Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But the post was still nearly incomprehensible.

As, i'm sure you would find most texts on the subject of evolution.

Also, given that most people lack the qualifications "to judge the actual science soundly", (and many lack the brains) that premise suggests that either no one except scientists should criticize anything or, that everyone should criticize everything -- even though we lack basis.
S_A_M

Exactly my point. SAM, I woouldn't mind you saying "that evolution is some complicated stuff, and I don't pretend to understand it."
I just have the problem with someone who should be saying that, smugly saying "those that believe something else are stupid."
QED 15-2

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I spit up my drink on this one.

You drink at work? This explains so much.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As, i'm sure you would find most texts on the subject of evolution.
Exactly my point. SAM, I woouldn't mind you saying "that evolution is some complicated stuff, and I don't pretend to understand it."
I just have the problem with someone who should be saying that, smugly saying "those that believe something else are stupid."
QED 15-2

I didn't mean for this to sound so mean. Clearly you guys are all relatively intelligent.

I actually don't care about the evolution debate, which is sort of academic. We are here, for some reason. But I do want to break down the "Science is God" as applied to other areas of argument on this Board.

In particular, this:

"Bush is bad for ignoring Global warming. He should impose many many things on industries."

"Wait, I'm not sure there is global warming."

"Are you stupid? Here's a science article saying there is."

And for what its worth,

I was interested in the "miracles" required to move to multi-cell and then organ systems. I googled like mad trying to find ANY theory. I am sure there are some, but they aren't easy to find. Given that me, and most/All? of you have no basis for these fundamental steps, We should not be smug.

Again, I don't care if you make fun of Georgians, really. I just want you to be open minded about other real issues that rely on "science."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
California, suffering through a debilitating budget crisis caused, in part, by over-regulation and over-control, looks at a measure mandating that building design now also be vetted by feng shui guides.

Far be it from me to ruin an otherwise good California joke, but that's not what the bill says. From what I've read, it would encourage the guys who write the building codes not to impose requirements that violate feng shui principles, which is (1) consistent with an anti-regulatory agenda; (2) indistinguishable from asking the Building Dept. to stop making you shape your basement like a pentagram, from a Free Exercise perspective;* and (3) consonant with Hank's theme that scientifically-derived rules are not automatically better (in this case, at the design of buildings) than more ancient rules of thumb.

Personally, I think feng shui is horseshit, but I don't see why the building code should impose bad luck upon you unless it is necessary to avoid imposing, say, carbon monoxide on you.

*After all, city planners allow building owners to perpetrate a massive fraud by "eliminating" the 13th floor on basically the same rationale as feng shui.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As, i'm sure you would find most texts on the subject of evolution.

What a knee-slapper! You will not bait me into arguing that, "No, I really am smart!" I will just say that I'm pretty sure you and I are in the same practice area.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly my point. SAM, I woouldn't mind you saying "that evolution is some complicated stuff, and I don't pretend to understand it."
I just have the problem with someone who should be saying that, smugly saying "those that believe something else are stupid."
QED 15-2

That's some score-keeping Chinaski. Your "graduate degree in 'SCIENCE'" must come in handy.

Only problem is -- you can't point to anyplace where I said what you say I said. It's not a win if the other guy's not arguing with you.

QED
629-4

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Does anyone have a link to a good analysis on what is happening in Iran this week?

The stories I read today are that the largest political party there is boycotting any election, in part because its leader has been banned from running. And then Khatami can't call an emergency meeting because he's "ill". I'm not certain, but reading between the lines this looks like a classis trigger for a revolution. If you haven't been yet, I'd encourage everyone to read any stories you come across about Iran for now. It might be watching a major historical event unfold slowly.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(3) consonant with Hank's theme that scientifically-derived rules are not automatically better (in this case, at the design of buildings) than more ancient rules of thumb.

Personally, I think feng shui is horseshit, but I don't see why the building code should impose bad luck upon you unless it is necessary to avoid imposing, say, carbon monoxide on you.

*After all, city planners allow building owners to perpetrate a massive fraud by "eliminating" the 13th floor on basically the same rationale as feng shui.

1)I gotta remeber to just shut up and let Atticus make my arguments. Time was people said "You can't do that. The feng shui would be wrong." And it would be like a science argument, now even the more scientific, like atticus, question feng shui.

2)As to Cali building codes, I love the warnings on hotels that smoking is allowed in certain places in the hotel, so you might get cancer if you go in. Is that still going, or is smoking banned in all public places.

3) and what if string theory proposes a tie from a hotel to a place where smoking is allowed; warning required?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What a knee-slapper! You will not bait me into arguing that, "No, I really am smart!" I will just say that I'm pretty sure you and I are in the same practice area.

yeah, well my dad can kick you dad's ass.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Several quick hits:
I am not a "creationist", at least in the sense you would mean, and not particularly religious.
Tyrone's point of accepting all of science, or none, shows a thinking man accepting w/o thinking. Much of science can be proven- some cannot. Global warming is hard to prove, evolution- impossible. That fact that it is impossible to prove but theorized by SCIENTISTS doesn't make it right.

Hank, when I read what you say, it is clear that you misunderstand science. First of all, what do you mean by proven? Most of what you are referring to as proof is better referred to as evidence combined with deductive reasoning. Most scientists are incredibly open to any new evidence that would further refine our understanding of the physical and biological world. Most scientists are well aware of the fact that several times in history established theories have been blown out of the water by new evidence that caused people to change their thinking.

No scientist advocates accepting all science. There is plenty of junk science out there. What credible scientists advocate is critically looking at the methodology of a study, how the data was collected and analyzed, and then coming to a conclusion regarding what the data means with the understanding that your conclusion can only be as good as the data it is based on. Scientist know full well that there are limitations to any method of gathering and analyzing data and they factor those limitations into the conclusions that they draw.

It is lay people who misinterpret what the studies mean, not the scientists. I constantly see people make the classical error of assuming a causative relationship exists when only a correlation has been shown. Most lay people don't even get the distinction.

Most lay people also don't understand the scientific method. They don't even have a clue as to what a p value means let alone how to evaluate the soundness of the data and methodology used to base a conclusion on.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
However, when you discount the "creationists" for believing in fables, I merely want you to remember that you believe instead on a cascaded sieres of 1 in a million shots. Moe surprising is that you seem to accept it with little questioning, because Science told you to trust it on this one.
Do any of you seriously feel comfortable in saying the odds of there being a god are greater than several 1 in a million shots?

Now you are showing your ignorance not only of science, but of probabilities and statistics, too.

Some religions teach that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, the Catholic church and judism being two of them.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Grand Canyon was created by running water. We can prove that since we can look at the rocks, make predictions, and test those predictions.

So is that what is proof in your mind? If so, then you need to go review the many studies that look at species with short life spans such as drosophila over hundreds of generations and subject them to different environmental stressors and can then test the prediction that species evolve.

See, Hank, it isn't that there isn't enough proof (your word) to accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact; it is simply that you have not educated yourself as to what proof there is.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This happened a long time ago; too long for the bible's whatever thousand year life of earth.

How do you know how long ago something occurred? Is it because of carbon-14 dating and if so, why do you believe carbon-14 dating is accurate but say that the drosophila studies are not sufficient to prove evolution?

Charles Darwin's theory has been substantiated by thousands of studies over and over again by many different groups of researchers all over the world. No one has ever amassed any evidence that evolution doesn't occur exactly as he predicted that it occurs. When a theory has been tested like that and all available evidence substantiates the theory, then it becomes a scientific fact.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yeah, well my dad can kick you dad's ass.

[Edited to remove remark in gruesome taste. (Don't worry Hank, I wont go all Atticus on you.)

Replaced with: Nyah, Nyah!].

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[Edited to remove remark in gruesome taste. (Don't worry Hank, I wont go all Atticus on you.)

Replaced with: Nyah, Nyah!].

S_A_M

I'm ready to guess. SAM is Irv Kayton.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now you are showing your ignorance not only of science, but of probabilities and statistics, too.

how'm i doing on spelling and grammar?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Far be it from me to ruin an otherwise good California joke . . .

You didn't.

. . . but that's not what the bill says. From what I've read, it would encourage the guys who write the building codes not to impose requirements that violate feng shui principles, which is (1) consistent with an anti-regulatory agenda; (2) indistinguishable from asking the Building Dept. to stop making you shape your basement like a pentagram, from a Free Exercise perspective;* and (3) consonant with Hank's theme that scientifically-derived rules are not automatically better (in this case, at the design of buildings) than more ancient rules of thumb.

My construction buds tell me that the main mandate is that those lucky enough to approve plans are going to have to learn the stuff, so that they can tell if requested variances (requested on the basis of FS) are actually in line with FS. Thus, lots of classes, books, seminars in Maui - just the right stuff for departments already financially strapped.

Further, this will degrade safety and efficiency in the name of idiocy. Want that door on the east side of your building that got nixed because it would open up onto a very busy street? Want to turn your building in ways that are not consonant with the neighboring buildings, and thus cause hook-up problems for utilities? Tell them it's a FS requirement for proper passage of flux, or because the dragon's tail needs the threshold, or whatever stupidity du jour is indicated. What a victory for rationalism!

Personally, I think feng shui is horseshit, but I don't see why the building code should impose bad luck upon you unless it is necessary to avoid imposing, say, carbon monoxide on you.

The requirements that spec-ers are being told to drop in that bill were put in place for reasons. The justification for doing so is some idiotic paean to "acceptance of alternative life theories." Personally, I would like to see a requirement that allows for the elimination of air circulation systems in buildings that have a Rolfing Room.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Further, this will degrade safety and efficiency in the name of idiocy. Want that door on the east side of your building that got nixed because it would open up onto a very busy street? Want to turn your building in ways that are not consonant with the neighboring buildings, and thus cause hook-up problems for utilities? Tell them it's a FS requirement for proper passage of flux, or because the dragon's tail needs the threshold, or whatever stupidity du jour is indicated. What a victory for rationalism!

I already said I thought feng shui was horseshit. Your post made it sound like Yee's bill would have required architects and builders to get FS clearance from certified whoosits before building any individual structure ("a measure mandating that building design now also be vetted by feng shui guides"). That might not have been your intent, but it certainly made the bill sound even stupider than it actually is. (Good lawyering.)

As I understand it, the resolution is intended to encourage building codes to accomodate feng shui principals, not dictate how any individual plans are made or approved. You'll have to find someone else who thinks feng shui is a good idea, but frankly forcing the building standards department to justify their building codes in opposition to horseshit ideas like "is it bad feng shui?" seems no stupider to me than other wars of attrition against entrenched government regulation, like sunset laws. Ignore the nutjobs and get on this train before it leaves the station.