If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Snopes)   South Carolina church tells pupils the Earth is only thousands of years old, dinosaurs lived with man, and how to snap back at anyone who tells them different. Sorry, did I say church? Make that a fourth grade classroom   (snopes.com) divider line 464
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14947 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



464 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-27 12:51:32 AM

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)


Well, *I* don't, per say, but I know LOTS of people who do! :) Now, this isn't me just listing books for the sake of it, these are all AWESOME. I've listed them in order according to how I would have preferred to read them (before I knew anything about the subjects):

http://www.amazon.com/dp/014005703X/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113100/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113100/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451607946/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684853949/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1590510178/
www.amazon.com/dp/0060988479/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0823609626/

The last three are a bit more technical (i.e., more detailed neurology) than the earlier ones, but nothing too extravagant. Oh, and I misspoke before, there is ONE book that could be argued to fall within the discipline of philosophy (but I'd say it's more cognitive science) that's pretty darn good:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198529910/

Enjoy!

/a couple of the books are out of print, but they are WELL WORTH tracking down (imho, of course)
//kinda wish I could read all eight for the first time again :D
 
2013-04-27 12:56:25 AM

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)


One more thing... if you're interested in both physics and consciousness, you might get a kick out of: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199753814/

/been meaning to re-read it again for a while now
//remember that I dug it the first time
 
2013-04-27 01:04:14 AM

grxymkjbn: a_real_human_being: If you want to learn about the "mind" and you INSIST on reading philosophy

Actually, I prefer neuro chemestry/physics; I think philosophy is... somewhat over-rated.

I know I am stupid and I am eager to learn.  :) Have you anything to teach me?  {:)


Okay, okay, last one... if you're more interested in the low-level stuff (i.e., written by a neuroscientist for non-neuroscientists about the low-level neuroscience of the mind), then I strongly recommend: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0878939040/

Aaaaaand I'm done.
 
2013-04-27 01:29:37 AM
As long as we are going down this path, let me randomly throw out this book. It's one of several I'm reading right now on my Nook.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
It's "

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty "

they asked this question to a whole bunch of scientists... maybe 100-150 and it's like a page or two on each scientist's answers. It's a great book to digest a little at a time, like on a train or the shiatter. I enjoy hearing what all today's leading scientists think about stuff. I believe the query is called "The Edge Question" Anyways, check it out. You probably won't learn too much, and it's not entertaining in the way fiction is, but it's somehow satisfying.
 
2013-04-27 01:34:10 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: As long as we are going down this path, let me randomly throw out this book. It's one of several I'm reading right now on my Nook.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818
It's "

What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty "

they asked this question to a whole bunch of scientists... maybe 100-150 and it's like a page or two on each scientist's answers. It's a great book to digest a little at a time, like on a train or the shiatter. I enjoy hearing what all today's leading scientists think about stuff. I believe the query is called "The Edge Question" Anyways, check it out. You probably won't learn too much, and it's not entertaining in the way fiction is, but it's somehow satisfying.


img690.imageshack.us

Will definitely pick that one up, thanks.
 
2013-04-27 01:38:32 AM
cool beans
 
2013-04-27 03:06:03 AM

mikefinch: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tell me again WHY I should follow a monster like this?

Because its god. And he demands it. Horrifying right? lol -- you dont have to follow him if you dont want -- i'm just saying if god was a monster he would still be god. You dont have to worship it if you don't feel thats appropriate.


So all Christians have been lying since Christianity was invented, hm? There is no love, no compassion, no reason.
 
2013-04-27 08:56:16 AM

IRQ12: Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.


Well, if you want to support your original claim, given that Altemeyer and Hunsberger have already done a sample-of-convenience study that suggests activist atheists tend think moderately well of the wishy-washy uncertain (see page 85 of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers)... yes, that's pretty much what you have to do.

Or you can admit that your claim is utterly unsupported by evidence, and that what evidence is there suggests you're completely wrong about that original point.
Or, y'know, ignore that, and snark off in a huff.

IRQ12: You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes


You appear to have confused a selection-bias subset of your circle of personal acquaintance with a representative sample of the population, and your ignorant prejudices for "reality".

demotivators.despair.com


Uchiha_Cycliste: Someday, somehow, someone will... and it will be glorious.


There's (at least) one on YouTube comments; it's good reading, and likely should be one of the works cited in the event.

a_real_human_being: Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT.


Eh. Some of it has content; usually, however, that sort is just really esoteric mathematics.
Most of the worst of it is just the sort of handwaving that makes mathematicians go, "yes, yes, now you said you were about to go on from step 16 to show those conclusions?"
 
2013-04-27 10:21:42 AM

a_real_human_being: RobSeace: When confronted with a claim ("some sort of deity exists") with no evidence for or against, is not the logical default the null hypothesis: it doesn't exist?

Actually, no, it isn't (as I was surprised to learn when studying philosophy). Firstly, the null hypothesis is for statistical evaluation (i.e., population A vs. population B -> NH says they are the same population). Secondly, according to formal logic, the formula of if p then q (logical implication) for:

If "I DIE" then "I GO TO HEAVEN"

Is evaluated as True until you can satisfy P as True, then you can evaluate whether or not Q is True, then you can fully evaluate the whole expression.


Odd... I actually minored in philosophy once upon a time, long, long ago (never submitted the minor declaration paperwork on time to officially earn the minor though, but I took all the required classes to do so), and I don't recall any such strangeness... (But, then, it's been a very long time, and that info could've been lost to the ravages of age and/or alcohol...)

But, the conditional statement itself makes another implicit claim beyond the obvious one: that something called "heaven" exists... In order to accept the statement as true, you must accept both that such a place exists and that you go there when you die... If the statement were "when you die, you go to Detroit", then at least it seems somewhat more believable, since at least we know Detroit exists... Though, I still wouldn't accept it as true by default... But, I can definitely see no logic behind defaulting to accepting the existence of a heaven without the slightest shred of truth... First prove it exists, then I might consider accepting that we go there when we die...

If "YOU GO INTO MY GARAGE" then "YOU WILL SEE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER" defaults to True, until you go into my garage.

That one is at least trivially proven or disproven by just entering the garage... It's effectively impossible to prove or disprove the death/heaven one; or, rather, it's impossible to notify anyone else left alive after you've done so... As such, an unfalsifiable claim should be rejected... It's as meaningless as if I said "If you were to travel to the Andromeda galaxy, you would find an ancient advanced alien civilization of hot green lesbians who enjoy an audience!"... It's effectively impossible to prove or disprove, so it's unworthy of even considering... (At least until we have the tech to travel to Andromeda, in which case I'll be the first aboard!)
 
2013-04-27 10:26:03 AM

abb3w: a_real_human_being: Looking back on the material now, I have decided the following: It's not that the content of philosophy is difficult, it's that THERE IS NO CONTENT.

Eh. Some of it has content; usually, however, that sort is just really esoteric mathematics.
Most of the worst of it is just the sort of handwaving that makes mathematicians go, "yes, yes, now you said you were about to go on from step 16 to show those conclusions?


It looks like we studied two very different forms of philosophy then, because your description does not apply at all to the material that I was reading.
 
2013-04-27 11:02:13 AM

abb3w: IRQ12: Good point, let me go hire pew research to do an in depth study of atheist beliefs then throw together some ven diagrams and statistical analysis so we can continue this conversation.

Well, if you want to support your original claim, given that Altemeyer and Hunsberger have already done a sample-of-convenience study that suggests activist atheists tend think moderately well of the wishy-washy uncertain (see page 85 of Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers)... yes, that's pretty much what you have to do.

Or you can admit that your claim is utterly unsupported by evidence, and that what evidence is there suggests you're completely wrong about that original point.
Or, y'know, ignore that, and snark off in a huff.

IRQ12: You could assume I am speaking from anecdotes

You appear to have confused a selection-bias subset of your circle of personal acquaintance with a representative sample of the population, and your ignorant prejudices for "reality".

[demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]



You're wrong.   About everything.
 
2013-04-27 11:14:27 AM

a_real_human_being: Enjoy!


Thank you - I will!  :D
 
2013-04-27 12:34:43 PM

RobSeace: As such, an unfalsifiable claim should be rejected...


Using common sense, I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that according to formal logic (as used in branches of philosophy), it cannot be rejected until you can satisfy the first condition.

Accordingly, the statement:

If "YOU DIE" then "YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE MORMONS HAD IT RIGHT ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE" is, by default, True... until you die at have a chance to prove it False. But, as you said, you can't tell anyone else about it at that point.

/silly, silly philosophy
 
2013-04-27 12:42:06 PM

a_real_human_being: I'm just saying that according to formal logic (as used in branches of philosophy), it cannot be rejected until you can satisfy the first condition.


I think it's merely that it can't be rejected as definitely false... I don't think formal logic says anything about what makes the most sense to believe... After all, you could construct pretty much an infinite number of mutually conflicting such conditional statements; they can't all be true... As such, why believe any of them are true?

Again, I think this is where a lot of people get bogged down with regard to atheist vs. agnostic vs. whatever... By saying I'm an atheist, I'm not totally rejecting the possible existence of a god; I'm merely stating that I don't personally believe in one... I'm not making a declaration about the absolute reality of things, merely my belief about them based on what evidence I've seen... Some people like to call that agnostic; and, it is! But, the thing is that's not mutually exclusive with being an atheist... I'm both... I'm agnostic because I don't know, and I'm atheist because I don't believe...
 
Displayed 14 of 464 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report