Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

O great Jedi Master,

Do bugs have souls? Do rocks and trees have souls?

Beats the hell out of me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Worrying about the possibility leads only to paralysis. Like all societies, we want laws and norms. We can't wait for some future revelation. So we try to make something up and try to stick with it. In this discussion, we're (sorta) trying to decide what we wanna do and why we wanna stick with it.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Johan, for someone who's otherwise fairly intelligent, I'm surprised (shocked, actually) that you cannot see for yourself why spousal abuse is an illogical (or if you prefer, irrational) behavior. Do you really need me to explain it to you?

With regards to proofs, you are doing precisely what I said that believers do: shifting the burden of proof. In this case, by attacking the attacker. You are also using circular reasoning in your attacks. Which is a logical fallacy, BTW.

You cannot use as a logical argument: "I don't have to prove what I say is true because you must prove me wrong." To use an analogy, let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not, and to demonstrate where the prosecution has made mistakes in its allegations (ie: where religion has made unverifiable claims). The defense does not need to prove anything. Proof is the burden of the side making the accusations (claims).

If I claimed to be the Messiah, it's not your job to prove me wrong. It's my responsibility to prove that I am what I claim. Religion fails such tests. It cannot prove its claims. Quite the opposite.

Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Hah, I think in your case Arryn, it is not too illogical or irrational in the case of spouse abuse. Zing!

I also think it's ever amusing that people fall on the *strawman* of labor of proof. Proof in this matter is purely opinion, hypothesis, and a foundation of faith (whatever it may be).

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

She doesn't have to produce any proof whatsoever, as following the scientific method, she is not making a claim. Believers make a claim: "God does exist". She doesn't have to do absolutely anything until the said believers provide her with falsifable proof. Only after that she must provide the believers with a counterproof. Same works with soul: "There is no proof whatsoever for the existence of soul, thus soul does not exist. ¤"

The age old argument "You prove that god doesn't exist!" Just doesn't work. Generally, when someone uses it on me, I use that as a sign to start ignoring the person. You provide me with falsifable proof that god does exist, and I will either falsify it or start believing that god exists.

Oh, and to clear a bit: "Falsifable", in laymans terms, doesn't mean that something is wrong, quite the contrary. It means that if it is wrong, it is capable to be proven wrong. Generally, in modern science, if something is not falsifable, it is considered to be false by default.

For example the theory "All cars are blue." can be falsified simply by observing a single non-blue car. Then again, theory "there is a god" is not falsifiable, thus is, by default, false. Only when it becomes falsifiable, by someone providing me with methods to somehow test if there is a god or not, will the theory be worth even the slightest of considerations.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Since science has done a passable job of explaining the universe from the Big Bang onwards, it pretty much only leaves room for God in the (as-yet) unexplained area of "what happened before the bang"? Some people prefer to see the hand of God in the setting of the physical laws of the universe, and in the "spark" of creation. Yet others can explain even that as random processes in a multiverse of infinite universes and infinite possibilities. (We exist because this universe happens to have the right random conditions for us to exist to ponder the question.)

What really scares some (many) religious believers is the possibility that some (unethical) scientist may someday (in the not-so-distant future) create a human being entirely in a lab from raw DNA, without "conception" at all. No egg. No biological parents. Instant person, just add water. (That's a joke.) If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)? We can already create viruses from scratch. It's only a matter of time before more complex organisms, and eventually people, can be 'manufactured'.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Why? The scientific method works perfectly well for everyhting else on the planet. Why should the existence of soul, or god, be any more a matter of faith than the fact that earth rotates around the sun?* Why should existence of something be an opinion? If it exists, the it exists and is provable, if it doesn't exist then it just plain doesn't exist. No need for opinions or faith here.

*(Or actually, rotates around the center of gravity in the solar system which happens to be very near the center of the sun, but anyway.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Thank you. I haven't said "there is no God." I said "prove God exists". As you point out, they are not equal statements.

{This is certainly going to cause an uproar:}
There is less evidence for the existence of God than there is for UFOs. Yet, oddly enough, more people (by far) believe in God. Heck, more people believe in voodoo than in UFOs. People who believe in UFOs are called "crackpots". People who believe in God are "mainstream". We live in an irrational world indeed ...

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Arryn,

I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people". If you start from assumptions like "all people are sinners waiting for redemption", "women are more sinful then men", "it is men's duty to 'correct' women", then wife-beating (under certain circumstances) is logical, the same way many people would consider it logical to spank their kids if they were playing with fire.
This doesn't say that either one is "right", tho.

Religions are perfectly capable of making predictions: "All the faithful go to paradise after they die." Have you ever seen a priest burning in Hell? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
What's considered proof (at least as far as scientists worry about it) depends not only on making predictions, but making ones that can be disproven. And usually disproven in particular ways. If somebody says "I am the messiah because God came to me in a dream and said so", well, there's no way we can check that. Even if he says "As proof of my divinity, the sun will rise tomorrow", we'd say "While we can test that, it was also true that the sun rose before you became the Messiah, so what does that have to do with anything?" Now, if he says, "As proof, the sun won't rise tomorrow, because my god will cast Utterdark overnight." now that we'd be much more interested in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Arryn,

Right. Newton's blind watchmaker isn't falsifiable. I don't believe that there is such a being, but we can't say that one exists or not. So, sensible people don't worry about it.

Viruses are *way* easier to create that actual living things. They are (to twist an analogy almost to the breaking point) just software, waiting to be acted on by living things. It may be possible to create life "from scratch". I kinda doubt it. The machinery barely works as designed -- our best guess is that about half of all conceptions spontaneously abort, generally in the first few cell divisions. I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

It's hairier than that, but I don't wanna dig into Popper and Kuhn to remember how to argue the utter hairiness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The short form goes kinda like this: some things which were previously the results of long chains of hypotheses are now considered facts. Mars isn't just a bright point in the sky that moves differently than the "fixed stars". We're positive it's a rocky world much more like the Earth than the Sun. Atoms are in the same Category, since you can (more or less) observe them directly with x-ray diffraction and electron microscopes. OTOH, the stuff that makes up atoms (or supposedly makes them up) isn't (yet) a real "fact".

Yeah, there's a lot of handwaving in that. Like I said, arguing it correctly is hard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Just because it seems impossible to us now doesn't make it so. 200 years ago flying was impossible. Flying faster than sound was thought impossible 60 years ago.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the word "impossible". I use it to illustrate a point.)

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab. That's not true anymore. I think you see where I'm going with this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I hinted that reasons (note the plural) exist that are independent of ethics.

Ethical reasons such as the Golden Rule are valid. As are legal consequences such as going to jail, or social consequences such as marital breakup and the damage such behavior causes to children who witness it (directly or by seeing its effect upon their mother). But our system of laws are based on ethics, morality, and by extension, religion. However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

So why is religion the prosecution while science is the defense (rather than the other way around)? =)

[devil's advocate mode]

I know, I know....you're about to cite this as another example of attacking the attacker, but that's really not my point here. I'm not trying to prove or justify religion. I'm just saying that in a debate between science and religion (both of which as they've been used so far in this topic are VERY generalized and amorphous), science cannot be taken for face value either. Within "science", things are constantly being updated, discovered, and changed. Theories abound and things thought to be fact are constantly overturned as more is learned.

I agree with you on one point. "Religion" cannot prove itself. I cannot argue that statement. But, as you so vehemently point that out, keep in mind that science in general has trouble proving itself, too. Especially in terms of universal origins. There are theories and conjecture, some with supporting evidence, but nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes, religion fails the proof test. But you're seeming to infer that science would stand up better under the same litmus test. But if you step back objectively, just the same way religion is, science is defined and "proven" by itself. Scientific fact, rather than being universal truth, seems to be more of a sense of "this is what fits our knowledge at this time". Constantly changing, filled with exceptions and anomalies, is it any less of a fallacy to put all of our trust in science? So in this case, I think the attacking the attacker shoe fits on both feet. =)

[/devil's advocate mode]



~Dae

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Arryn: I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am not claiming that there is a god or any other positive claim. I am however questioning your assertion that the activities you described warrants the conclusion that the persons engaged in said activities do not 'Subscribe to logic', that assertion on the other hand is a positive claim and the burden of proof comes to rest at your supremely arrogant feet, so if we are to continue this discussion I suggest you shoulder the burden and place it on your equally arrogant shoulders. And even were I to concede the point that theistic belief was irrational, I would not consider that sufficent evidence to label the theist an irrational person or a person not subcribing to logic, only ludicrous sci-fi entities go about their lives without inconsistant beliefs. As a final case in point I'd like to point out that Godel was a theist, and even tried his hand at an ontological proof of God. While this certainly in itself does not make theism rational it throws some very serious doubt on your assertion that theists does not Subscribe to logic.

Logic is a tool, it does not have normative moral implications. You can apply logic to ethical premises and arguably derive a functioning moral. But morally repugnant behaviour is not illogical, although it might be inconsistent with your other moral beliefs or premises.

Tuna: Infalsifiability does not render a theory false by default. It might be reason to consider it bad science or outside the scope of science or uninteresting but certainly not false by default. You might notice that any tautologies you produce are unfalsifiable, but they are certainly not false, if they were boys would not be boys and bachelors would not be unmarried men. I would also like for you to point out where exactly Arryn is making use of 'the scientific method'.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Arryn: I see you had some other reason to why wife beating was illogical. Don't be coy now and lest hear it.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

For many there is the belief that the world was created or at least put in motion, to a plan. For many of those there is nothing saying that the plan couldnt be billions of years of evolution. Trying to push all creationists into the can of some 6-day timeline is going for an easy argument (and kindof christio-obnoxious which is what torqs me off)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

The DNA's not the hard part, is my understanding. It's what you put it into when you're done with it. If you've got a nice little undifferentiated cell into whose nucleus you can stick your DNA, you're pretty much set. I hear the phrase "make a mouse" more than I ever thought I would. If you wanted to make the initial cell "by hand", you'd have to do all kinds of crazy manipulations (assembling the cell membrane from lipid molecules, building mitochondria, etc. etc. etc.) that aren't practical or reasonable or necessary. We already clone things. We already manipulate the DNA used to do what we want. While it would be incredibly far from trivial to make a human with at least certain desired characteristics, I think it's more an issue of being willing and fine-tuning the details of the procedure.
And, while I'm talking about things I've only a limited understanding of, the "6000 years since creation" bit is based on some dodgy translation of the Old Testament. It's possible to have a moderately strict interpretation of the Bible (as long as you pick the right one and have a little imagination) that doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution.
Logic springs from a set of axioms. If you start with a different set, you get different predictions. Those required to make claims about things like morality, religion, politics, drug use, are rather complex and opaque, to the point that even things that should be irrelevant in discussing them (such as the language you're using) make a huge difference. It's possible in somce cases, but always difficult, to say "given these assumptions, these things are good and these things are true and these things are right". That's what philosophy is about. But even the best philosophers (maybe _especially_ the best) don't claim to know what all the right assumptions are.
Finally, just because something is not falsifiable does not mean it is false. It's perfectly valid to not accept something as true that is not falsifiable (well, if there's no evidence for its being true, anyway). It does not make sense, however, to accept it as false.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Wont disturb mine. Now when you can do it without the egg or sperm as a starting point then it will get interesting. (virtual life? AI? energy-based conciousness? Commander Data? the Dr Hologram-guy?)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Desthai, religion fails the "reasonable doubt" test, nevermind the "shadow of a doubt" degree of proof. I had to say that first to get it out of my system.

The fact that science tests itself, and theories change to fit observations, is a strength, not a weakness. Besides the logical fallacies of most religions, they also have the serious flaw of not adapting to new knowledge.

Time for another analogy: You and I are friends. I have no reason to lie to you, and (knowing this) you have no reason to distrust/doubt what I tell you. Over the span of many years I tell you all sorts of things about my past. You believe my stories, for you trust me (and trusting me, you never check a third party to see if what I say is true). One day, it so happens that you discover something that sheds doubt on something I've told you. You confront me. (Very brave of you to go against your long tradition of trust.) I insist that what I said is true. You show me proof that I am wrong. I do not accept your proof. You walk away thinking that either I am not mentally sound, or I'm an obstinate liar. Either way, you now question to yourself what else I might have told you that isn't true. Had I admitted to being mistaken, you *might* convince yourself that what you discovered was a unique event and that your friendship remained solid, despite whatever nagging doubt(s) you might have. Alas, you can no longer trust me, for I have deceived you and I am unwilling or incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. I either deceive you deliberately, or I'm self-deluded and insist on sharing that delusion with you.

So it is with most religions. They have no credibility.

Do you drive a car, or fly in airplanes? If so, you are placing an enormous amount of trust (enormous as in your life) in science, as well as in the skill of other drivers and mechanics. The reason you can get away with this is because the engineering these objects are based on is backed by meticulously-tested science (unless you are one of those rare people who think cars are powered by tiny demons trapped inside the engine who drink gasoline and fart continuously).

BTW, attacking the attacker is what the weak do because they are unwilling or incapable of defending their own position. It's an attempt to throw the opponent off-balance so that you don't have to test your own defenses. You hope that you can keep your foe busy enough that he doesn't plow through the holes in your position.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I think a more apt analogy would be that it is easier to cut and paste code from samples into a new program than to program from scratch. Or that it is easier to program using libraries than to program using only keywords.

DNA is little more than the memory system of a computer ( plus a little CPU thrown in for good luck ).

And I think we'll be engineering our own sooner rather than later if moore's law ( observation? ) continues to play out.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

What interesting choices of words. Religion was "invented" or "created"? Hmmm possibly so. I think I might have said developed over time because it achieved those things rather than setup such a harsh shyster view. Im not offended mostly because I consider "religion" as quite different from "religious". The two serve very different purposes.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Which leads to the catholic banning of male masturbation? Which carried to its extreme led to monks disease?
The banning of all procedures or surgeries which might affect the birthing process at all? birth control? Vasectomy? removing even partially a womb even if it would save the life of the mother?
Also the banning of all surgeries to seperate twins? Even if done to save one?

Logical arguments are fine but if you try to say that something "crosses a line" then you need to be willing to consider where the line should be. Im not ready to say that all eggs must be fertilized and all carried to full term and all eggs must be buried properly.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Well I guess I need this explained to me too.

Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

I believe that the problem that J.O. raised and Evil Dave further explained doesn't go away with that. Basic foundational values cannot really be justified through logic (i.e. you need some basic premises to work with and to apply logic on). Logic (and science) can explain why someone might hold a particular set of values, but that isn't the same as justifying it. On the other hand, once a set of basic foundational values exists, logic can be used to work out derivative values required to uphold the basic foundational ones and so forth.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

You're getting warmer. Very warm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

This thin skinnedness is a bit rich coming from you. Whatever happened to 'not mincing words' and similar the phrases that you used to be so keen on.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Now I'm really confused. Societies that have encouraged (or at least tolerated) wife-beating have been around for a long time, and still seem to be doing pretty well compared to those that object to it. It's hard to make any argument for self-preservation from that. Nor can I see it on an individual basis, for similar reasons. If anything, the evidence is the other way: in some societies, the upper classes are the most tolerant of women, but it's often observed that those classes have the lowest birth rates. (Yes, that's correlation and not causation, but still: if I was gonna bet on who would have the most descendents, I'd bet on the poor, ignorant, illogical fool who treats his wife like dirt.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Welcome to the club, Johan! Point out a few more of Arryn's foibles and inconsistencies, and you too can be invited to go "back into the woodwork you crawled out of".

It appears she doesn't understand the difference between flaming and stating an obvious truth, although it is hard to understand how this can be so, since she is obviously the very personification of logic.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Shall it be understood that you have a test *any* religion will fail? Or shall it be understood that you have knowledge of *all* religions and ready to present separate tests for each religion?

Probably by large, their engineering is based on practical experiments. And while you're at that, maybe you can explain the reason for lack of roll-cage in most cars? In particular, in the cars of individuals who place enormous value n their lives?

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Hi, I just beginn to read this post, but the topic is so near to my occupation, that I have to reply.
Arryn, are you trying to state, that "hard science (physic, chemistry and biology)" are more thrustworthy than religion, because they have hard proof of what they say?
IIRC this science are experimental, they state things, and prove them by testing them. How can you say that if something was thousand times observed it will function that way?
Actually I believe science wouldn't pass your religion test, as you believe in them having no proof for their truth, as did people believes in other religion.
Well will you say, but there is still mathematics, they don't rely on experiments, they are pure logic!
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?
For exemple tertium non datur is highly debatable, as are other logical assumptions. And Last but not least, there is still the good, old, mighty Gödel argument, If you can prove me the consistency (that is the fact that a theory can not produce contradiction) of a theory, that can do simple arithmetic (you really dont need a lot, only something like non commutative additions of natural numbers) then I can prove you that your theory is inconsistent. What does this mean, it means that at best mathematicians can only know that they haven't any contradiction now, but they can never be sure that one can not arrive.
So you are saying you believe in something, who can prove , that it can't prove that it is correct. Well to believe in this (every mathematician does it), is for me the very same kind of faith act as to believe in a given religion, that is why so many Mathematician, and to a further extend Physician, believes in God (He has to make maths correct...!!!)
Skolem

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I'm not sure she's thin skinned so much as pointing out a perceived hypocrisy, a double standard. If a notorious flamer (like Stormie or me) attacked her, she might brush it off. But it really does seem like anyone who insults someone associated with Illwinter / Shrapnel gets threatened with banning, or Banned. One of Shrapnel's people had posted a threat to that effect in the Last month. And in the Last week, Cohen was telling people again and again and again in all the MP games he was in that he'd been Banned from the forums for clashing with Zen. Of course, we all take Cohen with a grain of salt, but still.

If the powers that be want to have such a nice clean forum, they really shouldn't be throwing insults themselves. _That's_ the issue. If it's okay for a PTB to insult people, why isn't it okay for everyone else to insult people? Or for me, to insult non-people?

Or is it okay for straight forward insults to be cast about once more, in which case I don't need to be indirectly insulting to certain people anymore. Unless they're PTBs? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Shrug. Considering Arryns history of egging you on in your insults and her own history of calling her own incivility for honesty and 'not mincing words', I think Arryn should be prepared to take a few hits.

Also I haven't noticed any sharp decrease in your insults, but perhaps I just haven't been paying attention. Or perhaps you do not consider implying that boron is a moron an insult? A happenstance which resulted in a short congratulatory remark from Arryn, that paragon of consistancy.

Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced forum)
 

Johan, you're a first-rate hypocrite. It's okay behavior when you flame someone, and your groupies Truper and Graeme Dice chime in with their support, yet you find it objectionable when someone else does it. And the admins and Moderators of this forum are contemptible. They sit back and do nothing when one of their own flagrantly abuses the forum rules, letting you flame someone simply because you don't like them and don't agree with them, as you did in this thread. And they continue to do nothing as you go on to taunt me in further Posts to see if you can get a rise out of me. You're petty and vindictive, and the Moderators are pathetic for allowing you to get away with it. In fairness to at least two of the mods, it's probably because the senior forum admins won't let them step in and moderate in a just and balanced manner (as they used to a few months ago). The best and fairest mods are now all but impotent, and (sadly) it shows.

As for track records, shall I dig up your old Posts where you react to criticism by flaming? Your record is that of slinging the first mud. You've always given excuses that you were "justified". Quit pretending to be holier than thou. You're not only no better than Caine, myself, and others, but you're actually worse, because as a "moderator" you're supposed to set an example for behavior. The only example you set is the worst possible one. Disgusting.

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced forum)
 

I have not written in order to get a rise out of you. Though I have certainly been annoyed at you. As for the other Moderators they have to speak for themselves. I am not Zen or Gandalf. I have never used any moderator powers at all, whatever that is worth. And I do not feel I have flagrantly abused the rules. Also as far as I am concerned I have not claimed to be holier either than you or Caine. I am not even aware that I flamed anyone, although I have been snide at times, includinf towards you. However I will bow out of this now since I am getting irritated to the point were I will become abusive if I continue.

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

Arryn: I agree that my brother was more rude than was called for and I apologize for not keeping him in line http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .

However I wonder what you mean by saying that the mods and admins do nothing. Is it because you do not percieve any changes in mod activities? Discussions between mods and admin are evidently not official. Some matters take a bit of time and might not be resolved as quickly as you would prefer. I hope that you can trust us and believe that we are concerned about keeping the forum civil.

Regarding senior admins disallowing Moderators to moderate I am baffled. What do you mean? I'm not too happy about rumor mongering. If you mean Psitticine when you refer to the fairest mods I can only say that I miss him as well, both as beta tester, manual writer and as moderator, but admin policies has nothing to do with him disappearing.

Moderation should be something each and every one of us did, to ourselves and to our friends at these Boards. Instead of encouraging snide remarks we could tell our friends to refrain from them (Jesus has spoken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

Thank you, Kris. BTW, are you your brother's keeper? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Well, for example, the lack of balance in moderating has been really irksome and unfair. Someone will jump into a thread in which they haven't been participating at all just to flame me (Truper's done this in two separate threads recently) and if I respond to his attack, an admin (like Tim) will chastise *me*. That's hardly just. What am I supposed to do? Just sit back and allow anyone to insult me (or worse) and say nothing at all? If you say that I should complain in PM to a mod/admin, I've done that. As of today, I'm *still* waiting for a reply to a PM I sent Tim a week ago. Nor did my clicking on the "report this post" icons have any response. It very much seems that Shrapnel's management of this forum is anything but impartial or fair. And anyone that tries to criticise the way they manage things gets threatened. I trust and respect you, Kris. You've been fair in the past, even when you weren't particularly happy with me for that stupidly-worded poll I made. And I trust Gandalf and Zen. But none of you run this forum. You may be more important than the average person on this forum, but you don't control it. Essentially, you're a guest here, as the rest of us are. Albeit an honored guest.

Actually, I didn't know he'd disappeared until you told me now. And I miss him too. Regardless, I wasn't referring to him. You may not have noticed (though I and others have) that Gandalf and Zen no longer try to step in to calm things down and reason with disputing folks to get them to see each other's points of view, or at least to lay off the flames. This change in behavior coincides with the forum upgrade and also suspiciously with Zen's hiatus not long ago. Neither Zen nor Gandalf have been particularly reluctant in the past to express their personal views or to step in, whenever they thought they should, and especially if they've been asked to intervene by someone in PM. Until recently. Furthermore, the forum software no longer permits Moderators to trim individual Posts that are found to be offensive. All of this smacks very much of an official policy decision on the part of Shrapnel. A policy that IMO is not conducive to a smoothly running forum. And policy issues aside, there's still the matter of balanced enforcement of etiquette. "Do as I command, nevermind my own behavior, and don't you dare criticize me" isn't the way to win hearts and minds.

Thanks again, Kris, for caring enough to ask questions, and even more so for listening.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Ahem, *cough*, let me duck beneath J.O. and Arryn and post in reply to this here:

That's a valid line of philosophical inquiry and one could extend it in all sorts of weird directions, from Hume's skepticism of the validity of induction and the principle of causality to questions as to whether or not the axioms that comprise "classical" logic are in fact "true".

My own philosophical view dodges this problem by accepting that my personal motives / values etc. aren't in fact "logically justified", they simply "are". I wouldn't like to say that this is based on "faith". I regard them as not having a truth value at all.

From there, I can rationally proceed. How can I know that the law of induction is "true". I can't, but I can "know" that it has worked for me in the past (i.e. advanced my values / motives), and so I continue to employ it. Of course, past success does not logically guarantee future success, but what else do I have? Would it be more rational to not employ it?

How can I know that there is no "deceiving demon" constantly manipulating my sensory input and even memories "behind the scenes" of my consciousness? I cannot so far as the illusion is perfect. But if the illusion is perfect, then it is the "truth" as far as I am concerned.

The idea here is not to aim for a sort of "God's eye view" of the "truth", but for a personal, individual kind of truth. My contention is that this doesn't require the kind of "faith" that is commonly associated with religion.

As for mathematics, I think your comments are valid only if you have a view of mathematics, one not uncommon amongst mathematicians, that it has some sort of ideal existence independent of the physical universe. If you are willing to tie the existence of mathematics purely to a physical universe, then those problems ought to go away.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Deccan, I just wanted to say that your grasp of philosophy is quite impressive, and your ability to express what you understand is even more so. Kudos. And after visiting your homepage just now I can see why.

Do you teach? If not, you should. I think you'd be very good at it.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

That's not surprising. Most people can choose whether to believe in God or in science, considering that they have no means of validating (or even understanding either). Mathematician, physicist and other scientists often know enough of science to realize that they still need something to explain something unexplicable from the point of view of the science. Thus believe in God (often, rather abstract god, unlike ones in mainstream religions).

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

What, you mean the "A Simple Thank You" thread where your Posts consisted of little more than a barrage of insults directed at anyone who disagreed with you? Why shouldn't you have been told off there?

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

Graeme, to you, *anything* I say you'll construe as an "insult", since you're on record as stating that you hate my guts. You have zero credibility. You, just like Truper, only post in threads I post in so that you can flame me. You did it in that "thank you" thread, and you just did it again. I can tolerate that you don't agree with me, and that you hate me. But jumping into threads you're not otherwise participating in just to flame me without posting anything else of substance to the discussion in those threads goes well beyond the bounds of acceptable etiquette. If the Moderators were doing the job they used to do on this forum, they'd've taken action against you (and your friend Truper) by now.

At least Johan and I were having a discussion (and disagreement) before he decided to flame me. I give him that much credit. You jump into threads for no good reason at all, and contribute nothing positive. The words I could use to describe *your* behavior I won't inflict on the rest of the forum members. Use your imagination and pretend I've said whatever offends you the most. Then go back to lurking. If you have nothing useful and positive to contribute, do everyone a favor and don't post.

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

I am going to lock this down for now. It seems there is a misunderstanding of the policies of this forum, but that will be rectified. Over the weekend we will post the rules for the forum so everyone can be clear. We will also be working to nominate some new Moderators for this forum, since when you only have one active moderator anything he does as far as actions is going to seem personal and biased.

Let me be clear about one thing, public discussion about how a moderator is doing his/her job is not warranted. I will put in an official policy for how anyone can deal with what they feel is unfair attention from a Moderator/Admin. This will clear up any misunderstandings in how to escalate forum issues.

As far as Zen leaving, I won't completely speak for him, but I do know that it had to deal with being tired of being the only moderator without much backup dealing with a lot of recent issues on the board. Most of our communities are run well, with very little in the way of controversy, with the same rules we had intended to use here. The problem lies in that there is too much being asked of too few, not a real clear understanding of boundaries, and to be honest a lack of civility in the way some deal with others. I am frankly disheartened at the level of lack of respect that some show for others in their Posts. There is no problem with disagreeing, even with a moderator, but there has to be respect there in the post. Too often I see some disagreements devolving into petty arguments versus people disagreeing, but seeing that their opponent has a right to hold their opinion.

So expect some more on this, this weekend. If you have interested in being a Moderator please PM Mindi or myself, and we consider it. Please give us past experience, your opinions on how to run a forum, and other items you feel speak to your ability to affect this community in a positive manner.

If you have any questions on this please email me at richard@shrapnelgames.com.

Thanks.

P.S. Please no more name calling in this thread or others. There are multiple people guilty of that right now. Keep it to PM's or email, but keep it off of the Boards.

Re: Official hypocrisy (aka a fair and balanced fo
 

Please !