Tim Daneluk

Page 9 of 13  

Robatoy wrote:

That's absurd. If true, there would be no degrees of felony and subsequent degrees of sentencing. Every rational person understands there are degrees of good and evil. Every rational person understands that sometimes the choice is not between good and bad, but bad and worse. Every rational person understands that real world moral questions are substantially more complex and nuanced than what you learn in Sunday School (where the choices are obvious). Every rational person understands that decisions to not do things carry consequences just like decisions to do things, and that there are also incidental results to all such (in)actions. Only ideological purists insist that no middle ground is ever reasonable or a possible path to the desired end state.
Moreover, Google's decision to engage with the Chinese is hardly self-evidently "evil". It is a judgment call (by us 3rd-parties - Google have their own rationale', I'm sure) as to whether the net of this decision is morally positive or negative. I think it will be a good thing in the long run and help accelerate the collapse of Communism in China and the assist the ascent of Capitalism. You may disagree, but to dismiss it out of hand as "evil" is ridiculous. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Hummm, living in a neo-communist state, ruled by dictat, where the Police use Google to monitor newsgroup activity, scan past postings for keywords etc and then visit on the strength of what they have read (as I have been visited recently) all I can say is your view is very nieve.
Niel.
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. " : Ayn Rand in "The Nature of Government"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
badger wrote:

In what neo-communist state do you live?
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

no, my bad.. Maybe I should have said no search engine is better than a restricted search engine?
Censorship is only as good as the people trying to implement it...
you have to know WHAT to block and block all possibilities... a daunting task...
Several tries in the states have failed because of the different meaning of different words... such as breast.. that would have been blocked by most censorship tries and as the argument goes, women would not be able to get information on breast cancer..
I'm sue that there are many creative folks in China that will take advantage of having Google to get around the censorship..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ditto.
But!...............
:+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd rather do this via email, but email to your address bounced.
As you may recall, some time ago, in a thread about 'Intelligent Design' in rec.woodworking you wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about 'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly off-topic at.
I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.
Can you direct me to your source?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net writes:

George C. Deutsch, a 24 year old college dropout GWB political appointee.
see <http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html#a2120
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Not even close - I, for one, have never even heard of him.
I already replied to Fred privately and had not intend to respond here at all. But since the Professionally Snide have raised their heads once again, allow me to show you the real basis of my claims - It's *my* thread, after all. (If you need help with the Really Big Words, feel free to ask):
> Tim Daneliuk wrote: > > >> You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at >> the Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this >> materialist/mechanical POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have >> unprovable starting points - this includes Science. >
> Fred asked: > > I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms. > > Can you direct me to your source?
I am not entirely sure what you are asking. If you want a source for the claim that all systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points (I *think* that's what you're asking), pretty much any decent book on covering epistemology would do. Here is sort of the Cliff Notes:
What you "know" depends on what you accept as being "truth". But if you induct backwards to your primary or foundational "truth" (the premise(s) from which your system of knowledge proceeds) you can never "prove" them in the absolute sense. It is analogous to a system of mathematics (which is one example of a very narrow epistemology). You begin with a starting axiom or premise. This premise is not absolutely demonstrable as "true", it is just the jumping off point for your new system of math. You proceed to then build theorems from that starting axiom. A theorem is "proven" only in the sense that it is demonstrated to follow logically from the axiom and perhaps other subsidiary theorems. In general this is the only context in which "proof" is meaningful - as a test of a theorem against a premise. Even then, there is a sort of implicit assumption baked in - that "logic" or "reason" is a meaningful mechanism for apprehending things.
All systems of epistemology begin with some basic assertion like "There is a God that has revealed himself" or "Reality exists and can be observed" or "The best outcome for a human is self-indulgence", and so on. In the particular case of science, the foundational premises are something like this :
1. The physical universe is real. 2. We can reliably observe it by harnessing our observations by means of the scientific method. i.e. Logic/Reason work. 3. We can further derive information about the workings of the physical world by taking the results of our "harnessed" observations and applying further induction and deduction to them (i.e., by applying logic). 4. Everything we can ever know about the physical world can be understood in purely mechanical/material terms. i.e., While there may or may not be a larger cause or "purpose" to the world we observe (it's "teleology") understanding such a purpose (if any) is not necessary to the practice of science. Science need only concern itself with the physical parts and can disregard the possibility of a metaphysical whole.
There's more here, and I am definitely doing a handwaving description - a real philosopher would no doubt cringe at the liberties I've taken.
Now then, my original claim is that you cannot "prove" any of 1-4 above. The best you can do is demonstrate their _utility_ value. That is, you can show useful, practical results from presuming them to be true, but there is no objective standard by which to check them. For instance, it is possible that the universe is an illusion and we don't really exist at all - sort of the "Matrix" view of the world. We have absolutely no way of determining whether this is so or not.
In short, we *assume* certain starting points (because they make sense to us, they bring us practical results, they are consistent with other things we believe, and so forth). Once those starting points are established, we build a system (our "theorems" about knowledge) upon them. This exact situation exists for _every_ system of knowledge (epistemology). The axioms of any system can never be "proven" only tested on two dimensions: Do the consequent "theorems" proceed logically from the starting axiom? And, do the "theorems" provide some utility value?
The specific contention of the IDers in their critique of science thus falls in a number of areas. Before noting these, let me take care to make three important points:
1) The measure of any system cannot and should not be judged on the merits of its practioners. Just because some scientist fudged his cloning data does not mean that science is invalid in method or result. Just because there are lazy, stupid preachers in no way speaks to the merits of Theism. Similarly a brilliant, consistent scientist/preacher does not _validate_ their system.
2) IDers do not have an agenda to invalidate science. They do not see their work as undermining or eliminating science, but rather as enhancing/augmenting it to more completely be able to understand the universe. Yes, there are the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters of the world who see this as a prime opportunity to get their particular brand of Faith plugged into the culture, but <see 1) above>.
3) ID is *not* the equivalent of Creationism. Many IDers flatly renounce any notion of a "Young Earth". They are concerned with what they believe is a hole in science as currently construed. Notwithstanding their personal religious Faiths, they are not specifically trying to "religionize" science as one would believe if you listen to the current culture wars on the matter.
So, here, as I understand it, are the main ID claims:
1) The currently regnant philosophy of science is fundamentally inadequate. Its assumptions are incomplete and thus unnecessarily self-limiting. Today's science is thus not completely wrong, it is merely incomplete.
2) The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient is wrong. That is, to understand the physical universe, you have to look at more than just the parts. You have to investigate the telelogical questions - _Where_ did the parts come from? _Why_ do they work the way they do? In sum, you have to look at the whole house, not just the bricks, and when you do, you are inexorably driven to the conclusion it had a builder.
3) There is some evidence, using just _today's_ formulation of science, that natural selection/evolution cannot completely account for what we observe. In particular, it is claimed, there are biological constructs that could not survive in a less complex form (irreducable complexity). If so, this means that no precedent (less complex) biological form could survive long enough to evolve into what we see today.
For a very good summary of all this, written by the leading lights in the ID movement, see:
http://tinyurl.com/9dfpp
This is a set of essays written by practicing scientists, philosophers, and other interested parties. Each of these essays is interesting in its own right, but the last chapter by Bruce Gordon (a philsopher of Physics educated at Northwestern University) is flat out brilliant. He makes a compelling case that the very foundations of today's philosophy of science are fundamentally broken and that the proposals of ID *enhance* science, not destroy it. Whether you agree or not, the book generally and this essay particularly are well worth your time.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Other facts: The universe revolved around the earth. The earth is flat. Sound barrier can not be broached. ECT.
I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing like a non-sequitor to prove your point.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't you mean non sequitur? But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined. Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't you mean "too many"?
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, looky, a spelling fLame.

ROTFLMAO! You correct *his* spelling, then make a spelling error of your own.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nobody is perfect~! Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TeamCasa wrote:

...that some "intelligent" being sat down one day and figured EVERYTHING out. It just seems so incomprehensible.
To me it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Either he figured EVERYTHING out or he (or nobody) figured NOTHING out. The alternative is an intelligent being that sat down one day and decided to figure out SOME things. Maybe like in the movie Oh God! he just figured out the "big things" and left the rest up to chance and to us.
If he figured EVERYTHING out, then one of the things he figured out is what I'm typing right now... and what I'll be typing in 3 minutes... and what every atom in my body will be doing every milisecond of every day. Sounds silly I'm sure. If that's the case then he only figured out SOME things. THEN the question is, WHICH things? And more importantly, what accounts for the stuff that he HASN'T figured out? And even MORE importantly, if being left to chance is good enough for SOME things, why is it so impossible to suppose it's good enough for ALL things?
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And because you can't comprehend it, it can't be true, right? 500 years ago, the idea of particle physics might have been incomprehensible to scholars, but that didn't make the principles of particle physics false. IF there is a designer, it will be so advanced that we will probably not be able to comprehend it with our human minds. It seems arrogant to me to say that there is no possibility of a designer because science says so. Go back as far as you want in the scientific process, and you'll find a trail of scientists being wrong as far as the eye can see. But now we have a complete understanding of everything, right?

Sounds like you have an excellent start to a false premise going here.

This will be an imperfect example, but do you have children? If you do, do you control each and every aspect of their lives or do you control a few things, set some ground rules, and let them figure out the rest?
You can't prove there is no designer no more than I could prove there is (if I wanted to). Which is kind of the point of Tim's long post, that in the end, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.

todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ID.
But you can find *evidence* supporting the theory of evolution. You can create testable hypotheses. This brings it down from the level of metaphysical whimsy.
er
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

I probably should have said "illogical". Bad choice of words on my part.

I'd imagine that you could take a reasonably bright scientific minded person from 500 years ago, and after a little bringing up to speed, get him to have a basic understanding of particle physics. Maybe 500 years from now someone in this group will be able to say the same for Intelligent Design. I rather doubt it though.

I agree with you in saying that we humans don't know everything, and much science has been wrong (though how much it's been right and how science has contributed to our way of life is a discussion we'll save for another day) I'll take it a step further and say that there is much we are utterly incapable of understanding just as a dog is utterly incapable of understanding algebra.

So you're suggesting that the "Oh God!" scenario is the Intelligent Design position or your position? That the designer set out a few ground rules, then let the rest play out? Seems a little loose to me.

Well, some things are a little hard to prove one way or the other. But with the limited mental faculties that this human being has at his disposal, it just seems that it's *probable* that there is no intelligent designer calling some, most or all of the shots.
I could say the world was put together as it is now in 60 seconds by a handful of spirits some time last week and all memory you think you have of time before that is just an illusion. Like Tim said, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense... but some things I feel pretty safe in dismissing.
And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

You mean like the way an early draft of _Of People and Pandas_ was created by globally replacing 'Creation Science" with "Intelligent Design"?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/10/2006 11:37 PM snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net mumbled something about the following:

Seems the ID people didn't even have any credible people to speak on ID in PA when it went to court there.
--
Odinn - I have not problems with religion being taught in the classroom,
as long as it is an elective and they teach ALL religions, not just one.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.