What exactly is it you want from big business? I find it odd that a protest over the enviroment is focused on big business as if it was the evil being protested. Have we been mislead or is there some inside baseball the rest of us should know about?
Oh hey, I'll just fix that for you:
- The universe did not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe did not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- The universe was not created.
Atheists tend to have much smaller brain regions for [a part of the brain responsible for causing religious experiences].
Yes indeed. Evolution does trend towards improving species.
Educated stupid scientists never understand 4 sided universal timecube.
I was just asking Tess about her act, and all she would tell me was that the show was big -- bigger on the inside than the outside. So I guess there was a lot of seating. A bunch of folderol, if you ask me. But at least we had box seats.
Science works without even the existance of ultimate causes and absolute truth.
Yes, it does, but that doesn't in any way disqualify it in reaching for fundamental answers, or in working with those ideas so that we have handles on them that are consensually experiential, testable, and repeatable. Superstition provides no tools whatsoever for resolving such questions. Or questions of far lesser import, for that matter.
My long-term general confidence in discovering more and more, deeper and deeper about reality, which is very high, lies entirely with science -- and with technology, science's prolific assistant / toolbox.
Super short version:
Philosophy addresses questions of truth.
Science addresses questions of observation.
religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.
Religion concerns mythology -- things people make up out of whole cloth. Faith, belief, credulous acceptance without backing facts, consensually demonstrable evidence, or testability -- not knowledge.
Science does indeed concern itself with the ultimate cause(s) of things; what TFS fails to understand is that just because there is no answer *yet*, that doesn't mean that there won't be, or that there can't be. We've really only been seriously at this with more than stone knives and bearskins for a hundred years or so. Directly because of science, we already know a great deal more than religion ever managed to determine in thousands of years over thousands of varieties of made-up ideas and almost unimaginable depths and expressions of faith.
The penultimate cause of things is indeed 100% in science's domain and, if indeed there is an answer that can be expressed in the physics humans can understand, the odds are at least decent that we'll figure it out. Using science. Not religion.
There's very little point, or sense, in giving religion credit it has not earned, nor in ceding to it whole chunks of reality it has shown absolutely no ability to pull back the curtains from.
Here's the full quote from that partial in the summary:
This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.
He's wrong. The problem is that the concept of "God" is un-falsifiable. So you can always tack "because God wanted it that way" onto anything.
And then it gets worse:
You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin.
Normally I'd say that that was trolling. Why toss irrelevant insults into a discussion? But I think it is an attempt to bolster an argument that he knows cannot stand on its own.
Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn't.
And then he COMPLETELY skips over how Tyson believes that science is "like magic". He makes that insulting statement and then fails to support it.
This bizarre misunderstanding of science yields the paradox that even as we expect the impossible from science ("Please, Mr Economist, peer into your crystal ball and tell us what will happen if Obama raises/cuts taxes"), we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.
He thinks that Economics is a science. That's how wrong he is.
Not because science is "expensive" but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.
Please look up the definition of "bombastic".
TFA could be a great example of trolling or Poe's Law or such. But I think it is just crap writing from someone who does not understand the subject.
... how about starting a blog where you try to make science more accessible to lay people.
My eyes were extremely bad, perhaps if I wasn't so nearsighted it would have been cheaper but I'd still rather have a single payer system.
From what I've read, about the only things they won't correct is retinal and vitreous defects. I know that they will correct astigmatism.
> I think SSRI's (& others pharmaceuticals like it) are extremely dangerous. I would rather them be prescribed Indica or Sativa depending on the need...
That is unfortunately not an option for everyone, since employers are still discriminating against cannabis use thanks to decades of lies from Uncle Sam.
> Now, you seem to be hinting that the SSRI made you smarter (i.e. gave you clarity). But that's unlikely for a variety of reasons. Instead, it most likely made you feel smarter, more confident, etc. And maybe that's what you meant - that you had a unrealistically pessimistic view of the world and the SSRI caused you to have a less pessimistic view of the world.
Maybe he is confusing SSRIs with shrooms and/or LSD?
For a flight that doesn't reach orbit and stay there with the environment in 0G for at least a few orbits, I wouldn't pay anything. Heck, I won't pay a commercial airline to fly because the ratio of inconvenience to convenience+enjoyment is too high between the (id|patr)iot act's enforced paranoia and the seating designed by one-legged, one-armed engineers. Now an oceangoing cruise liner, that's something else again. I loves me a nice cruise. It's even worth going first class, which it definitely isn't in a commercial airliner.
However, for a flight that *does* go to orbit and stays a few turns, and doesn't require a spacesuit, and for which I could have a very private cubby with a view for two for the orbital duration, I might part with as much as five thousand for two seats, just for those few hours. They'd have to let me take my camera, though.
Which means I'm not going to get to go.
He's throwing the entire pool of U.S. workers under the bus!! "...just OK..." ???
Judging from the foreign labor I've worked with for the last 6 or 7 years, compared to similarly qualified US workers, I'd say that description is upside-down. About the only thing the Chinese and Indian imports are better at is bowing and scraping and accepting more work than they can possibly do with nothing a "yes, yes, yes" deferring contriteness. That only makes them look like even worse productively, because so many tasks end up as crap, or late, or simply dropped.
If they mean that foreign workers put on a better facade as slaves, and US workers are only "Ok" slaves, yea, I'll buy that.
That's no mistake; you're a xenophobic idiot.