Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,416 
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 29, 2022 5:42:46 GMT -5
One thing we usually misunderstand about science is that it's not in the business of finding Truth with a capital T, or of "proving" anything (unless we're talking about maths). It's about understanding reality to the best of our ability, by coming up with models that we test and test and test again, in a continuing process of refinement that makes such models ever more reliable. That's why we can start with wondering why an apocryphal apple falls from a tree and next have a robot take pictures of Pluto; that's how we can cure a baby with antibiotics and forego sacrificing a lamb to Emergencius, the god of healing, because we have established that that doesn't work.
Individuals being free to accept or deny reality as they see fit as long as it doesn't prevent them from living in society, they can adopt funky ideas (or even push them unto the public, as AiG does)... but it doesn't change what we can all readily observe, if we're wiling to actually verify: the Earth isn't flat, Noah's story is a myth, vaccines work and all living species evolved from a common ancestor. It's not that these points aren't open to debate; they are, as is every statement, model or conclusion. It's just that said debate has been held and resolved generations ago, and that our current scientific theories on such matters are so reliable that to declare that they are wrong, as AiG does, reflects ignorance more than insight.
As a society, we can only benefit from insisting on the importance of the scientific process. It helps understand the universe a little better, it helps protect our population, and it helps putting quacks out of business.
It's also bloody cool to have a robot take a picture of Pluto.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 6:10:06 GMT -5
What made me laugh is an AIG video where one person (an actual rocket scientist who works for AIG) said that it’s important to separate the fact from the fiction when reading scientific articles. Is there a word for such ignorance?
I have to take Noah’s Ark as a parable, metaphor, whatever the word is. It’s conveying some sort of truth. What that is is far beyond my low IQ to think about. But how could it be literal? How could you fit two of every animal onto the Ark? How could you feed and look after them - and deal with waste issues?
AIG (and others) will split hairs. They’ll say that only certain ‘kinds’ of animals were required, e.g. 2 wolf-like ancestors rather than lots of canines. They’ll say that only juvenile animals were taken on to free up space. They’ll then get bogged down in how insects, birds and fish didn’t need to be taken on the Ark (that would seem obvious). But none of that works for me. It’s still a lot of animals even if you only take 2 wolf-like ancestors on board. Juvenile animals are fine, but don’t most animals get big quickly? I just don’t buy the logistics of feeding and cleaning up waste.
And, as I said, AIG seems very hostile to theistic evolutionists - with no self-awareness. A lot of what Ken Ham says has even a layman like me shaking my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Aug 29, 2022 6:21:08 GMT -5
(...) It's also bloody cool to have a robot take a picture of Pluto. And even cooler to have a robot Pluto. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 29, 2022 10:14:45 GMT -5
What made me laugh is an AIG video where one person (an actual rocket scientist who works for AIG) said that it’s important to separate the fact from the fiction when reading scientific articles. Is there a word for such ignorance? I have to take Noah’s Ark as a parable, metaphor, whatever the word is. It’s conveying some sort of truth. What that is is far beyond my low IQ to think about. But how could it be literal? How could you fit two of every animal onto the Ark? How could you feed and look after them - and deal with waste issues? AIG (and others) will split hairs. They’ll say that only certain ‘kinds’ of animals were required, e.g. 2 wolf-like ancestors rather than lots of canines. They’ll say that only juvenile animals were taken on to free up space. They’ll then get bogged down in how insects, birds and fish didn’t need to be taken on the Ark (that would seem obvious). But none of that works for me. It’s still a lot of animals even if you only take 2 wolf-like ancestors on board. Juvenile animals are fine, but don’t most animals get big quickly? I just don’t buy the logistics of feeding and cleaning up waste. And, as I said, AIG seems very hostile to theistic evolutionists - with no self-awareness. A lot of what Ken Ham says has even a layman like me shaking my head. Why'd he take cockroaches? Seriously, though, a good while ago I was splitting and stacking wood when two young Mormon missionaries came by and talked to me. Couldn't have been nicer. We talked about things, including their literal interpretation of the Bible. I asked them about Noah's ark, touching on the kinds of topics that you mentioned, driver1980 . I remember asking how the predators were fed, whether they were a danger to the prey animals, whether there would have been many more rats after those original two had spent forty days together and so on. They had no answers except that old stand-by, "You have to accept it on faith." I told them that I had a serum that would guarantee them a healthy life if I could just administer it to them but that I couldn't tell them how I acquired it, how it was made or what was in it. They'd have to accept it on faith. I hope for at least one second that they saw how they were coming across to me. Nice young men, wished them well, and thanked them for helping me pass the time with my chores. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Aug 29, 2022 14:45:05 GMT -5
(...) Seriously, though, a good while ago I was splitting and stacking wood when two young Mormon missionaries came by and talked to me. Couldn't have been nicer. We talked about things, including their literal interpretation of the Bible. I asked them about Noah's ark, touching on the kinds of topics that you mentioned, driver1980 . I remember asking how the predators were fed, whether they were a danger to the prey animals, whether there would have been many more rats after those original two had spent forty days together and so on. They had no answers except that old stand-by, "You have to accept it on faith." I told them that I had a serum that would guarantee them a healthy life if I could just administer it to them but that I couldn't tell them how I acquired it, how it was made or what was in it. They'd have to accept it on faith. I hope for at least one second that they saw how they were coming across to me. Nice young men, wished them well, and thanked them for helping me pass the time with my chores. Wow, given that I've been spending the past few afternoons splitting and stacking firewood, in that situation I think I would have given one of them an axe and told him to start chopping and had the other help me stack while they deliver their spiel...
More seriously, though, you're way more patient than I am; I run off door-to-door proselytizers (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever) posthaste. Normally I tell them up front I'm an atheist and that they simply have no chance, but when I'm feeling particularly irate I tell them I'm a Satanist and offer to explain the finer points to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Aug 29, 2022 15:06:04 GMT -5
I have to take Noah’s Ark as a parable, metaphor, whatever the word is. It’s conveying some sort of truth. What that is is far beyond my low IQ to think about. But how could it be literal? How could you fit two of every animal onto the Ark? How could you feed and look after them - and deal with waste issues? AIG (and others) will split hairs. They’ll say that only certain ‘kinds’ of animals were required, e.g. 2 wolf-like ancestors rather than lots of canines. They’ll say that only juvenile animals were taken on to free up space. They’ll then get bogged down in how insects, birds and fish didn’t need to be taken on the Ark (that would seem obvious). But none of that works for me. It’s still a lot of animals even if you only take 2 wolf-like ancestors on board. Juvenile animals are fine, but don’t most animals get big quickly? I just don’t buy the logistics of feeding and cleaning up waste. I'm legitimately surprised the YECs have never argued that Yahweh miraculously made the ark bigger on the inside than the outside. A diluvian TARDIS isn't anymore outlandish than the beliefs they already hold to. |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,416
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 29, 2022 15:12:02 GMT -5
Pym particles!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 29, 2022 16:35:49 GMT -5
Wow, given that I've been spending the past few afternoons splitting and stacking firewood, in that situation I think I would have given one of them an axe and told him to start chopping and had the other help me stack while they deliver their spiel...
More seriously, though, you're way more patient than I am; I run off door-to-door proselytizers (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever) posthaste. Normally I tell them up front I'm an atheist and that they simply have no chance, but when I'm feeling particularly irate I tell them I'm a Satanist and offer to explain the finer points to them.
I love a good "discussion", especially with people who have never encountered someone who disagrees with them. I always hope that I've at least made them realize that not everyone thinks the way they do, and maybe, just maybe, give them a moment's pause and create a chink in their armor. Once a fundamentalist came around to the door -- with his little daughter -- and told me that Jesus had saved him and that I should be saved by him, too, because I and anyone else who hadn't been would be going to hell. I told him that I appreciated his caring about me, but that I wondered about all the people who had never heard of Jesus, like, say the tribes who live in the furthest reaches of, say, New Guinea. Would Jesus hold it against them when they died and send them to hell even though they'd had no way to have ever heard of him? That seems both unfair and cruel, I told him. He said he had never thought of that and didn't have an answer and he left, thanking me for giving him something to think about. I think of him every so often hoping that he never went back to whatever cult or church sent him out to proselytize dragging his poor little girl with him as a prop. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 29, 2022 20:40:54 GMT -5
On the topic of encounters with missionaries.....
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 29, 2022 20:59:42 GMT -5
Wow, given that I've been spending the past few afternoons splitting and stacking firewood, in that situation I think I would have given one of them an axe and told him to start chopping and had the other help me stack while they deliver their spiel...
More seriously, though, you're way more patient than I am; I run off door-to-door proselytizers (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, whatever) posthaste. Normally I tell them up front I'm an atheist and that they simply have no chance, but when I'm feeling particularly irate I tell them I'm a Satanist and offer to explain the finer points to them.
I love a good "discussion", especially with people who have never encountered someone who disagrees with them. I always hope that I've at least made them realize that not everyone thinks the way they do, and maybe, just maybe, give them a moment's pause and create a chink in their armor. Once a fundamentalist came around to the door -- with his little daughter -- and told me that Jesus had saved him and that I should be saved by him, too, because I and anyone else who hadn't been would be going to hell. I told him that I appreciated his caring about me, but that I wondered about all the people who had never heard of Jesus, like, say the tribes who live in the furthest reaches of, say, New Guinea. Would Jesus hold it against them when they died and send them to hell even though they'd had no way to have ever heard of him? That seems both unfair and cruel, I told him. He said he had never thought of that and didn't have an answer and he left, thanking me for giving him something to think about. I think of him every so often hoping that he never went back to whatever cult or church sent him out to proselytize dragging his poor little girl with him as a prop. I met John Ostrander, once, at a convention, and talked to him for a bit about his late wife, Kim Yale (who I had met at another convention, back in the early 90s, before her death). I remarked about her columns in CBG, about her cancer and his later one, after her passing, about her spirit and the antics she got up to, in the hospital, while undergoing mastectomies and chemo (Writing notes to the surgeon on her breast, walking the halls of the hospital in Godzilla slippers, which gave a roar when she stepped down, etc). he told me a story of a neighbor of theirs, who was very religious and always wanting to talk about Heaven to her. She was always very polite, but one day asked him if Gandhi was in Heaven. The neighbor replied that though he was a remarkable man and did many great things, he would not be in heaven, as he wasn't a Christian. Kim responded that if that was the case, then she didn't want to go to Heaven, as she wouldn't enjoy a place that wouldn't let Gandhi in. She thanked him and went on her way. I suspect it gave him pause for his views of who would go to Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 29, 2022 21:16:36 GMT -5
codystarbuckAs Billy Joel sang, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints." Damn, I hope it gave that insensitive unthinking guy pause, but I doubt it. I recall those columns and how proudly Ostrander wrote of his wife. To me, they never smacked of self-indulgence, self-pity or anything but his awe at his wonderful wife's grace and courage. Always have kept him in my list of good eggs ever since.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 29, 2022 23:03:02 GMT -5
codystarbuck As Billy Joel sang, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints." Damn, I hope it gave that insensitive unthinking guy pause, but I doubt it. I recall those columns and how proudly Ostrander wrote of his wife. To me, they never smacked of self-indulgence, self-pity or anything but his awe at his wonderful wife's grace and courage. Always have kept him in my list of good eggs ever since. I recall him saying that, with her first mastectomy, she wrote on her breast words to the effect, "Hey doc, it's the other one!" Then, when she had to have the other removed, she wrote, "Hey Doc, it's the one left." You have to admire someone who can find something to laugh about, amid what had to be a horrible time, as she was losing part of her body. I only talked to her briefly, at a Gen Con; but, she was a barrel of laughs and a definite pixie spirit of fun. If memory serves, she was the real driving force in turning Barbara Gordon into Oracle, as she was so mad how she was left with Killing Joke and that DC had made it canon. I wasn't happy about it, either and when I first saw Oracle, in Suicide Squad, I had a big ol' @#$%-eating grin. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Aug 30, 2022 3:15:52 GMT -5
Don't mention Gandhi around my wife unless you're prepared for a diatribe about his exploitation of young girls. She wouldn't want to be in any heaven that would let him in.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 7, 2022 4:12:59 GMT -5
Don't mention Gandhi around my wife unless you're prepared for a diatribe about his exploitation of young girls. She wouldn't want to be in any heaven that would let him in. Though it seems weird to us, I think you definitely have to see Gandhi's attitude towards sleeping with young girls within the context of the patriarchal and ethnographically hierarchical conventions of Indian society of the time. I mean, Gandhi was himself married at 13, as the age of consent and a legal age of marriage were practically non-existent in India at the time. Some of the girls he bedded were of lower servant caste, which would've certainly justified such behaviour within the wider society of the times. Indian society at the time was hugely patriarchal, even more so than it is today! Like most Indian gentleman of the time, Gandhi operated under the belief that men were naturally lustful creatures who were unable to control their urges, while women were 100% responsible for inspiring those urges and so they should be accepting whenever those urges were acted upon. A view that is still disturbingly common among Indians and Pakistanis today, unfortunately. None of which is meant to excuse or try to apologise for his behaviour. Just that societal context provides a greater understanding of why Gandhi behaved the way he did. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2022 12:08:41 GMT -5
One thing we usually misunderstand about science is that it's not in the business of finding Truth with a capital T, or of "proving" anything (unless we're talking about maths). It's about understanding reality to the best of our ability, by coming up with models that we test and test and test again, in a continuing process of refinement that makes such models ever more reliable. That's why we can start with wondering why an apocryphal apple falls from a tree and next have a robot take pictures of Pluto; that's how we can cure a baby with antibiotics and forego sacrificing a lamb to Emergencius, the god of healing, because we have established that that doesn't work. Preach. There's a flip side that burns my biscuits, is when the anti-science types feel free to dismiss any science they don't like because "scientists have been wrong before" (no, it's not any scientists fault that you, the science-denier, don't understand that science produces increasingly useful models, not unquestionable truth), and then turn around and claim that a theory is " just a theory". A theory implies a level of usefulness and confidence far beyond the lay usage of the term. Let me know if you ever find a person who uses the phrase " just a theory" who ends up accepting correction. I've never seen it. It's a sure thing that their emotional investment in denying whatever issue is at hand is going to trump engagement of their rational faculties. To these people, science is somehow a collection of absolute proclamations which are also wishy-washy. The emotional investment doesn't even need to be religion-based. The last time I tried to stick up for Science 101, it was as fruitless as ever, but I'm pretty sure the motivation behind the willful ignorance was that these guys fancied themselves science enthusiasts, and couldn't deal with being corrected on the basics. "Theories get turned on their heads all the time!" Except they couldn't name a single one when I pressed, they just threw out experiments with interesting results, and referenced sci-fi stories. |
|
