Kinja reply list

Read More
cheerful_exgirlfriendHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:33pm
When she quotes the author of the fictional book Life of Pi

“1) Life is a story. 2) You can choose your story. 3) A story with God is the better story.”

It's certainly her right to believe that, but I would counter that looking at creation through the lens of scientific thought offers one a richer and deeper sense of the world than any religion's creation story I have ever heard.

I'll let Richard Feynman say it better than I ever could.

Reply
- Read More
  straycheerful_exgirlfriend
  7/12/13 2:45pm
  I was trying to explain this concept to someone a while back... I dunno, creationism is just so boring and simplistic; the only appeal I could possibly see is that it is basically wrapped with a bow on it... no pesky thinking required. Moreover, if you do think, apparently there's some shithole place full of fire or something waiting for you, so... there is that also.
  Reply
- Read More
  cheerful_exgirlfriendstray
  7/12/13 2:56pm
  When people talk about science being boring, especially about creation, I also think of how religious people will talk about how are it must be for atheists to teach morality, as though one needs the threat of hell to behave like a decent human. If the belief in hell is all that is keeping someone from cheating on their spouse, honoring their parents or committing murder, that sounds like a mental disorder not a religion-based morality code.
  Reply
Read More
FrickSanomeHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:19pm
Ugh. I too am a creationist and a tech writer. However, you HamNo and many others are the ignorant ones because you always equate being a creationist with being religious.

Have you ever heard of Metaphysics? It's the study of the (divine) universe well within and nodding to science and free of the absurdity of religion.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton NolanFrickSanome
  7/12/13 2:42pm
  "Have you ever heard of Metaphysics?" Yes. I would like to hear your explanation of how metaphysics logically and inevitably leads to a belief in creationism, and of the "divine." Genuine question.
  Reply
- Read More
  Posh IsolationFrickSanome
  7/12/13 2:59pm
  Any reasonable philosopher would cry if he read the way you just defined metaphysics. "Ugh." Metaphysics is NOT creationism. "Ugh." "Ugh." "Ugh."
  Reply
Read More
JohnMcClanesSmirkHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:13pm
I guess I don’t “believe” that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics.

No, no it's not as plausible, not even close to the realm of plausible, because one is a positive assertion and the other is a theory based on mathematical models and doesn't claim to be anything more. This sentiment perfectly illustrates the desease of solipsism that has infected my generation as a whole and has lead to a lot of shitty, shitty thinking.

Smart people think X. I choose to believe Y (admittedly for no good fucking reason), thus X = Y. I'm entitled to my opinions, you can't judge.

Ugh. No, no no no no.
Reply
- Read More
  Johnny ChundersJohnMcClanesSmirk
  7/12/13 2:22pm
  In the Popperian tradition, a theory is only as correct as its ability to withstand criticism. Astrophysics is more than just some "mathematical models" since those models can be used to make predictions, and those predictions have the capability to be confirmed (or not, as the case may be).
  
  All creationist theories falls into the "not even wrong" category, since they are not capable of sustaining any criticism all (they make no predictions).
  Reply
- Read More
  JohnMcClanesSmirkJohnny Chunders
  7/12/13 2:25pm
  To be clear, I don't think astrophysics is just "mathematical models", I was accepting her straw man of "theoretical astrophysics" for the sake of argument.
  Reply
Read More
EatTheCheeseNicholsonHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:29pm
Just popping in to let everyone know that Virginia has a PhD from Harvard. So if you thought higher education makes people smarter... sorry
Reply
- Read More
  KaiFromDogtownEatTheCheeseNicholson
  7/12/13 2:48pm
  At least her doctorate is in English, and not something like Chemistry or Physics. Then Harvard peeps might be really embarrassed.
  Reply
- Read More
  RussianistKaiFromDogtown
  7/12/13 3:02pm
  They still have reason to be embarrassed. If she has a PhD in anything she should have at least a vague understanding of peer review, where "a wizard did it" never really flies as an explanation.
  Reply
Read More
sn95996Hamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:52pm
Do you ever say Muslims shouldn't be taken seriously because of their religious beliefs? Not many of those are based in science. Is one religion less entitled to their beliefs than any other?

Why do I have to sign up for 4 or 5 burner accounts before it will post my comment?
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolansn95996
  7/12/13 3:10pm
  It's probably because you're not making good comments.
  
  And yes, I would say that the creation myths of all religions are about equally mythical.
  Reply
Read More
ScottRaphaelHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:14pm
Science is bullshit! It's always flip-flopping its stances in the face of newly discovered evidence! Where is the consistency, science? Religions have given the same vague answers with no discernable supporting evidence for thousands of years, and they have stuck to their stories, god damnit. Well, except that there's different versions of most religions and the believers from the SAME RELIGION often hate one another for slightly varied interpretations of texts that have been altered and translated a thousand times prior to these interpretations even existing, but NAY. Nay to science! NAY.
Reply
- Read More
  casenScottRaphael
  7/12/13 2:35pm
  Agreed. One day they say dark matter doesn't exist; the next day, they say it does. Science can't make up it's mind. A science book from 10 years ago is probably outdated today, but look at the Bible — still as relevant as 500 years ago.
  
  And way more interesting of a read, too. Who doesn't remember fond memories of reading things like "And unto Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begat Mehujael, and Mehujael begat Methusael, and Methusael begat Lamech...." Ah, what a great line...brings a smile to my face still...
  Reply
- Read More
  TroyRiemercasen
  7/12/13 3:41pm
  I wasn't sure if you were joking until the second paragraph...
  Reply
Read More
lisasucksHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:07pm
To me, her bit about social science just proves that evo psych is bullshit and unscientific. Not that all science is eeevil.
Reply
- Read More
  Johnny Chunderslisasucks
  7/12/13 2:16pm
  Yeah, way to single out the developmentally-disabled branch of science among a room full of honor roll branches.
  Reply
- Read More
  straylisasucks
  7/12/13 2:26pm
  Evo psych isn't inherently bad, but it lacks controls and brings way too much bias to the table. I think anytime your focus leans towards validating social (or religious) norms rather than questioning them you end up with bad science.
  Reply
Read More
HashTagYoloisbackHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:45pm
"When a social science, made up entirely of observations and hypotheses..."

No. False. Right there. Ugh. Biology is NOT a "social science". Biology is NOT made up entirely of observations and hypotheses. QUIT CONFLATING BIOLOGICAL FACT WITH LIBERAL ARTS AND POP PSYCHOLOGY MUMBO JUMBO! ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND PSYCHOLOGY PROFS LOOKING FOR DUMBSHIT GRANTS TO FUND THEIR DUMBSHIT RESEARCH THAT IS OF INTEREST TO MARKETING AND PR FIRMS ARE NOT BIOLOGISTS. FUCK. UGH.

You fucking. stupid, smug idiots. THIS: "tells us first that men are polygamous and women homebodies, and then that men are monogamous and women gallivanters—and, what’s more builds far-fetched protocols of dating and courtship and marriage and divorce around these notions" - DOES NOT COME FROM BIOLOGY. It comes from social "scientists" and their loser liberal arts spawn who are afflicted with physics envy and who want to palm off their ludicrous bullshit social, socioeconomic and sexual theories as Science.

UGH. FUCK.

A theory in "social science" IS NOT THE SAME as a theory in, yes, I'm gonna fucking go there, REAL FUCKING SCIENCE.

This lady's ignorance is a fallout of the utter failure of social science to adhere to firm principles and proofs as well as social 'scientists' utter insecurity, greed and selfishness in hurrying up and wanting to call the crap they spew as 'science'. They wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass.

And I hate to say it, but this lady actually makes a decent point deep under the layers of stinky shit in her remarks. Social sciences, especially the ridiculous mess that pop psychology and pop anthropology has become, are unrepentently and unremittingly sexist and misogynist as all fucking hell.

Thanks a lot, you stupid asswipe liberal arts academics. This is the mass delusion that your insecurity and physics envy and greed to be perceived as Real Scientists hath wrought. You take a horribly lacking Real Science education, throw in a shitload of Jesus love, and then mix with a bunch of college-level liberal arts CRAP (and let's face it, a shit ton of college-level liberal arts stuff IS navel-gazing, self-indulgent CRAP) and then boom, you have mass idiocy. And then, add in a shit ton of mystification about Science fueled mainly by the social scientist asswipe psychologists, social anthropologists and increasingly statisticians (12% of women reported faster orgasms when man engage in rough sex with them and call them 'sluts' in bed), and you have a fucking national science nightmare like this one.

This is so fucking infuriating. Idiots. Ugh.
Reply
- Read More
  amyceeHashTagYoloisback
  7/12/13 3:01pm
  This was my essay for a political science professor who asked if political science could be a "hard science". I said no, because duh. That was the wrong answer!
  Reply
- Read More
  HashTagYoloisbackamycee
  7/12/13 3:12pm
  Damn straight. I always chuckled when I hear the words "political science". Why not just call it 'political studies' ? Who came up with this bullshit, I wonder. There's no shame in being into political studies.
  Reply
Read More
snobbyoneHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 2:09pm
The sun rises because it's being pulled around the world by unicorns.
Reply
- Read More
  enceldus28snobbyone
  7/12/13 2:10pm
  That sounds more interesting so I choose to believe it.
  Reply
- Read More
  conductioncovensnobbyone
  7/12/13 2:12pm
  It's a giant gold chariot, of course.
  Reply
Read More
James Bond's Herpes MedsHamilton Nolan
7/12/13 5:02pm
Without delving into my own "oh-I-don't-know-fuck-it" beliefs around our origins, I often ask the question why we focus so deeply on it.

On one hand, we have a handful of individuals that equate the existence of God with whether or not we can assign a higher order of organization around our own existence. But on the other, we have to ask whether or not finding the answer to that question really impedes our progress as humans.

I faced a similar question when, as part of my senior engineering design project, I discovered that it would cost $11 billion to design and execute a mission that would launch a doohickey to collect 10 GRAMS of a comet's surface so we could analyze it and understand the early origin of the universe. When do we begin to set the boundary for how much we really need to know about our origins and using our resources to advance the cause of humanity in this present moment?

/hippie
Reply