freenode #wikipedia

2008-01-05 21:03 < Schroeder> fraud statutes do not interfere with production
2008-01-05 21:03 < kenlyric> Schroeder: it's exactly what you said. You said government shouldn't interfere in the actions of corporations. laws against fraud are exactly that.
2008-01-05 21:03 < mavhk> Schroeder: what if the consumer dies due to a bad product, they don't get to choose a different one
2008-01-05 21:03 < Schroeder> mavhk: then they made a bad choice in the first place
2008-01-05 21:03 < Sfan00> I have to go
2008-01-05 21:03 < phed> Schroeder, besides, I think corporations and the government has no inherent qualities
2008-01-05 21:03 < Schroeder> they took the risk, and it didn't pan out
2008-01-05 21:03 < Schroeder> tough shit
2008-01-05 21:03 < phed> Schroeder, a bad corporations is just as bad as a bad governement etc
2008-01-05 21:03 < Lycurgus> the general solution is going to be for people that want to get together and enjoy the beneifits of socialized medicine as described above and the assholes who want to go on on their own can do just that
2008-01-05 21:04 < Lycurgus> s/above/above will do so/
2008-01-05 21:04 < phed> Schroeder, you seem to irrationally believe that corporations have a right to exist. They are there just for historical and systemic reasons. Not any philosophical reasons justifies their existence.
2008-01-05 21:05 < phed> Schroeder, other than ayn rand who justifies them after the fact.
2008-01-05 21:05 < Cyrius> I'm not kidding, I'm going to shoot you all
2008-01-05 21:05 < mavhk> good point, you can want laws to stop laws
2008-01-05 21:05 < phed> Cyrius, post about it on youtube
2008-01-05 21:05 < mavhk> err, can't
2008-01-05 21:05 < Cyrius> phed: I was thinking more of going +o
2008-01-05 21:05 < kenlyric> make sure to put on mascara and a sheet over your head.
2008-01-05 21:06 < Cyrius> don't think I'm not crazy enough to quiet you all
2008-01-05 21:06 < phed> Cyrius, aww. I hoped youtube would be outlawed because it kills
2008-01-05 21:06 < mavhk> Cyrius: so we can go back to talking about what?
2008-01-05 21:06 < kenlyric> what's the fun of irc if you can't bat around trolls?
2008-01-05 21:06 < Cyrius> mavhk: something less stupid
2008-01-05 21:06 < Cyrius> kenlyric: what fun? this is the same damn argument everyone has with him
2008-01-05 21:07 < Cyrius> there's no point, nobody is ever convinced of anything
2008-01-05 21:07 < kenlyric> but *I* haven't got to play with the yarn ball yet.
2008-01-05 21:07 < Lycurgus> wait this is not stupid, this is super serious life or death (yours) shit
2008-01-05 21:07 < kenlyric> Cyrius: welcome to IRC?
2008-01-05 21:07 < Cyrius> Lycurgus: the _argument_ is stupid because you will not be convinced by him, and he will not be convinced by you
2008-01-05 21:07 < mavhk> that's not the point of a debate, you're not trying to convince your oponant, but the audience
2008-01-05 21:07 < kenlyric> jesus, I'd have a quit a decade ago if I thought the point was to convince anyone of anything :)
2008-01-05 21:07 < Lycurgus> I'm not trying to convince him!
2008-01-05 21:08 < Lycurgus> I want him to retain his convinciton.
2008-01-05 21:08 < mavhk> plus you get them to show their reasoning, which allows you to form better arguments against them for next time
2008-01-05 21:08 < Cyrius> it has been firmly established that he will
2008-01-05 21:08 < kenlyric> mavhk: nah, not if they're just trolling.
2008-01-05 21:08 < Cyrius> it's the same arguments every time
2008-01-05 21:08 < kenlyric> you can't really form coherent arguments against the wind.
2008-01-05 21:08 < mavhk> well with someone else
2008-01-05 21:09 < mavhk> it's a well known fact that everyone who disagrees with me is obviously retarded
2008-01-05 21:09 < Lycurgus> I know that the vast majority both here and elsewhere will make the right decision, whether individuals like him manage to fuck it up here or not in the short term is problematic but the long term is clear
2008-01-05 21:10 < Schroeder> Lycurgus: slavery is *NEVER* the "right decision"
2008-01-05 21:10 < Cyrius> see?
2008-01-05 21:10 < Lycurgus> The important thing is that the majority who don't hold insanse self-destructive opions understand that they can act. It's to make that point that I speak.
2008-01-05 21:11 < Schroeder> I can't believe people still hold on to such despicable ideas
2008-01-05 21:11 < mavhk> what's weird is by the time we're finished the other side's argument is almost always left with "ah, but the speed of light might not be constant"
2008-01-05 21:11 < Schroeder> they have no moral right to act
2008-01-05 21:11 < Lycurgus> Don't give a shit about some ignorant assholes.
2008-01-05 21:11 < Schroeder> and I am entitled to revolt if they try to slave me
2008-01-05 21:11 < Schroeder> how dare you call me an "ignorant asshole", when you're the one trying to enslave man to his fellow man!
2008-01-05 21:11 < mavhk> now you're just saying slogans
2008-01-05 21:11 < mavhk> it doesn't even make sense anymore
2008-01-05 21:12 < ST47> Can you all take it to #politics or #flamewar or something like that?
2008-01-05 21:12 < Cyrius> #repetitive-arguments
2008-01-05 21:12 < ST47> That's the one.
2008-01-05 21:12 < mavhk> do they have the problem in #flamewar that people keep trying to make rational arguments? "stay on topic damnit"
2008-01-05 21:13 < Lycurgus> no, I'm done.
2008-01-05 21:13 < Cyrius> mavhk: they probably would
2008-01-05 21:14 < mavhk> right, now we've gone meta again
2008-01-05 21:14 < Cyrius> woo, pointless meta-wankery
2008-01-05 21:15 < mavhk> of course in talking about meta we've gone meta squared
2008-01-05 21:15 < mavhk> will the cycle never end?
2008-01-05 21:15 < Cyrius> stack overflow
2008-01-05 21:16 < mavhk> error: divide by cheese
2008-01-05 21:16 < Cyrius> +++ redo from start +++
2008-01-05 21:16 < gwern> 'error: the impossible has happened.'
2008-01-05 21:17 < mavhk> #include physics; bigbang(universe--);
2008-01-05 21:17 < gwern> main = [universe..]
2008-01-05 21:19 < phed> But I'm amazed really
2008-01-05 21:19 * gwern doesn't believe you're amazed
2008-01-05 21:19 < phed> I thought Ayn Rand went out of style
2008-01-05 21:20 < phed> But I guess objectivists doesn't intend to participate in the philsophical discourse anyway
2008-01-05 21:21 < mavhk> I blame wikipedia
2008-01-05 21:21 < phed> I blame the american education system
2008-01-05 21:21 < Cyrius> phed: nooo! it was dead!
2008-01-05 21:21 < mavhk> you think they get to ayn rand?
2008-01-05 21:21 < phed> positivism and rational scepticism as "de facto" and educational standard is bad
2008-01-05 21:21 < phed> :(
2008-01-05 21:21 < gwern> objectivists don't participate in philosophical discourse. they withdraw and STOP THE MOTOR OF THE WORLD. then they give long-ass speechs
2008-01-05 21:21 < Cyrius> bad phed! no cookie
2008-01-05 21:22 < Luna-San> [18:21.20] <mavhk> you think they get to ayn rand? <-- as an American, I'm confused. How do I 'ayn' and what is a 'rand'?
2008-01-05 21:22 < phed> Here in norway we've been post-postivism since 1970s
2008-01-05 21:22 < Lycurgus_> I think if Ayn had lived she would have changed. See my transcript of her speech disapproving of the Reagan admin at e2 ...
2008-01-05 21:22 < Cyrius> Luna-San: [[Ayn Rand]]
2008-01-05 21:22 < x_Rankun_X> someone type !ping fastlizard4
2008-01-05 21:22 < phed> but there's not a single reference to the philosophy of science we apply here : \
2008-01-05 21:22 < phed> (on wikipedia)
2008-01-05 21:22 < FastLizard4> !ops
2008-01-05 21:23 < Luna-San> Cyrius: But he didn't capitalize. :{
2008-01-05 21:23 < Lycurgus_> http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1678365
2008-01-05 21:23 < mavhk> phed: so fix it
2008-01-05 21:23 < Luna-San> So it can't be a proper noun.
2008-01-05 21:23 * Luna-San runs
2008-01-05 21:23 * gwern would like to ayn a rand. a gold rand, but only if our spouses consent
2008-01-05 21:23 < phed> mavhk, yeah I intend to start with the philosophist that reformed the scientific discourse in norway :)
2008-01-05 21:23 < phed> mavhk, i see the articles is marked "in need of an expert"
2008-01-05 21:23 < Cyrius> gwern: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean
2008-01-05 21:24 < mavhk> I should take a course on all this
2008-01-05 21:24 < mavhk> I only did one about the scientific method
2008-01-05 21:24 < phed> mavhk, I will also include facts such as "he likes to play-fight" "belched just as well now at age 90 as when he was 6" and "took lsd and found it "groovy""
2008-01-05 21:25 < phed> well perhaps not the lsd part because the source is the biography in form of a comic
2008-01-05 21:25 < gwern> Cyrius: which one?
2008-01-05 21:25 < Cyrius> gwern: all of it!
2008-01-05 21:26 * gwern crosses my arms. BWA HA HA HA!
2008-01-05 21:26 < mavhk> does anywhere do courses like "a consise history of civilisation", "a consise history of philosophy" etc?
2008-01-05 21:26 < phed> mavhk: ah, well, that's the problem. people believe they know science because they know the scientific method. that's just a single aspect and a narrow one too
2008-01-05 21:26 < gwern> sure they do, but such survey courses are pretty useless
2008-01-05 21:27 < phed> mavhk: ie. astronomy does not really apply the scientific method
2008-01-05 21:27 < gwern> just buckle down and spend a year or two reading through the major works and WP articles
2008-01-05 21:27 < Lubaf> Everyone has AIDS / AIDS AIDS AIDS...
2008-01-05 21:27 < mavhk> gwern: but they're not in order
2008-01-05 21:27 < gwern> phed: kind of hard to. how do you create a control group for the formation of the solar system? :)
2008-01-05 21:27 < mavhk> phed: all your experiments have been done, you just have to find them
2008-01-05 21:27 < Cyrius> gwern: big universe, you go looking for one =)
2008-01-05 21:27 < phed> gwern: exactly. so you have to apply other standards than the scientific method :)
2008-01-05 21:28 < phed> mavhk: pfft. science has not even scratched the surface of reality :)
2008-01-05 21:28 < mavhk> trick question, reality has no surface!
2008-01-05 21:28 < phed> omg
2008-01-05 21:28 < phed> mavhk: now you made a physical mathematician sad :(
2008-01-05 21:29 < phed> math physicist i mean
2008-01-05 21:29 < Cyrius> lolbranes
2008-01-05 21:29 < zocky> the "scientific method" is really the same thing as "rules of evidence"
2008-01-05 21:29 < zocky> you can't learn anything and know that you learned it right without using that
2008-01-05 21:29 < phed> zocky: or rather a slogan for the rational sceptics brigade
2008-01-05 21:29 < phed> zocky: the mating call!
2008-01-05 21:30 < mavhk> phed: so a quick overview of the alternative?
2008-01-05 21:30 < Syntaxx00> op Syntaxx00,
2008-01-05 21:30 < gwern> reality has no surface? what does that mean?
2008-01-05 21:30 < mavhk> nothing, hence the !
2008-01-05 21:30 < Cyrius> Syntaxx00: yeah, that's not going to work
2008-01-05 21:30 < zocky> there is no alternative, and that can possibly be proved mathematically, but I wouldn't know
2008-01-05 21:31 < mavhk> what are these .no people doing then?
2008-01-05 21:31 < phed> mavhk: well, collecting evidence? social sciences :D
2008-01-05 21:31 < phed> qualitative sciences?
2008-01-05 21:31 < mavhk> that's just science for people afraid of maths
2008-01-05 21:31 < phed> observations!
2008-01-05 21:32 < mavhk> how does this differ from everyone else?
2008-01-05 21:32 < zocky> social sciences are a great example of what "science" without scientific method can produce
2008-01-05 21:32 < phed> because the scientific method is just a guideline
2008-01-05 21:32 < mavhk> I've still no idea what you're on about
2008-01-05 21:32 < phed> well, you see. it is not like it is a procedure you follow strictly
2008-01-05 21:33 < Cyrius> science is, fundamentally, about finding ways to not fool yourself
2008-01-05 21:33 < phed> often people hypothise for ages. Some time you just find empirical evidence.
2008-01-05 21:33 < phed> both are parts of science
2008-01-05 21:33 < mavhk> you generally just bounce around until something works, then you apply the rigorous methods
2008-01-05 21:33 < phed> actually, I do think the hypothesis are the most important part of science
2008-01-05 21:34 < zocky> the scientific method is simply (1) identify an unanswered question, (2) imagine how it could be answered, (3) try it out, (4) if it fails, you know the answer was wrong, if it passes, your answer is a valid candidate until somebody fails it
2008-01-05 21:34 < zocky> there is no other way to figure out stuff
2008-01-05 21:34 < phed> zocky: so finding an unexplainable anamoly is not science?
2008-01-05 21:34 < Cyrius> phed: just finding it is just finding it
2008-01-05 21:35 < zocky> if it's unexplainable, it's not science
2008-01-05 21:35 < mavhk> 1: did god create man, 2: I'll look in the bible, 3: yep!, 4: horray
2008-01-05 21:35 < Cyrius> finding something may be the start of some science, or it may not
2008-01-05 21:35 < phed> Yes, but it is a pat of science!
2008-01-05 21:35 < Cyrius> collecting butterflies is not, in itself, science
2008-01-05 21:35 < Cyrius> depends on what you do next
2008-01-05 21:35 < kenlyric> I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
2008-01-05 21:35 < phed> ie. that huge void in space they found recently
2008-01-05 21:35 < phed> is that not science?
2008-01-05 21:35 < zocky> Cyrius, collecting butterflies is science like wiping a bed-ridden patient's butt is medicine
2008-01-05 21:36 < mavhk> kenlyric: there's a great part of a court transcript where the pro ID guy has to accept that if ID is a valid thing to teach then so is astrology
2008-01-05 21:36 < phed> I find this focus on materialism to be ignorance really
2008-01-05 21:36 < Cyrius> zocky: once you have the butterflies, they may lead to questions about how the things function, or how they came to be
2008-01-05 21:37 < phed> Because the focus on evidence based science is leading you away from the fact that science is a hermenautic process
2008-01-05 21:37 < Cyrius> you just made that word up!
2008-01-05 21:37 < kenlyric> um, even finding dark spots in space is based on evidence.
2008-01-05 21:37 < mavhk> Did you mean: hermeneutic
2008-01-05 21:37 < zocky> Cyrius, yeah, exactly the same with ass wiping... it's useful for science/medicine, and it can lead to questions and progress, but is not in itself science/medicine
2008-01-05 21:37 < kenlyric> it's not something you can touch, but it's evidence just the same.
2008-01-05 21:37 < phed> mavhk: yes, sorry
2008-01-05 21:38 < Schroeder> zocky: however, science != truth
2008-01-05 21:38 < Schroeder> science can only tell you how things appear to be
2008-01-05 21:38 < Cyrius> zocky: I'd argue the butt-wiping is more part of medicine =)
2008-01-05 21:38 < Schroeder> not necessarily how things actually are
2008-01-05 21:38 < Schroeder> for that, you must use philosophy
2008-01-05 21:38 < phed> philosophy is part of science as well
2008-01-05 21:38 < zocky> you can't answer how things actually are
2008-01-05 21:38 < zocky> you can speculate, but you can't comprehend a system from within the system
2008-01-05 21:38 < Schroeder> sure you can
2008-01-05 21:38 < phed> science is a body of knowledge, and just that
2008-01-05 21:38 < phed> nothing else
2008-01-05 21:39 < phed> it is not a metod
2008-01-05 21:39 < phed> that's philosophy
2008-01-05 21:39 < Schroeder> not a formal system, no
2008-01-05 21:39 < Schroeder> please don't apply Godel out of its intended domain
2008-01-05 21:39 < zocky> phed, the method is "prove it", nothing else
2008-01-05 21:39 < Schroeder> it does not become you
2008-01-05 21:39 < phed> zocky: not possible!
2008-01-05 21:39 < mavhk> philosophy is working out a self consistant system based on axioms, doesn't tell you if those axioms are correct
2008-01-05 21:39 < phed> zocky: a cursory glance on philosophy of science shows that problem
2008-01-05 21:39 < zocky> phed, then how else do you propose we decide what's wrong and what isn't?
2008-01-05 21:39 < kenlyric> rattle the bones
2008-01-05 21:40 < phed> zocky: (most) americans subscribe to a belief it is only possible to disprove
2008-01-05 21:40 < Schroeder> mavhk: wrong; there are certain axioms that prove themselves true, in and of themselves
2008-01-05 21:40 < mavhk> zocky: ask someone on irc
2008-01-05 21:40 < phed> zocky: eye of the beholder
2008-01-05 21:40 < Schroeder> tautologies are a subset of this, and thinking of them may help you understand what I'm talking about
2008-01-05 21:40 < phed> zocky: the reader of science decides what is wrong or isn't
2008-01-05 21:40 < Cyrius> I hate beholders, they always kill my rogue
2008-01-05 21:40 < phed> zocky: however science itself doesn't; but the philosophy of science can be helpful
2008-01-05 21:40 < zocky> phed, try an experiment: walk out a 3rd story window with the perspective that you're on the ground level
2008-01-05 21:41 < zocky> and see the power of gravity vs. the power of the eye of the beholder
2008-01-05 21:41 < phed> zocky: No, the eye of beholder (ie. me) decides that is wrong
2008-01-05 21:41 < Cyrius> zocky: won't work, you can always argue the mind was insufficiently convinced =)
2008-01-05 21:41 < mavhk> it's not even possible to disprove, because you still have to rely on your senses and assumptions to know that your evidence is true too
2008-01-05 21:41 < zocky> Cyrius, yeah, I know
2008-01-05 21:41 < Schroeder> zocky: ehh, my favorite counterargument to that retardedness is "try banging your head into a brick wall thinking it's a nice fluffy cushion and see how long it takes until you get a concussion"
2008-01-05 21:42 < phed> mavhk: hence why I find rational skepticism to be flawed :)
2008-01-05 21:42 < mavhk> phed: doesn't matter though
2008-01-05 21:42 < mavhk> can't exist without making assumptions
2008-01-05 21:42 < phed> mavhk: Oh, we have a nice thing in norway that everyone up until last year had to learn in order to be an academic
2008-01-05 21:42 < Schroeder> perception dictates how you interact with reality, to be sure
2008-01-05 21:42 < Schroeder> but it is completely independent of what reality actually is
2008-01-05 21:42 < phed> mavhk: [[Arne Nęss]]
2008-01-05 21:43 < mavhk> noone said we're finding out the truth
2008-01-05 21:43 < phed> mavhk: read the guidelines for scientific discourse there
2008-01-05 21:43 < mavhk> just a way to live in the world we think exists
2008-01-05 21:43 < zocky> one unprovable assumption that science makes (apart from the obvious leaps of faith re sensory organs) is that laws of physics are constant
2008-01-05 21:43 < phed> mavhk: I think american scientists should learn from #7
2008-01-05 21:43 < kenlyric> mavhk: but it's the most reliably testible
2008-01-05 21:43 < kenlyric> since you rely on the sense of many others, as well.
2008-01-05 21:43 < phed> zocky: philosophy tells that laws of physics are emerging
2008-01-05 21:43 < zocky> but that's neither here or there, at least until somebody finds a way to prove they change over time/space
2008-01-05 21:43 < mavhk> zocky: well, it says something's constant
2008-01-05 21:43 < phed> zocky: so situation dictates the laws :)
2008-01-05 21:44 < mavhk> phed: it only goes to #6
2008-01-05 21:44 < phed> mavhk: sorry, #6 :)
2008-01-05 21:44 < zocky> phed, i once studied social sciences for two years
2008-01-05 21:44 < phed> zocky: what kind?
2008-01-05 21:45 < zocky> I dropped out when I got fed up with that sort of adolescent sophistry being taken as profound thoughts
2008-01-05 21:45 < phed> zocky: yeah, that gives social sciences a bad name
2008-01-05 21:45 < zocky> phed, the course was journalism, but there was all sorts of social science subjects
2008-01-05 21:45 < mavhk> Avoiding tendentious tone of voice
2008-01-05 21:45 < mavhk> Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.
2008-01-05 21:45 < mavhk> that one?
2008-01-05 21:45 < phed> mavhk: yepp
2008-01-05 21:46 < mavhk> doesn't appear to have anything to do with the truth or whatever of science
2008-01-05 21:46 < phed> mavhk: David Bohm had a similar rule
2008-01-05 21:47 < mavhk> I don't see the relevence
2008-01-05 21:47 < phed> mavhk: oh, I forgot what I was replying to :S
2008-01-05 21:47 < zocky> "truth of science" is a tautology - arguing about it is like arguing about evolution
2008-01-05 21:47 < mavhk> indeed
2008-01-05 21:48 < mavhk> that's why I added "or whatever"
2008-01-05 21:48 < kenlyric> science's ability make predictions is far more accurate than most other methods of evaluating the world.
2008-01-05 21:48 < phed> zocky: but believe it or not, but the feminist studies in norway are great.
2008-01-05 21:48 < zocky> science is basically "this is probably the way things are, since we disproved all alternatives we could think of"
2008-01-05 21:48 < zocky> evolution is "things that are better at copying tend to copy more"
2008-01-05 21:48 < kenlyric> astrology never predicted neptune. :)
2008-01-05 21:48 < phed> zocky: they revolutionized applied qualitative science, which has now become par de nom for applied social sciences
2008-01-05 21:49 < mavhk> it's not even that, it's "this will do as a way of thinking about the way things are"
2008-01-05 21:49 < phed> mavhk: But actually, that rule is part of science :)
2008-01-05 21:49 < Cyrius> science does a better job of figuring out the universe than anything else we've tried
2008-01-05 21:49 < phed> mavhk: it was postulated as a result on studies on conversation, and a tendentious tone tends to introduce an unwanted human aspect into the discourse
2008-01-05 21:49 < mavhk> phed: these 6 rules basically seem to say "don't be an asshole or a bore or wrong"
2008-01-05 21:50 < phed> mavhk: Yeah, and they are comparable to the rules of wikipedia too
2008-01-05 21:50 < Schroeder> Cyrius: except philosophy, which doesn't suffer from the limitations of science and thus is more accurate and reliable
2008-01-05 21:50 < kenlyric> but it's also not reliably testable.
2008-01-05 21:50 < phed> mavhk: But since every academic are trained on these rules, the discourse in norway is faaaar different from the states
2008-01-05 21:50 < zocky> philosophy is more like math than like science
2008-01-05 21:50 < mavhk> but they're nothing to do with the philosophey of science, they're to do with the practicality
2008-01-05 21:50 < phed> kenlyric: testability is NOT a part of science
2008-01-05 21:50 < kenlyric> or accurately repeatable.
2008-01-05 21:51 < zocky> it's useful for thinking about thinking, but it can't give answers to the real world questions
2008-01-05 21:51 < Cyrius> yeah, get back to me when philosophy explains how planets orbit the sun
2008-01-05 21:51 < phed> Cyrius: They are planets. That's what they DO!
2008-01-05 21:51 < mavhk> Cyrius: because to do otherwise would be no perfect
2008-01-05 21:51 < kenlyric> science is a philosophy.
2008-01-05 21:51 < Schroeder> kenlyric: testability is irrelevant. All testability can tell you is how something appears to be.
2008-01-05 21:51 < mavhk> not
2008-01-05 21:51 < mavhk> heh
2008-01-05 21:51 < zocky> it's "a philosophy" in one sense of the word
2008-01-05 21:52 < kenlyric> Schroeder: that's all philosophy can tell you.
2008-01-05 21:52 < Schroeder> Cyrius: philosophy did just that
2008-01-05 21:52 < Luna-San> In the absence of better information, "how something appears to be" is probably better than "I dunno, lol"
2008-01-05 21:52 < Schroeder> no one ran experiments
2008-01-05 21:52 < mavhk> science assumes there's no God being an asshole and changing the results of experiments just to fuck with us
2008-01-05 21:52 < Schroeder> they just figured it out a priori
2008-01-05 21:52 < kenlyric> mavhk: a dangerous assumption.
2008-01-05 21:52 < Schroeder> Luna-San: how something actually is is better than how something appears to be
2008-01-05 21:52 < Schroeder> and philosophy can tell you the former
2008-01-05 21:52 < zocky> Schroeder, yes, and believed for centuries that spiders have 6 legs
2008-01-05 21:52 < phed> mavhk: except in quantum science :>
2008-01-05 21:52 < mavhk> kenlyric: as long as he's consistant it doesn't matter, we can still make predictions
2008-01-05 21:52 < kenlyric> since when does philosophy tell us how something actually is?
2008-01-05 21:52 < Cyrius> zocky: really? hadn't heard that one
2008-01-05 21:53 < kenlyric> please provide an example.
2008-01-05 21:53 < zocky> Cyrius, apparently, aristotle wrote so
2008-01-05 21:53 < phed> kenlyric, that is the purpose of science!
2008-01-05 21:53 < Cyrius> oh, aristotle, that asshole
2008-01-05 21:53 < kenlyric> which philosophy tells us about neptune?
2008-01-05 21:53 < mavhk> aristotle was just lazy
2008-01-05 21:53 < Schroeder> zocky: that's not a failing of philosophy; that's a failed attempt to use philosophy
2008-01-05 21:53 < zocky> Cyrius, or maybe aristotle was the one where a spider can't cross a circle made out of bug dust
2008-01-05 21:53 < phed> kenlyric, science and philosophy were pretty much interchangeable in the time of the old philosophes
2008-01-05 21:53 < mavhk> "well, I could test my theory, but I'm awesome, so it's bound to be right"
2008-01-05 21:53 < phed> kenlyric, yet, they gained knowledge about the world by thinking abuot it
2008-01-05 21:54 < phed> kenlyric, the "rules of science" are dictated by philosophy as well. and think, they are actually changing too!
2008-01-05 21:54 < kenlyric> phed: I'm talking about schroeder's claim that philosophy tells us how something "is" rather than how it appears to be. I need a practical example for this to make any sense.
2008-01-05 21:54 < kenlyric> phed: they gained a lot of wrong knowledge, too.
2008-01-05 21:54 < phed> sure
2008-01-05 21:54 < mavhk> and they didn't know which was wrong
2008-01-05 21:54 < phed> but that's beside the point, a lot of current science is wrong too.
2008-01-05 21:54 < Schroeder> mavhk: they didn't, because they FAILED TO USE PHILOSOPHY CORRECTLY
2008-01-05 21:55 < phed> probably all of it :)
2008-01-05 21:55 < kenlyric> the right knowledge was gained simply because "how things appeared" was "how things were"
2008-01-05 21:55 < zocky> the reason we can figure out the world is that we are born equipped with brain modules for basic sciences that are good enough for survival in the savannah
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> that's a problem of their failure to use philosophy correctly
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> not a failing of philosophy itself
2008-01-05 21:55 < kenlyric> in which way is philosophy used correctly?
2008-01-05 21:55 < zocky> unfortunately, those modules are not really that good
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> when people applied philosophy CORRECTLY and CONSISTENTLY, they got the right answer
2008-01-05 21:55 < kenlyric> please provide an example of using philosphy correctly.
2008-01-05 21:55 < phed> Schroeder, heh, add a sprinkle of relativism there please :)
2008-01-05 21:55 < zocky> so with just thinking, you come to a lot of wrong conclusions
2008-01-05 21:55 < mavhk> but science doesn't say it's found the truth, just that here's a theory to predict stuff that works
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> kenlyric: when arguments are made without logical flaws
2008-01-05 21:55 < phed> kenlyric, maths!
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> zocky: with poor thinking, yes--but again, that's not "philosophy"--it's a failed attempt at philosophy
2008-01-05 21:55 < Schroeder> which isn't the same thing
2008-01-05 21:55 < zocky> people believed for milenia that bodies of mass had "momentum" that slowly dissipated while they were moving
2008-01-05 21:56 < zocky> that's because that's what's intuitive to us
2008-01-05 21:56 < zocky> yet, it's wrong
2008-01-05 21:56 < zocky> and we know that it's wrong because people tested it
2008-01-05 21:56 < phed> people found newtons idea of gravity to insist that mass had a "animalistic" properties too
2008-01-05 21:56 < Schroeder> no, it was testing it that led people to think it might be wrong
2008-01-05 21:56 < Cyrius> not because someone just thought about it and said "this is how it must be"
2008-01-05 21:56 < Schroeder> but it was philosophy that confirmed it was wrong
2008-01-05 21:56 < Schroeder> by pointing out that that was not a logical conclusion
2008-01-05 21:56 < kenlyric> well, see, that's not a concrete example of philosophy showing how the world "is"
2008-01-05 21:57 < mavhk> philosophy can, if applied "CORRECTLY and CONSISTENTLY" that something is self consistant, but not whether it corresponds to our universe
2008-01-05 21:57 * Messedrocker sighs, wishes his Wii was in his room again
2008-01-05 21:57 < phed> kenlyric, yes it is actually. newton didn't do experiments to prove his point
2008-01-05 21:57 < phed> kenlyric, einstein didn't either
2008-01-05 21:58 < phed> it didn't become right at the point it was tested
2008-01-05 21:58 < Cyrius> Messedrocker: hmm?
2008-01-05 21:58 < phed> it was right at the point it was concieved
2008-01-05 21:58 < mavhk> neither did "random guy we've never heard of because he was wrong"
2008-01-05 21:58 < kenlyric> phed: well, unless it's wrong.
2008-01-05 21:58 < kenlyric> like newton.
2008-01-05 21:58 < mavhk> it was right before newton thought of it
2008-01-05 21:58 < Messedrocker> Cyrius, it's in my sister's room because she's obsessed with Guitar Hero III
2008-01-05 21:58 < phed> Now, you can be relativistic and claim that "all science is wrong" or equally correct "all science is right" :D
2008-01-05 21:59 < phed> and frankly
2008-01-05 21:59 < Cyrius> phed: the question isn't whether it was right, it's whether anyone knew it was right
2008-01-05 21:59 < Schroeder> Messedrocker: heh, the high school band I teach is doing "Music of Guitar Hero"
2008-01-05 21:59 < Lubaf> Messedrocker: Who's her avatar?
2008-01-05 21:59 < phed> science is just an estimation; it isn't THE truth
2008-01-05 21:59 < kenlyric> newton was "right" but only within a limited subset of the universe"
2008-01-05 21:59 < Cyrius> I could go write down some random mathematical symbols
2008-01-05 21:59 < mavhk> phed: we know
2008-01-05 21:59 < phed> even old science is right
2008-01-05 21:59 < Cyrius> and have them actually turn out to be the formula of the universe
2008-01-05 21:59 < kenlyric> phed: neither is philosophy. If you claim that newton's theories were philosophy, not science
2008-01-05 21:59 < Cyrius> but how would I know that?
2008-01-05 21:59 < kenlyric> which I disagree with.
2008-01-05 21:59 < phed> kenlyric, well, I agree with that
2008-01-05 21:59 < Schroeder> kenlyric: you're ignoring a very important distinction
2008-01-05 22:00 < mavhk> what's "right" mean?
2008-01-05 22:00 < phed> kenlyric, I think the decided on what is right or not is in the eye of the beholder
2008-01-05 22:00 < Schroeder> a failed attempt at philosophy is not the same as philosophy
2008-01-05 22:00 < Schroeder> phed: then you're an idiot, because that's a ridiculous claim to make
2008-01-05 22:00 < phed> Schroeder, well, it is the most practical :)
2008-01-05 22:00 < phed> Schroeder, and it avoids a lot of boring boilerplate philosophy
2008-01-05 22:00 < mavhk> newton wasn't right, he didn't have general relativity
2008-01-05 22:00 < Schroeder> decide that that brick wall is a nice cozy pillow and bang your head against it, then tell me that "truth is in the eye of the beholder"
2008-01-05 22:00 < phed> general relativity is wrong as well!
2008-01-05 22:01 < kenlyric> Schroeder: actually, i"m not ignoring it, I'm waiting for you to make it.
2008-01-05 22:01 < mavhk> indeed
2008-01-05 22:01 < phed> because it doesn't explain how consciousness works in relation to physics :P
2008-01-05 22:01 < Cyrius> newton was wrong, but right enough for building stuff
2008-01-05 22:01 < mavhk> so your definition of "right" is pointless
2008-01-05 22:01 < kenlyric> Schroeder: concrete example of how philosophy describes how the world "is"
2008-01-05 22:01 < mavhk> no, that's not why it's wrong, it's wrong because it doesn't include quantum physics
2008-01-05 22:01 < phed> you can't say physics are right or wrong
2008-01-05 22:01 < Cyrius> sure we can
2008-01-05 22:01 < phed> you can just say that "newton works in this context" :)
2008-01-05 22:01 < mavhk> I can say a theory of physics is wrong
2008-01-05 22:02 < mavhk> e = mc^3, that's wrong
2008-01-05 22:02 < phed> oh sure
2008-01-05 22:02 < Cyrius> newton's laws are wrong
2008-01-05 22:02 < kenlyric> newton's laws are imprecise.
2008-01-05 22:02 < mavhk> Cyrius: actually the 3 laws of motion are right
2008-01-05 22:02 < Cyrius> however, the margin of error is small enough to ignore in many contexts
2008-01-05 22:02 < kenlyric> and they're only wrong in specific contexts near the speed of light.
2008-01-05 22:02 < mavhk> just you have to notice that mass changes
2008-01-05 22:02 < phed> kenlyric: well, newton is great for doing simulations
2008-01-05 22:02 * Messedrocker is trying to move his TV onto his desk
2008-01-05 22:02 < phed> kenlyric: good enough for nasa at least
2008-01-05 22:03 < kenlyric> science does a pretty good job of describing how the world *is*, as well as how it appears to be.
2008-01-05 22:03 < kenlyric> again as an example: Neptune.
2008-01-05 22:03 < phed> how about URANUS?
2008-01-05 22:03 < phed> funniest planet ever
2008-01-05 22:03 < kenlyric> I don't know how URECTUM was found.
2008-01-05 22:03 < mavhk> equal and opposite reaction is still right, at rest until a force is still right, force/momentum is still right
2008-01-05 22:04 < mavhk> kenlyric: appears to be *is*
2008-01-05 22:04 < phed> :)
2008-01-05 22:04 < kenlyric> mavhk: you could say "equal and opposite reaction" is a product of philosophy, not science.
2008-01-05 22:04 < mavhk> science is philsophy with evidence
2008-01-05 22:04 < zocky> the idea was maybe a product of philosophy
2008-01-05 22:05 < zocky> but the process that was used to prove it was science
2008-01-05 22:05 < mavhk> the fact that it works and is useful is science
2008-01-05 22:05 < kenlyric> mavhk: so then science and philosophy aren't at odds with each other? *shock of shocks*
2008-01-05 22:05 < Cyrius> kenlyric: zomg.
2008-01-05 22:05 < phed> mavhk: I like it better as in wittenschaph or however the germans write it
2008-01-05 22:05 < zocky> no more than science and math are at odds
2008-01-05 22:05 < phed> mavhk: much less confusing and philosophically loaded term
2008-01-05 22:05 < mavhk> now you're just making up words
2008-01-05 22:05 < zocky> wissenschaft
2008-01-05 22:05 < phed> yes that's it
2008-01-05 22:05 < mavhk> what's that?
2008-01-05 22:06 < zocky> or maybe wiessenschaft
2008-01-05 22:06 < zocky> german for science
2008-01-05 22:06 < Cyrius> http://xkcd.com/54/
2008-01-05 22:06 < phed> knowledge-craft
2008-01-05 22:06 < zocky> wissenschaft is right
2008-01-05 22:06 < kenlyric> Neptune is just a good example to use against the pseudoscience of astrology.
2008-01-05 22:06 < phed> the art of knowledge
2008-01-05 22:06 < mavhk> astrology: proving females are stupid 365 days of the year
2008-01-05 22:06 < zocky> doesn't "science" mean the same thing?
2008-01-05 22:06 < phed> and it properly embodies all kind of knowledge
2008-01-05 22:07 < phed> zocky: well, not any more
2008-01-05 22:07 < phed> zocky: hence why you have the confusion on "proof" and all that
2008-01-05 22:07 < zocky> astrologology would be a science
2008-01-05 22:08 < mavhk> so we appear to have defined out terms, now what's the problem with the american way of doing science?
2008-01-05 22:08 < phed> yes, and it certainly is :D
2008-01-05 22:08 < zocky> in that sense, science includes all knowledge
2008-01-05 22:08 < phed> astrology is after all the oldest science
2008-01-05 22:08 < zocky> not astrology
2008-01-05 22:08 < zocky> astrologology (a word I made up)
2008-01-05 22:08 < kenlyric> astrology had science in it.
2008-01-05 22:08 < kenlyric> that became astronomy
2008-01-05 22:08 < zocky> it would be the study of astrology
2008-01-05 22:08 < zocky> that could certainly be science
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> yepp, the movement of the sun across the sky is fundamental to the first human experiences
2008-01-05 22:09 < mavhk> it's an early attempt at science, they just forgot the part about testing the theory
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> and it was vital to survival
2008-01-05 22:09 < zocky> astrology was a science originally, but it got mixed up with fortune telling
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> but that should be knowledge to anyone who has seen the first part of zeitgeist
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> (i recommend it for that reason)
2008-01-05 22:09 < mavhk> what's that?
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> a free documentary
2008-01-05 22:09 < phed> kinda crackpotish
2008-01-05 22:10 < Alkivar> whee... my new mouse is working
2008-01-05 22:10 < Alkivar> time to go test this puppy out with some fraggage
2008-01-05 22:10 < phed> but sourced well, and actually pretty thought provoking
2008-01-05 22:10 < zocky> astronomy is better at explaining the movement of sun and stars across the sky than astrology
2008-01-05 22:10 < zocky> for starters, astrology is one month off
2008-01-05 22:10 < phed> zocky: they knew that 3000 years ago
2008-01-05 22:10 < zocky> not to mention that it ignores the 13th zodiac constellation
2008-01-05 22:10 < kenlyric> zocky: also, neptune
2008-01-05 22:10 < Schroeder> ahh, time for some nethack
2008-01-05 22:10 < phed> zocky: hence "the age of aquarius"
2008-01-05 22:11 < mavhk> In addition to attracting significant public interest,[6] it has been criticized for relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence[7] and for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and being bollocks
2008-01-05 22:11 < phed> zocky: the "ages" has been known by many cultures
2008-01-05 22:11 < zocky> phed, of course, but that's just a smallish fact of astronomy
2008-01-05 22:12 < zocky> precession or something
2008-01-05 22:12 < phed> mavhk: yeah, I said it is pretty crackpotish
2008-01-05 22:12 < mavhk> oh noes, the federal reserve is stealing all our money!
2008-01-05 22:12 < kenlyric> it's not outside the realm of possible things that magnetic fields affect human brain chemistry, and thus that the subtle changes caused by the positions of the planets might cause slight changes in personality.
2008-01-05 22:12 < kenlyric> but it's fairly extraordinary and thus requires exceptional evidence.
2008-01-05 22:12 < Lycurgus> precession of the equinoxes, actually what you're talking about is something different related to the motion of the solar system as a whole
2008-01-05 22:12 < phed> mavhk: You can judge for yourself. Obviously there are things that are outright wrong. But some stuff surprised me and was totally verifiable.
2008-01-05 22:13 < mavhk> but a truck driving past the end of the road has a larger gravitational effect
2008-01-05 22:13 < zocky> kenlyric, a connection with the weather during pregnancy is a more likely candidate
2008-01-05 22:13 < zocky> kenlyric, or prevalent microbes
2008-01-05 22:13 < mavhk> phed: I'll wait for the sane director's cut
2008-01-05 22:13 < kenlyric> or sunspots.
2008-01-05 22:13 < phed> kenlyric, what I find intriguing, and molecular biologists agree, is that biologic organisms most probably abuse quantum effects
2008-01-05 22:14 < Lycurgus> the house of the constellations have changed their positions since classical european culture assigned them. The chinese have a completely different astrology.
2008-01-05 22:14 < phed> kenlyric, or more, are guaranteed to make use of quantum effets
2008-01-05 22:14 < zocky> it's indeed possible that people born at different times of year are more likely to have a certain personality trait. but claiming that the position of the planets and stars has anything to do with it indeed requires extraordinary proof.
2008-01-05 22:14 < phed> kenlyric, because proteins adapt and exist under the laws of the universe; it doesn't care WHAT laws it uses
2008-01-05 22:14 < zocky> phed, how else could they work?
2008-01-05 22:14 < mavhk> Lycurgus: are you saying half a billion people chosen according to their birth date won't be doing the same thing as me today?
2008-01-05 22:14 < kenlyric> but even with all those assumptions, you have to wonder if the positions of the planets when you're born matters more to your physcology than does the position of the planets at the moment.
2008-01-05 22:15 < zocky> all matter uses and abuses quantum effects
2008-01-05 22:15 < mavhk> phed: if you want something original and not crackpotish Adam Curtis's shows are good
2008-01-05 22:15 < phed> zocky: so it is not impossible to rule out that cells/proteins use spooky actions! : D
2008-01-05 22:15 < zocky> that's as deep as saying "living things are made of atoms"
2008-01-05 22:15 < Lycurgus> yeah the classic quote from Carl Sagan is that if you look at the forces involved on gravity could act and in that case it would make more sense to base astrolog on the position of the obstetrician
2008-01-05 22:15 < Lycurgus> *only
2008-01-05 22:15 < kenlyric> Lycurgus: heh :)
2008-01-05 22:15 < mavhk> fen shui vs astrology
2008-01-05 22:16 < mavhk> the battle starts here!
2008-01-05 22:16 < Schroeder> where are my party planning biatches?
2008-01-05 22:16 < kenlyric> bring a giant magnet to the delivery room.
2008-01-05 22:16 < phed> zocky: I agree. Remember astrology aren't about the planets themselves, but the time of the year anyway ;)
2008-01-05 22:16 < mavhk> phed: I think it's best not to know too much about it
2008-01-05 22:16 < kenlyric> phed: astrology is about everything cosmological.
2008-01-05 22:16 < phed> hehe
2008-01-05 22:16 < zocky> fengshui beats astrology
2008-01-05 22:16 < mavhk> might forget something important
2008-01-05 22:16 < kenlyric> planets and stars and moon and sun.
2008-01-05 22:16 < zocky> at least it can have some palpable useful effect
2008-01-05 22:16 < kenlyric> "real' astrology, not newspaper astrology.
2008-01-05 22:16 < Lycurgus> they're equally baselines bullshit
2008-01-05 22:17 < phed> oh right yeah
2008-01-05 22:17 < Lubaf> zocky: Well, scientificly, Feng Shui could have some kind of basis in psychology.
2008-01-05 22:17 < Lycurgus> *baseless
2008-01-05 22:17 < mavhk> my new new-age movement is called bollocksism, how many people will believe in it?
2008-01-05 22:17 < Lubaf> Or ordinary cybernetics.
2008-01-05 22:17 < zocky> Lubaf, "habitat selection" i believe that brain module is called
2008-01-05 22:17 < kenlyric> Lubaf: could, but it's not rigorously tested, so who knows?
2008-01-05 22:17 < Cyrius> Lycurgus: that sagan astrology thing is hilarious...and makes me want to do the math
2008-01-05 22:18 < zocky> fengshui attempts to solve a real problem with a fanciful formula, which often produces good results
2008-01-05 22:18 < mavhk> I did the math about everyone in china jumping at once, that's bollocks too
2008-01-05 22:18 < Lubaf> kenlyric: Yes, but my point is straightforward: Feng Shui is more scientifically valid than astrology.
2008-01-05 22:18 < zocky> it's crappy science, not fortune-telling
2008-01-05 22:18 < kenlyric> zocky: Feng Shui is just chinese for "mom"
2008-01-05 22:18 < kenlyric> mom always know where stuff should go in a room.
2008-01-05 22:18 < Lubaf> kenlyric: What if mom is a crack whore?
2008-01-05 22:18 < mavhk> "you don't have a tv? what do you point all your furniture at?"
2008-01-05 22:18 < zocky> Lubaf, then everything in the room goes to the dealer
2008-01-05 22:19 < mavhk> it's very zen
2008-01-05 22:19 < phed> kenlyric, I kinda feel that to a problem, any attempt at a solution is better than no attempt. which is why people report success.
2008-01-05 22:19 < phed> kenlyric: that is, success with astrology
2008-01-05 22:19 < zocky> mavhk, yeah, TV changes feng shui completely
2008-01-05 22:19 < Lycurgus> only someone with no understanding of science could say that either Feng Shui or Astrology were in any way scientific
2008-01-05 22:19 < Lubaf> zocky: True.
2008-01-05 22:19 < Lubaf> Anyway.
2008-01-05 22:19 < kenlyric> feng shui has very specific rules though, which tend towards what humans find comfortable.
2008-01-05 22:20 < kenlyric> the problem is that they're best guesses.
2008-01-05 22:20 < kenlyric> but they make no attempt to be predictive.
2008-01-05 22:20 < Messedrocker> the moral of the story is that people suck
2008-01-05 22:20 < zocky> Lycurgus, feng shui is science like traditional chinese medicine is a science, or like much of social sciences are science - they're wrong theories about how something could work, that have outlived their time
2008-01-05 22:20 < phed> Lycurgus, well, we just discussed how astrology was once the apex of science
2008-01-05 22:21 * Cyrius loved the Bullshit! feng shui episode =)
2008-01-05 22:21 < phed> Lycurgus, and if you for some reason wonder what month it is, astrology can help you :)
2008-01-05 22:21 < zocky> no it can't
2008-01-05 22:21 < Lubaf> Messedrocker: I don't think you ever answered my question.
2008-01-05 22:21 < Lubaf> Who is your sister's prefered GHIII avatar?
2008-01-05 22:21 < Lycurgus> I'm really freaked out that you have this little understanding of this so please excuse me. Maybe do a little research. Also I highly recommend a recent Nova series on Intelligent Design.
2008-01-05 22:22 < phed> Lycurgus: or determine when days are getting longer, and so on
2008-01-05 22:22 < Messedrocker> Lubaf, i am not sure
2008-01-05 22:22 < Lubaf> Fair enough.
2008-01-05 22:22 < kenlyric> phed: I'm reading this amazing book called the secret of the Incas.
2008-01-05 22:22 < Lubaf> Lycurgus_: I subscribe to Unintelligent Design.
2008-01-05 22:23 < Schroeder> phed: so it's better to make a ridiculously ill-conceived attempt at a solution that actually totally fucks everything up than to do nothing?
2008-01-05 22:23 < kenlyric> they recorded in myth the exact date when the milky way dropped out of sight in the night sky.
2008-01-05 22:23 < phed> Lycurgus_: Informed people use the term science as "art of knowledge"; which does not make pre-judice about what is bad or good science
2008-01-05 22:23 < kenlyric> and they very much used the procession of the stars for things like planting, etc.
2008-01-05 22:23 < zocky> ahem
2008-01-05 22:24 < phed> ah, yeah, I believed I've read a bit on that when studying what the fuss about 2012 was :D
2008-01-05 22:24 < Lycurgus_> the point is that you don't have different kinds or styles of science, just different subject matter to which there is one common rationalistic and self correction approach
2008-01-05 22:24 < zocky> informed people use the word "wine" both when they mean excellent stuff and horse piss. yet they certainly know what's good wine and what's bad wine
2008-01-05 22:24 < Lycurgus_> ie that is the point of the Nova program
2008-01-05 22:24 < phed> Lycurgus_, I don't subscribe to rational scepticism.
2008-01-05 22:24 < phed> Lycurgus_, the leading science here in norway is not that approach
2008-01-05 22:25 < kenlyric> an interesting fact that most christians will repeat to you: many ancient cultures have a myth about a flood.
2008-01-05 22:25 < phed> Lycurgus_, we use pluralistic science, which allows concurrent paradigms to co-exist
2008-01-05 22:25 < kenlyric> what they will fail to mention: the myths are seperated by thousands of years.
2008-01-05 22:25 < Lycurgus_> the people of the PA town where ID was forced in by some BOE members also made themselves clear by voting those members out although a court decision also reversed
2008-01-05 22:25 < zocky> kenlyric, all the moder cultures have memories of recent floods
2008-01-05 22:25 < Lycurgus_> the forced introduction of ID into the classroom
2008-01-05 22:25 < phed> Lycurgus_, corrupt idiots I guess
2008-01-05 22:26 < zocky> zomg, many ancient cultures/civilizations had a huge flood?
2008-01-05 22:26 < zocky> how about earthquakes?
2008-01-05 22:26 < phed> Lycurgus_, shit like this, and jesus camp, make me wanna weep really. : \
2008-01-05 22:26 < phed> 444
2008-01-05 22:26 < kenlyric> the incan flood even includes taking up all the animals :)
2008-01-05 22:26 < kenlyric> problem is that the incan flood was a flood of the sky, not the earth. It drowned away the milky way.
2008-01-05 22:26 < zocky> kenlyric, so does dutch flood of 1961 (or whatever the year was)
2008-01-05 22:26 < Lycurgus_> no, just honest but ignorant and backward people trying to force their ideas where they don't belong. The court ruled that ID was religion and not science.
2008-01-05 22:27 < kenlyric> zocky: did they save two of each animal in New Orleans?
2008-01-05 22:27 < zocky> kenlyric, nah, they just do that in cultures/civilizations :P
2008-01-05 22:27 < kenlyric> zocky: "We've got our black couple, let the rest drown!"
2008-01-05 22:27 < Cyrius> it was new orleans, they saved two of every kind of booze
2008-01-05 22:27 < kenlyric> two of every sin.
2008-01-05 22:28 < kenlyric> Cyrius: that would be an awesome ark.
2008-01-05 22:28 < kenlyric> I don't know the scienific explanation, but fire made it good.
2008-01-05 22:29 < Lycurgus_> phed: you are wrong, not corrupt. This isn't europe and more people here believe in creationism than evolution so it's a much more serious problem than just corruption.
2008-01-05 22:29 < zocky> new orleans was unbelievable
2008-01-05 22:29 < zocky> bosnia can organize a better relief operation
2008-01-05 22:31 < Lycurgus_> though yeah, compared to scandanavia it's pretty corrupt also
2008-01-05 22:33 < kenlyric> wait, why is phed wrong?
2008-01-05 22:33 < zocky> yeah, scandinavian governments seem to be among the last that actually still govern their countries
2008-01-05 22:33 < zocky> in most places, governments are now a system for taking money from the population and giving it to owners of privatized public services
2008-01-05 22:33 < kenlyric> be specific.
2008-01-05 22:34 < zocky> well, basically, phed doesn't subscribe to rational skepticism
2008-01-05 22:35 < Lycurgus_> I said he was wrong when he said that the PA school board members that forced ID into the biology class were corrupt, there was some cronyism involved in the
2008-01-05 22:35 < zocky> which makes it really impossible to discuss the differences
2008-01-05 22:35 < zocky> it's like talking about different religions
2008-01-05 22:35 < phed> zocky: no, I don't believe science is a fight between good and bad sciences
2008-01-05 22:35 < Lycurgus_> way the books with ID were purchased and pushed into the classroom but it wasn't corruption as such
2008-01-05 22:35 < zocky> there's no fight, and disproved science is not bad science
2008-01-05 22:35 < Mahlzahn> does anyone else have the feeling that mail spam has picked up in the last two weeks?
2008-01-05 22:36 < zocky> bad science is trying to deny that something has been disproved
2008-01-05 22:36 < phed> Lycurgus_, mental corruption I mean
2008-01-05 22:36 < Romix666> Hello
2008-01-05 22:36 < phed> damn words and their many meanings :)
2008-01-05 22:36 < Lycurgus_> Mahlzahn: not for me. I use gmail though.
2008-01-05 22:36 < kenlyric> Mahlzahn: you mean it's now higher than 90%
2008-01-05 22:36 < Mahlzahn> it feels like it.
2008-01-05 22:37 < Mahlzahn> 39,148 emails in two weeks!
2008-01-05 22:37 < Lycurgus_> I saw a lot of russian spam a few days ago
2008-01-05 22:37 < Mahlzahn> Lycurgus: I can't afford to do that for work mail.
2008-01-05 22:37 < zocky> didn't bill gates completely solve the problem of spam some 3 years ago?
2008-01-05 22:38 < Mahlzahn> yes, predominantly Russian it seems.
2008-01-05 22:38 < Lycurgus_> that is a lot. I never get more than a couple hundred pieces a day.
2008-01-05 22:39 < zocky> I get a lot of: Important Information, Please your urgent response is needed. It is a pleasure to inform you through this medium that your email address won a prize of 450,000.00 Euro in category ''A'Lottery Shop Award Reference number: SLEU/4444/1956/12