Memes

New Rule

New Rule_Violet

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “New Rule

  1. I have yet to hear any evidence provided by the Intellegent Design camp–argument, yes, evidence, no. So, your new rule would put them out of business. :o(

    Maybe the House Science and Technology Committee, too.

    Like

    • You mean the House “Science” Committee boasting these brain farts:

      Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell… And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

      Ralph Hall (R-TX): “We have some real challenges; we have the global warming or global freezing and then we have the space, the NASA program, that’s enough for any one committee.”

      Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI): “I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climate cycles than anything that human beings do.”

      Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA): “Is there some thought being given to the clearing of rainforests so some countries can eliminate that source of greenhouse gases?”

      Paul Broun (R-GA): “Scientists all over the world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated by the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.”

      Sandy Adams (R-FL): “I am encouraging us to reduce funding for climate change research, which undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most important objectives of human spaceflight.”

      Mo Brooks (R-AL): “We have higher levels of carbon dioxide. That means that plant life grows better. Does that mean I want more of it? I don’t know about the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on human beings.”

      Like

  2. Seems reasonable. I’m given to believe there’s plenty of evidence in the Bible. Has it been peer-reviewed? (by the way, looks like there’s a semi-colon instead of colon after the ‘with’ introducing your list)

    Like

    • You sure it shouldn’t be a semi? Okay, i changed it… you better be right, Violet, or i’ll rain such hellfire down on your Scottish lawn you’ll wish… you’ll wish… you’ll just wish!!

      Like

  3. Thinking about those Fine Republican Politicians; it isn’t the stupid statements that are so bothersome, but the idea that people readily endorsed people spewing such statements en masse is scary.

    Like

  4. The rules don’t apply to the creationists because, as they assure us, they answer to a higher authority The can always play that ace in the hole and walk away from the argument self-satisified.

    Like

    • In their minds, sure… and that’s why the rules have to be stated right from the get-go. “If you want to be taken seriously, if you want to be treated like an adult and sit at the Big Peoples table then you have to play by the grown ups rules.”

      Like

  5. Brother, don’t you think you are making it hard for ID proponents to keep on carrying their research to want it peer reviewed. If they say creation can only happen once, unless Jupiter, Osiris and the other gods can agree to peer review YHWH’s work, they have hit a brick wall and there is no furthering their research.
    Lower the bar a bit brother, I need to start making some supernatural claims of my own 😛

    Like

  6. Nobody and nothing can obey that rule all the time. It’s just plain silly. Note also it’s use of “theory” which is certainly right up there with proving pig flight. Furthermore, it’s sounds bigoted, exclusivist, and to me, unfair. Those who don’t agree with the top half seem to be required to offer more strenuous proof of their position than the theorists et al. I don’t really like how some conclude certain things, and wish they’d study more, but pigs won’t fly. Once at a Jewish Torah Portion (Bible study) I was blasted by the Rabbi for quoting a scripture from Isaiah w/o the citation. I clammed after than! ha ha. Good luck keeping your own rule, Mr. Management!

    Now to enjoy this gorgeous sunny green breezy day; not that the fact centrifugal force is keeping me on the ground is anything…sorry, no citation, only living proof.

    Like

    • Ha! But if you like you can look up the Theory of Gravity and study its finer details 🙂 Enjoy the walk, it sounds like a nice day. Chilly here in the valley today.

      Now, “Those who don’t agree with the top half seem to be required to offer more strenuous proof of their position than the theorists et al.”

      Well, yes. That’s exactly right. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” (Sagan). Magic is an extraordinary claim. Wonderful in books, superb in stories, and priceless in mythology… but if someone wants to try and say magic happened to justify some religious notion then i’m going to demand they meet the same rules which apply to the sciences. That’s only fair. No exceptions. In fact, it should be a prerequisite before any church get’s their tax-free status.

      Like

      • so it’s about money? (snark). I hear people say things about various topics and they seem to be shooting from the hip or drooling at the mouth w/o much thinking or verification…but I’m a virgo. I like magic and totally believe in it and we know that through the ages “miracles” have occurred which now are understood to be what a person ate or slept. Or the placebo affect, which is fine with me.

        You might enjoy “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” it’s on my stack, half-read; bioethics, religion, science, voodoo, politics, $$$$$$$ and it’s current and true.

        Like

      • Cool, i’ve added it to my forever expanding list of Must Reads.

        Now, if you consider Alice in Wonderland magic then i, too, believe in magic 🙂

        Like

  7. The problem of this is to establish the power of the “Management” to introduce, let alone enforce such a rule. Creationists will not recognize any management other than that of their respective god. The problem, it turns out, is not a scientific problem because these people are not sharing the base of science. The problem is sociological and for societies and people, there are no general binding rules and there is no way to establish binding rules except by power and violence (which is an unacceptable way, in my view). There is no way to establish a binding rationality. Rationality is what a group of people agrees on to be rational. I think we share a common ground but the creationists are floating somewhere else and no matter what kind of a tower of arguments you will build on the ground of your rationality, you will not reach them (and vice versa, thank whatever).

    Like

    • But the power of the “Management” is already established in the Scientific Method, Nannus. I don’t care about mythology if its clearly classified as ‘mythology,’ but if creationists want to play the science game they should have meet the scientific rules. We can’t be giving exceptions and exemptions to anyone under the protective guise of “religion.”

      Like

      • I don’t think there are any scientists who take creationism serious. Creationists might “play” science, they might even have their own peer-reviewed journals, but then that is it. Inside the scientific world, I don’t see a chance for them. A scientific journal or congress accepting such stuff would disqualify itself. There indeed, such a rule is working already.
        The problem is that the scientific world forms only one segments of the society. There is no way to enforce such a rule on everybody. There will always be all kinds of superstitions simply because it is possible to believe in them. It is important to try to convince people, but the religious or ideological fundamentalists of all kinds are not going to disappear.

        Like

      • In most advanced countries you’re absolutely right, but look above to see the quotes from the Republican members of the US House Science Committee. This one, in particular:

        Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell… And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

        Like

      • That is a politician. If these people get the upper hand in US science politics, US science is done. It is like Germany in the Nazi times. They proposed “Deutsche Physik”, attacking the theory of relativity because Einstein was a Jew. It did not harm science, it only harmed Germany, because a lot of scientists left (many of them went to the US). Before, German was the number 1 language in science. After, most of these people where in the US and English became the dominant language. The US as a science nation might become marginal. Scientists and research hot spots and research-heavy businesses will move away. We might have to learn Chinese or whatever. It is, however, more likely that such politicians will just disappear. There are actually several quite different cultures in the US. Some of them are christian fundamentalist, others are more rational. Time will tell.

        Like

      • Can’t speak for the government or the rest of the country but no one’s dominating my purse strings but reason. And I may have a limited view but the vast majority of people I’ve encountered in this country, even religious ones, accept evolution. Just don’t want anyone to think we’re all backwards ass rednecks. On a general note, you can disregard pretty much anyone from Georgia.

        Like

      • Once we accept tosh from one section, we are open to everyone shoving their half baked views forward. I accept that people will always believe what they are persuaded to believe, but it’s when they expect the rest of us to join them…or even just blindly accept that they are right…that I object.
        PS I too read Henrietta Lacks and it is a very disturbing and thought provoking book.

        Like

      • Agreed. We have a standard model that works very well in establishing approximations of truth. As it works so well, and there isn’t something that even comes close to it, we should apply this model (method) to all claims.

        Like

  8. Nannus, with respect, your words sound like pentecostal preaching I heard about non-believers many years ago; only the terms are different. It’s an “us – them” and “we’re right and they are stupid” kind of saying. Also, I personally know a very bright, smart, educated and wonderful man who is a creationist. He went to the museum and loved it and considered exhibits scientific proof. He is highly left-brained, i.e. “rational.” My point is that there are creationists who are good people and make intelligent contributions to society.

    Like

  9. Rules are very good to have
    Give us structure and formation
    But the ones you do propose
    Well they give me aggravation

    Attacks on scientific principle
    I make with careful calculation
    The Bible is my only source
    Need no other documentation

    The supernatural in this world
    Is the only explanation
    Read Genesis Chapter One
    To find out more about creation

    To sum it up and make it clear
    Please excuse my sanitation
    But your newly proposed rules
    Are so much defecation

    Like

  10. I think the only thing that bothers me about scientists (or the like) is the way they bang on about it being “fact” as hardened in their belief as any fundamentalist…because it is only fact depending on the tools available at that time …I would much rather they say – it is subject to change when we evolve but at the minute, its the best we have.

    What bothers me about the religious hard nose is pretty much the same as the above but without the opportunity to progress because they don’t believe in evolution (self progression)

    What bothers me about atheist’s is pretty much the above but based on scientists banging on about (fluid) ‘facts’

    What bothers me about agnostics is their lack of a spine to pick a side and be counted

    What bothers me about spiritualists is their stupid wink wink nudge nudge “silly billys we know best” superiority complex

    What bothers me about me is that I am all of the above and none depending on who has the most entertaining argument….if God is a comedian then am all his

    We are all as bad as each other but that’s what makes it fun to me…to my mind its all very monty python and that always made me smile

    Like

      • I’m with you on that. Fortunately all i have to deal with around here is heap of innocuous, generally harmless Catholics coupled with some terribly morose Baptists and 7th Day Adventists who troll our streets bibles-in-hand over the weekend.

        Like

    • There can only be approximations of truth and reasonable degrees of accuracy. As my friend Fourat put it:

      “Every scientific paper includes an error or chance bias, often denoted by P < 0.05 which indicates a less than a 5% chance of the result being random. In particle physics, the 5-sigma notation is used, which signifies a 1 in 2,000,000 chance that result is due to chance"

      Like

    • The fundamental difference is that scientific “fact” is based on our best attempts at an objective understanding, and what you refer to as the “religious” is based on a subjective rejection of all evidence contrary to the applicable theological viewpoint.

      A scientist will change his or her viewpoint if better tools become available. The religious will not.

      Like

  11. Mmmm I have yet to meet a generally harmless Catholic in all honesty…perhaps I will add it to my bucket list

    Surely by the very addition of a 5% chance of error or bias from a scientist, who by their very nature, is exploratory, means that the probability of it being wrong is far higher?

    Like

    • I need Violet or Fourat to answer that one. Numbers agree with their synaptic bundles more than mine. Let me see if i can’t stir one from the darkened caves whence they dwell…

      Like

      • I dont know who Violet or Fouret are but raise them from their dwelling ….numbers are the language of the world, or more specifically patterns based on maths, but I know full well that bias on bias only leads to more bias

        Like

      • What John was trying to say (he doesn’t give himself enough credit for that big brain of his), is really an indication that if you repeated the experiment 100 times, on 5 occasions you would expect random results. At that point, you would know which ones show reality and which do not. After that, it is no longer a matter of interpretation even when further refined results arrive down the road. Once a fact, always a fact. Something can’t be unfacted. The theory which describes those facts may be undone and built up anew so it no longer resembles the original, but every fact within that theory remains untouched.

        Isaac Asimov put it something like this (not exact) in his essay The Relativity of Wrong. Our theories have always been wrong, but they are getting less wrong with time. For example, consider the ancient flat-world theory. We think back and chuckle to ourselves at the absurdity and wrongness of their theory, but how wrong were they? In order for the flat-world theory to be correct, the curvature of the Earth would be 0m per mile (to put it in manageable units). But, what is the real curvature of the Earth today? It is 0.000126m per mile. So, take a meter, divide it by a little under 10,000 units, and spread out the difference over a mile body of water, and do it using only the equipment that the ancients had… Impossible. The difference between the flat-world theory and our spherical world theory is the difference between 0 and 0.000126m spread over 1 mile. In other words, the ancients weren’t that wrong. No amount of further refinement of that number will change the shape of the Earth, the world is still–roughly–spherical, even though our current answer is still, technically, unrefined (compared to what it could be).

        Scientists are well-aware that there is bias, doesn’t make what they have uncovered, repeated, and peer-reviewed (by academia and then again when released in journals) wrong or temporary. Hope that made sense… Let me know if it didn’t. I’m kindof in a rush and the sauna on the top floor of my hotel is serenading me, oh so sweetly.

        Like

  12. Mutter mutter mutter … rotten management leaves no room for original thought … homesteaders be damned, out in cold … ’twas ever thus … well, they laughed at Columbus too … and Galileo … and that guy who said diseases were caused by tiny little animals too small to even see … gripe gripe dribble drip …

    Like

      • For some reason I can’t help but equate that ‘divine creation from nothing’ with the equally implausible ‘Big Bang from singularity’ … (means creation from nothing)

        Oh! I see, silly dog! Big Bang doesn’t evoke God — but wait, God doesn’t invoke BB either … bummer, I think I’ll go chase my tail for while (more productive) (real bastard when you catch it though).

        Like

      • Uneducated, I have to rely on what I read and pick up here and there. ‘Singularity 101’ told me that in the beginning the entire universe was squelched down so small it took up no volume (already I can see why for so many God is the more acceptable option) but something in that non-existent nothing changed and it went BANG and that was that, we were up and running.
        I gave up pondering what could possibly change in a timeless nothing and could almost accept what I’m told by modern Eggheads as casually as a theist accepts what the ancient volumes (interpreted by very well educated men, I tell you) tell him.

        I try to keep an open mind. Science is winning on points.
        But both require a lot of faith …

        Like

      • In actuality, all we know with certainty is that inflation started, not the theorised bang before…. which is considered today more likely a bounce rather than a bang. Now write 10,000 words on this and have it on my desk by 3pm…. and no copy n’ pasting from The Botanic Garden by Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s granddad.

        Like

      • For a while there I liked the Continuous Creation idea, atoms of hydrogen spontaneously ‘popping’ out of nowhere. No gods (and no eggheads in white coats) required.

        Then they said that the universe is expanding, and projecting trends they reversed the process at the limits of expansion until the whole mess reversed into a cosmic contraction that somehow eventaully reabosorbed itself; the progression from which we seem to have a series of Big Bangs in an oscillating universe (which again is acceptable to this ol’ dog). (Told you I was simple.)

        But wait, it gets better—of course if that ever-decreasing circular bird does eventually fly up it’s own bottie … then there’s no traces lingering afterward—? ‘Course not! Dumb question, silly dog.

        And then they tell me that yes, there are ‘memories’ in the next issue.
        At this point I gave up with the update to theories and am now possibly dozens of theories behind the wave-front and it doesn’t hurt a bit … note I use the word ‘theories’; ‘cos the first one who tells me he KNOWS gets asked the same question the Abrahamic fundamentalists get asked:

        To whom was God speaking when He said ‘let there be light’?”

        I’ve had a few predictable answer to that one, and been called stupid several times. sure beats wurkin’ ….

        Like

  13. Crap, I write 3 pages trying to say exactly the same and here you come and summarize it better in 5 lines. I’m feeling quite stupid right now. Oh, the beauty of simplicity.

    Like

  14. Fourat, thanks for that…the theory of wrong is a lovely way of putting progression…like we stray from the path but the path never disappears…

    When I think about what it is that annoys me about scientists, is tiny in comparison to what I respect – is the fact that if something can’t be ‘proved’ by science then it doesn’t exist…I believe that if something is conceivable then its only a matter of time and with the right tools that the conceivable will be provable….like facts yet to be revealed

    So, based on the theory of wrong – is this why religious people are at loggerheads with scientific proof because they see no need to reject a perfect being (god etc) for a ‘less wrong over time’ theory….they need a perfect science model to exchange for their perfect idea of god

    Mmm, in fact if God is conceivable to us all (atheists and non’s alike) through our imagination and science is getting less wrong over time then either god will be proved with the right tools because of our collective imagination and searching, or god is science in its perfection (the path we are always near to but stray from)

    Ok, I don’t know about you but that confused me lol

    Like

    • Hi,

      I think you are mistaken in asserting that because science can’t prove it, it can’t exist, according to scientists. This, some call scientism. I believe it is a fabricated charge with very little basis in reality. Perhaps some scientists believe it, even then, I’ve never heard of one.

      Though theists have a perfect idea of God, their god is anything but perfect, in point of fact, he is everything but perfect. And that line of thinking, that they are waiting for the perfect theory of science in essence means they will be waiting forever as it will never come.

      And remember, it’s not a theory of wrong. Asimov called it the relativity of wrong. We actually are getting more right, by getting less wrong. The ‘wrong’ is just putting in a different light so that the past scientific advances can be put into perspective. 🙂

      Like

      • Hiya…mmm, I think there are groups like these but granted, I wouldn’t be able to search the internet for proof of existence – time and lack of inclination tbh lol…but, I think scientifically minded atheists could have fallen into this branch at one time or another ?

        To ‘your’ mind, scientifically (or philosophically?) their God is imperfect but to their mind he is perfection embodied and I am sure they will not budge until the relativity of wrong (sorry for mis naming it) gets less wrong to the point of perfection (I suppose like Buddhism) – otherwise there will never be enough ‘proof’ to change their mind, I suppose?

        Science is coming from the point of progression upwards (we all hope!) from getting things less and less wrong and working hard
        God is coming from a point of having always been at the top and waiting around rolling his eyes and looking at his watch while we build the Babel tower once more…

        and the religious just sit back and spend their time preying,chewing on a hot dog while scratching their backsides.

        I appreciate you taking the time out – I have enjoyed learning from you and discussing it

        Like

  15. Do “religious folk” frequently attack your beliefs/science/proofs? I ask because I’m curious. You know I have many questions about “faith.” But, regardless of where I stand, I respect your stance and would strive to understand it. Do you find this is often not the case?

    Like

    • Hi Jessica, good question. The meme, as graceless as it is, is directed to creationists (like Ken Ham) and fundamentalist apologists (like William Lane Craig). In particular it’s aimed at the Discovery Institute; the literally insane people responsible for all the Creationist education bills being rammed through Republican-led state legislators. These people openly attack science, and their actions pose a real threat to children. Also, somewhere in the thread I posted quotes made by Republicans presently sitting on the US House Science Committee. Read them, they’ll blow your mind. Here’s another one from Paul Broun not included above.

      “You see, there are [sic] a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe the Earth’s about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
      -Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 5th Oct, 2012

      This type of behaviour is dangerous and regressive.

      Jess, if you want to learn more about it the sensuous curmudgeon is simply the best blog to dig into. They cover every attempt made by theists to taint and disrupt education and challenge science. These guys are my heroes. Link below.

      http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/

      Like

  16. To add one more comment to this absurd debate, personally I prefer the Foucauldian view over the Weberian, self governance over the hierarchical. There you go, my academic tuppenceworth. Catnip tea anyone, apparently John is giving out free refreshments? 😉

    Like

    • Well might you know i processed a fresh dried bundle just last night. The cats loved it. 🙂

      Now, what is this wobbly gibberish: self governance over the hierarchical. Governance implies hierarchy… unless you’re talking about a total population of one. You’re really against any authority, aren’t you. I don’t mind it. I don’t like it, i loathe bad authority, but i understand (and ultimately accept) its role.

      Like

      • My comment was based on having to choose between one concept of governance and the other, however a slight ellipsis occurred in my response there, and what I forgot to add is that I think both views to be hogwash. Of course governance implies hierarchy, but it is a natural human knee jerk to want to catagorise and define, and unfortunately that requires rule making. Can’t escape it as much as I personally may want to. All I’ve done is create my own rules. As do we all with our various hypotheses. I’m amazed my typing is so coherent right now.
        My cats hate catnip. Good evening by the way Mr.Zande,

        Like

      • How can your cats hate catnip!? I think you must have tried some shitty amateur stuff.

        So, both views are hogwash. of course, but until we have another version of practicable hogwash we’re stuck with this muck.

        Thank you, a capital good evening to you, too!

        Like

      • I meant to say cat, just the one and she hates catnip. Even the little toy mice filled with the stuff. I even tried growing it in the garden a few years back but she just gave the plant a wide berth every time she passed it.
        There is a lot of room for movement within the mire, and although democracy is an hypocrisy of mythic status, you do still have freedom of thought, and that counts for much.

        Like

  17. So rules are always there to be broken, thus rendering them ineffective and defunct to all intents and purposes. The implication of permanence is astoundingly vague at best.

    Like

  18. Your memes are so much more dignified than mine. The unreasonableness of what you’re asking, though, you could be hurting people. Aren’t you breaking some kind of ethical code in your approach?

    Like

    • I don’t think so. Granted, this is directed to those inhabiting the theological extremes, to the people who assert without evidence, and not to the average theist who simply quietly believes. I think we give apologists far too much room. I believe we’re too tolerant. They’re free to make their supernatural claims, no one should ever deny them that right, but when they do make magical claims (in public) they should be expected to meet the same criteria we demand of others; namely scientists. It’s not being mean, just reasonable.

      Like

  19. I see what you mean, and I can see how it would be difficult to elaborate all that in a meme. What I think is happening is that people of religion aren’t quite sure how to evidence their beliefs so they resort to mingling science with myth. Hence the societal discomfort, but in the end I have to agree with your stance.

    Like

    • Yeah, whereas you have a Green Thumb mine is kinda’ Pistachio coloured. My herb and veggie garden is a rather shy work in progress, but the catnip goes gangbusters… so i encourage it. I grow it (for free) for the local rescue shelters and vets… and have acquired a taste for the tea. It’s not bad.

      Like

      • You grow it for rescue shelters and vets?! Well, all this time I had no idea I was conversing with Saint Zande…. That’s awesome! Good for you (and all those happy kitties).
        I planted all my starts in the raised bed today along with many different kinds of seeds. Oh happy days….gettin’ the hands dirty.

        Like

  20. Wouldn’t it be okay if I had peer reviewed by God? What higher form of reason can there be? And what is the purpose of repeatable experiments if said Magical Being has already whispered to me what is True?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s