Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

No, they do not. Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

The quote wasn't "natural order", but "naturally produces order"...

Which to me says "life does quite a bit of work on its own towards creating an ordered world"

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As far as we know, of course. Which is still pretty darn far: on the order of 10 billion years.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect."

Which, again, is based on your pre-determined worldview. A creationist would say that those forces were created along with everything else. My point was that the "order in nature without outside intervention" argument fits both sides equally well.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb. And no, I do not accept evolution and such on blind faith.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right now, the little pieces of paper say "Computer Science". I'm going to be changing them to "Computer Engineering/Computer Science", just to have that little extra breadth. I'll probably swap in another major or a minor sometime.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can see where you think it fails, since the Razor would tend to support whichever view weilds it right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My reasoning behind it falls more on extrapolating from previous beliefs (though I didn't say that... I need to work on this communication stuff). Originally, people didn't understand how the sun and the moon rose every day; so, they said it was gods that did it. Once we found out how the sun and moon actually appear to rise, that was thrown out. It seems that whatever is not understood has the label "GOD" slapped on it, and makes everything all right. So, right now, we don't really understand how this whole universe shebang got started. It seems to me that the reflexive action is to slap on the label, and everything will be all right. I see no reason why this would be any different than wrongly (we think http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )explaining the rising of sun and moon as divine influence.

As for not all mysteries of the universe being knowable, I think this allows for that. There's always some other intricacy of the interactions throughout the universe that will need to be explained. Especially what 42 is the answer to. Then, once we figure that out, we will all be destroyed, and a new universe even more bizzare than this one will be created. Of course, this has probably already happened...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb."

Depending on your definition of open mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems nowadays that it means "Accept everybody and everything without any sort of value judgment." As long as it means "Keep your eyes open and your brain engaged," I don't have a problem with that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh, and most people who operate solely on blind faith aren't well informed about much of anything, including their faith.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

My God has a sense of humor. OH BOY, does he ever have a sense of humor!!!

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ouch. The deconstructionist in me wants to jump on this and scream bloody murder over your apparent favoring of writing over other forms of communication, but I think it'd be irrelevant (and said disconnected deconstructionist Albright parts might be extracting an interpretation from your speech that you never intended to put there, but that's not what I'm driving at...).

On the other hand, if you agree with what I'd earlier stated re: speech as a necessarily interpretive act, you subvert your argument that "it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written." If all communication is interpretive, you cannot judge something in its "real" context, unless you have firsthand experience with it [ and at this point my nascent phenomenological instincts want to scream bloody murder, 'cause your firsthand experience is still interpretive, subjective and intentional (ah, quelle joie to deal with Continental philosophy!) ], because your conception of the context is formed by the accounts of others (i.e., by other communications) and is thus naught but a subjectively interpretation...

The point that your above comment raises doesn't, IMO, go any distance to being able to redeem the notion that one can definatively know the "meaning" of a text, which is to say that it is insufficient to negate the fallacy of intentionality { i.e., the assertion that "one can, by reading a text [ and if we let Derrida have his way (as we probably shouldn't http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ), all communications are 'texts' ], discern with certainty the message that the author intended to communicate" is ultimately indefensible }.

The gist of the above critical babbling is that, even if one "[ interprets a work ] in the context in which it was written", one cannot hope to state authoritatively that one is interpreting it "literally". The idea of iterpreting something "literally" suggests that there is a single, definate and correct way to interpret any given work, and hélas, there is no way to justify this assertion...

(Yes, it's good to try to take a work's historical context into account. But this doesn't grant the interpreter a magical looking-glass with which to discern the "true" meaning of the work. Rather, it allows the interpretation of the work to be more consistent with the interpretation of other works derived from the same context...)

E. Albright
(An obviously less-than-completely reformed former deconstructionist)

[ Edit: typing errors ]

[ December 16, 2002, 13:53: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

That's fine and all, coming from a deconstructionist, but some of us ordinary people believe that once upon a time, words had meanings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Furthermore, in the past, there were books called dictionaries which sought to solidify the meaning of words, instead of aid in the progression (or digression) of their meanings, as seems to be popular today. It is reasonable to assume that the Bible translators in particular, and authors in general, used words that directly communicated their intent, in keeping with the established meanings of those words. In short (Short? Do I know what short means? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif }, I think that lack of 100% certainty (where rounding up to 100% is not permitted) is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text.

I'm not sure if I even know what I just wrote--time for a snack break. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[edit] Oh, and I don't necessarily favor writing over other forms of communication; my original point was just that written text retains the meanings from its time of writing, allowing one to interpret it with reasonable certainty.

[ December 16, 2002, 14:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really believe that Last line? It is now extremely popular (and I'm speaking as a Yank here) to view dictionaries as Bibles (if you'll pardon the expression) and meanings as fixed and certain. 'Tis my experience that Americans in particular have this lovely idea that Languages are fixed, static and standardized, when the bloody things are living, dynamic and diverse. For example, how many times have you heard the phrase "standard English"? How often do you hear people in the States talking about dialects of English? Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just Ohio, but I've found that Americans tend to view dialects as funny accents + bad grammer ("They'uns talk funny o'er yonder!"). Dictionaries are an attempt to standardize language and to clarify meaning, but they ultimately can, will and must fail. There are as many idiolects of English as there are speakers of English; so tell me, which of these hundreds of millions of ideolects represents the real, correct English? Speaking as a teacher of English as a second language, I constently find myself wondering if I use words "right", or if I'm misleading my students as to what connotations and denotations are generally attatched to this or that word. Given that my students have been learning British English, and I come from the other side of the pond, I find that I often don't. I had a lot less sympathy for the idea that language is neither unambiguous nor fixed before learning to speak another language, let alone before I started trying to teach my own.

But I rant digressively. My point are this: a claim that, because langauge is precise enough for ordinary usage, the fact that it's vague and underspecified is irrelevant, essentially sidesteps the question of whether it is too vague and/or sufficently specified for extraordinary use. And I dare say that claiming that one knows exactly what God means because one read what some person transcribed for Him qualifies as rather extraordinary. This would suggest that one can obtain objective meaning after two subjective interpretations (assuming that God, at least, doesn't have these same problems that we'uns do). Um, ouch. And if you want to argue that I've made a double standard, that I'm being less rigourous with ordinary language, I assure you I'm not. I personally hope quite sincerly that this statement communicates the "message" that I intend to communicate, but I freely admit that I've no assurance that it shall...

Oh, and re: dictionaries, and our having of them in the past... Don't forget that dictionaries are a relatively newfangled invention; English dictionaries have been around for less than 400 years, and have been used as standardizing agents a goodly sight less than that. IIRC, 'twas in the 1800's with 'ole Noah Webster that the notion of dictionary as repository of standardized truth came into force, deplacing the idea of dictionary as reference of current linguistic usage...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So tell me, what level of confidence is necessary for successfully interpreting the meaning of life, the universe and everything (aside from the ability to multiply nine and six)? You wanna round this up, yes? Okay, then if we're rounding up, you need, what, at least 50% percent comprehension, right? And on this level of precision you want to assert that you know the Nature of All Things?

All's I'm saying is that, given your claims of literal Biblical interpretation I feel justified in demanding a bit more rigor in terms of textual interpretation. And this is leaving the issue of translation entirely to one side. Ye gods! That's two more layers of interpretation between you and the author's intent; are you really willing to blithly assert said words "directly [ communicate ] their intent, in keeping with [ their ] established meanings"?

Oh, and the "established" meanings of words, these would be what? Are we going to assert that it's the dictionaries? Can we be sure that the translators agreed with the dictionaries, especially early ones (KJV comes to mind, published, what, seven years after the first English dictionary)? Did they look all the words up, to make sure they "agreed"? Did they "properly" understand the meaning of the definition?

And pray tell, what exactly is it to directly communicate a word's intent, hmm?

E. Albright
(Slightly testy after spending a day trying to approximately communicate meaning to a bunch of French high school students...)

[ Edit: typos; I apparently can't even unambiguously communicate with my keyboard... ]

[ December 16, 2002, 17:22: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was a long programme on British TV Last night about the development of the English language - I caught literally the Last two minutes, which was all about the King James Bible (I'm presuming [dangerously] that's what you mean by KJV).

Anyway, apparently the language in it was already 80 years out of date (e.g. used 'thou' instead of 'you' even though no-one said 'thou' anymore) - a deliberate attempt to make it sound more impressive. "Thou shalt not steal" sounds much better than "Oi, don't pinch stuff" or "Don't steal". But it just goes to show that the attempt was made to get a message across, not to make a direct translation of "God's words". That's very important if you're trying to take it all literally.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That first definition would be akin to blindly accept things on faith (ie: accept the actions others just because it is PC), instead of an actual open mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

No offense intended, but your reasons for accepting Christianity and the Bible (given earlier) seem more like blind faith to me than any logical reasoning.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Despite the expansion/morphing of language, the same words communicate something very close to the same thing they did in the past. There are words in the Bible which are no longer in common usage, but it's not difficult to find them. Thee's and thou's are used in writing for a good while after the KJV; comparing formal 1611 English and current slang "ain't" exactly a good comparison.

As for translating from Greek/Hebrew, there are difficulties involved translating. That said, the difficulties are not insurmountable, or no one would translate anything. At least those two Languages had not been popularly spoken for quite some time, so their "meaning creep" should have been very limited, at the least. They had been studied throughout the Middle Ages, though, in the classic literature, so denotation/connotation were determinable.

RE: blind faith--I read the Bible and learn what I would expect to find if it were true. I see said things in the world. I don't claim to understand how everything in the Bible relates to my life, but based on what I do understand, I find my faith reasonable.

You look at evolution. You learn what you would expect to find if it were true. You see (I assume) such things. You don't understand how evolution answers a whole lot of questions, but based on what you do see, you believe it. It's the same process.

RE: testy after teaching--I think I had the same day you had. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's a lot in your post, but I think this is the core of it. First, to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people, it should be able to be taken at face value, unless it clearly indicates otherwise. Second, I think in some cases (definitely not all), the issue is not one of interpretation, but application. "I know what this says, but what does it mean in my life?" Third, the majority of conflicts are between the literal and allegorical camps. Disagreements on interpretation between literalists are usually limited to points of detail, not doctrine.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I believe the bible cannot be interpreted literally, and I'll tell you why. Here's just one of my favorite examples:

'And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.' Joshua 10:13 (King James Version)

What science tells us in the 21st century that people didn't believe when the book of Joshua was written, is that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The sun never "goes down", the earth just rotates until the sun is on the other side of it. Oh, the sun DOES move, along with the rest of the galaxy, but the effect of the sun "standing still" would be very different from the effect described in this passage.

So, if you want to interpret the bible as God's literal, direct words, there are several possibilities I can think of:

1. God, who created everything that exists, including the sun and the earth, is somehow ignorant of, or has forgotten, the mechanisms of celestial bodies in his universe.

2. God is purposefully trying to deceive the readers of his book, for some unknown purpose.

3. The sun USED to revolve around the earth, but at some point in the Last several thousand years God decided to quietly change the way that the universe works, for some unknown purpose.

Those possibilities do not seem very likely to me. It seems much more likely to me that the bible cannot be interpreted literally, word for word.

Now, this argument does not say that God does not exist, or even that the bible is not his word. I'm not at all discounting the possibility that the bible was a collaboration, ideas directly inspired to the writers of it by God himself, but written in the words of the men who were listening, from their own perspective. All I'm saying is that literal interpretation of the bible does not make much sense to me. And faith, for me, HAS to be based on what makes sense. I don't have any use for blind faith.

This is not meant as an attack on your religion as a whole. Just because the bible isn't literal doesn't, in my opinion, necessarily make it completely invalid. I grew up in the christian church, and I used to believe as you do, so I'm not unsympathetic to you position. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Solar

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for the input, E. I'm pretty starved for complex conversation myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The willingness to base one's beliefs on emotions rather than intellect is something in human culture that bugs me to no end. The problem I have with other people's beliefs is not what they believe, but why they believe what they do. I've talked to athiests who say that God doesn't exist because if he did, he wouldn't let babies die, and there would no be so much 'evil' in the world (this is quite a 'logic leap' IMO). Some of them go on to say that if God does exist, he's a sadistic baby killer (another 'logic leap') and they'd spit in his face if they had the chance (to each his own. If I had good reason to believe there was a sadistic, baby-killing god, I'd rather kiss up to him than burn in fiery torment forever and ever and ever. But I digress.)

On the other hand, I’ve talked to christians who say that there must be a God, because there is no morality without a divine being. And they don't have anything to say in the face of mountains of (IMO) good evidence to the contrary.

In both cases they believe because they are uncomfortable with the implications of not believing in it. This isn't just a religious issue, either. I have a friend who says that human cloning is flat out impossible, and never in a million years will we EVER be able to clone a human being. Argue with him long enough and he’ll freely admit that he has no logical basis for his belief, but he believes it nonetheless. I think he’s really just extremely uncomfortable with the concept of human cloning (and it is a rather disturbing prospect).

I’m not saying that emotions are harmful or don’t have a purpose (I gave up on being a vulcan years ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I just think that basing beliefs and making decisions based primarily on emotion is very unwise. People are doing themselves a favor if they face their fears and realize that discomfort is not a stable foundation for a belief system (again, as always, IMHO).

Solar

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to have quite the grasp of the doctrine of inspiration, yet you can't reconcile this passage with it? The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Can you find anyone who doesn't understand those verses? The Bible doesn't purport to give detailed scientific descriptions of the events contained therein; to fuss over a frame of reference is nitpicking. (Although, several children in our school could use a little more nitpicking lately--yet another outbreak of lice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The theory of evolution is not some magical answer key that can answer anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is an entirely different process. I understand how evolution works, and how a lot of things fit in to it. I don't know about every single little detail, but that doesn't matter. That is what biologists are for. I don't know every little detail about gravity, and yet I can be safe in assuming that it works. The same applies to evolution. This is because both theories are based upon logical reasoning, and are backed up by experimentation (hence, they are theories, and not hypothesises).

You have not offered any arguments to justify creationism or a belief in the Christian God. You just say that you believe what the Bible says. IMHO, that is not a good basis for beliefs of any sort.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Errr... not to speak for all biologists or anything, but has anyone been reading my Posts? To reiterate in brief, the complexity issue doesn't favor chance.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, except the terms "observational gravity" and "theory of gravity" can be linked, whereas "theory of evolution" is not linked to any term "observational evolution".
We can let go of a small object and see it 'drop' towards the large object everyday, and we call the phenomenon gravity - no doubt about our observation (unless you're a deconstructionist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )
However, the observed phenomenon for evolution is speciation.
That is to say, we see species everyday. But evolution is a theory attempting to explain where those species came from. Thus we never see evolution. To claim that we see species proves evolution is circular reasoning at its roundest!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm still wondering which of the experiments; the primordial soup in an electrified mason jar, or the punctuated equilibrium/salted fossil record is the successful experimentation everyone keeps mentioning.

nighty-night
jimbob

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I must say (albeit clearly not promptly) that this is IMO quite well said. It's depressing, but I'd say you really hit the nail on the head re: the consistent unpopularity of agnostisic assertions. It's frankly become a four-letter word, right along with "I don't know". It's been my experience that when you assert that you don't and cannot know something, a lot of people get rather uncomfortable. And what I've found to be really depressing is that one can find people who are willing to consciously base their beliefs on whether or not the implications of said beliefs are comforting (rather than my grim, fatalistic conviction that I should believe whatever seems "right", regardless of whether or not it gives me the willies). For example, I once argued a libertarian (i.e., proponent of the thesis of free will) into a corner and ended up with an admission that he refused to accept determinism because he didn't care for what it might imply about ethical judgement, in spite of the fact that he agreed that he couldn't offer any sort of cohesive argument as to how free will could exist...

Anyway, I digress. Yeah. Admissions of ignorance are out of style. And then some.

E. Albright

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I need to let this die, but I'm starved for complex conversation, so I'll make one Last (I hope) thrust. I again suggest that you look at Quine's Indeterminacy of Translation argument, even though it may not be easy to lay hands on. Translation is certainly possible, but one can never be certain that it's "right". Translation is certainly possible, but it's impossible for translation to be certain. And the more esotaric and abstract the subject, the more likely one is to have problems. Ostention (sp?) only works with things which one can reasonably point to examples of, and even it has its limits.

Look, my major beef can be described thusly: you're not claiming that you're successfully interpreting the Bible, you're claiming that you're authoratatively interpreting the Bible, that you're literaly interpreting the Bible. You're saying that you can clearly and unabiguously determine exactly what it is meant to communicate. This implies that no one may disagree with said interpretation (even though scads of people necessarily shall). What gives your interpretation privledged status over any other arbitrary interpretation, aside from your assurance that it clearly means such-and-such? You say "I think that lack of 100% certainty [...] is not reason for discounting the probability of successfully interpreting a text", but this has the nasty implication that there is one definate, set meaning to be extracted, and that you'll somehow "know" when ya get it. If you want to claim literal interpretation, you need this claim. Well, given that all y'all literal interpreters don't agree on exactly which literal interpretation is "right", why should we'uns assume that there is a single correct "literal" interpretation?

Brèf, literal interpretation is oxymoronic...

E. Albright

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I need to shut up. Really. So this shall be my parting word. Besides, I don't think there's really any reason to continue this line of discussion, as we appear to have hit a semantic brick wall. I think we're using the word "interpretation" differently. I say this for two reasons.

First, you continue to return to phrases such as "face value", which outright eliminates the possibility of textual interpretation as I'm using the word. Yes, words can have a "face value", but it's subjective. Comprehension of text (or any communication) is not a matter of objective comprehension, but of subjective interpretation ("To me word X means concept Y, word A means concept B, word Q means concept R, and thus phrase ABC means concept N", to brutally oversimplify).

Second off, you speak of application v. interpretation. I'm inclined to take this as suggesting that you mean interpretation as "God said XYZ; what does he want us to do?", rather than "God said XYZ; what does he want to communicate by saying XYZ?". This returns us to the fallacy of intentionality; i.e., the notion that one can necessarily extract a communicator's intended "message" from a communication. I have a feeling the root of our problem is actually a touch more esoteric than what has thus far been discussed; I'm wanting to accuse you of subscribing to the existence of universals. If this is the case, our discussion would need to move to a higher level to achieve any meaningful resolution, and I doubt you'd want to go there (not that I'm sure that I, cut off from English-language reference material of the non-Internet-y variety, would want to either, mind you).

Oh, and regarding whether literalists disagree over detail or doctrine, well... I present Exhibit A as a non-mainstream (but certainly not without a following) literal doctrine...

Quote:

The Bible definitely includes the perspective of the men who wrote it. That's why books which mostly parallel each other can present totally different sides of a story (i.e., 1/2 Kings and 1/2 Chronicles). If you really believe that this passage rules out literal interpretation, then smack yourself in the head next time you say "sunrise" or "sunset."

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...or I suppose that this might be the root of our semantic problem. Literal interpretation means more than just taking something non-allegorically; it means reading the text as the author intended it to be read. Unless you're the author, you can't do so. And if you've got other people writing the text for you, you stand no chance of communicating anything outside of "the perspective of [ those ] who wrote it"... By admitting the preceeding, mind you, you've interposed at least one more layer of subjective interpretation between the reader and the Reavealed Truth. And in any and all fairness, you need to include a layer for the translator(s), too; even if you think one can write something that can be read with an "objective interpretation", I dearly hope that you don't think that objective translation is possible (Douglas Hofstadter's marvelous Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language raises some interesting points in this regard).

Okay, I'm done. Really. Tongue-biting (finger-biting?) shall now commence.

E. Albright

[ Edit: UBB code cleaning ]

[ December 18, 2002, 11:41: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, the original goal wasn't to prove or disprove evolution, but to demonstrate that it is as much a faith as belief in creationism. If there's any doubt on that score, I'd be glad to begin again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Second, reasons to believe in creation and reasons to believe in God are quite different areas of discussion (although belief in God should also signify a belief in creation). Again, my efforts haven't been focused on proof/disproof of either side. Greatly simplified, I look at both theories, determine what each predicts in the words, and then look at the world for what I actually see.

What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it. There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link. The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution. Research into radio-polonium halos indicates the earth could never have been a molten mass. The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour. Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted. No Oort cloud has ever been found; it was based upon faulty calculations. Furthermore, it is supposed to be 50,000 AU from the sun; no telescope could pick up a comet-sized object at that range, rendering it unprovable. Fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of the earth; if those layers were exposed for millions of years, there should be thousands or millions of meteorites found. Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago. Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now. The amount of He-4 in the atmosphere is several orders of magnitude below what it should be for an ancient earth. The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates. The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers." There is very little sediment on the ocean floor. The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years. Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica have a maximum depth of 14 thousand feet. Planes which crashed in Greenland in 1942 were found under 263 feet of ice. Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth. The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old. Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument. The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment. Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand.

On the other hand, I would expect the fossil record to closely reflect our current speciation. I would expect hundreds of creation stories in different cultures. I would expect depictions of ancient humans coexisting with dinosaurs (see the Ica stones, for one massive example--how did they accurately depict dinosaurs in their art if they'd never seen one?) I would expect evidence of catastrophism in geology--and many geologists are returning to catastrophism. I would expect massive amounts of fossil fuels. I would expect a lack of ancient geological formations. I would expect many polystrate fossils (such as fossilized trees running vertically through "millions of years" of rock layers). I would expect to still see short-period comets. I would expect the moon to still have short-life isotopes like U-236 and Th-230.

[edit--typos]

[ December 18, 2002, 15:31: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Time to wack a few minor errors..comments I do not understand or can't answer at the moment deleted. Mostly because I'm too lazy to do the needed research at the moment (finals will do that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

"What is there to see? Evolution demands a fossil record jam-packed with transitional forms of all sorts in all stages between all species (unless you Subscribe to punctuated equilibrium). For that matter, I would expect at least some fossils of failed species--"transitional" forms that didn't make it."

AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms.

"There is a total, 100% absence of transitional forms in our fossil record--not a single missing link."

Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands.

The probability for evolution is absolutely absurd. The odds for the formation of life, alone, are far above 10^55, the "line of improbability"; let alone any other part of evolution."

Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses.

"The earth's rotational speed (or the sun's rising speed ) is slowing down. Millions or billions of years ago, the winds would have been thousands of miles per hour."

You're assuming it falls off at the same rate as current. Rotational speed only affects wind by affecting the heating rate (and producing greater Corlis, but that shouldn't icnrease wind speed).

"Short-period comets should have long ago been exhausted."

How many did we start with?

"Jupiter and Saturn are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. They should have cooled off long ago."

Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end.

"Io is losing matter to Jupiter, and should have disappeared by now."

Io didn't have to from when Jupiter did.

"The erosion of the continents should have been accomplished in 14 million years at present rates."

Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though.

"The rock encasing oil deposits would crack after ~10 thousand years. It's not cracked--we still have oil "gushers.""

For every single deposit? Somehow I doubt it.

"There is very little sediment on the ocean floor."

The oldest ocean floor found is a few hundred million years old. It's contunally destroyed, and that takes the sediment with it.

"The expansion of the Sahara desert should have engulfed all of Africa in a few hundred thousand years."

Assuming it expanded at the current rate. There's evidence some human activites increase desertifcation, and for that matter climate change can do the same (or shrink it).

:Earth's population should be much higher after hundreds of thousands of years. It reflects about 4-5 thousand years of growth."

Are you familiar with an exponential growth curve? Or carrying capacities? I assume you mean with that. the population has had restraints removed recently; infant mortality and deaths from disease are down, farming increases the amount of food and thus the population that can survive, etc.

"The oldest coral reef is less than 4200 years old. The oldest living tree is 4300 years old."

Living things -die-. That answers the tree part. You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old.

As for the coral, the ocean floor would take care of most of the very old deposits. Erosin (sp could elimiate the rest after a few thousand years. Coral only grows under certain conditions, and not all coral is reef-forming.

"Stalactite and stalagmite formations do not reflect thousands of years/inch. There are 50-inch stalactites under the Washington Monument."

WACK! Oh, sorry, I broke it off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Seriously, formation rates could vary. I don't remember exactly how they form, but I'm fairly certain they need water to form. The WM recieves quite a lot more water than most caves. Speaking of which, -under- the moment? Uh, where? In the basement? The momument itself, being really tall tapered pillar, doesn't seem well-suited to form those.

"The Mississippi River delta only reflects ~30,000 years of accumulated sediment."

Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey. Hmm. I'm no expert on rivers, but I know the Mississippi has moved course at least once (IIRC the 1812 earthquake moved it a bit)

"Topsoil formation rates do not support billions or even millions of years, but a few thousand."

I'm assuming you mean net formation rate. See the desert comment.

Phoenix-D

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

"AKA extinct species? Like, oh, Neanderthol (sp)? Fossils can only form under specific circumstances, as well. Especially for soft-bodied organisms."
Neanderthal man was shown to be an old man with severe bone/joint disease (arthritis?). The misshapen face is a result of acromegaly--the forehead and other bones thicken with age.

"Hmm. I'm pretty sure this is incorrect simply because I've seen pictures of primitive whales. They -don't- look like modern whales, and have several land-based features. That's microevoltion, but the point stands."
No "transitional form" in the fossil record has stood the test of time. Each one has been shown to be something other than what it was first thought to be. Have you seen photos of the skeletons? Or just drawings of the fleshed-out artist's conception? Need I remind you of Java man and his history?

"Time factor. Also interesting that you claim to know the odds, but say we don't know what the early earth was like. If we don't know what the early earth was like, we *can't* get any real odds. Just wild guesses."
The odds I gave are just a statistical probablity of assembling 1/5 of the typical enzyme chain found in our simplest organisms (50 instead of ~250). At 100 trillion "attempts" per second, using a factorial system (which assumes wrong combinations are not re-used, something not true of true random chance), it would take 30 trillion trillion times longer than the universe is posited to have existed to ensure the correct combination. (The odds were about 1/10^64.) That's generously assuming all the correct enzymes already exist and assuming an agent to try different combinations. Not to mention that enzyme chains are pretty finicky things--you can't just mix and match them in any order and get useful things.

I don't think you understand the vastness of 10^55 (the limit of improbability}. Given 30 billion years (the approximate proposed existence of the universe), you have to try 1.057*10^37 combinations per second. That's simply an enormous number, far beyond human comprehension. And that's 9 orders of magnitude below the origin of one component of a "simple" life form.

The truth is, there are no "simple" life forms; single-celled organisms are far more complex than we understand. As you've said, each cell has a built-in defense system, power plants, feeding system, etc. The odds of all of those parts evolving simultaneously (as you say must have happened) would be much, much higher than what I've posted here.

"How many [comets] did we start with?"
Short-period comets only have a life-span of 10,000 years.

[edit starts here--I clicked Add Post instead of Alt-Tabbing.]

"Lesse..heat out there would have to be from radioactive decay and/or pressure. Radioactive decay heat drops exponentially. At the start they would cool much faster than at the end."
So, in ~4.6 billion years at the present rate, they should be done cooling by now, and you're saying that the rate of cooling would exponentially increase as we go further back in time? I'm not understanding how this helps you out.

"Volcanic activity creates more land area, as do a few other things IIRC. The continental drift maps that show the continents the -exact same size and shape- as today are weird, though."
Volcanic "spewing" doesn't account for enough new mass to make up for it, though. AFA the continental drift maps, why is Africa actually shrunk? What about all that dirt in between the continents on the ocean floor? The continents don't actually float, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"You might as well state that the oldest human isn't more than 100 years old, therefore the earth can't be more than X years old."
No, it's just odd that no living creature on earth would be over 4500 years old, which would be expected if creation/the Flood were true.

"Which happens to blow the literal creationist 6000-year viewpoint out of the water if true, but hey."
Except for the Flood. Besides, it also would be a lot closer to 6,000 than to whenever the Last Ice Age (or whatever other massive climate change would have drastically altered the earth's topography) ended allowing the Mississippi to form.

[ December 18, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have no problems to this point...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">'Probability' is irrelevant. Proof is what matters, and it is lacking.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whoa! Whoa!

This is one huge mass of overly-quick conclusions. Just a few corrections/amplifications...

The earth's rotation is slowing because of the gravitational drag of the moon. It is slowing at a rate measured in hundredths of a second annually. It will be billions of years before the earth rotates at the same speed that the moon orbits, resulting in the same part of the earth always facing the moon. How does this relate to the Biblical time scale of ~4,000 years?

Winds, btw, are created by heat differences in the atmosphere, not the earth's rotation.

Jupiter is supposed to be radiating about twice as much energy as it receives, yes. Jupiter and Saturn (and to a lesser extent all the other gas giant planets) are generating energy by the simple mechanism of their huge bulk generating enough pressure and heat to cause a little bit of fusion. Jupiter is only a little bit too small to have become a star, you know. Planets about 4 times the size of Jupiter are called 'brown dwarfs' these days. It's also possible that the rocky cores of these planets have some heavy elements in them, just like earth, and there is some nuclear fission going on.

And speaking of the earth, there are lots of geological processes going on that build up the continents. Using scientific information about erosion to claim that they should have eroded away by now, while ignoring the other scientific information about the building processes, is disingenuous.

I don't know where you get the bit about oil strata cracking. Why would oil strata crack and not other strata? Why would any stata crack? Other than the usual fault lines cause by major movement, of course... In other words, what the farg are you talking about? This is gibberish.

No, the Sahara should not have engulfed all of Africa. A desert is not a living thing that grows and seeks out more space. It's simply an area where certain climate conditions exist. During the Last Ice Age the area now called 'the Sahara' was more like the Great Plains in the US with grasslands and rivers. Its current expansion is actually due to human activities like over-grazing.

Ice cores... this is more gibberish. Ice flows, it doesn't just sit there. The depth is determined by how much greater the rate of deposition is than the rate at which it can flow away. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of icebergs calving off of Greenland every year. Where are they coming from if the ice cap is static? You should know this if you know enough to learn about the depth of the ice cap. This is another clear case of disingenuousness.

There is a huge difference between proving that the scientific worldview is not an air-tight, accomplished fact and using half-truths and clever omissions to try to prove the literalist 'Creation' worldview.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see any of these 'expectations' as supporting the 'young earth' (or 'young universe' as the case may be) hypothesis. Many of them are true, yes, but these require the same detailed reasoning to understand as the other phenomena you discussed too superficially. Catastrophism does not preclude long periods of relative calm. Short period comets are just long period comets that have been bumped to a shorter orbit by encounters with a planet. Etc... all these things are quite explainable with the scientific knowledge we have today. The problems only come when the 'scientific' types over-extend their theories in their partisan efforts to blot out all other world-views.

[ December 18, 2002, 21:13: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Wow Krsqk, that long post hurt your argument a lot more than helped it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is nice to alter evidence to fit in with your pre-conceived notions, isn't it?

[ December 18, 2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

So many tuppenies in the pot. Perhaps enough to buy a round? Here's another couple:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just as physicists keep finding smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles, so I found my biology classes spoke of smaller and smaller bits of organisms until I lost count/got bored.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think any 'defence' system would appear immediately - you'd need the presence of hazards (defend itself from other organisms? but this is the first one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) and time for those to develop. Yes this would make any such creature very vulnerable for a (long) period, but if enough survive...

You're right that such complex things aren't likely to appear (talking evolution-style not creation-style http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) all at once. The logical answer is that they didn't but developed over time. If that makes the initial stages of life on earth that we're postulating look utterly useless compared to modern-day amoebae, so be it. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

As for the probability stuff - did you factor in the number of stars in the universe and the number of planets likely to be circling them? It could be that life on Earth was an amazing piece of luck and that there are 10^20 (is it a billion galaxies with a billion stars? guess 20 planets per system including all the satellites) lifeless hulks out there. Is trying 100 trillion times a second reasonable? How did you get that number?

Plus you needn't run the simulated attempts enough times to ensure that the initial formation occurs, only to show that there is a significant chance of it happening. If you said "I can only get the figures to say 5%" I'd say "Well, we're here aren't we?"

A quick sound-bite:
Just because something is statistically improbable doesn't make it impossible.

On the other hand, I doubt play the lottery...

Oh, and the current vogue for universe age is about 14 billion years (at least at the time of writing, by the time I hit Preview Post it could have changed again... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know the figures for comet-life, but surely it matters little given that new ones can appear? They're only icy rocks that get too close to the sun, and there's a huge number of rocks out there.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Er, I don't think so. But I can't find anything useful, either way, in the first twenty Google results.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aye, it's plate tectonics - if two plates meet they tend to push each other up (e.g. the Himalayas are the result of the Indian sub-continent pushing against the main Asian plate [or someone hid a lot of ancient fish fossils up there for a laugh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ] also see Iceland and the mid-Atlantic ridge). Eroded soil doesn't disappear off the planet - I'd expect to see the material again eventually.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, have been on the phone whilst writing it.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Fyron, I don't say this very often, but.. That wasn't helpful. Sssh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I'm at a loss for where to start. First of all, I am not capable of personally verifying every piece of information I post here in the time frame permitted by this discussion. If all parties followed this rule, Posts would come about once every three weeks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I rely on others who have done research and trust that their information is both reliable and up to date. Obviously, both I and my sources are capable of error, and I am ready to learn when my information is in error. I am not a master of every branch of the sciences, nor do I have the time or the ability to stay current of even the major scientific journals. If you do, you either have a lot more free time than most or play much less SE4 than the majority of forum-readers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

That said, there is no cause to label me as "disingenuous" or state that I have altered the facts. On the one hand, I am to be an ignoramus, unlearned in basic science. On the other, I am to be learned enough in all the sciences that I am consciously editing or selecting which data I present. Which one is it to be?

Frankly, I am disappointed that members of this usually tolerant and friendly community would jump to such a conclusion so rapidly. One might recount previous instances where individuals determined to cause strife were shown much more courtesy than I have been here. An attack on one's character is not helpful to either side in a debate. Indeed, that is how debates of this nature have been stereotyped, although this one had not been personalized up to this point.

If this debate will continue in this direction, it is over on this side. E-mail and personal Messages are much better suited for that kind of communication.

I will do what research I can on the points I have posted. I do find it unlikely that none of them have merit or pose challenges to the evolutionary perspective. Keep in mind, again, that nothing I post is intended to be empirical proof for or against either viewpoint. Both are outside of the realm of empirical science. My post dealt with what I would or would not expect to observe in our universe based on each worldview. To construe it as submitted proof is to take it out of context.

I would enjoy the continuance of this civil debate, provided all parties (and the Moderators) involved find it agreeable.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What year do you think this is? We're not a the end of the 19th century when Piltdown man was still thought to be an ancient human. It's been around a century since the first Neandertals were found, and the several dozen specimens certainly aren't all simply misshapen individuals.

Further, you have the entire Homo genus going back 2.5 million years, then the Australopithecines before that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a completely false statement. You can see the transitionary forms of horses for example as they go from dog sized with many toes to modern-sized with a hoof. Or take bison, who have more than halved in size in the past 100,000 years.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If it's shrinking it's because one edge is being pulled down into the magma.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the continents do float. They float on a bed of molten rock. There is absolutely no reason why a continent can't shrink, all it takes is a subduction zone. Iceland grows larger every single year as the mid-Atlantic ridge pulls apart.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Krsqk,

If you are using 'information' from someone else then let this be a warning to you about taking sources uncritically. At the very least you ought to have more than one source for a claim before using it. I am not a 'professional scientist' by any stretch. I merely read publicly available books and articles at the 'popular' level. Yet I could instantly see the obvious distortions and omissions in those claims.

All of the points I made can be checked Online using a good search engine like Google. There are lots of science magazines and even some pretty decent technical references (like the Usenet Physics FAQ at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ) available. There are even some good references for common misunderstandings of scientific knowledge, like the Science Misconceptions Page at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon.html And of course you can look things up at any reasonably well-stocked library.

Given how easy the access to vast quantities of detailed scientific information is these days, I cannot see how anyone could look up the depth of the icecap on Greenland and not also learn about the fact that it is constantly being renewed. So the depth of the lost plane in the ice proves nothing except the high rate of turnover. Either this is a very over-eager partisan just grabbing 'facts' out of an encyclopedia and rushing to hurl them at the enemy, or this is a deliberate attempt at deception. The combination of all those distortions together makes it seem more likely to be the latter. I advise you to be very careful of the 'source' of these claims.

[ December 19, 2002, 16:30: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Even multiple sources agreeing doesn't necessarily mean a piece of information is correct.

Sometimes a source cites other sources as support, but if you trace the chains of references, you find a closed loop with everybody agreeing with each other and not mentioning any conflicting references. Groups that are pushing a political agenda are often the worst offenders here.

I had a friend in college who one discovered that a research paper she had cited had gotten the info from one of her own papers.

Then you have the "urban legends" that keep circulating even after they've been publically debunked.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

I am inclined to agree with BM here. Most, if not all, of those "facts" are indeed wrong. I simply did not feel like regurgitating what had already been said about them. I apologize if my post was offensive; it was not meant to be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, being in the 'biggest crowd' doesn't automatically make one right in politics or science or anything else. There is really no substitute for thinking for yourself. But we all have a finite amount of time and various priorities. We can't test every single thing for ourselves, so it's good to know how to evaluate authorities and sources.

People do tend to seek out confirmation of what they want to believe, and this is true even of scientists. There is very real resistance to changes of scientific world views because scientists can have vested interests, too. That's also the reason for the persistence of Urban Legends. Just like storms kick up where the right conditions exist (warm air, moisture, etc.) Urban legends appear where some topic of strong public interest (including simple prurient interest) intersects with vague public knowledge of science or statistics, or some news story that fits the public expectation better when garbled.

That's funny about finding your own paper supporting something you chose to cite.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

In New Scientist (UK edition from a week or two back - can't find an Online link to the story) there's an article about a study that showed that a large number of papers cited in scientific (although the same could apply to other disciplines) papers might not have been read by the person citing them...

They found that a certain paper had been cited 4300 times, with 196 of the citations spelling the paper wrong, putting the wrong year or the wrong page number. Despite there being a wide range of possible errors, there were only 45 different errors and the most popular mistake was made by 78 different people. This indicates people probably just copied the citation from someone else's paper without bothering to check its accuracy, which in turn indicates they probably didn't read the paper.

Which is worrying.

Possibly there's not as much going on as their findings suggest, but I seem to remember fleshing out the citations (with some popular books on the subject I hadn't read) in a university project biography to appear better read...

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

One of my favorite citation "errors" was a direct competitor of mine who claimed that such-and-such had been proven in one of his prior publications.
When I went and checked the citation, it in turn referenced a prior paper. When I got to the original, it said something along the lines of "we suggest that such-and-such could be occuring". Really neat the way a 'probably/maybe' morphed it's way into a 'proven'. If the mob did it we'd call it results laundering http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Unfortunately I don't know of any recourse, so I've chosen to simply ignor his research altogether, and publish as if he doesn't exist.

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Baron and Fyron, there is a huge difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. Let's not turn this discussion into persopnal attacks, please.

(EDIT: After reading the Posts again I should not have included Fyron in this. Sorry Fyron.)

Krsqk, If your argument is that the scientific theories are not supported by the evidence available, then you need to be more careful than normal about the validity of your own evidence. Your position would be better served by simply not responding to some points or admitting you don't know, than to offer incorrect data and weaken the impression of statements you made previously that may have weight on their own.

Everybody take a breath. Let's keep this civil.

Geoschmo

[ December 21, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Don't mind me just bringing a old thread back to life for another lively discussion about Twinkies and such...

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Well, thread necromancy is one thing, but did you have to dig up a thread that had gone out on such a sour note?

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

Yeah I noticed that a bit late... I read the first few pages but didn't read the end of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews
 

That's the inherrant risk of messing around with raising the dead. Sometimes you bring back a creature that is better off left in the grave. Hmmm, someone should turn that idea into a movie or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif