.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Moose
-
Posts
797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Moose
-
-
They're not his lecture notes, they're the lecturers.
I've got a piece of advice for anyone studying at university... 90% of your time will be tracking down the appropriate material to learn from. It's pretty ****ing rare to get given a nice set of clear lecture notes unless you're either
a) in the first year
b) studying discrete mathematics
Go visit that big building with all the books in it. I believe they call it a library.
-
Moose and taks, I'm glad someone's readng my stuff, but if you re-examine
"The problem, if problem there is with ID is that they have yet to formulate a falsifiable set of criteria for ID. This may regarded as weedy pigeon behaviour by the proponents and would not stand in scientific circles. But it does not make them scientifically wrong."
You'll see I do not actually back ID because while it has yet to be disproved, it is very weak. It is weak because it has no testable points. It is like Freud's theories. He says "Either you agree you want your mother, or you are suppressing it." [Thinks: I wonder what Freud's mother had to say about this. Must have made great conversation at Christmas.]
What I'm interested in here is whether we can concoct a workable testable hypothesis on behalf of the ID people. If we do create a good one then we can set about demolishing it. But until we do, we are simply relying on faith to tell us they are wrong. And if we are relying on faith alone then I think we could get off our high horses.
Finally, never mind pandas. Have you seen a platypus?
I'm not dismissing intelligent design on the basis of faith. I am just saying that an assumption such as intelligent design that has yet to be explicitly contradicted by means of a known scientific assumption (some fact that's been proven empirically), does not prove an argument.
Not being able to disprove something doesn't mean that it's true.
This is why all theories aren't science. There are however "scientific theories", which are constructed on the basis of scientific facts. I refer you to my early section on the big bang theory.
Until you introduce some scientific fact for intelligent design to stand on, it does not belong in the classroom (not a physics one anyway).
You can't blame the scientists if you can't find a way to make your theory scientific. Believe me if anyone's been open minded enough throughout history to keep an eye out for such things I would credit scientists more than any theologian.
-
Print it out and it'll carry on moving (if you hold it up to the light).
-
-
Science works off logical rational thought. This is why we're said to live in the age of "rationalism". Logic has strict rules for defining whether an argument is to be concluded true or not. To construct an argument you put forward a series of assumptions.
In this case your assumption would be "There is evidence of intelligence". The conclusion of your argument would be "There is a creator" - and you would hope that by construction of your argument this would work out true.
However that's where it all goes pear shape for intelligent design. Where is the argument? It's just an assumption. Nothing can be concluded and hence as a scientist I can not say there is a creator.
It is true I can't say there isn't a creator, but that does not prove that one exists.
From a theorists point of view, I can't even see how one would begin to take what we already know and tie it into intelligent design.
-
As far as I'm concerned having a proposition alone does not prove an argument. If it did all manner of crazy stuff would be science.
Science means knowledge, things that we know. Nobody knows there's a god. If they did there would be no such thing as faith.
A lot of the confusion comes in when theories are put forth in science AS science. For example, the big bang. Now nobody knows the big happened - nobody was there. We can however suggest the big bang is likely to have happened by observation of Newton's laws of gravity and motion. Strictly speaking, no the big bang is not science, but it is very strongly related and dependant on science.
It's this reason the big bang theory gets taught in school, where it is related to science - where as intelligent design isn't really based off any hard fact as far as I know.
Give me one reason I should consider intelligent design, based off some scientific fact that I already know.
-
You would be about as empirical in your approach as someone out to measure the happiness of the universe. That's why I reject is.
Isn't it intelligent that electrons seek the shortest path back to a postive charge... by the heavens - I've proven God!
-
Why is it I see so much thought (the amount TV and media coverage - hell there was even an Eastenders special to cater for the chavs), and so little real support. The sums don't quite add up. Clearly a lot of people are bullsh8tting themselves and others around them.
-
I hate to be the cynical b8stard here, but tbh I find all this 2 minutes silence and the reciting of poems etc, the marchings and parades, utter crap...
It's just something people do to feel good about themselves, it's entirely superficial.
Spend a moment thinking about some old guy who fought for his country, and wash away the guilt that around 46% of war veterans are living on less than
-
The thing that's most misleading about intelligent design is it claims to be a science. It's a nice little theory, but there's nothing scientific about it, it's just modern religion. It should never be taught it physics classes. That would be so wrong.
-
Secondly, I don't see why the you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...
ERRRRNNNN
Wrong answer. "That's just the way it is!" is a sound scientific principal? Wrong. Putting aside all the mumbo jumbo, you can refute a need for a supernatural cause while still conceding that this issue is still very much at the heart of scientific efforts. In the eagerness to attack religious folks, "scientists" forget that one of the most controversial areas of science right now is the beginings of the universe. The origins of matter and the universe is still very much a matter for concern. Throwing up your hands and saying, "it just is!" doesn't seem any different than some religious fellow's statement that "the bible tells me so."
Could... COULD simply just be. I chose my wording carefully so people like you wouldn't respond as you did.
-
That's not entirely correct. In no way does E=MC^2 violate the conservation of matter and energy.
I do not pretend to be a scientist (even an amateur one) but please enlighten me here....how does your invocation of the Theory of Relativity have anything to do with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?
People interpret the equation as being an equivalance. This is wrong.
-
That's not entirely correct. In no way does E=MC^2 violate the conservation of matter and energy.
It's a common mistake and I see it all the time.
Secondly, I don't see why you need a god for the universe and the big bang to come into existance. It could simply just be there, as a fact, constantly just looping around from the big bang to the big crunch, over and over and over...
As for intelligent design... I would strongly urge any intellectuals to never dignify it by giving in to debate.
-
Well, I do know average IQ was something like 115. We had a few threads here about IQ tests, and we took it, and the average on the forums was like 130. I'm sure you could find the threads if you search for them.
Er I thought by definition the average was 100 - hence why it's a quotient (fraction, percentage).
0 = 0% average intelligence (you have no intelligence)
100 = 100% average intelligence
200 = 200% average intelligence (twice as smart as the average guy)
A little interesting quote from Wikipedia:
In 1910, Henry H. Goddard proposed three categories for the "feeble-minded" based on IQ scores: moron (IQ of 51-70), imbecile (IQ of 26-50), and idiot (IQ of 0-25). This taxonomy was the standard of intelligence research for decades.
-
-
MMORPG:
Mostly
Men
Online
Role
Playing
Girls
-
I dunno, I think WoW is only so popular cos there's nothing better.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's good - mmorpgs have a habbit of boring the player without them realising it, and once a person is bored they can't be assed trying something new, so they get stuck doing the same thing.
It's a curious aspect of human nature.
I have over 200 levels across all my WoW characters - it took me that long to realise the poor predictive gameplay whilst lvling (for example there's always only one way to complete a quest, which most of the time involves killing X of Y, or some indefinite amount of Y to loot Z amount of K, whereby K only has a (A/B) chance to drop), the non existant dynamic world PvP (thanks to the introduction of battlegrounds nearly all PvP is heavily organised and ends up equating to a really poor RTS), and the extremely boring equipment grinding... all of that just plain sucks, but even when you realise it, it takes some considerable effort to pull yourself out of the addiction.
Boredom does that to you.
As for Diablo... I will never understood why that was so popular. Was it cos the Butcher was so iconic?
-
I saw a similar problem happen once in SW-RPG. Someone wanted a deathstar.
In the end a compromise was reached by picking up the guys toy deathstar and feeding it peanuts.
-
Bullfrog, awesomeness
They ate Maxis as well
-
Things sure have changed a lot.
I remember the days you used to just go out and buy a magazine, copy the code listing in it and you were all set to play.
There were no million dollar cheques - people wrote and made games for the sake of making games.
Unfortunately the real world caught up with us and something that was a hobby turned into a full blown commercial industry, which set up the negative feedback loop downward spiral of decay that we're bottoming out on now, slowly reaching a world full of identical factory churned crap.
And with all these million dollar cheques and huge fanbases, you have all these wannabe developers that are in it for the glory which is completely flawed.
I mean, I quite like the piano. I would love to be able to sit down and play it like a master, and get a loud applause afterwards.
Thing is, though I might like the idea of being a piano master that isn't enough. You've actually got to like the piano for what it is and enjoy playing for the sake of playing - and have at least some talent.
Same with maths. Same with science. Same with film making. Same with fashion designing. Same with politics. Same with anything.
And so now with the industry clogged as it is with these charlatans, welcome to a world of mediocre gaming.
I would ask any wannabe developers out there - ask yourself, if there were no huge fanbases; if there were no huge cheques; if nothing you did mattered; if the industry didn't exist, would you still want to develop?
If yes then good God why aren't you, and if you are, why not stick with it as a hobby? Total freedom vs an industry that restrains all your creativity? I know which I'd pick.
Of course hobbys don't put food on the table, but believe me cos I fully remember, that didn't stop us.
-
LucasArts really went down the pan.
-
I'd like to make a game where all you do is ride around on banthas, move furniture around your house and occasionally wave your saber about.
But SOE beat me to it
-
Although Aliens vs Predator was everything you'd expect it to be, a shameless attempt to sell a few more copies of their aging product with a predictable, totally mundane plot, it was nice to see the Predator on the silver screen one last time (hopefully
).Same way I felt about Terminator 3 really.
-
Heh, good point about the football games. But then football's always been about money.
).
How would you "prove" Intelligent Design ?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Moose
As far as I'm concerned it's been investigated as far as is possible for such a thin theory.
I suppose if you're that keen on experimenting with it, you could start praying and recording if it changes the laws of gravity, or the flux of an electric field.
I however would prefer not to waste my time.
Seeing as in your own words - "I regard it as a moral imperative, and an intellectual challenge that we should investigate it thoroughly" I have no doubt you'll be undertaking this essential research immediately.
Otherwise please quit with the hypocrisy.