Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster
Pixel42: As it happens, I am a Doctor Who fan (and, let's face it, that remark is at least as pertinent to the subject under discussion as anything here from CFLarsen or jzs). However, this is the only board I have ever participated in, and I prefer to keep it that way.
I have every interest in promoting science and attacking pseudo-science, but no interest at all in promoting atheism (not being an atheist myself, and anyway not caring about other people's religious beliefs). This appears to put me in a small minority here, but that's fine by me. I once tried to suggest that it would be good if we could really ‘Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe’, and have civilised, tolerant and constructive debates about topics on which we don't necessarily hold identical skeptical positions. I was told in very robust terms (by CFLarsen amongst others) that we do that already!
BillyJoe: Thank you for your kind words about my posts. Actually, it makes a nice change to have someone read them. You would scarcely credit this, but I once posted in Puzzles a full solution to a far from trivial problem that had taken me hours to work out. It was completely ignored by everyone for a couple of weeks, and then some little upstart had the cheek to announce that he had solved it and offer to share the fruits of his wisdom.
Anyway, I agree with everything you have said here, especially about the ludicrous and embarassing 'Bright' campaign.
I have every interest in promoting science and attacking pseudo-science, but no interest at all in promoting atheism (not being an atheist myself, and anyway not caring about other people's religious beliefs). This appears to put me in a small minority here, but that's fine by me. I once tried to suggest that it would be good if we could really ‘Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe’, and have civilised, tolerant and constructive debates about topics on which we don't necessarily hold identical skeptical positions. I was told in very robust terms (by CFLarsen amongst others) that we do that already!
I don't object to his questions; it's more the tone of his article. I felt that it was rather trite and journalistic, and it gave the impression that he was more interested in scoring points than seriously addressing the issues. That's never a good thing to do if you are really trying to change anyone's mind.
BillyJoe: Thank you for your kind words about my posts. Actually, it makes a nice change to have someone read them. You would scarcely credit this, but I once posted in Puzzles a full solution to a far from trivial problem that had taken me hours to work out. It was completely ignored by everyone for a couple of weeks, and then some little upstart had the cheek to announce that he had solved it and offer to share the fruits of his wisdom.
Anyway, I agree with everything you have said here, especially about the ludicrous and embarassing 'Bright' campaign.
CFLarsen said:
You are no skeptic.
Every new poster has to explain themselves to you? Go deflate your ego a bit...
None of your dictionary definitions defined a prediction as a claim. Try again..
More critical and skeptical analysis from the Dane superhero we see..
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Lucky: Today's Guardian contains a piece by the Rev Dr Giles Fraser which is the best response I've yet seen by a believer to the tsunami. You'll find it here if you're interested. It's not enough for me, but at least it acknowledges that there is a question that needs to be answered and makes an honest attempt to do so.
Unfortunately today's Guardian also includes this report
Unfortunately today's Guardian also includes this report
jzs said:
Because you so declare. We know, we know...
jzs said:
"New" poster, T'ai Chi? You are not a "new" poster, you have had several personae here.
jzs said:
Do take time to read what Webster said, before you so stupidly reject it:
When you predict something, you claim to know the future.
Do you understand now that you were wrong?
jzs said:
Yawn. Do you have anything substantial to say here? Like why Tuskegee was such bad science?
CFLarsen said:
So when you say something like that, we are expected to fawn over you and just accept the garbage you spew? Nope.
Fine, whatever you want to say, new username. Whatever.
I'm not getting that from your defintions. In fact, the world claim is not ANYWHERE in them. Try again...
Do you? Let me know.
jzs said:
Asking someone to back up their claims is not "bullying", T'ai.
jzs said:
Do you understand that when you read a text, you also have to understand it, if you want to talk about its meaning?
You cannot merely look at the letters. Look beyond the letters, find the meaning.
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
I guess you're refering to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment?. I think you're missing the point by making up a false analogy. Religion has institutionalized dogma, censorship, hate, etc. It has perscuted and brought suffering to people, just for their ideas. On the other hand, science has been mis-used, indeed!; scientists have made mistakes, sure!, but the scope is totally different.jzs said:
CFLarsen said:
The manner you do it in, is, PseudoSkeptic.
I'll translate from PseudoSkeptic to English so others can understand your words:
'The defintions of "prediction" didn't specifically say "claim", so, since I want them to be the same, I'll twist the actual definitions, that don't mention the word "claim" at all, to try and convince people that "prediction" and "claim" are the same thing. Then I'll blab about the need to understand the meaning, hopeing people overlook the fact that that is what dictionaries do and the dictionaries I used didn't mention the word "claim" with "prediction".'
Right, and that is what dictionaries do. And your definitions didn't mention "claim" at all. Try again...
Patricio Elicer said:
Religion has no more institutionalized hate than anything else. It is up the the people doing religion or science, not religion or science itself. Religion and science are not entities that do stuff.
Patricio, glad to see you don't disagree that Tuskegee was done in the name of medical science.
jzs said:
Oh, I am so sorry. Perhaps you could clarify under what rules we are allowed to pose questions to you?
jzs said:
So, you don't read beyond the letters. If that is your way out of the quagmire you put yourself in, fine with me.
Lucky,
In my defense, I was busy at the time and unable to read everything in each thread I responded to. I did then read your solution which was identical to but much more compact than mine. I remember retreating with my tail between my legs. Goddamn, and it took me ove an hour as well. 
BillyJoe
I enjoy reading well thought out and clearly written posts. I also enjoy a few jokes and a bit of good natured by play. But I think we can do without the endless diatribes delivered back and forth and spilling over into and contaminating other threads. But they are easy to ignore - just gloss over jzs and CFLarsen's posts where they occur together in the same thread quoting each other.Lucky said:
I think his name was BillyJoe.Lucky said:You would scarcely credit this, but I once posted in Puzzles a full solution to a far from trivial problem that had taken me hours to work out. It was completely ignored by everyone for a couple of weeks, and then some little upstart had the cheek to announce that he had solved it and offer to share the fruits of his wisdom.
In my defense, I was busy at the time and unable to read everything in each thread I responded to. I did then read your solution which was identical to but much more compact than mine. I remember retreating with my tail between my legs.
Goddamn, and it took me ove an hour as well. BillyJoe