Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #57611 > unrolled thread

Let's talk about UFOs then

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-24 23:56 +0100
    Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:10 -0800
    Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 00:12 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 09:00 +0000
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 02:06 -0800
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 15:47 +0000
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:51 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-25 17:03 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 18:22 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 10:03 -0800
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-25 10:48 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 21:33 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:25 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> - 2015-02-25 17:49 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 14:13 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:53 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-25 17:58 +0100
    Let's talk about UFOs then Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 13:52 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-25 14:26 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-25 21:10 -0700
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-25 22:35 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 14:46 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:59 -0800
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-25 17:53 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:53 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:38 -0800
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 04:47 -0800
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 12:51 +0000
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:41 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-26 16:46 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 10:16 -0800
      Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-25 21:54 -0800
        Let's talk about UFOs then mt <mahdert@gmail.com> - 2015-02-26 00:09 -0800
        Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 05:56 -0800
    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 13:53 +0100
      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 16:39 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 14:00 -0600
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 21:30 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:41 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:56 +0100
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:16 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-27 08:25 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 10:14 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 15:39 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-01 15:51 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:12 -0800
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-02 09:04 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 13:04 -0700
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 09:22 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:27 +1300
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 02:16 -0700
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 10:22 -0700
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 10:23 -0700
                            Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:29 +0100
                              Re: [OT] Let's talk about UFOs then Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:27 -0700
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:01 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-26 23:17 -0600
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-02-27 12:15 +0000
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:29 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-26 14:10 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 10:45 +0100
        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-26 22:12 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 22:43 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-26 23:09 +0100
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-26 22:10 +0000
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-26 14:19 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-02-27 00:57 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:09 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 09:10 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-02-27 21:38 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-27 13:55 -0800
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-28 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 08:09 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-02-28 09:21 -0800
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-02-28 09:28 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 12:49 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 05:59 -0800
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 15:50 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 07:10 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:01 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 11:28 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 19:39 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:36 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-01 21:55 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 13:39 -0800
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-02 01:33 +0100
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-01 16:53 -0800
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-02 14:49 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 16:14 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 22:49 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 14:02 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 23:04 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-02 02:29 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 00:41 -0800
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:51 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-02 02:07 -0800
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-04 09:44 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-01 14:26 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:08 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-01 14:31 -0600
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-01 12:44 -0800
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:24 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:11 +0000
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-03 15:51 +0000
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:20 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 09:48 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 01:05 -0800
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:41 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-04 05:06 -0800
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-01 20:58 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 08:59 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 15:52 +0000
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:11 -0500
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 11:40 -0600
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-03 12:59 -0500
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 11:43 -0800
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:00 +0100
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 12:57 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 19:19 +0100
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 12:55 -0600
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 22:47 +0100
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-03 14:24 -0800
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 10:22 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 11:54 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:14 +0000
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-04 14:22 -0600
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 02:57 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 14:59 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 15:43 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-05 09:57 -0600
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 17:59 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 19:17 +0000
                                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 17:08 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-05 21:27 -0600
                                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 18:22 +0000
                                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-07 19:01 +0000
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-05 11:43 -0800
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-05 20:16 +0000
                                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-06 09:58 +0100
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-05 15:59 +0000
                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-01 23:17 +0100
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-01 19:17 -0800
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-02 08:30 +0000
                      Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-03 09:47 -0600
                        Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-03 16:16 +0000
                          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 11:12 +0100
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:09 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-04 12:16 +0000
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 12:40 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-03-05 03:23 +0000
                              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-04 15:30 +0100
                                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 17:31 +0000
                                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-04 10:46 -0800
                                    Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-04 18:56 +0000
                            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-03-16 18:25 -0500
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 12:22 +0100
              Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-02 14:12 +0100
                Re: Let's talk about UFOs then jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-03 09:08 +0100
                  Re: Let's talk about UFOs then gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-03-03 10:00 +0100
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-26 22:07 +0000
          Re: Let's talk about UFOs then Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-02-26 14:21 -0800
            Re: Let's talk about UFOs then David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-27 11:18 +0100

Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9  Next page →

#57908

On 2015-03-05, Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But anyhow, mathematics and computation seem to be intrinsics of
> existence and I wonder what our hypothetical aliens might think of C
> and in particular Standard C (Say C99).  Most of us here think it is a
> good language, and yet it is perhaps not the best general purpose
> language.  Is it even slightly productive to consider what an Alien C
> might look like?  Or should we perhaps assume that the future of
> computing will involve the gate-level reconfiguration of a general
> purpose machine to the problem at hand in a fashion perhaps analogous
> to the way FPGAs are often used today, and that C will become a relic
> of our primitive fixed-architecture computers.
>

I've been wondering this very thing with a more localized impetus,
that of the qubit. Quantum entanglement itself may make the C language
(and others) historical oddities should someone actually figure out how
to write useful algorithms with the technology.

A language not fettered by the need to vocalize might be useful in that
dimensions greater then the ones humans tend to think in could come into
play. How about a computer screen that functions in 4 dimensions? A
shift key that could shift time to allow a whole new meaning to the word
asyncronous?

-- 
http://www.softsprocket.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57809

On 01/03/15 21:31, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote:
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> A person was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was getting
>> steadily worse.  Yet suddenly they made a full recovery - doctors are
>> baffled.
>>
>> Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered
>
> ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered.  That doesn't
> rule out scientists discovering the cause in the future--and using it to
> develop a cure.  We learn new stuff every day.

That's true, but in cases like this we often lose the possibility of 
ever knowing the answer.  No matter how much new knowledge we get of 
cancer, we will not be able to take the extra before-and-after tests 
needed to be sure of the scientific explanation for the recovery.  In 
some cases, "science doesn't know /yet/" is appropriate - in others, it 
is "science probably will never know".

>
>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be
>> understood by mortal humans.
>
> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales?

When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we use until 
there is a better explanation.  But for some cases, there are no good 
rational alternatives - that's when some people make up fairy tales (or, 
more likely, fit them in as "evidence" for the fairy tales they already 
believe).

I have known two people who had accidents that should have killed them, 
or left them permanently disabled - but they walked away with barely a 
scratch.  The doctors who treated them did not have any good explanation 
for why they did not suffer horrific injuries - but I would not 
attribute the fortunate outcome to aliens or gods.  No doubt science 
/could/ give good explanations, but since the research would involve 
electrocuting people and driving trucks over people's heads, I think it 
is best to leave some answers blank!

>
>> Strange lights are seen in the sky, and witnessed by passengers in
>> several aircraft.  Nothing is seen on radar.
>>
>> Science cannot explain the strange lights - it must be aliens.  The
>> spacecraft cannot be seen on radar, because they aliens have
>> technology millions of years in advance of ours and completely
>> incomprehensible to us.
>
> Or it could just be the USAF (or one of their contractors) testing out
> new stealth aircraft, as was eventually discovered for many such "UFO"
> sightings when relevant documents were later declassified.
>
> Also, even without stealth, radar isn't perfect.  One object can be in
> another's "shadow".  It also picks up all sorts of ground clutter, so
> there are various filters applied to the output--and those filters may
> inadvertently hide real aircraft.  This is one of the reasons that
> aircraft use transponders: so ATC can "see" them even if there's no
> radar return shown on the screen.
>
>> No one can figure out what the aliens were doing here,
>
> Nobody has established that aliens are here, or even that they exist.
>
> S
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57814

I do not object to a low level of off-topic discussions here.
We're acquaintances, even friends.  Why go off to alt.ufos
and talk to strangers?

While I am not personally interested in investigating
the cases for or against UFO's I will make a general
comment that skeptics are often more ignorant of a topic
than those they try to refute.  I'm comfortably confident
with contrarian opinions on various controversies, e.g.
the Amerindian hypothesis of linguistics or
the hoax-author hypotheses of Shakespeare's
plays and sonnets -- views which typical "skeptics" are often
over-eager to denounce.

James Dow Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57815

On 02/03/15 03:17, James Dow Allen wrote:
<snip>
>
> While I am not personally interested in investigating
> the cases for or against UFO's

(Likewise)

> I will make a general
> comment that skeptics are often more ignorant of a topic
> than those they try to refute.

I have found that, in general (but not necessarily on Usenet!), it is 
not merely sceptics (or, if you must, skeptics), but people as a whole 
who are often more ignorant of a topic than those they try to refute. 
Usenauts tend to be somewhat more practised in debate, but in Real Life 
it is generally quite easy to win, even if your arguments are utterly 
without foundation. It's not so easy to /convince/ people (because most 
people insist on believing their own preconceptions even after those 
preconceptions have been comprehensively overturned). But if we define 
"win" as "opponent resorts to illogical arguments such as 'because I say 
so' or 'it just is' or 'I can shout louder than you' or 'apparently 
scientists have discovered [insert made-up discovery here]'", then it's 
easy to win arguments such as:

* the Earth is flat (modulo the odd bump);
* the Earth is a sphere (modulo the odd bump);
* God exists;
* God doesn't exist;
* miracles happen;
* miracles don't happen;
* the universe is deterministic;
* the universe is stochastic.

It is of course a matter of honour and principle, when winning *both* 
sides of an argument, that both victories should be against the same 
victim (did I say 'victim'? I meant 'opponent') and ideally not too far 
separated in time. A month or so is acceptable.

Strategy tip: requiring your opponent to define terms is always a good 
move. I once asked a debating opponent to define 'life', and then used 
that definition to prove that a 1978 VW camper van is alive.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57845

On 01-Mar-15 16:17, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/03/15 21:31, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 28-Feb-15 09:20, David Brown wrote:
>>> Science cannot explain why the cancer patient recovered
>> 
>> ITYM that science cannot YET explain why they recovered.  That
>> doesn't rule out scientists discovering the cause in the
>> future--and using it to develop a cure.  We learn new stuff every
>> day.
> 
> That's true, but in cases like this we often lose the possibility of 
> ever knowing the answer.  No matter how much new knowledge we get of 
> cancer, we will not be able to take the extra before-and-after tests 
> needed to be sure of the scientific explanation for the recovery.
> In some cases, "science doesn't know /yet/" is appropriate - in
> others, it is "science probably will never know".

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of cancer patients.  If someone
comes up with a hypothesis that some unusual hormone level in the
recovered patient was the cause, then we can induce that level in other
patients and see if they recover too.  If not, we can rule it out, and
we know to look for other causes.

Religion has no such feedback mechanism.

>>> it must be divine intervention, working in ways that cannot be 
>>> understood by mortal humans.
>> 
>> There are rational alternatives, so why presume fairy tales?
> 
> When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we use
> until there is a better explanation.

Indeed; that's the very essence of science.

> But for some cases, there are no good rational alternatives - that's
> when some people make up fairy tales (or, more likely, fit them in
> as "evidence" for the fairy tales they already believe).

Most of what science can now explain was once subject to such fairy
tales; for instance, we now know a lot about weather (even though our
predictions are still only good for a few days), whereas previously we
blamed weather on someone angering a fairy, e.g. because we didn't
provide the right/enough ritual sacrifices.

And, as far as that goes, it's not such a bad system.  The problem is
that when the fairy tale is debunked, many of the believers disregard
new scientific discoveries and cling to their fairy tales--and attack
the scientists.

> I have known two people who had accidents that should have killed
> them, or left them permanently disabled - but they walked away with
> barely a scratch.  The doctors who treated them did not have any good
> explanation for why they did not suffer horrific injuries - but I
> would not attribute the fortunate outcome to aliens or gods.  No
> doubt science /could/ give good explanations, but since the research
> would involve electrocuting people and driving trucks over people's
> heads, I think it is best to leave some answers blank!

Under the current scientific ethics, yes.  Those rules didn't always
exist (e.g. Nazi research), and might change again in the future.

Religion hasn't always played nice, either.  If you suspect someone of
being a witch, throw them in a lake; if they sink, they were innocent
(oops!), but if they swim, burn them at the stake!  Either way, the
accused person dies; accusing the innocent was a good way to get rid of
rivals--and confiscate their wealth.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57850

On 03/03/15 15:47, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

<snip>

> Unfortunately, there is no shortage of cancer patients.  If someone
> comes up with a hypothesis that some unusual hormone level in the
> recovered patient was the cause, then we can induce that level in other
> patients and see if they recover too.  If not, we can rule it out, and
> we know to look for other causes.
>
> Religion has no such feedback mechanism.

It's not a competition. Your ENTER key can send a line of text to your 
strictly conforming C program. Your shift key can't. That does not mean 
the shift key has no valid purpose. Both those keys are useful, for 
different reasons.

>> When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we use
>> until there is a better explanation.
>
> Indeed; that's the very essence of science.

Yes, except when the rational alternative is supernatural. (Yes, it is 
possible to reason about supernatural phenomena. It is also possible to 
be /ir/rational about supernatural phenomena, just as it is possible to 
be irrational about science.)

>> But for some cases, there are no good rational alternatives - that's
>> when some people make up fairy tales (or, more likely, fit them in
>> as "evidence" for the fairy tales they already believe).
>
> Most of what science can now explain was once subject to such fairy
> tales; for instance, we now know a lot about weather (even though our
> predictions are still only good for a few days), whereas previously we
> blamed weather on someone angering a fairy, e.g. because we didn't
> provide the right/enough ritual sacrifices.

Oddly, though, science has nothing to say about the weather fairy, and 
has still unaccountably failed to prove either its existence or its 
non-existence. The weather fairy is unfalsifiable, and thus not 
scientific. Nevertheless, "unfalsifiable" doesn't mean "false", but this 
is a trap that many scientists fall into. (Nor, of course, does 
"unfalsifiable" mean "true", which is a trap that many non-scientists 
fall into.)

>
> And, as far as that goes, it's not such a bad system.  The problem is
> that when the fairy tale is debunked, many of the believers disregard
> new scientific discoveries and cling to their fairy tales--and attack
> the scientists.

Have you debunked the weather fairy? If so, that would make you unique 
in the annals of science. Feel free to explain further.

>
>> I have known two people who had accidents that should have killed
>> them, or left them permanently disabled - but they walked away with
>> barely a scratch.  The doctors who treated them did not have any good
>> explanation for why they did not suffer horrific injuries - but I
>> would not attribute the fortunate outcome to aliens or gods.  No
>> doubt science /could/ give good explanations, but since the research
>> would involve electrocuting people and driving trucks over people's
>> heads, I think it is best to leave some answers blank!
>
> Under the current scientific ethics, yes.  Those rules didn't always
> exist (e.g. Nazi research), and might change again in the future.

I think we can do better than that, can't we? How about love, joy, 
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and 
self-control? Not a bad set of values, is it?

>
> Religion hasn't always played nice, either.  If you suspect someone of
> being a witch, throw them in a lake; if they sink, they were innocent
> (oops!), but if they swim, burn them at the stake!  Either way, the
> accused person dies; accusing the innocent was a good way to get rid of
> rivals--and confiscate their wealth.

No, if you suspect someone of being a witch, well, witchcraft is against 
the law, so you put them on trial. And a significant *majority* of those 
brought to trial for witchcraft were acquitted. I found a Web reference 
to court records for the South-East of England 1560-1701, which shows 
that, in that period, 474 people (an average of one every hundred and 
nine days - just over three per year) were brought to trial on a charge 
of witchcraft. Of those, 265 were acquitted, and 104 (less than a 
quarter) were hanged. The remainder were either pardoned or sentenced to 
non-capital punishment. No burnings, apparently. I'm not saying it never 
happened, but you'd have to go back a *very* long way.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57881

On 03/03/15 17:16, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/03/15 15:47, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Unfortunately, there is no shortage of cancer patients.  If someone
>> comes up with a hypothesis that some unusual hormone level in the
>> recovered patient was the cause, then we can induce that level in other
>> patients and see if they recover too.  If not, we can rule it out, and
>> we know to look for other causes.
>>
>> Religion has no such feedback mechanism.
> 
> It's not a competition. Your ENTER key can send a line of text to your
> strictly conforming C program. Your shift key can't. That does not mean
> the shift key has no valid purpose. Both those keys are useful, for
> different reasons.
> 

I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious
beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science", or
denying the validity of science (except, of course, when they are
scientifically disproving existing theories - scientists like nothing
better than to be proven wrong).  A lot of people feel their lives are
better because of their beliefs, and that's fine (as long as you don't
use those believes to make other people's lives worse, of course - but
that applies equally to the most rigidly rational scientist as well).

But I do have arguments with people taking something with no evidence,
but calling it "science" because it fits their own beliefs.  So you can
believe in alien visitations, fairies in the garden, or whatever you
like - but you can't call it science or teach it in a school science
class without argument.

>>> When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we use
>>> until there is a better explanation.
>>
>> Indeed; that's the very essence of science.
> 
> Yes, except when the rational alternative is supernatural. (Yes, it is
> possible to reason about supernatural phenomena. It is also possible to
> be /ir/rational about supernatural phenomena, just as it is possible to
> be irrational about science.)

You can reason about supernatural phenomena, just as you can reason
about how dreadful the new Dr. Who series are compared to the original ones.

> 
>>> But for some cases, there are no good rational alternatives - that's
>>> when some people make up fairy tales (or, more likely, fit them in
>>> as "evidence" for the fairy tales they already believe).
>>
>> Most of what science can now explain was once subject to such fairy
>> tales; for instance, we now know a lot about weather (even though our
>> predictions are still only good for a few days), whereas previously we
>> blamed weather on someone angering a fairy, e.g. because we didn't
>> provide the right/enough ritual sacrifices.
> 
> Oddly, though, science has nothing to say about the weather fairy, and
> has still unaccountably failed to prove either its existence or its
> non-existence. The weather fairy is unfalsifiable, and thus not
> scientific. Nevertheless, "unfalsifiable" doesn't mean "false", but this
> is a trap that many scientists fall into. (Nor, of course, does
> "unfalsifiable" mean "true", which is a trap that many non-scientists
> fall into.)
> 

The scope for the weather fairy has been gradually pushed further and
further back.  There was a time when it was the cause of every
rainshower and every sunny day - now we know how most of them work.  We
certainly don't know it all as yet, but as the fairy gets pushed into
the background, with less and less scope to influence the weather.
Rational extrapolation shows it being pushed away endlessly.

Has the weather fairy been unequivocally disproved?  No, of course not.
 Has it been debunked - meaning has it been shown to be unnecessary as
an explanation?  Yes, long ago.

>>
>> And, as far as that goes, it's not such a bad system.  The problem is
>> that when the fairy tale is debunked, many of the believers disregard
>> new scientific discoveries and cling to their fairy tales--and attack
>> the scientists.
> 
> Have you debunked the weather fairy? If so, that would make you unique
> in the annals of science. Feel free to explain further.
> 
>>
>>> I have known two people who had accidents that should have killed
>>> them, or left them permanently disabled - but they walked away with
>>> barely a scratch.  The doctors who treated them did not have any good
>>> explanation for why they did not suffer horrific injuries - but I
>>> would not attribute the fortunate outcome to aliens or gods.  No
>>> doubt science /could/ give good explanations, but since the research
>>> would involve electrocuting people and driving trucks over people's
>>> heads, I think it is best to leave some answers blank!
>>
>> Under the current scientific ethics, yes.  Those rules didn't always
>> exist (e.g. Nazi research), and might change again in the future.
> 
> I think we can do better than that, can't we? How about love, joy,
> peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
> self-control? Not a bad set of values, is it?

There are lots of scientific explanations (or at least partial
explanations) for many of these, and it is useful to learn about them.
Again, ethics can limit much of the research (and rightly so, IMHO).
And sometimes it is better for most of us not to know the details, even
though it is useful to humanity that "science" knows.  As an example,
you would not sleep better at night if you knew the details of all the
little bugs that live in your bed - but if they become a problem, you'll
be glad that /someone/ knows.

> 
>>
>> Religion hasn't always played nice, either.  If you suspect someone of
>> being a witch, throw them in a lake; if they sink, they were innocent
>> (oops!), but if they swim, burn them at the stake!  Either way, the
>> accused person dies; accusing the innocent was a good way to get rid of
>> rivals--and confiscate their wealth.
> 
> No, if you suspect someone of being a witch, well, witchcraft is against
> the law, so you put them on trial. And a significant *majority* of those
> brought to trial for witchcraft were acquitted. I found a Web reference
> to court records for the South-East of England 1560-1701, which shows
> that, in that period, 474 people (an average of one every hundred and
> nine days - just over three per year) were brought to trial on a charge
> of witchcraft. Of those, 265 were acquitted, and 104 (less than a
> quarter) were hanged. The remainder were either pardoned or sentenced to
> non-capital punishment. No burnings, apparently. I'm not saying it never
> happened, but you'd have to go back a *very* long way.
> 

This varied enormously from country to country - what happened in
England is very different from what happened in other parts of Europe
(and the USA).

In Scandinavia, a significant number of people executed for witchcraft
(or the other favourite, bestiality) turned themselves in and freely
admitted their "crime".  It was considered a legally acceptable way of
committing suicide - as long as you repented (even if though you
invented the crime yourself), you would be buried in a churchyard and
your debts would be forgiven.  With "normal" suicide, you would be
buried in unhallowed ground and your family would inherit your debts.

In some other countries, accusing people of witchcraft was a very
successful way of attacking someone you didn't like, and had a strong
chance of them ending at the stake.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57883

On 04/03/15 10:12, David Brown wrote:

[As I said to you in email, I think this stuff is going on a little 
long. So I'll keep this reply very brief.]

<snip>

> I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious
> beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science",

So do I.

> or
> denying the validity of science (except, of course, when they are
> scientifically disproving existing theories - scientists like nothing
> better than to be proven wrong).

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

<snip>

>>>> When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we use
>>>> until there is a better explanation.
>>>
>>> Indeed; that's the very essence of science.
>>
>> Yes, except when the rational alternative is supernatural. (Yes, it is
>> possible to reason about supernatural phenomena. It is also possible to
>> be /ir/rational about supernatural phenomena, just as it is possible to
>> be irrational about science.)
>
> You can reason about supernatural phenomena, just as you can reason
> about how dreadful the new Dr. Who series are compared to the original ones.

And just as you can reason about gravity, or electricity, or angular 
momentum. Reasoning is reasoning. All is grist to its mill. And 
therefore, in some sense, *everything*, even the square root of two, is 
rational. :-)

<snip>


> The scope for the weather fairy has been gradually pushed further and
> further back.

It's tragic, isn't it? I blame deforestation.

<snip>

>>>> [...]  No
>>>> doubt science /could/ give good explanations, but since the research
>>>> would involve electrocuting people and driving trucks over people's
>>>> heads, I think it is best to leave some answers blank!
>>>
>>> Under the current scientific ethics, yes.  Those rules didn't always
>>> exist (e.g. Nazi research), and might change again in the future.
>>
>> I think we can do better than that, can't we? How about love, joy,
>> peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
>> self-control? Not a bad set of values, is it?
>
> There are lots of scientific explanations (or at least partial
> explanations) for many of these, and it is useful to learn about them.

But it's even more useful (or rather, beneficial) to *exhibit* those 
characteristics. This is not within the remit of science, because 
science cannot answer the question "How should we live?" About the best 
it can do is say "if we do /this/, we'll live longer, all else being equal".

<snip>

<witchcraft!>
>
> This varied enormously from country to country - what happened in
> England is very different from what happened in other parts of Europe
> (and the USA).

I'm sure you're right. What happened in England was bad enough, but it 
seems that other parts of the world made England look pretty good (or 
rather, not quite so evil) by comparison.

<snip>

> In some other countries, accusing people of witchcraft was a very
> successful way of attacking someone you didn't like, and had a strong
> chance of them ending at the stake.
>

We have a modern equivalent in the UK that has evolved from the societal 
changes here over the last half-century or so - pick a celebrity at 
random and accuse him of abusing children. It's a cheap way to destroy 
someone's reputation.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57884

On 2015-03-04, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 04/03/15 10:12, David Brown wrote:
>
> [As I said to you in email, I think this stuff is going on a little 
> long. So I'll keep this reply very brief.]
>
><snip>
>
>> I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious
>> beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science",
>
> So do I.

I only object to calling them true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57885

On 04/03/15 12:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2015-03-04, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 04/03/15 10:12, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> [As I said to you in email, I think this stuff is going on a little
>> long. So I'll keep this reply very brief.]
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious
>>> beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science",
>>
>> So do I.
>
> I only object to calling them true.

Feel free. But your objection does not in and of itself make those 
beliefs false.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57904

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:40:01PM +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/03/15 12:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> >On 2015-03-04, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >>On 04/03/15 10:12, David Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>[As I said to you in email, I think this stuff is going on a little
> >>long. So I'll keep this reply very brief.]
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious
> >>>beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science",
> >>
> >>So do I.
> >
> >I only object to calling them true.
> 
> Feel free. But your objection does not in and of itself make those 
> beliefs false.

Well, no.  The attribute of falseness is intrinsic to those
non-scientific or religious beliefs except where they may be
accidentally consistent with actual truth.  Belief is at best a
manifestation of politics.



Regards,

Steve Thompson

-- 
GOTO's are like guns.  Safety is entirely contingent on the user.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57889

On 04/03/15 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/03/15 10:12, David Brown wrote:
> 
> [As I said to you in email, I think this stuff is going on a little
> long. So I'll keep this reply very brief.]
> 
>>> I think we can do better than that, can't we? How about love, joy,
>>> peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
>>> self-control? Not a bad set of values, is it?
>>
>> There are lots of scientific explanations (or at least partial
>> explanations) for many of these, and it is useful to learn about them.
> 
> But it's even more useful (or rather, beneficial) to *exhibit* those
> characteristics. This is not within the remit of science, because
> science cannot answer the question "How should we live?" About the best
> it can do is say "if we do /this/, we'll live longer, all else being
> equal".

Science can say a lot more than that - social skills evolved over time,
just like our physical characteristics.  An interesting area of research
is in the evolution of characteristics that are encoded in society and
culture, rather than in genes.

> 
> <snip>
> 
> <witchcraft!>
>>
>> This varied enormously from country to country - what happened in
>> England is very different from what happened in other parts of Europe
>> (and the USA).
> 
> I'm sure you're right. What happened in England was bad enough, but it
> seems that other parts of the world made England look pretty good (or
> rather, not quite so evil) by comparison.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> In some other countries, accusing people of witchcraft was a very
>> successful way of attacking someone you didn't like, and had a strong
>> chance of them ending at the stake.
>>
> 
> We have a modern equivalent in the UK that has evolved from the societal
> changes here over the last half-century or so - pick a celebrity at
> random and accuse him of abusing children. It's a cheap way to destroy
> someone's reputation.
> 

The McArthy (sp?) witchhunts in the USA are another clear example.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57890

On 04/03/15 14:30, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/03/15 13:09, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>> science cannot answer the question "How should we live?" About the best
>> it can do is say "if we do /this/, we'll live longer, all else being
>> equal".
>
> Science can say a lot more than that - social skills evolved over time,
> just like our physical characteristics.  An interesting area of research
> is in the evolution of characteristics that are encoded in society and
> culture, rather than in genes.

Either social science is in its infancy, in which case why give credence 
to any of its findings (since they're bound to be overturned by later 
findings), or it isn't, in which case it must take its share of the 
blame for the pigs' breakfast that is society today. Either way, I 
wouldn't trust it with an array of 2 ints.

Science is quite good at rocks and stuff, but not so good at working out 
how we can live together in peace.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57892

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 5:31:30 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/03/15 14:30, David Brown wrote:
>
> Either social science is in its infancy, in which case why give credence 
> to any of its findings (since they're bound to be overturned by later 
> findings), or it isn't, in which case it must take its share of the 
> blame for the pigs' breakfast that is society today. Either way, I 
> wouldn't trust it with an array of 2 ints.
> 
> Science is quite good at rocks and stuff, but not so good at working out 
> how we can live together in peace.
> 
Social science is still in its descriptive phase. We can't derive general rules which
we know will always hold. However we know some things. Most members of the
general public think it's a good idea to tax imports and subsidise exports, for
example, to keep jobs and expertise in the country. Actually economists have
worked out that a tax on imports is the same thing as a tax on exports, because
of relative advantage - the British toy industry thinks it's competing with the
Chinese toy industry, but it isn't really, it's competing with the British boarding
school industry. Chinese people send us their toys because they want to send
their children to our boarding schools, thus my friend Molly is employed as a
matron in a boarding school rather than in a toy factory.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57893

On 04/03/15 18:46, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 5:31:30 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> Science is quite good at rocks and stuff, but not so good at working out
>> how we can live together in peace.
>>
> Social science is still in its descriptive phase. We can't derive general rules which
> we know will always hold. However we know some things. Most members of the
> general public think it's a good idea to tax imports and subsidise exports, for
> example, to keep jobs and expertise in the country.

Let me stop you right there, Malcolm, on "keep jobs and expertise in the 
country". But social scientists haven't even worked out whether or not 
it's a good idea to have countries at all. And even if they discovered, 
and perhaps could even prove, that we would be better off without 
national borders of any kind, would anyone listen?

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58259

On 04-Mar-15 04:12, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/03/15 17:16, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/03/15 15:47, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, there is no shortage of cancer patients.  If
>>> someone comes up with a hypothesis that some unusual hormone
>>> level in the recovered patient was the cause, then we can induce
>>> that level in other patients and see if they recover too.  If
>>> not, we can rule it out, and we know to look for other causes.
>>> 
>>> Religion has no such feedback mechanism.
>> 
>> It's not a competition. Your ENTER key can send a line of text to
>> your strictly conforming C program. Your shift key can't. That does
>> not mean the shift key has no valid purpose. Both those keys are
>> useful, for different reasons.
> 
> I have no problems with people having non-scientific or religious 
> beliefs - I only object to people calling such beliefs "science", or 
> denying the validity of science ...
> 
> But I do have arguments with people taking something with no
> evidence, but calling it "science" because it fits their own beliefs.
> So you can believe in alien visitations, fairies in the garden, or
> whatever you like - but you can't call it science or teach it in a
> school science class without argument.

A few years ago, US evangelicals relabeled creationism as "Intelligent
Design" and tried to force public schools to teach it as an alternative
to evolution _in science classes_.  Eventually, federal courts ruled
(IMHO correctly) that "Intelligent Design" was religion, not science,
and that was not allowed in science classes--but left the door open for
it to be taught in religion classes (where offered).

For the record, I think comparative religion should be a mandatory
course, even in public schools.  Teach a _dozen_ origin myths; many of
them are quite interesting.

>>>> When there are good rational alternatives, that's the ones we
>>>> use until there is a better explanation.
>>> 
>>> Indeed; that's the very essence of science.
>> 
>> Yes, except when the rational alternative is supernatural. (Yes, it
>> is possible to reason about supernatural phenomena. It is also
>> possible to be /ir/rational about supernatural phenomena, just as
>> it is possible to be irrational about science.)
> 
> You can reason about supernatural phenomena, just as you can reason 
> about how dreadful the new Dr. Who series are compared to the
> original ones.

Right.  There was an interesting discussion (here?) a while back about
zombies and vampires.  However, AFAIK we all went into it knowing that
such things aren't real; the problem is that billions of people _do_
believe their fairy tales are real--and their fairy wants them to kill
everyone who believes in a different fairy (or none at all).

>>>> But for some cases, there are no good rational alternatives -
>>>> that's when some people make up fairy tales (or, more likely,
>>>> fit them in as "evidence" for the fairy tales they already
>>>> believe).
>>> 
>>> Most of what science can now explain was once subject to such
>>> fairy tales; for instance, we now know a lot about weather (even
>>> though our predictions are still only good for a few days),
>>> whereas previously we blamed weather on someone angering a fairy,
>>> e.g. because we didn't provide the right/enough ritual
>>> sacrifices.
>> 
>> Oddly, though, science has nothing to say about the weather fairy,
>> and has still unaccountably failed to prove either its existence or
>> its non-existence. The weather fairy is unfalsifiable, and thus
>> not scientific. Nevertheless, "unfalsifiable" doesn't mean "false",
>> but this is a trap that many scientists fall into. (Nor, of course,
>> does "unfalsifiable" mean "true", which is a trap that many
>> non-scientists fall into.)
> 
> The scope for the weather fairy has been gradually pushed further
> and further back.  There was a time when it was the cause of every 
> rainshower and every sunny day - now we know how most of them work.
> We certainly don't know it all as yet, but as the fairy gets pushed
> into the background, with less and less scope to influence the
> weather. Rational extrapolation shows it being pushed away
> endlessly.
> 
> Has the weather fairy been unequivocally disproved?  No, of course
> not. Has it been debunked - meaning has it been shown to be
> unnecessary as an explanation?  Yes, long ago.

Indeed.  We have no proof that fairies _don't_ exist, but as science has
progressed, the fraction of natural events lacking a natural explanation
is now rapidly approaching zero.

I doubt it will ever actually _reach_ zero, but just as we can't say
that 1/∞=0, we _can_ say that lim(N→∞,1/N)=0.

One could argue that fairies exist in some other realm that has no
contact with ours, but then what's the point in believing in them?
They'd be just as useless as the fictional fairies on TV--a story to
entertain (or scare) children, nothing more.

>>> Under the current scientific ethics, yes.  Those rules didn't
>>> always exist (e.g. Nazi research), and might change again in the
>>> future.
>> 
>> I think we can do better than that, can't we? How about love, joy, 
>> peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and 
>> self-control? Not a bad set of values, is it?
> 
> There are lots of scientific explanations (or at least partial 
> explanations) for many of these, and it is useful to learn about
> them.

Not just explanations but also reasons why we should still strive for
such values.  I don't need a fairy to bribe (or blackmail) me into being
a good person, and those who do need bribes (or blackmail) are arguably
not good people at all, just good actors.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57821

El 26/02/15 a las 22:43, jacob navia escribió:
> The pilots of the flight in Spain report (according to the biggest
> newspaper in Spain "El Pais" from sunday 23 Nov. 1980. This is a
> translation from me, anyone can read the report in that newspaper.
> I can send anyone that wishes a scanned page of the journal. (In spanish
> obviously)

Yes, please, send me an email with that page.

-- 
http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57822

El 02/03/15 a las 12:22, gamo escribió:
> El 26/02/15 a las 22:43, jacob navia escribió:
>> The pilots of the flight in Spain report (according to the biggest
>> newspaper in Spain "El Pais" from sunday 23 Nov. 1980. This is a
>> translation from me, anyone can read the report in that newspaper.
>> I can send anyone that wishes a scanned page of the journal. (In spanish
>> obviously)
>
> Yes, please, send me an email with that page.
>

Thanks, Jacob.

Well, there are things aginst the credibility of the article:

1. The author is a well known 'ufologo'

2. The article does not mention line numbers, nor pilot's names

3. The article was published in Sunday and in the part 'Regions'

-- 
http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57836

Le 02/03/2015 14:12, gamo a écrit :
> El 02/03/15 a las 12:22, gamo escribió:
>> El 26/02/15 a las 22:43, jacob navia escribió:
>>> The pilots of the flight in Spain report (according to the biggest
>>> newspaper in Spain "El Pais" from sunday 23 Nov. 1980. This is a
>>> translation from me, anyone can read the report in that newspaper.
>>> I can send anyone that wishes a scanned page of the journal. (In spanish
>>> obviously)
>>
>> Yes, please, send me an email with that page.
>>
>
> Thanks, Jacob.
>
> Well, there are things aginst the credibility of the article:
>
> 1. The author is a well known 'ufologo'
>
'Ufologo' is somebody that studies the UFO phenomenon. For me, this is 
not a pejorative word, but you seem to use it as one. For me it is a 
factor for the credibility of the article that was written by somebody 
that studies this subject!

> 2. The article does not mention line numbers, nor pilot's names
>

Obviously the pilots wouldn't want to be associated with "seeing UFOs" 
because of the prevailing attitude that could cut short their careers.

Note too that one pilot name is mentioned in the article. A photo of him 
is presented with the text:
"The commander Miralles of the company Aviaco has observed, together 
with his copilot, a huge UFO that split into 3 smaller objects"

That is ANOTHER incident in that year, besides the 5 mentioned in the 
article text.

Note too that November 1980 was the anniversary of another series of 
incidents in Spain in Novermber 1979. This is mentioned in the sub-title 
of the article. At the anniversary of the incidents of 1979 the earth is 
approximately at the same position in its orbit.

> 3. The article was published in Sunday and in the part 'Regions'
>

Yes. Maybe you want to establish a credibility index for articles: 
Sunday is bad, Monday is OK?

El Pais is the most important newspaper in Spain, like "The New York 
Times", for the U.S. or "Le Monde" of France. I do not see any reason to 
doubt this article.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57837

El 03/03/15 a las 09:08, jacob navia escribió:
> El Pais is the most important newspaper in Spain, like "The New York
> Times", for the U.S. or "Le Monde" of France. I do not see any reason to
> doubt this article.

What has this article in special?
That it mentions too many observations without grasping a few witness.

-- 
http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web