|
On May 21 2017 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified? 1) How would you read the peer reviews? I have yet to hear of a journal which publishes them as well (though it would be really neat as online material) 2) How much falsification can actually be picked up in a peer review? In my experience it's pretty negligible (that is if you really wanted to falsify it would be pretty easy).
A lot of stuff that doesn't get published has errors in them that can be picked up. Those falsifications are possible to spot at least. A professor I had (which did peer reviews) told of a case regarding solar panels where the math would end up above 100% efficiency and thus could quickly be disregarded when checking things.
edit, as for the religious discussion. A large portion of people are on the side of not really caring about the question. That is how I would define agnostics, people that don't care a lot about the issue either way. I could be classified as Christian or Atheist and I don't really see how it matters one way or the other for me.
|
On May 21 2017 04:00 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. So I'm familiar with this classification schema, and I'm willing to adopt it for specific debates (one should always be willing to adopt a set of terms-of-art where necessary). But this is not the common English-language usage of these words and for good reason. (One reason is that "Gnostic" has a very real and meaningful definition in the history of religion that has nothing to do with this myopic modern, western debate.) Closer to home, essentially no people of education, intelligence and good will on either side are "gnostic" atheist or theists. The term is borderline worthless because it applies to almost no-one worth debating. "Agnostic" defined this way applies to nearly everyone. On the other hand, "Agnostic" as commonly used is a very useful term. Lots of people identify as agnostics, which is important to their identity because it turns out spirituality is very much a journey/in-flux kinda thing. No, it's not really an intellectual position beyond openness to possibilities, but it's a very accurate description of a lot of people's situation. (I personally hate it when religious or atheistic people try to get agnostics to "pick a side." Like, fuck-off, this isn't a character-creation menu, this is figuring out where you want to stand in relation to the universe.)
Well it's certainly important to define our terms ahead of time, so that we aren't speaking past each other using different definitions of words 
That being said, I was indeed referring to the conventional and historically accurate use of the term, as it pertains to whether or not existence is knowable. My definition is definitely a common one, although perhaps other uses of the term have developed, which is totally fine with me. Personally, I'd much rather have a conversation about beliefs than just hear what a person's label is, especially since a label can be misleading.
My main reason for establishing a difference between gnosticism and theism was to clarify that "It is possible to know" and "I choose to believe" are not the same thing, as I wasn't quite sure that was made clear from TM's original comments.
Google: "ag·nos·tic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena"
Wiki actually has a nice compilation of etymology and historical use, which agree with the broader definition that I used:
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown and unknowable.[1][2][3]
According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".[2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a religion.
English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in 1869. Earlier thinkers, however, had written works that promoted agnostic points of view, such as Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife;[5][6][7] and Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who expressed agnosticism about the existence of "the gods".[8] The Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda is agnostic about the origin of the universe.[9][10][11]"
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
There are quite a few subsets and cultural distinctions listed in there as well, which could be useful for further reading, but discussing nuances of agnosticism wasn't a priority for my clarification on what an atheist is, for TM.
The quadripartite division described above honestly seems like a not-so-subtle ploy to force your average agnostic under a label they explicitly don't want... if they "choose not to declare" then they count as an "Atheist." The common definition of Agnostic as "without a declared side" between Atheism and Theism is more fair and doesn't count Atheism as an automatic default for people figuring shit out.
Theism is an affirmative claim though, while atheism is the default position. Someone can certainly be on the fence regarding their beliefs, and people don't have to declare themselves as a theist or atheist... but that's not the typical definition of agnostic per se; that's just "I don't know and I'm figuring it out (or "I don't know and I don't care"). One can still be gnostic/ agnostic and still be figuring out where their beliefs lie. I have no intention of grouping people as atheists if they believe in a deity; if they don't believe in a deity, then they're atheists by definition. I'd imagine that people may take issue with that label only due to a stigma attached to it, rather than the literal definition of it. Non-believers are non-believers, or whatever label you want to use.
|
On May 21 2017 04:06 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 03:54 Ghostcom wrote:On May 20 2017 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified? 1) How would you read the peer reviews? I have yet to hear of a journal which publishes them as well (though it would be really neat as online material) 2) How much falsification can actually be picked up in a peer review? In my experience it's pretty negligible (that is if you really wanted to falsify it would be pretty easy). A lot of stuff that doesn't get published has errors in them that can be picked up. Those falsifications are possible to spot at least. A professor I had (which did peer reviews) told of a case regarding solar panels where the math would end up above 100% efficiency and thus could quickly be disregarded when checking things. edit, as for the religious discussion. A large portion of people are on the side of not really caring about the question. That is how I would define agnostics, people that don't care a lot about the issue either way. I could be classified as Christian or Atheist and I don't really see how it matters one way or the other for me.
Errors are NOT falsifications. Sorry, but it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between the two things. Errors can (for the most part) be picked up - it is indeed one of the primary reason for the peer review. Falsifications is an entirely different can of worms though.
|
f1000research.com does open peer review. Some colleagues of mine published there just this week and was cool to read the reviews as well. Open/closed and anonymous/signed peer review is a hot topic on my Twitter feed right now.
|
I kinda doubt that is going to really take off. But should be interesting to follow. As a reviewer I prefer to remain anonymous as it allows me to give the most objective review without risk of petty vengeance when I submit something. Admittedly, I can see the other side of the issue as well considering some of the reviewer #2 comments I've gotten through the years.
|
On May 21 2017 22:30 Ghostcom wrote:
I kinda doubt that is going to really take off. But should be interesting to follow. As a reviewer I prefer to remain anonymous as it allows me to give the most objective review without risk of petty vengeance when I submit something. Admittedly, I can see the other side of the issue as well considering some of the reviewer #2 comments I've gotten through the years.
Yeah, that's the two sides of it. It also mostly prevents reviewers from stalling and scooping. I'm torn myself what the best system is. Open but anonymous is hard to do in practice, as it's often possible to identify the reviewer anyway. In a perfect world where everyone is nice it'd be great with open PR where you can read it together with the paper and you could get a bit more credit for PR, but in practice... I'm not sure. I definitely see your side. :/
This is the most recent appearance I ran into on twitter. This guy is on your side of the question.
There's a whole thread there as well, and others sharing bad experiences after signing PRs.
I'd really like for it to work with open PR, but I am trying to balance being too naive and too cynical. :D
|
On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely.
No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane!
|
On May 21 2017 09:14 Cascade wrote:f1000research.com does open peer review. Some colleagues of mine published there just this week and was cool to read the reviews as well. Open/closed and anonymous/signed peer review is a hot topic on my Twitter feed right now.
Semantic Web journal published reviews together with accepted papers. Reviews are not anonymous. But in general, the whole peer review system is currently a hot topic and something that's bound to undergo large structural changes in the near future.
|
Why should not staying anonymous make your review of a paper less objective? I don't get this. You're the arbiter of that choice. Signing your name on it doesn't make it inherently less anonymous. Also, people with petty grievances or conflict of interest will still be able to cloud themselves in anonymity and the process of trying to find out who the bad apple is, is just a hassle and a waste of time. Just stay professional. I know it's difficult if someone publishes about the same research area right before you do, but that's just how the world works.. Next time you just have to be faster.
|
On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane!
It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior.
Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of.
|
On May 22 2017 07:35 Uldridge wrote:
Why should not staying anonymous make your review of a paper less objective? I don't get this. You're the arbiter of that choice. Signing your name on it doesn't make it inherently less anonymous. Also, people with petty grievances or conflict of interest will still be able to cloud themselves in anonymity and the process of trying to find out who the bad apple is, is just a hassle and a waste of time. Just stay professional. I know it's difficult if someone publishes about the same research area right before you do, but that's just how the world works.. Next time you just have to be faster.
Because politics dictates all aspects of human life--especially the sciences.
|
On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of.
Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? 
|
On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too?
To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.)
If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even.
|
On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. but don't stop half way, you want that 'just as likely Christian god" to affect you, to be yours, right(eventually)?; else what's the point of him existing, for those other beings in that other universe, to you?.
those dudes/beings are not imagining their god as you do; their god is proven to exist.
you have a classical reasoning as far as religious persons go. God in your story is the "next best thing humans will come up with". you keep possibilities alive even if with rudimentary logic/reasoning.
i wouldn't say that's bad per-se, but its merits will depend on what happens on the ground so to speak.
there are other ways to keep possibilities alive that are less prone to falsehoods and extortion.
Edit: to finish it for you - you're trying to use the probability theory to prove the likelihood of god to exist then use your own definition of god to make it exist for you. that's very much circular logic ....
|
On May 22 2017 17:44 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 16:21 Yurie wrote:On May 22 2017 15:27 Acrofales wrote:On May 22 2017 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2017 06:50 Acrofales wrote:On May 21 2017 00:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it.
I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists.
For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact.
Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts.
Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does.
As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion.
If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus.
If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof.
When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in.
But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept.
Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling.
When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it.
When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime? Both are equally likely. No. They really aren't. Just as you're not equally likely to get hit but a car or not get hit by a car today. But statistics aside, I could have made this argument about something you couldn't possibly gather statistics about. For instance your lack of belief in invisible flirgleknarps. Which I just made up right now, so I suppose you really don't believe in them despite having no evidence whether invisible flirgleknarps really do or don't exist. You must be insane! It would be insane to assume things don't exist just because it is simply something in your imagination today, but could possibly be found/discovered/learned about in the future. Many things of today are just things people simply "made up" and "imagined" decades or centuries or millennia prior. Never limit yourself to being certain of things that you aren't actually certain of. Pretty sure you're the insane one if you believe there might be invisible flirgleknarps. Some things are clearly just fantasy and there really is no reason to even entertain the idea they might be real. Do you believe in the potential realness of the Guardians if the Galaxy, Arthas and the Protoss (master) race too? To me they seem just as likely as the Christian god as portrayed in society. Since so many people believe in that it seems responsible of me to consider them possible as well. (A bit sarcastic.) If I believe in an unlimited multi-verse they seem likely even. but don't stop half way, you want that 'just as likely Christian god" to affect you, to be yours, right(eventually)?; else what's the point of him existing, for those other beings in that other universe, to you?. those dudes/beings are not imagining their god as you do; their god is proven to exist. you have a classical reasoning as far as religious persons go. God in your story is the "next best thing humans will come up with". you keep possibilities alive even if with rudimentary logic/reasoning. i wouldn't say that's bad per-se, but its merits will depend on what happens on the ground so to speak. there are other ways to keep possibilities alive that are less prone to falsehoods and extortion.
I would consider myself a pragmatic religious person (whatever the correct formal term is). As long as it has decent benefits to join a religion compared to not doing it I will do it. Currently there are only negatives as I view it (time and money taken). Belief isn't really a major reason one way or the other.
See it as in late Ancient Rome when many people converted to Christianity for positions in court since that was beneficial to them.
|
at first glance that's fine since to me, the argument whether or not religion does more good than bad is an open debate for now.
the pentecostals spread like wildfire around here but also fed some people. i see some of their offspring having nothing to do with religion, so it may even out in the end.
|
On May 22 2017 07:35 Uldridge wrote:
Why should not staying anonymous make your review of a paper less objective? I don't get this. You're the arbiter of that choice. Signing your name on it doesn't make it inherently less anonymous. Also, people with petty grievances or conflict of interest will still be able to cloud themselves in anonymity and the process of trying to find out who the bad apple is, is just a hassle and a waste of time. Just stay professional. I know it's difficult if someone publishes about the same research area right before you do, but that's just how the world works.. Next time you just have to be faster.
I'm very confused by the bolded sentence, can you please expand?
For the rest, I think you misunderstood my argument? The point of anonymity is to protect the reviewer from lashback. If no such protection exists there is a real risk (especially if it is a younger person reviewing one of the seniors in the field's work which happens fairly often in medicine) of the reviewer not being critical enough as it might hurt their career down the line. The issue of scooping someone is pretty minimal at least in my field.
|
Ah yes, I understand. The scary stories of the established authorities undermining tue young upstarts 
It does happen and it is sad. Sad a career can go down the drain when the guy just makes a fuss. Forgot to consider that.
I guess I meant biased. Anonymous was a brainfart on my end. But I see now that with all the (potential) investment of both parties and the grudges that can be held, anonymity does have its advantages.
|
I mean in a perfect world no anonymity would exist as people would be objective about the quality of the work (both the submitted and the review). For the world we live in, I frankly much prefer the journals which have decided to have everyone (except the editor) anonymous. I have yet to encounter any issues with it personally.
|
On May 22 2017 20:05 Ghostcom wrote:
I mean in a perfect world no anonymity would exist as people would be objective about the quality of the work (both the submitted and the review). For the world we live in, I frankly much prefer the journals which have decided to have everyone (except the editor) anonymous. I have yet to encounter any issues with it personally.
The biggest issue is that it takes a lot of work to review a paper and if you do it well, it makes the final paper significantly better, but you get 0 attribution, except perhaps a "we thank the anonymous reviewers" (and a boilerplate email from the editor thanking you for your review).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
