Richard Dawkins

[sniffy]

Strange how you are upset by the normal progression of a discussion, wherever that is held: the pub, an internet chat room, or a laboratory. Sam is seeking information (as far as I can see) not trying to win an argument. Were it the latter the mobile goalpost accusation might have some validity.

I'm not upset merely pointing it out just in case the latter is true....

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, I just wanted to find out if you actively participate in worship.
Hey! Dont call the grammar police on me, will you? O.K. I dont always take due care in my puntuation, but I'm sure I could find mistakes in yours too.

Why would I actively particpate in worship when I am not a member of any recognised religion? The last time I looked there were no places of worship in Yellow Pages under the heading Devout Agnostic.

I was unaware I was criticising your grammar. I was investigating alternative meanings to your question by varying punctuation and using paronomasia. If you had difficulty discerning this I can only refer you to your own words, addressed to me.

Well I dont attempt to make sense to every retard,

 

[(Q)]

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

Ah, as suspected, nothing again is forthcoming, just hot air. ho-hum.

 

[(Q)]

Yes I am disturbed too.

There seems to be a lack of rigor in the practice of science today.

Popular science appears to supercede laborious experimentation.

Since you've never shown to follow anything more than pseudoscience, that's not surprising.

Negative results have become unfashionable and appear to hamper funding.

Pseudoscientists hamper funding.

 

[(Q)]

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

I apologize profusely for not seeing your arguments from the side of fantasy.

 

[imaplanck.]

Why would I actively particpate in worship when I am not a member of any recognised religion? The last time I looked there were no places of worship in Yellow Pages under the heading Devout Agnostic.

.

I was just checking! Although It's not unheard of that people who don't recognize an orgonized religion, pray to their personal idea of god.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah, as suspected, nothing again is forthcoming, just hot air. ho-hum.

Since you've never shown to follow anything more than pseudoscience, that's not surprising.

Pseudoscientists hamper funding.

I apologize profusely for not seeing your arguments from the side of fantasy.

You can do it like this, saves bandwidth.

 

[Gustav]

.... who licks your pretty little ass.

i say!
so samcd is a chick?

/pant

 

[imaplanck.]

so samcd is a chick?

She was when she showed the boys her jugs!

 

[wsionynw]

But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."

So, is it ok for religion to step into arguments about science?

 

[(Q)]

So, is it ok for religion to step into arguments about science?

Sure, why not? But, I'm not sure where you're going with that? Can you provide examples?

 

[philosopher´s stone]

Sure. Still researching.

But I'd rather show it to someone I know can see both sides of an argument.

You are merely a waste of time and effort.

Well, Sam if you ask Lord Insane nicely - he might offer to look at your arguments .....
He is not a kind person - but at least his logic is exceptional, he sees through complicated issues in seconds (or at least minutes) - then again , he is in favour of secularism - he might be biased ..........
Then again , I think he is honest - and if you have a point , then he will agree........

 

[philosopher´s stone]

She was when she showed the boys her jugs!

WHAT ??????????

Did I miss something ?

 

[imaplanck.]

WHAT ??????????

Did I miss something ?

Yep.

 

[Nickelodeon]

It was awesome.

 

[philosopher´s stone]

Sweet Saaaaaaaam .......

May I see them too ??????

 

[Zephyr]

No I'm writing a book on the detrimental effects of atheism on the scientific process.

Let us know when it's published

Can one use scientific arguments to prove or disprove memetic viruses? the transmission of memes? the cumulative selection process of memes?

I would guess you'd have to do it statistically. But does just one planet provide a big enough sample?

But would a poem describing the qualities of a lover be science?

Is it falsifiable?

Perhaps a falsifiable prediction can be inferred from meme theory. From what little I've read of it, the theory appears to suggest that a meme is a discrete object that exists independent of the human mind and whose device of proliferation is also independent of human behavior. Is this an accurate impression?

Surely the meme would have to be considered in its context (the human mind) just as evolution has to be considered in the context of a big planet near a sun with lots of water? And then finer details like different levels of CO₂ in the air over the years?

 

[baumgarten]

Surely the meme would have to be considered in its context (the human mind) just as evolution has to be considered in the context of a big planet near a sun with lots of water? And then finer details like different levels of CO2 in the air over the years?

Of course there is the consideration of context, but the question is not context but distinction. You can easily separate a gene (semantically or physically) from its organism. Is the same true of memes?

 

[Zephyr]

Point of information (from wikipedia):

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

 

[Zephyr]

Of course there is the consideration of context, but the question is not context but distinction. You can easily separate a gene (semantically or physically) from its organism. Is the same true of memes?

Does a separated gene have the same meaning? I suppose most carbon based life on earth is sufficiently similar that you can potentially look at a gene from an (unspecified) organism and say something useful about it. But couldn't there be an alien species with the same genes and a completely different way of processing them? (I remember reading an essay to that effect...)

So could you say: genes are only meaningful in context, but on earth there seems to be only one, ubiquitous context so we can pretty much always assume it?