"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan wrote:
IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support
"before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would
then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".

_A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9.

I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals
directly with the question:

"The Beginning of Time"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf

As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a
meta-time (in this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is
basically a closed curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that
"real time" has a "beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary
time and space surface.

By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's
views in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It
appears that Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one
occasion.

I think that at this point, the thread is going astray of the notion that
science is somehow concerned with questions about these issues; these are
philosophical matters that sometimes present an opportunity to be tested
by science. However, having read "A Brief History of Time", I'd point out
that Hawking presents more than one scenario regarding the linearity of
time and paradigms for a "beginning" and "end", and it seems to me that
this is an untestable question at this point in time.

Another book that covers some of these issues is John D. Barrow's "The
Book of Nothing", which I found to be quite enlightening about nothing.
;-) A very worthwhile read for those interested in grasping such
questions as these or even just gaining knowledge about the origins of
math and how the concept of the zero (and lack thereof) shaped human
culture and development.

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Neil

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential candidates
who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable political
platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate does not yet
exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22:

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
does not yet exist.

Shouldn't you be scrubbing some toilets?


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22...
To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs
(such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
does not yet exist.

Quite! They have even more troubles when ascertaining the origins of our
secular republic. The two issues are heavily intertwined and have been for
eons.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/200...-chestnuts.htm

/quote

At least two presidential candidates earnestly want to recapture the land in
the name of God: Mike Huckabee, uncharismatic Baptist preacher, and Mitt
Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
country. Neither questions the morality of the secular application of his
altruist creed in any fundamental way: the welfare state. The other
presidential candidates bring God into their rhetoric only when they think
it prudent. Each wishes to subdue the kind of atheist who does not believe
in the mystical benefits of collectivism and involuntary servitude, to
indenture him to them against his will for the sake of “giving back” to the
national community, and thereby create a legacy for the candidate of being
the “savior” of the “public good” and promoter of “social justice.”

/end quote

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:18:13 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote in
:

Mitt Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
country.

It sounds like Willard is a bigot.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:18:13 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote in
:

Mitt Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
country.

It sounds like Willard is a bigot.

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
political platform. My preliminary research shows that this
candidate does not yet exist.

Or, we just don't know who it is because the issue isn't being covered by
the media, which instead focuses on the horse race.

There is a move afoot by several science groups and the two physicists in
Congress to have a "science debate", where we would ferret out the
candidates' position.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Become aware, get involved.

Neil