I saw a pig fly once and I assure you no sentient being was involved 🙂 It was either the night of the Rolling Stones concert, 1982 – Seattle, or The Clash – Commodore Ballroom Vancouver – 1981 🙂
I think we should start demanding it. That’s it, no give or take. You invoke magic then the conversation does not proceed any further until you can present verifiable evidence for magic. End of story.
That is starting to happen. A lot of folks are simply unwilling to debate, say, creationists because of the absurdity of their position, notably Dawkins. I don’t bother with creationists, I’ll talk with someone on the sideline, but yes, let’s just ignore them. It seems to be the most prudent path. 🙂
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.
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.”
I don’t know, I just thought as you were spouting crap I would too. Don’t drink herbal tea; talk about cliches! Jeez come on man you can do so much better than that. Anyway you’re beginning to sound like a theist, hence my comment 😉
I was going to make a comment about your inner catnip gardener, but I guess you beat me to the punchline. Rules my ass, ok if you want to be somebody else’s gimp all your life! At least we’re sort of on the same page today. We must have a telepathic link… [grinning]
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)
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!!
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.
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.
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.”
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 😛
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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?
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…
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
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.
That’s ok, we’re expecting Siegfried and Roy so you can play with their cats on the tennis court, just next the chocolate fountain and ice statue of Alice.
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 …
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).
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 …
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.
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’ ….
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.
Ha! I wish I could write a science paper half as beautifully as you. Speaking of beauty, did you see this article? Seems one of your magnificent brothers might have just nailed a unified theory. We’ll learn more starting Wednesday in Oxford, but here’s the brief:
I saw this mentioned in Lubos Motl’s blog earlier today. He didn’t seem very psyched, but Lubos is a little crazy so I’ll wait to hear an opinion from some other scientist. I am usually skeptical towards grandiose claims like that, but you never know. I’ll take a look at the math on Thursday and let you know what I think!
Enforcing the rule leaves faitheists with no counter-argument. No counter-argument, no more delusional mutterings. Silence is golden….enjoy the crickets!
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
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. 🙂
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
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?
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.
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? 😉
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.
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,
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.
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.
Nothing is permanent, and we can only ever proclaim approximations of truth. In other words, we make do with what we have, and work like buggery to improve it with what extra resources we have lying around.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com
Yeah right, when pigs fly 🙂
LikeLike
What, you mean they don’t already?
LikeLike
I saw a pig fly once and I assure you no sentient being was involved 🙂 It was either the night of the Rolling Stones concert, 1982 – Seattle, or The Clash – Commodore Ballroom Vancouver – 1981 🙂
LikeLike
Aren’t you thinking Pink Floyd?
You saw the Clash live? Lucky sod!
LikeLike
well thats not fair 🙂
LikeLike
We’re so nasty! 😉
LikeLike
well if, for example, ID is a real scientific theory then they should play with the same rules.
LikeLike
You would expect so, yes. I like how the Discovery Institute peer reviews its own batshit crazy papers… then wonders why everyone laughs at them.
LikeLike
You would think it’s rather obvious… Apparently not.
LikeLike
I think we should start demanding it. That’s it, no give or take. You invoke magic then the conversation does not proceed any further until you can present verifiable evidence for magic. End of story.
LikeLike
::like:: 😀
LikeLike
I like that you like 🙂
LikeLike
That is starting to happen. A lot of folks are simply unwilling to debate, say, creationists because of the absurdity of their position, notably Dawkins. I don’t bother with creationists, I’ll talk with someone on the sideline, but yes, let’s just ignore them. It seems to be the most prudent path. 🙂
LikeLike
Word of the Day: Prudent
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
That first one is a classic! Any facts that come straight from the pit of hell, are still facts surely …
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
These are real gems! How does some one think and say something like what Dana says about trees?
LikeLike
It’s astonishing, isn’t it? And this is the “Science” committee.
LikeLike
Whatever they mean by science is not what the rest of the world talks about when we say science! It’s ridiculous to say the least
LikeLike
That is sooooo scary. How long will these clowns be tolerated, worse, voted to stay in office? aaaaarrrrgggghhh!
LikeLike
What if you add to it from a different point of view? And anyway why so tetchy?
LikeLike
Depends, i guess… what different point of view?
LikeLike
There comes a time when all men must shave and be clean. Divest themselves of favour and return to the cloth.
LikeLike
Bit early to be mixing Jesus Juice in your herbal tea, isn’t it 😉
LikeLike
I don’t know, I just thought as you were spouting crap I would too. Don’t drink herbal tea; talk about cliches! Jeez come on man you can do so much better than that. Anyway you’re beginning to sound like a theist, hence my comment 😉
LikeLike
What crap?
Really, you don’t drink herbal tea? I make catnip tea… it’s really very good.
LikeLike
I was going to make a comment about your inner catnip gardener, but I guess you beat me to the punchline. Rules my ass, ok if you want to be somebody else’s gimp all your life! At least we’re sort of on the same page today. We must have a telepathic link… [grinning]
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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!!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Gerrymandering acceptable stupidity… and now the assclown himself, Smith, is the Chairman of the committee!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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 😛
LikeLike
Lower the bar even further!?! It’s already so low a pregnant snake can jump over it 🙂
LikeLike
Hahaha! That’s a great line my brother 😛
LikeLike
I’ll have to steal that one too John.:-)
LikeLike
Steal away, Em… It’s not mine
LikeLike
Oh good.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
Oh sure! Down the Rabbit Hole I go…
LikeLike
Oh admit it, you were born down there, and never left! 🙂
LikeLike
Exposed!
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Time will tell, but with this crop of lunatics dominating the countries science purse strings its not looking at all good for them.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I thought it was Carolina’s where the atomically-religious folk resided?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Careful, Lady… with superb quickfire prose like that you’re going to make Meme one cranky camper… and you don’t want to make Meme mad.
LikeLike
I suppose I ought to give her equal opportunity. 🙂
Meme gets the Foxfire browser and I get the Chromium. lol
LikeLike
I think you just gave Bill Gates a heart attack!
LikeLike
I haven’t used Windows for 5 years.
Freedom!
LikeLike
Except that what they are presenting is, indeed, “evidence” to their minds 🙂
LikeLike
Hehe… and right there is the root of the problem!
LikeLike
Indeed, indeed 🙂
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
But you open your jacket and reveal a shit load of TNT a la wile coyote, then trust me, even I have my limits to what I find funny
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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"
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Good lord, man, you should be a teacher. That was brilliant. Love the example, too. Never thought of it that way.
LikeLike
Mate, seems ANNEDELOREMUSING has replied to you down the bottom of the page thread.
LikeLike
haha feeling feisty today, sir? 🙂
LikeLike
Just laying some garden pavers before the tea party 🙂
LikeLike
HAHA! Will there be those little cucumber sandwiches?
LikeLike
Of course… and i expect you to wear proper whites, miss.
LikeLike
lol ok, but i’m not apologizing for the black dog hair ahead of time
LikeLike
That’s ok, we’re expecting Siegfried and Roy so you can play with their cats on the tennis court, just next the chocolate fountain and ice statue of Alice.
LikeLike
KITTIES!
LikeLike
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 …
LikeLike
Whoff, whoff, yes, yes… but these upstanding lumps of cells and chemical energy you mention never invoked magic
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
You’re misinterpreting “nothing.” There was never nothing. As Krauss said, watch nothing for long enough and something will happen.
LikeLike
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 …
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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’ ….
LikeLike
Wow do we need this rule, fight the good fight sir!
LikeLike
Thank you, my good man!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Ha! I wish I could write a science paper half as beautifully as you. Speaking of beauty, did you see this article? Seems one of your magnificent brothers might have just nailed a unified theory. We’ll learn more starting Wednesday in Oxford, but here’s the brief:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
LikeLike
I saw this mentioned in Lubos Motl’s blog earlier today. He didn’t seem very psyched, but Lubos is a little crazy so I’ll wait to hear an opinion from some other scientist. I am usually skeptical towards grandiose claims like that, but you never know. I’ll take a look at the math on Thursday and let you know what I think!
LikeLike
Be warned: I’ll be relying on you to make heads-or-tails of it 🙂
LikeLike
The chirping of crickets during this silent interlude is wonderful.
LikeLike
What crickets? What interlude? This is not my beautiful house….
LikeLike
Enforcing the rule leaves faitheists with no counter-argument. No counter-argument, no more delusional mutterings. Silence is golden….enjoy the crickets!
LikeLike
Ahhh, i WISH it was that easy to shut Ken Ham up! 🙂
LikeLike
I thought religious organizations were exempt from the rules.
LikeLike
Oh shit…. you’re right. Damn…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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. 🙂
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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/
LikeLike
another blog to subscribe to 🙂
LikeLike
Well worth it, and hilarious to boot.
LikeLike
I’ll have to check it out. I’ve never been one for ramming anything down anyone’s throat, especially through politics and on the public scale.
Thanks for the Web sites! And sorry for my delayed response…
LikeLike
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? 😉
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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,
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Indeed it does, as does expression of that thought.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Nothing is permanent, and we can only ever proclaim approximations of truth. In other words, we make do with what we have, and work like buggery to improve it with what extra resources we have lying around.
LikeLike
Exactly right. But it begins with a thought.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Catnip tea??? Really? 😉
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It is fun, isn’t it? Something terribly gratifying in eating stuff you’ve grown.
LikeLike
That’s fair.
LikeLike
I think so.
LikeLike
Aw, geez. Really. You’re no fun! 😉
LikeLike
Ahhhh, but the drinks are free!
LikeLike
Hey, TB — no fair channelling me!
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Peer reviewed by god… I like that!
LikeLike