Comment Uh huh (Score 1) 67
Did the submitter get this off of Spurious Correlations?
Did the submitter get this off of Spurious Correlations?
He's not an editor.
My mama was a saint. Take it back.
The change makes it look worse, not better. The changes were solicited Hillary's campaign, themselves. http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.
“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.
It would be pretty hard to debug, would it not?
First of all, if you are “neutral” on the horrific abuse many women have suffered at the hands of Gamergate, you are a part of the problem.
And this is why we can't have grown-up conversations. Even the mere thought that there might be anything of merit on the GG side is tantamount to a rape threat. It's intolerant and childish.
According to this code, no one is too dumb to use the internet, considering that haveOnlineGeneticProvile will likely be undefined.
Correction: It's GNU/Stallman.
The "for the sake of argument" was strongly implied.
If it's been 400 years since the Maunder Minimum, and assuming we peak on temperature right now, wouldn't that mean the new minimum is still a problem for our [great-]+grandchildren?
Nothing less than access to a nuke in 10 years, probably.
Theology can't be taught from a neutral viewpoint because it only exists in the context of the religion that the theologian believes. Theology can include philosophy but it is invariably tainted by the specific religion that the theologian embraces.
All philosophies depend on presuppositions. If the presuppositions are wrong, then everything that comes from those premises cannot be reasonable sustained. But that's the point. Science takes this a step further by adding the deductive property of falsifiability to test the presuppositions for truth.
No, I do not believe I am confused. Charles Sanders Peirce, the father of modern scientific inquiry, believed that the tri-part mathematics of logic (induction, deduction, and abduction) applied equally to philosophy, mathematics, the social and natural sciences, and squishy meta-physics. This is as late as the 1870's. Today science stresses the deductive property of falsifiability as essential to science (and sets it apart from philosophy and mathematics, which are therefore not true sciences), but that is a relatively recent concept, as I said above.
Induction is just one mere tool to be used. Putting everything that uses a specific tool is folly.
You may think it folly, but the historical fact is that up until about 200 years ago, the Venn diagram between mathematicians and theologians was pretty inclusive. Newton and Pascal wrote more prolifically on theology then they did math. When education was rare, and education in philosophy (and thus inductive logic) was rarer, the same people had to wear many hats, and their output in those disparate fields hewed pretty closely together.
Theology is certainly not philosophy. Testability is the cornerstone of science. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy. Theology is neither rational or presents theories, but interpretations of dogma.
This is false. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy; that much is correct. But the whole point of systematic theology is that for the prescribed axioms, the proofs are indeed rational. You do not agree with many or most of those fundamental presuppositions but that does not make the theology, in and of itself, irrational per se. Theology is absolutely a philosophy. Your beef is clearly with religion or spiritual faith (which, while relying on theology, is a belief system and not a philosophy).
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
