If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..
On 24 Nov 2003 08:48:15 -0800, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: Religion is based on faith. Science is based on doubt. Two sides of the same coin. Experimentation is based on faith. No. Classically, an experiment is designed to disprove an hypothesis. -- FF |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Burger opined
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Ash Wyllie wrote: Dan Luke opined "Wdtabor" wrote: America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals aren't liberal. Where do I sign up for the new party? WWW.LP.ORG Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of government, religion, labor unions or business. Of all the organizations mentioned, only governments claim the right to shoot first and ask questions later. Really? Read some history before you make statements like that. I'd start with the British East India Company, Dutch East Indies Company, the Belgians in the Congo, and anything Cecil Rhodes was involved in. The key word is *claim* . The East India companies were chartered by governments, and the governments may well have delegated its right to slaughter to the companies. It is a bit hard to compare the behaviour of 16th century companies to 21st century comanies. I have not been shot once for leaving a show room with out buying something. It was King Leopold who bought the Congo (using money loaned by the Belgian parliment) as his private hunting preserve. It's hard to call him a company since he was a reigning monarch - in fact he was the government. Good old Cecil made himself a government. All those wonderfully unrestrained capitalist companies - and they started to look a lot like governments after a fairly short while. Including the use of force and similar entertainments. You are confusing mercantilists with capitalists. Capitalists prefer to trade. It is more profitable in the long run. -ash for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:03 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: The DC ADIZ is there because some people took their version of "In God we trust" just a little bit further - that's the point. Ok, they took it a whole lot further, but I'm sure you understand my point. If they trusted in God, they wouldn't have taken matters into their own hands, IMO. Rob -- [You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to educate themselves. -- Orson Scott Card |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:05 +0100, Thomas Borchert
wrote: Robert, Experimentation is based on faith. Huh? Most of the diatribe against faith posted around here is directed against what those in my church call "blind faith", or faith without submitting the subject matter to a test. But it isn't at all what I've meant by "faith" since about the age of 15. In scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test. Publish it. Anyone who acts to submit your hypothesis to that test is acting on faith in that hypothesis. If it's proven out, that faith becomes knowledge. If not, toss the hypothesis on the scrap heap and wait for or formulate refinements. Rob -- [You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to educate themselves. -- Orson Scott Card |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
Wdtabor opined
In article , "G.R. Patterson III" writes: Wdtabor wrote: Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer? Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has a chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one). Since I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that opportunity. That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator. Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough votes that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no chance of changing the outcome. We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway, to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot. That is what hapened in the Kennedy's last Mass election ('00 I think). Carla did not do well . -ash for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
|
#487
|
|||
|
|||
If you do the experiment, and it's properly designed, then you're interested in the outcome. That's faith. Not in my lexicon. "Interested in", "Having an interest in" and "believing in" are three different things. "Believing in" means running your life and your mind as if the hypothesis were true. "Having an interest in" means standing to benefit from others believing in the truth of the hypothesis. "Interested in" means curious about; wanting to know whether the hypothesis is true or false. In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in" whether it is =actually= true or not. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
|
#489
|
|||
|
|||
In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in" whether it is =actually= true or not. Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith. OFTEN to the point of... , not ALWAYS to the point of... In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact, it's lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or otherwise. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Stadt wrote:
"Icebound" wrote in message ... "Love thy neighbour as thyself". Doesn't that go against the adultery one? LOL. You've got me conjuring up this mental image of an adulterer trying to love himself the way he just did his neighbour. -- God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. --- Serenity Prayer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |