Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Probably not many. There's not many spots on the Skytrain track where you can see the track "about a mile up", especially coming into stations. The design of the track is recessed, which doesn't help either. Additionally, if I recall correctly most of the suicides have been of the "throw yourself in front of the train as it enters the station" variety. There are closed circuit cameras monitoring the stations (not to mention transit police some of the time), and they DO stop the trains if something goes amiss on the tracks. But if there's no time to stop, there's no time to stop.
Either way, MAX and Skytrain are two rather different systems - MAX is at-grade light rail, Skytrain is elevated / subway with an , etc. Pretty hard to draw safety conclusions based on one factor (driver vs. driverless) when there's so many other variables at play. Most of the "experts" that I've heard/read on the topic of Skytrain safety have been much more interested in changing station design to avoid accidental falls onto the tracks, and much less concerned about placing a driver on the trains.
It would only be equivocation if the ID proponent was implying that there was no inherent difference between types of evidence or warrant... and of course, you're right - that's exactly what many (most?) ID / YEC types do.
At the same time, it's fair to point out (as I did in the post you are replying to) that the opposite problem has occurred in many other posts here - a "straw man" making the term "belief" out to mean "accept as true without evidence", when that is not really what is meant at all. The question is really about different types of evidence, and how much weight we give them in determining our "beliefs".
I don’t think you’ve got your definition of “believing” quite right - there’s no reason to require “belief” to be unsubstantiated. In fact we very often hear scientists say things like “I believe that [x], and here’s why”. To “believe” just means to hold something to be true.
In fact, philosophers have long defined “knowledge” as “justified true belief”. There’s lots of variations on that theme, and arguing about whether that’s a right definition - but the argument is not about the “belief” part as much as the “justified” and “true" parts.
So, it is in fact incorrect to say that science eliminates the need for believing - what it does, however, is provide reasons or justification for our beliefs.
We're not built to be loaners.
Of course not. We're built to be borrowers.
And yes, that was the only part of your comment that deserves a response. Good day.