scary things at CRTC

[Thomas Milne]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Scott Elcomb <psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I don't want to be drawn into this.  I don't believe it appropriate
> for this thread.
>
> Please direct further comments about my sub-thread(s) to my.inbox.  Thanks.
>

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate when the thread ends, especially
not when it's at your whim or for the convenience of your argument.

> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM, JoeHill <joehill-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Scott Elcomb wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, JoeHill <joehill-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> > Dave Germiquet wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> And a side note,
>>> >>
>>> >> Everything all boils down to Faith...Even Faith in science, when you
>>> >> get to the ROOT of everything its all based on Faith.
>>> >
> [...]
>>> > This anti-science hogwash is fit for the dung-heap, and has been ever since
>>> > it reared its ugly head with people like that mentally deranged Ronald
>>> > Reagan almost 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> I'll reply to this and then to Giles' message.  I'll not add anything
>>> further to this thread after that.
>>>
>>> I agree with Dave and don't see any reason to disagree with you except
>>> for the "anti-science hogwash."  It's not anti-science at all, in fact
>>> it's proof.
>>>
>> How does that work exactly?
>>
>>> All science comes down to is this:  A theory is valid and acceptable
>>> until a better theory comes along.  This requires a certain amount of
>>> faith.  Consider that we, as a species, are still struggling with very
>>> difficult concepts.  What is thought?
>>
>> How is that faith exactly? Sounds like a question to me. No one has given a
>> single example of science making any claims based on faith. They just keep
>> asking inane questions.
>
> The premise.  A theory is valid until proven otherwise.  My
> interpretation is that this means the belief you have in any given
> (current) theory may be misplaced.  It may not in fact be valid.  Lots
> of religions state things that may not be valid.

Your interpretation is wrong. There is no 'belief'. The theory either
fits the available evidence, or it does not.

The scientific method is really simple, and it has nothing to do with
belief. Science predicts what can be verified with experimentation. It
holds nothing on faith. Just because something that science has
maintained as true can later turn out to be false  _does not mean it
was originally based on faith_. There is never a point where science
stops and says 'we believe this', because any scientist knows that
inevitably their knowledge is incomplete.

> I believe in the scientific method, but our theories are not complete.
>  Whether religion can further the knowledge that we believe we have,
> remains to be seen.
>
>> ...and here's the difference, one more time, for the slow: where science does
>> not have an answer, it says 'I don't know'. Religion has no such humility.
>
> Religion by itself does not, but many representatives of the varied
> religions are.  Individuals have humility, not sets of communities
> like "science" or "religion."  I've met a great many people that I
> respect as much for their beliefs as for their humility.
>
Now you're just dodging the point.

You can prevaricate all you like, you've written nothing to
demonstrate in any way that science relies on faith, you just keep
repeating that it does.

> --
>  Scott Elcomb
>  http://www.psema4.com/
>  @psema4
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists