world, so I have rather rigid and discriminatory epistemological standard. I don't just let things slide by without meeting my standard because I like the sound of them, unlike you.

273. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178601 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Also, the example of lions killing other animals is clearly a false analogy. Humans kill other animals for food too, and most humans don't have any more of a moral objection to this than lions do. I happen to, but I am unfortunately in a gross minority, so your analogy is clearly fallacious.

Take a social group of any animal, and find one that doesn't play by the rules and is not repremanded, or does not feel the pressure of the consequences of it's actions by members of it's society. That is an accurate analogy, and it is quite clearly demonstrated that their moral and ethic considerations are perscribed by it's members are well. Chimps perscribe how chimps ought to behave toward each other, dogs perscribe how dogs should act, just as humans decide how humans should act.

274. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178588 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I think what Artful means when s/he says that there are no explanations for the things s/he mentions is that their is no explanations that s/he would find satisfactory, or favourable (i.e. God did it.).

When talking about consciousness, it depends on what you mean. Many people take a position that it is something that is more than meaning the conscious facualties of (i.e. awake mind, unconscious mind, subconscious mind, and super-conscious mind) the brain but something different and special to human beings. In which case I think they are asking to explain something that doesn't exist, and get upset when it can't be explained. When it comes to the actual conscious facualties, they seem to be explained quite well with appeals to complexity, and brain developement. Almost all animals are conscious, and what levels of conscious thought they are capable of appears to be directly correlated with what their brains possess. As I explained before, big brains, and high levels of consciousness are likely the bi-product of becoming good at something that increases your survivability. We may be smart simply because it was the by-product of becoming good at throwing a spear or a rock accurately. As cuddle-fish have exceptually large brains as a result of being able to make quick calculations to camoflage. As they got better and faster at it, their brains got bigger, and they likely developed other functions as by-products. Human brains have an exceptual amount of plastisity. We can become good at what we practice a lot.

When it comes to moral outlooks, as demonstrated in other animals it is a mixture of emotion and reason. We have empathy, and are able to put ourselves in other's shoes, as it were. This is not only beneficial to social animals, for building a emotional ties with other members, but it can be beneficial to any animal, to avoid things that it has wittnessed cause other animals harm.

There is much plastisity here as well, as all the differing moral outlooks attest to. Expecting a specific moral outlook to be explained by natural selection misunderstands natural selection. It merely enabled people to be capable of them, it doesn't explain them specifically.

Clearly my moral and ethical outlook is build on completely different ideas and rationales than yours would be Artful, and because of this what I consider moral and ethic may greatly differ from what you do. We have the same foundations, of emotion and reason though. This is easily demonstrated by people like sociopaths that lack these facualties of the brain to demonstrate that they are directly a result of the brain, and you only need wittness how poorly sociopathes operate in society to establish the benefical nature of said facualties.

When it gets into why people do specific things, or why certain specific moral outlooks are formed, that is a job for evolutionary psychologists, and anthropologists, not biologists.

275. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178511 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

It's merely levels of forsight, we are not the only animal with forsight, just the one with the best forsight. Don't believe me, hit your dog three time and then raise your hand. If it flinches, then it must be able to infer that you raising your hand is followed by it getting hit.

None of the qualities of people magically appeared one day. Even language, art, music and things of that nature must be a by-product of other traits that other animals have by lack the proper combinations or developement of certain traits to do it themselves. Everything developed gradually.

It has been suggested (quite plausably in my opinion) that our affinity for mathematics and logic is a by-product of learning to throw spears and rocks accurately, which take extremely powerful and fast calculations, and muscle and limp dexterity in order to do.

276. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178505 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Indeed, Paula. So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then...

Quite clearly, demonstratably, and obviously it comes from human beings. People say what we ought and ought not do. That is how ethics work. We don't go around punching people in the face because they don't want to get punched in the face, and the result of doing so would often result in behaviour that you don't want.

277. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178495 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Clearly holding true beliefs in certain situations is more beneficial than holding false ones, and holding false ones is often neutral to ones survival. For instance; knowing what a bear will do to you if it gets ahold of you is beneficial to your survival. Knowing what will happen if you fall from a high distance is beneficial to you. Knowing what the moon and stars are, or the shape of the planet is not, and that is why we held false beliefs in those areas. We are much more likely to hold false beliefs that do not readily effect our survivability than we are to hold false beliefs that do.

We are mostly concerned about the truth because we are a social animal, and falsehoods are often signs of deception, which we interpret as unethical because we don't like being deceived, and being deceived is often disadvantaging. We like to hold true beliefs because they are beneficial to us. As the practicality of arquiring them has been demonstrated over and over again by science.

278. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178486 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Artful Dodger, that is because he need not address it. It is logically fallacious to suggest that because something is natural, that it is therefore good. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Diseases, cancer, and rape are all natural. Do you think they then must be good? It is only inconsistent if you think that natural equals good. He need not address that it doesn't because he expects everyone listening to already know that it doesn't.

279. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178146 by Mitchell Gilks on May 10, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I think I'd agree with the latter option as well, to an extent.

280. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178071 by Mitchell Gilks on May 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm

And I was all ready to be pissed off when I saw the headline. I get offended everytime I go to the grocery strore... and see disgusting hunks of flesh everywhere. No one seems to care about offending me. That is what I was going to say.

This is obviously not about offending people, but clearly exactly for the reasons offered. It would be foolish to have a main dish of beef on a flight to india which is sure to have a large number of Hindus, no one will buy it. Getting a dish that is far more likely to be popular with Hindus, as well as other people is the best economic and pragmatic course of action.

This news paper seems to be purposely attempting to stir shit.

281. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177339 by Mitchell Gilks on May 9, 2008 at 12:08 am

I think that the cousin of the reductio ad absurdum, the ol'reductio ad hitlerum was perfectly valid. Dawkins merely wanted to explicate that the argument tactic the good Rabbi was fond of was an extremely weak on, of all hot air and no substance. How better to do that than to name the guy most known for that? that they both can agree didn't know what he what he was talking about, but was able to stir up a croud in that manner?

I think that people have to appreciate context. It isn't as if Dawkins accused him of holding any of the same views and ideas. Or attempted to even implie that they had anything else in common.

This seems to be a unjustified knee-jerk reaction to the old "H word" without appreciation for the fact that his comparison was perfectly accurate, and he said nothing that anyone here has disputed or claimed false so far. It isn't a "dirty" word.

If you grow a little square mustash, expect to be reminded of hitler (referencing only his mustash). If you copy his mannerisms, then expect this to be pointed out as well (referencing only his mannerisms). Hitler was a bad guy, we all know, this doesn't mean he can never be mentioned again, or that it is never appropriate to make accurately, and limited uncontroversial comparisons, based on singular qualities.

He compared the guys style of argument, delivery, and public address, that is all. No need to get all flustered.

282. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177169 by Mitchell Gilks on May 8, 2008 at 5:19 pm

"Dear Shmuley. learn2properly form and deliver arguments and points. Stop screaming like a madman, and learn2read up on the things you plan on talking about. Pwnage from your friendly-internationally-known-atheist, RD."

This is exactly how it read to me. I'm just in that kind of mood tonight. PWNED!

(*Edit*) I see I wasn't the only one to get that impression.

283. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176904 by Mitchell Gilks on May 8, 2008 at 10:10 am

65. Comment #176775 by MPhil
"We, your parents have been buying the presents, have been eating the cookies and drinking the milk. Reindeers can't fly" etc.

Wtf mom and dad? You lied to me? Etcetera? ETCETERA? What else? Do I have terminal cancer? Am I adopted? Medicine doesn't help me at all? You just enjoy making me drink something that tastes terrible? Vegetables are bad for you?

You people are dead to me.

284. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176710 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na leader -- leader. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na leader -- leader.

285. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176674 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 9:10 pm

I'm just not a music fan, I listen to music as background noise sometimes, but my ipod is full of things like lectures Japanese instructional mp3s and a couple cds for when I'm too tired to pay attention to the other two.

I'm also not a fan of big crouds, though I don't really avoid them, there are events that I would go to that are crouded.

As for your other reasons MPhil, while philosophical and scientific laymen like me like to stay in our armchairs. I'll let the real philosophers and scientists do the work and then I'll read about it later.

286. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176628 by Mitchell Gilks on May 7, 2008 at 7:56 pm

12. Comment #176544 by Cartomancer

I guess I've never actually been to a religious service of any kind before, so I haven't really got a point of reference for comparison. People tell me that sporting events and musical concerts are similar, but I've never been to one of those either. The closest I've come to experiencing that sort of focussed communal event is probably attending theatrical performances

I have't either. I used to be dragged along to church when I was like 12 and under, but they were boring events that rarely even had a minister, they would listen to tapes. I would sleep or something.

I've never been to a concert or a sporting event either, not my thing. I prefer persuing far nerdier activities.

I'm also blown away at how people can surrender to such obvious nonsense so easily. Though I know such people exist, I'm surrounded by them. I often wonder how it is possible that I turned out with the views and opinions that I did. I have known no one personally, throughout my entire life who shared anything near my views on the world.

287. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #176150 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Excellent talk, I really enjoyed it. Loved that Sagan quote, I will have to remember that. Though every word Sagan ever said was worth remembering. No one inspires like he did.

288. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #176085 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 2:13 pm

This is getting old, I don't want to continue to repeat myself over and over and over again to tell you the same things. I'm sorry that you are having trouble understanding, and I must be extremely poor at conveying myself, but I'm grow tired of attempting and failing to get you to understand what I am saying.

First, I said that if the average person in the UK, and court TV shows are saying claims are evidence, then they are mistaken. Your court system is based on the same things the Canadian court system is set up on.

You assume a normative and objective standard of proof, when I have repeatedly said that no such standard exists. Something is proven to you when you believe it. The thing is, that when you attempt to justify what you believe to more rational people, they can demonstrate that what you accepted as evidence was not evidence, or give you reasons why the evidence that is available is insufficient to establish belief. You cannot proof even deductive propositions to people that are unwilling to accept your proof. You can prove that a red apple is red to someone who is unwilling to accept it. Also, I have repeatedly said that science is the best, not the only system, and have repeatedly not suggested that everyone accepts or agrees with me. I have specially said that I was willing to bet that the majority of the scientific and philosophical community agrees with me, I never once even implied that everyone did.

Even theologians accept that the bible is not evidence and thus it requires faith. When you get into an argument with a theist and show the insufficency of their reasons, they will also bring it back to faith. Unless they are immune to reason, then they will admit that the bible is insufficient to prove anything. That is why they use faith, which is premission to belief something without rational justification. Even they accept this.

The credibility of the person works as evidence for the claim, the claim does not work as evidence by itself. The claim is not evidence in and of itself, which is what I've said repeatedly. Lots of evidence can be established for a claim, with physical evidence in not available, probabolistic evidence is gathered. This requires investigation of the person. Remember the explains of the two types of investigations?

You definition is ambiguous, and tells me nothing, it is a bad definition that has the word it is defining in it. "What's a gloggle?" Oh, well that's the things that are gloggle."

See, I'm explicate, that which tends to prove is sufficient evidence, proper sound a valid logical inferences, or properly demonstrated and worked out mathematical abstractions that lead to a conclusion validly supported by it's equations or premises. That is what tends to prove, per all the other definitions of proof if you care to look. I'm talking about the evidence one.

Testimony in and of itself is not evidence, properly supported testimony rendered credible by invesigation of the person given the testimony is evidence of the testimony, rendering the testimony evidence. The person's credibility is the evidence, not the claim.

So 1. is wrong, "testimony is evidence" is not clearly not true. If they just reason nameless testimony removed from a person it would clearly not be accepted. A person's testimony which has been rendered credibile by an investigation of the person is probabolistic evidence of their tesimony, which then inturn becomes accepted as evidence based on trust of the person who gave the testimony. If a person lies in their testimony they are punished for it, because they themselve take up a responsibility for their claims, and testimony.

I've grown extremely tired of explaining this over and over again. I'm sorry, but this is it, I'm done bothering with this. Clearly I am incapable of explaining this to you, as I am only repeating myself again and again in every recent post.

289. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #175966 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 9:44 am

This seems right to me. I have two autistic young brothers, one 13 and another one 7, and my mother has had a history of depression and personalities disorders.

Only two autistics out of seven of us ain't bad.

290. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175956 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 9:30 am

I love Sam's writing. Fantastic article.

291. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175925 by Mitchell Gilks on May 6, 2008 at 8:44 am

Perhaps it's just the way they do things in England and it's different in Canada/US, but this looks very much to me like (in England at least) giving evidence in court is the way it's put.

Science is universal, and the method is the same everywhere you go. If the common people use that language, and the court room tv shows do too, then they are merely mistaken.

I know. I don't disagree with you. I just get fussy about using a word like "truth". I'm pretty sure scientists don't do things like this. Like they don't say things like "evolution by natural selection is proven". They might say "evolution by natural selection has so much evidence for it that it is as close to proven as anything could be" or some other hedge that avoids the term proven.

Scientists call things facts and proven all the time. If you ask them what they mean by this, they will tell you that they mean that the evidence is strong enough to consider it true (which is the only definition of the word proof that applies to the word, I know you have said you can't find this definition, but it is in every dictionary I've looked in. At dictionary.com is it the very first definition. At m-w.com the first definition is 1 "a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact" which is the same thing. There are other ways to use the word, but this is the only proof we have for things about the world. We only have provisional truths.) so one can confidently accept it as a provisional truth, until anytime in the future when it is falsified.

Theists, and people that are anti-science attempt to obfuscate words like "proof" and "theory" and say that science doesn't prove anything, and theories are just ideas and guesses, they aren't facts. All of which is true in a misleading context. It's blatant dishonesty when they do this, because then a laymen looks up the word, and finds out that they are right in their misleading context. Sciences attempt to explain how the words are actually being used, but the generally public doesn't seem to appreciate context at all. They have used these tricks for years and they seem have lost zero steam. As long as people see a definition that agrees with them, they will ignore any explanation about how the words are really used.

In these situations it's hard, because you can't tell people they are wrong, you have to explain that they are confused, and not using the words with appreciation to context, which seems like a weak argument to some, so it goes ignored.

In the little paragraph I put there, I put exactly the same things as you did, except I said at the beginning "the claim" and then later "the claimant" rather than starting with the person. So if you can do it for the person, then you can do it for the claimant since they're the same thing.

A claim removed from a person is just a singular thing, how does it make sense to talk about establishing it's credibility probabolistically? How? We look at a person, and see how honest they have been in the past, and what they are likely to know. Explain how such a thing can be done for a claim removed from people.

292. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175661 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Carto: about those "blatantly obvious" questions; remember it's also aimed at theists. If they can believe the Genesis stories, surely they can believe that buildings in America are 4000 years old, or that Bill Gates uses a computer?

I went to town with my Dad today, and I told him about that question, and he told me that Mourmons, along with a few other rare christian sects believe that the first civilizations where in north america at about that time, they believe some where more advanced than we are now apparently.

I don't know if what he said was true, but if it was, perhaps that question was aimed at people like that.

293. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175649 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/

Turns out I'm not alone in thinking how I do. Even among people I can only assume are experts. Looks like the reductionists agree with you and the anti-reductionists agree with me. I'm happy to accept that both positions are reasonable and leave it at that.

Well I have said numerous times that I am talking about the epistemology of science, and that it is best for establishing reliable knowledge about the world. I never meant to imply that it was the only method (at least in principle, I am sure it is the only method that works), or the only epistemology, if that is what you thought. I only argued that it was uncomparably the best. That is the one I'm using, and that one does not include claims as evidence. Anti-reductionists are generally people that don't have evidence for claims they'd like to be true, or would like to believe. It is not an epistemological standard that has been used in any proven reliable method for arriving at accurate information about the world. All because a system or method is devised in no way implies it works or it's useful. Or all the theologians would be evidence that theology isn't a complete waste of time.

You mean the bit where they say "I'm giving evidence in court"? What should they have said? "I'm giving testimony"?

Actually, the latter is precisely what they do say.

All I meant here was that it's unlikely that the treatment they suggest is the best possible. It might be the best available or the best possible currently, but I suspect that medical science will lead us further in the future. When doctors were advocating leeches and bloodletting, their claims then may have been believed to be true, but they weren't. In summary, it may be the truth that the doctor's claim is the right thing for you to do, but it might also not be. They do make mistakes. It can make a claim likely (very likely), but it doesn't make it truth (necessarily).

"Necessary truths" only exist in abstractions, not in the real world. We in the real world are only privy to provisional truths. What we know about the world is only ever implied to be true, not necessitated. So expecting more is simply expecting the impossible, and thus unreasonable.

Doctors definitely aren't as good, knowledgable, or helpful as they will be in the future, and in some rare causes they may even do more harm than good. The fact remains that going to see a doctor is a lot better an idea than going to see a crossing guard when you're sick. This was even true in the past when they knew dick-all about medicine, and what made people sick. Going to a witch doctor would still often be better than going to see a cook. Even if your chances of him helping you get better are extremely low, as long as there is slightly higher chance of him helping than a cook helping, then it is best to pay him a visit opposed to the cook.

Why's that not something similar done for a claim?

Because I'm unaware of a method for how it could be accomplished. If you have one, then I'm all ears (or eyes, I should say).

294. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175571 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 3:57 pm

This is attiquitely titled. Beck says that Stein is one of the most intelligent person he knows. I feel sorry for him if that is the case.

295. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175420 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 11:29 am

I cracked up for the one that said Alexander the great could likely fly and had other magic powers.

I found many of the questions rather odd and hard to answer. Like all the ones asking what people thought of me...how the hell am I suppose to know what people think of me? No one is around right now so I couldn't ask anyone either.

I also found the ones about liking to look at your body, or yourself in the mirror to be odd. If I said no, it seems like I am saying that I don't like it, as if I have a problem, but if I say yes, then it makes me look like a narcissist. I had to say I don't kow.

Also those ones like "I should get all that I deserve" and things like that, I don't even know what that is support to mean, or the respect that is due to me? Those are too vague, I need somekind of context to know what they are suppose to mean.

The stupid questions were funny though.

296. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175358 by Mitchell Gilks on May 5, 2008 at 9:57 am

No, it does not establish the credibility of the claim, because credibility is established probabolistically, and requires past iterations of similar kinds. A claim is a singular thing. A person is not, you can estalish what the odds are that they are telling the truth, and know what they are talking about based on how trustworthy and credible, they have been in the past, and what they are likely to know based on what they have studied, and spent time learning in the past. Nothing similar can be done for a claim.

You don't have to believe me (clearly you haven't to my dismay) though I don't think I have said anything even remotely controversial. I would think that anyone who has watched a court show knows this (I took a law class in highschool, though I didn't know the epistemology of the process until quite awhile later, gathered from philosophy.) to be true.

I've already told you, context, context, context. You cannot prove you are cooler than ice scientifically by pointing to a definition of cool like "aloof" I have thoroughly explained the words and how I am using them.

Then you simply don't think that a doctors credibility is enough to establish the truth of their claim (notice you have said this independent of any specific claims) because of information you have gathered that harms their credibility in your eyes. Well, that's fine, but I'm Canadian, and our doctors aren't in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies, so I'm good.

There is always a possibility of anything, another favored theist tactic. There is a possibility that there are a million tiny fairies on my shoulder. I just highly doubt it. There is a possibility that I've misread, miswatched, and misunderstand everything I've ever taken in about the epistemology of the scientific method, how induction works, and how anything about the world is established. I just highly doubt it.

Pfft, I've already accepted I'm incapable of changing your mind, that is why I asked you to actually read about the epistemology of science, also about induction well your at it.

I'm not interested in arguing it with you. I've just been repeating myself for the past few posts. I've got nothing new to add.

297. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175216 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Again, those are issues of credibility. I know that scientists are credibile because of past expierence,and the fact that science offers demonstrated, and clear results. I have good reason for believing scientists, and thinking they are credibile. If it were the claims alone than it wouldn't matter if it were a scientist that told me or a crossing guard, this clearly is not the case.

Same thing with doctors. I have good reason to believe that the information gathered from doctors is reliable, and credible. I would doubt the exact same claims from a plummer.

I am not accepting their claims without evidence, or even remotely taking the claims as evidence in themselves. As I have outlined numerous times, for testomonials, and claims, we establish the credibility of the person giving the claims.

The claims in and of themselve only set how much evidence, or confirmation we will require before accepting them. Unless the claims contradict something we know is true about the world, or it is more likely that the claimant was mistaken than that the claim is true, then merely establishing the credibility of the claimant is evidence enough to accept the claim as true.

All of this I have covered.

298. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175113 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

8. Comment #175102 by gd_edi

Humans are the only animals we positively know have subjective consciousness? I would have thought that one's own self is the only entity we 'know' to have subjective consciousness, with all others being automata of various degrees of complexity.

I thought the exact same thing. Beyond someone telling me they have subjective consciousness I have no more reason to believe they do than my cat does. Someone telling me something is true hardly is enough to say that it is positively true.

Though I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, and he would admit the mistake instantly if challenged.

299. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175101 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I'm talking about induction, Epeeist. I'm talking about the type of evidence used in science, or used to establish anything about the world. Deductive reasoning is tautological, and does not give any new information, it merely rearranges information we already possess drawing logical inferences between them.

The way the premises in a deductive argument are rendered sound are through justifying them through inductive processes. A deductive argument that is valid, is useless if not sound.

I looked into the paper you suggested and it seemed to be about a priori evidence and reasoning as I assumed by the title. I am refering to a posteriori evidence and reasoning.

300. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #175098 by Mitchell Gilks on May 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

Context, context, Ty_Webb, as I have attempted to explain numerous times. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in anyway for establishing anything about the objective world. There are different kinds of evidence, and different applications of the word, in the way I was, and am using it, it is not evidence.

You can't prove that you are cooler than ice scientifically by pointing at a definition of cool like "aloof".