|
On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Times like these sometimes make me want to jokingly agree that Wittgenstein was right in that all philosophical problems are a linguistic mistake.
|
On January 11 2012 01:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:37 ZeaL. wrote:On January 11 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2012 00:28 Instigata wrote:
Such foul language and anger in this thread. Says the person who has "STFU" as a signature. On January 11 2012 00:56 Attican wrote:On January 11 2012 00:03 Haemonculus wrote:On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote:Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe. For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety. + Show Spoiler + Does accepting evolution and global warming really make you "left wing" these days? Wowwy. Haven't you heard, reality has a well known left wing bias. In all seriousness though, the anti-science fervor in the republican party is continually astonishing to me. I honestly don't see how Obama could lose as long as no huge scandals or self-sabotage happens. If a moderate republican wins the nomination a good chunk of the republican vote will probably go to an independent candidate (Ron Paul perhaps), and if someone like Santorum (or Rick Perry, but he doesn't seem to have a chance anymore) wins Obama will probably get a large amount of the independent voters. Until then we all get to witness the horrifying hilarity that this process is. Hasn't this always been the problem of Republican Party? The spectrum of opinion is so vast and a very large percentage of its voters are such extremists that it makes it very hard to find a consensus. In all logic, America should have a far right christian fundamentalist party, and a moderate right wing party. I am not sure that Huntsman and Santorum have, deep down anything at all in common. As for these elections, I guess the right wing turn that the Republicans have taken with the Tea Party thing is probably going to cost them the elections as it's very unlikely that the moderate republicans and adepts of Buchanan, Palin or even Paul find a candidate they can agree on. Edit: Left wing biased reality  Wait wait wait. Hold up. Are you saying that we DON'T have a far right christian fundamentalist party and a moderate right wing party? Hahaha you got me It's true that in a country like France, Obama would be a solid right winger.
He would say that Sarkozy is a communist :D
|
On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
That's not stupid at all. It's smart to always allow your ideas to be subject to further data or questioning. What's stupid is having the arrogance to believe we know the absolute truth from a few tests.
Anyway, I'm kinda tired of all the religion and evolution talk that keeps recurring again and again in this thread. If you want to/don't want to vote for someone because of their religious beliefs, keep it to yourself. You aren't going to change anyone's mind regarding religious issues, and honestly they are fairly irrelevant as far as modern policies go, despite all the overblown fears that the US will become a theocracy or something if we elect the wrong person. 
Personally, I think the fact that the US debt has surpassed 100% of GDP is extremely important and dangerous, and that issue will determine the votes I make in pretty much every election. If you are voting based upon what someone said about evolution or the bible, I think you need to look at the big picture here.
|
On January 11 2012 02:03 liberal wrote:
That's not stupid at all. It's smart to always allow your ideas to be subject to further data or questioning. What's stupid is having the arrogance to believe we know the absolute truth from a few tests.
You miss the point. Of course it's good to allow an idea to be adjustable. Any unfalsifiable argument is a weak one. The point is that a laymen will look at the word theory, and think that it means the same thing that his theory that Dr. House doesn't really need a cane does.
|
On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be :
Science:
Facts - observations
Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis
- if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory
- in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable
- there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
|
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
To be honest, I think that Ron Paul's libertarian stance on social issues is one reason he's so popular on the net. The pro-marijuana lobby etc. Also, he's really fucking smart, and internet peoples like that!
|
On January 11 2012 02:08 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:03 liberal wrote:
That's not stupid at all. It's smart to always allow your ideas to be subject to further data or questioning. What's stupid is having the arrogance to believe we know the absolute truth from a few tests.
You miss the point. Of course it's good to allow an idea to be adjustable. Any unfalsifiable argument is a weak one. The point is that a laymen will look at the word theory, and think that it means the same thing that his theory that Dr. House doesn't really need a cane does.
I did not miss the point, I understood it quite clearly. I think you missed my point that we shouldn't call science stupid because of a stupid person misunderstanding it.
People don't reject evolution because science calls it a "theory." They reject evolution because they want to reject it, and they would reject it under any justification at all regardless of what we choose to call it.
|
On January 11 2012 02:15 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol. To be honest, I think that Ron Paul's libertarian stance on social issues is one reason he's so popular on the net. The pro-marijuana lobby etc. Also, he's really fucking smart, and internet peoples like that!
He's not really all that smart, but he isn't outright stupid.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
Because he has a very simple system that seems to make sense and that anybody can understand. Principled people are always appealing to young people, because it seems they have the integrity to not make concession (while in fact they just follow an idée fixe while politics is mainly about making concessions). Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth. And finally because he has this exciting "anti-system" posture that makes people feel a bit subversive.
In a nutshell, he allows you to be a severe right winger without feeling like an old fart. I would bet my life that people who vote Ron Paul will be solid mainstream conservative when they get a bit older.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
If you don't study up enough to make an informed decision when you vote I will be disappointed in you, not angry, just very, very disappointed.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
The reason Ron Paul is popular is because many of his ideas are popular.
1) He wants to end the wars in the middle east and not engage in future wars unless there is a strong justification for them and an explicit declaration of war by Congress as the constitution dictates.
2) He wants to make significant cuts to federal spending, more than any other candidate.
3) He wants the government to not be involved in social issues such as marriage and marijuana, and is opposed to invasions of privacy such as those in the patriot act.
4) He wants to reduce the power of the federal reserve over our financial system, and wants to weaken the corporatism in our system, because government and big business should not be in bed together.
5) He's the only candidate who actually believes the convictions he espouses, and his voting record over decades backs up everything he says. All the other candidates form their votes and opinions based upon consulting, polling, or bribes, and have very inconsistent voting records.
This is just a short list. But I think these five points are very popular, especially among young people who are more likely to frequent the internet.
|
Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth.
Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government.
A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table.
|
On January 11 2012 02:34 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol. The reason Ron Paul is popular is because many of his ideas are popular. 1) He wants to end the wars in the middle east and not engage in future wars unless there is a strong justification for them and an explicit declaration of war by Congress as the constitution dictates. 2) He wants to make significant cuts to federal spending, more than any other candidate. 3) He wants the government to not be involved in social issues such as marriage and marijuana, and is opposed to invasions of privacy such as those in the patriot act. 4) He wants to reduce the power of the federal reserve over our financial system, and wants to weaken the corporatism in our system, because government and big business should not be in bed together. 5) He's the only candidate who actually believes the convictions he espouses, and his voting record over decades backs up everything he says. All the other candidates form their votes and opinions based upon consulting, polling, or bribes, and have very inconsistent voting records. This is just a short list. But I think these five points are very popular, especially among young people who are more likely to frequent the internet.
As for 3), his program actually has no practical problem with government invasions of privacy unrivaled even by current federal government as long as those invasions are done on the state level.
|
On January 11 2012 02:39 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth. Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government. A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table.
What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century.
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory. Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it. It should be : Science: Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
This guy is dead on! First fair post about this topic here ^^ :D
Biff , I come from a really recent former communist country , you have no idea what you're talking about. To bad your parrents didn't live in such a "social" society , you would probably me more awake to the problem Ron Paul is trying to raise . And his simplistic views are dead on , the founding father were right in most of the times . It's not like we've done a magic technological breaktrough in the matters of politics or international affairs , so the same views apply today just as well . The evolution of ideas is , absent if you ask me in the realm of politics ... Kinda funny to see a guy who is basically preaching evolution say "what if your kid borns in a poor family with no social security, medical insurence blabla" . What happened to the fittest survive the test of time ?
We are still arguing in schools if Kant or Hobbes were right , the recent authors in the realm of politics really don't strike me as , 10 levels above what was discussed a long time ago , so it's ok that Ron Paul is a conservative with 150 years old ideas .
|
On January 11 2012 03:00 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory. Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it. It should be : Science: Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing This guy is dead on! First fair post about this topic here ^^ :D
Doesn't make it one little bit more rational to not believe in evolution.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote:On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote:
Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:In everyday life:Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact! In Science:Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory. Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it. It should be : Science: Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
|
On January 11 2012 02:12 IMoperator wrote:
I'm 17 and going to turn 18 a few months before November. I have been kinda following politics, but not really so I just wanted to ask why the internet loves Ron Paul so much? I'm excited for the chance to vote but I don't really know a lot about this kinda stuff so I need some help lol.
Ron Paul offers simplistic solutions to complex issues. His solutions would not work, but that doesn't prevent them from sounding appealing to people not familiar enough with the problems.
|
On January 11 2012 02:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 02:39 Voros wrote:Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth. Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government. A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table. + Show Spoiler [First part of the post] +What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer. Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century. + Show Spoiler [Second part of the post] +
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
Could you please provide a link to that interview? I'd like to read/see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
