Comics I Don’t Understand

Blinky the Wonder Wombat Sep 3rd 2010 at 06:35 am 1

A bunch of mindless ranting, but I do love those opening lines.

Jeff S. Sep 3rd 2010 at 06:35 am 2

Wow… all liberals are athiests! That would imply only conservatives attend church. I find it hard to believe all those conservatives couldn’t get their people in the Presidency or into Congress. Based on the number of people attending church in America, that’s a LOT of conservatives.

Kilby Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:20 am 3

Barbara Mikkelson just posted a very thoughtful article on Snopes, describing how people insist on believing want they want to believe, despite whatever the facts might be. See: http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp

Andréa Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:43 am 4

No one has asked the, to me, most important question . . . WHAT DOES IT METTER WHAT RELIGION PRESIDENT OBAMA IS, OR ISN’T?

Religion and government are to be separated in this country, so, theoretically, it doesn’t matter what religious mythology politicians adhere to . . . IT SHOULDN’T MATTER.

Anyone remember that JFK almost didn’t get elected because “the Pope was going to rule the USA” through him?

Bob Peters Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:51 am 5

What about that other nonsense about anyone to the left of Mussolini being a liberal. That makes traditional conservatives out to be liberals by the extremist standards of the corporate mouthpieces such as her.

James Pollock Sep 3rd 2010 at 08:17 am 6

I don’t know why the President’s staff don’t just call a press conference, and hand him a ham sandwich with a side of bacon, and a beer… preferably during the day during Ramadan. Actually, I DO know why… because 18% of Americans would still convince themselves that it was some kind of trick photography, or a body double, or whatever it takes to continue to believe what they want to believe.

Susan T-O Sep 3rd 2010 at 08:24 am 7

Andréa #4, you took the words right out of my mouth. I’ve yet to see anything in the Constitution or law books that says the President has to be Christian.

Whalehead King Sep 3rd 2010 at 08:39 am 8

My favorite is the last line.

Jay Sep 3rd 2010 at 09:03 am 9

Andréa: It only matters as much as the voters want it to. The perception (and perhaps reality) is that a lot of people won’t vote for a Muslim or atheist. It shouldn’t matter, but it does.

I find it odd to read that Satan is complaining about Obama’s religion, though.

Nicole Sep 3rd 2010 at 09:31 am 10

There is buzz in the athiest community that Obama is a closet athiest, and that he hides it for political reasons. A relatively recent poll (a year or so ago) revealed that atheists were the least trusted group and that most people would not vote for an athiest.

All that being said — as Andre pointed out .. Article Four of the Constitution is very plain “There shall be no religious test for office”

It matter because we have let it matter. The first time someone accused someone else of being less religious the response should have been .. “My religion is not a point of discussion .. lets stick to the issues”

zbicyclist Sep 3rd 2010 at 09:36 am 11

Andréa #4 has it.

Per a story on NPR a few days ago, the reason Obama didn’t notice anything unusual about Wright’s sermons is that they rarely attended church. But admitting this at the time would have been even more politically problematic.

As a political comedian, Anne Coulter is up there with Colbert.

Dyfsunctional Sep 3rd 2010 at 09:38 am 12

I think the official explanation for people’s outrage isn’t that they object to him being a Muslim, they object to him insisting on lying about it, or at least obfuscating it. Which, obviously, falls short of reality by a mile. Personally, I’m less concerned about secret Muslims in our society and more concerned about secret bigots. Remember when people wore white hoods and burned crosses? Now they just pretend to disagree with you politically, or maybe call your basketball court a “mosque” and tell you you can’t build it because, well, just because.

zaphodb42 Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:12 am 13

Ann Coulter is a waste of space and flesh. The fact that conservatives listen to her show’s their closet racism and obvious stupidity. Like Sarah Palin, she’s a racist right-winger’s fantasy woman. It’s like porn for angry bigots.

Not that it matters, and it shouldn’t, but I’d rather have an intelligent atheist than a devoutly religious person who’s an idiot (i.e. Bush, who was far more religious than he was intelligent.)

Tim Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:22 am 14

The official Department of Defense definition of a “religion” is a set of beliefs that affect one’s behavior. “Atheism” is a religion according to that definition, because one will act differently if one believes that there is no God.

That being said, Obama does not exhibit any evidence of being a Christian, as much as he claims to be one. Allegedly, he told a Middle Eastern official that he was a Muslim. He has said that the call to Muslim prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world. The United Church of Christ has no creed that one must believe; one of their leaders told me that 40% of their members are agnostic. One can attend that church and be a Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist.

He has a First-Amendment right to whatever religious beliefs he wants to hold, but “Christian” has a certain definition. I am tired of politicians saying that they have a certain religious belief, but acting in opposition to it, like Catholics voting for abortion. The two don’t go together; if you’re pro-abortion, don’t call yourself a Catholic, and if you’re Catholic, don’t vote for something opposite.

Czhorat Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:39 am 15

@Tim (#14)

The Department of Defense definition of “religion”?! When did that become the relevant source? It also seems like a very wide net; any sets of beliefs will influence behaviour.

It’s quite possible to consider the call to prayer a beautiful sound without being a Muslim. The Blue Mosque is one of the most beautiful buildings I’ve seen visited. I find Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in my own fair city to be another impressive building. I’m neither a Muslim nor a Catholic.

To wander off on your tangent, I don’t know of any Catholics who are pro-abortion. I know some who are in favor of the RIGHT of non-Catholics to not be forced to follow Catholic dogma, but I just consider that being a decent person in a pluralistic society. Kind of the way Joe Lieberman hasn’t proposed any bills outlawing the sale of bacon.

Winter Wallaby Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:42 am 16

Perhaps my standards for Ann Coulter are abysmally low, but I’m actually surprised that she realized that she couldn’t simultaneously accuse Obama of being a Muslim, and an atheist, and a radical Christian.

The official Department of Defense definition of a “religion” is a set of beliefs that affect one’s behavior. “Atheism” is a religion according to that definition, because one will act differently if one believes that there is no God.

By that logic, not believing in sanctity of stamp collecting, or being opposed to universal health care, is also a religion.

Nicole Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:48 am 17

Sooooo … is not believing in Faeries a religion as well ?

John Small Berries Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:50 am 18

Susan T-O: actually, the Constitution says the exact opposite, in Article VI, Paragraph 3: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Tim: Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. All it means is lack of belief in any gods. There are moral atheists, and immoral atheists, just like there are moral and immoral Christians (I know quite a few Christians who have no problem acting unethically and immorally, since they can just “pray for forgiveness” and avoid any feelings of guilt or remorse for their actions.

Your second paragraph is so full of innuendo and falsehood that I can’t help wondering if you’re trying to discredit Christians by pretending to be one and getting so much completely wrong.

* The allegation that Obama claimed to be a Muslim comes from a right-wing blogger who claims that his wife heard an Egyptian official SAY this on Nile TV - yet to date, nobody has been able to provide a video to corroborate this claim.

* The claim that he called the Muslim call to prayer “the most beautiful sound in the world” is a distortion; the actual quote was “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset”, said to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, but even without any surrounding context, the two are clearly different statements.

* And finally, you seem to have confused the United Church of Christ with the Unitarian Universalists. The former is most definitely a strictly Christian denomination; the latter is accepting of all beliefs, including atheism.

Czhorat Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:50 am 19

Does anyone else here wonder what Ann Coulter (and Glenn Beck for that matter) really believes? I’ve always suspected her of just saying crazy things to get a reaction, but knowing that she’s either making stuff up or distorting it so badly that any relationship to objective “truth” is lost.

The problem is that I have no doubt that her followers believe every word of it.

Pretzel Logic Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:54 am 20

It’s a CIDU to me (Comments I Don’t Understand), and whats with the frequent references to “North Korean TV”?

I think Ann Coutler is a evil Sith. She sure likes stating a lot of absolutes (”Only the Sith deal in absolutes”) like “The only evidence…”, “It is a fact that any non-retarded person…”, “All liberals are atheists.” … and so on.

Here’s an absolute: Ann Coulter’s commentary has, and always will be, a complete waste. (she’s not even funny, and shame on you if you think she is)

Nicole Sep 3rd 2010 at 11:17 am 21

Czhorat @ 18

I have often said that Coulter is a media whore. But I don’t thik she says the crazy to get a reaction, but to get attention. She is like a child who repeatedly says “Mommy Look, Mommy Look”

I also think Beck and Coulter (and probably most of the wingnut pundits) are in it for the money. Do they actually believe what they are saying .. probably to a degree … but then as Steven Colbert once said “they turn the crazy all the way up and rip the knob off”

Andréa Sep 3rd 2010 at 11:33 am 22

Atheist, or Agnostic? Not everyone knows the difference; I’m a practicing Agnostic myself.

Any theism, including Atheism, is too absolute for me.

CIDU Bill Sep 3rd 2010 at 11:51 am 23

Czhorat, I’ve always believed that Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and their cohorts are way too smart to believe most of what they say. We’re talking about people with a genius for self-promotion.

Elyrest Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:24 pm 24

I now feel so dirty after reading Ann Coulter. What bothers me about Coulter and her ilk is that so many people want to believe the worst of others and that so many others are getting wealthy because of that.

Mike Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:27 pm 25

Andrea #4 - During the 1960 campaign I heard a radio preacher rant that Catholics had rifles under the floorboards of their churches and would pass them out for The Takeover if Kennedy was elected.

John DiFool Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:39 pm 26

A Freudian would have a field day with all the projections thrown around by the likes of Coulter & Beck:

“Attending Wright’s church is the conscious, calculated decision to immerse yourself in hate-filled demagoguery and call it “Christianity.”"

Skaloop Sep 3rd 2010 at 12:54 pm 27

Andrea at #21; no reason one can’t be both!

paperboy Sep 3rd 2010 at 01:50 pm 28

Of course it matters what religion a president is; it informs part of their character. I’d prefer an agnostic, but we’ll have a Gay Black woman president before we have when who professes no belief in a god.

Jeff S. Sep 3rd 2010 at 01:51 pm 29

Apparently everyone here who has said, “I believe…”, is espousing their own religion since your beliefs has produced a course of action. The DOD said so.

minor annoyance Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:20 pm 30

As has been suggested elsewhere, it might be amusing to ask other public figures to back up their own religious claims. The past year or so has given us the “Family” of Republican congressmen proving support without censure to the adulterers among them; Karl Rove shrugging off reports of his own atheism despite a long history of cynically gaming religious conservatives; and the right’s general insistence that neither the guv’mint nor big business should be allowed to act on Christian principles, excepting a select few involving sex. Carter was widely ridiculed for inserting Christianity in his comments; later right-wingers are held up as moral models for invoking God recklessly and self-servingly with no evidence of personal conviction.

Detcord Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:28 pm 31

Skaloop (26)

I’m afraid there is. With regard to religion, an agnostic is, “a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)”. An atheist is, “someone who denies the existence of god”. Therefore, one cannot be both. At least, not at the same time.

Skaloop Sep 3rd 2010 at 02:55 pm 32

Detcord, I disagree, as I am both atheist and agnostic. I don’t believe that any god exists, but similarly, I do not claim to know that, or be able to know that, conclusively. One is about belief, and one is about knowledge, and the two need not be mutually exclusive. And by the definition you gave, many Christans would be agnostic as well.

spiffy Sep 3rd 2010 at 03:49 pm 33

My theory is that many of the people in those surveys were actually not ticking the “Gosh I think Obama is a Muslim, really I do” box, but rather the “F@#% that f@#%ing Obama and the horse he rode in on” box.

Dyfsunctional Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:06 pm 34

A friend of mine wrote an interesting essay on Facebook today. He relates his veteran father’s explanation of the “REL-H” on his World War II dogtags meant that he was a “Hebrew,” a term adopted because the American military had decided that the word “Jew” was an insult. Yes, three letters, no intensifiers or adjectives, just “Jew.” My friend went on to draw painfully accurate parallels between that phenomenon and what’s going on today. “Muslim” has gone from a harmless delineator to something that can be hurled at anyone with sincere intent to sting, defame, or in the pundits’ hands, muckrake.

Hakan Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:21 pm 35

So, according to these people, Obama a member of a Christian Church that has very strong black racial lines while simultaneously being a secret muslim, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a slave owner and an atheist. OK, that’s some inclusive society, where do I sign?

Detcord Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:36 pm 36

Skaloop (31)

Okay, but can you explain this to me. How can you deny the existence of ‘god’, and not deny the existence of ‘god’ at the same time? The two are mutually exclusive. By definition. It’s like ‘having your cake and eating it too’. Can’t be done.

In fact, your subsequent explanation reveals your current state. You acknowledge you don’t know. Conclusively. An atheist would have no doubt. Maybe you will eventually move to an atheistic state, but currently, your own words indicate you are not there yet.

I don’t mind whichever state you choose to adopt. It’s entirely your choice. You can even flip-flop back and forth to your heart’s content, if that’s what floats your boat. But there can be only one…. at a time.

… Unless you have multiple personality disorder, but contemplating how that might work all at the same time just makes my head hurt.

Skaloop Sep 3rd 2010 at 04:55 pm 37

Detcord, because there is no absolute requirement of agnostic that forbids the denial of a god, and there is no absolute definition of atheist that requires it. I think we’re just using different definitions.

If an atheist must absolutely deny, without any doubt, that a god exists, then even Dawkins is not an atheist, for he permits the possibility that a god exists (however slim that may be). But he still doesn’t believe that one does. Besidexs, people can deny things without really knowing for sure that they are correct. I could tell you that I am the richest man in the world, and I expect you would deny it. But you still don’t know whether I am or not. To me,being an atheist and an agnostic at the same time is about believing one ting while admitting to the possibility of something else. And I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who holds to that srt of concept. In fact, on that, I would indeed deny conclusively that I am the only one who does.

James Pollock Sep 3rd 2010 at 05:14 pm 38

Spiffy@33 I tend to disagree. There is a general overlap between people who will publicly label Obama as a Kenyan, as a Muslim, as a Communist, as a Nazi, or as a puppet of other, unseen forces. But, based on what I’ve seen, heard, and read, each of these beliefs is as fervently held as the people who swear that Elivs is alive and working as a greeter in the local Walmart, as the people who believe that they have been abducted by UFOs, and by the people who buy into conspiracy theories such as the faked moon landings or the 9/11 inside job. In other words, NO amount of proof will be sufficient to dissuade them that, no matter what anyone else thinks, they know for sure that Obama is a Muslim and is out to (fill in the blank with whatever the outrage du jour is.) It could be get illegal immigrants into the company so they will vote for him, or build a terrorist command center/ground zero mosque, or set up death panels staffed by Black Panthers. Then they will intentionally mispronounce or mis-spell his name, because that seems clever to them.

Detcord Sep 3rd 2010 at 05:49 pm 39

Skaloop (37)

Um, the 2 definitions I quoted to you, were from Google searches. That is to say, I typed in the following, “Define:Atheist” and “Define:Agnostic” and reported the results. For Atheist, I gave you the first - and therefore most common - usage of the term (according to Google). For Agnostic, I gave you the third one listed, as the first, “someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something” was general (though still in keeping with the theme), and the second was self-referential (i.e. of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism).

Agnosticism is not a religion, so there are no “requirements” or “dogma” associated with it. Just a definition of its meaning. Likewise Atheism. The only difference between the words is that Agnosticism acknowledges doubt and Atheism does not. Clear and concise differentiation.

There IS a difference Skaloop. Your example of Dawkins, and others denying things without really knowing for sure (or believing for sure) simply illustrates their ignorance. Yes, you could tell me you are the richest man in the world, and as I only know you from your pseudonym,I would be a fool to “deny” it, though given the probabilities, I could certainly express doubt and challenge you to prove it.

I’ll grant that the meaning of words can change, or have additional meanings attached to them. To outline this, I previously used the example of, “Gay”, which used to mean, “cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer” - and still does. Today, it now also can mean, “homosexual” so there is the potential for flexibility in meaning. This occurred because lots of people accepted the new meaning.

However, to my knowledge this has not yet occurred in the terms, Atheist and Agnostic. If you know different, do enlighten me, but do so with evidence, not assertions.

Rebecca Sep 3rd 2010 at 06:17 pm 40

“I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.” — Ann Coulter.

Molly J Sep 3rd 2010 at 06:34 pm 41

Tim (#14) Again with the 40% thing.

From the last thread on religion: Tim Aug 24th 2010 at 05:43 am 71

@Bill #69,
There’s no incompatibility between being Muslim and being part of Wright’s church. I had somebody high up in that denomination tell me that 40% of their members are agnostic. There’s no core requirements for membership there. If he were a Muslim, it would be a great place to be a part of “the Christian community” without having to make any kind of change.

Just saying.

So, as we said in that thread, “Someone” in (fill in the blank) church, decided for some reason to do a poll of everyone there and discovered that 40% of them (not 39, not 41, but 40 even) are agnostic. Would you mind clarifying exactly what church this was, exactly who the nameless but nonetheless inquisitive “higher up” is and explain his information gathering methods or - at least - cite a source?

turquoise cow Sep 3rd 2010 at 06:49 pm 42

My dream politician would be someone who stood up before all the television cameras and said “What does it matter if I believe in a God or not? What does it matter if I go to church or synagogue a Mosque or if I stay home and watch the football games? What should matter to you is that I’m going to do these definable things and probably more in order to perform the duties of my elected office the most effectively. These are the issues I stand for and these are my thoughts.”

Seriously, when anyone else applies for a job, it doesn’t matter what religion they are. It’s not a question on a job application (unless you’re applying for a job in a religious institution, but then I think it would be assumed you were a follower). I don’t care if my president is a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist, or a Druid. I care if he (or she) believes the same as I do on the issues he (or she) is going to have to deal with - healthcare, the economy, the environment, education, gay rights, foreign and domestic policy, etc, etc. I can understand the opposition to a Catholic president because the Pope is such a political figure. But otherwise, I don’t care.

I wonder how many of Ann Coulter’s viewers/readers/followers are going to go on believing he’s a Muslim anyway. I wonder how many of them think that atheism is worse…

James Pollock Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:33 pm 43

Jefferson was President, and he had that one quote about not caring whether his NEIGHBOR was an atheist. But then again, he’s known as a Democrat and if there’s one thing Ms. Coulter hates more than a Muslim, more than an atheist even, it’s a Democrat. Although technically, during Mr. Jefferson’s tenure, the party was known as the “Democratic-Republicans”, and we just won’t tolerate that sort of wishi-washiness.

Nicole Sep 3rd 2010 at 07:46 pm 44

Detcord @ 39

It’s just like old times … you and I disagreeing. I fear that my participation in this semantical discussion will be limited as I am away this weekend and … well don’t want to spend it in front of my laptop.

I am totally with Skaloop on this. I consider myself a agnostic atheist .. in fact almost all atheists I know consider themselves agnostic as well. The all knowing google not withstanding, gnosticism has to do with knowledge … I know …… theism has to do with belief. I do not claim to know there is no God, because I can’t possibly know that for sure, however I do not believe there is a God, because there is no evidence to support the existence of an all powerful supernatural being.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the first definition of agnostic is :
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

In addition the origin of agnostic is : Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know

So using the ‘narrow’ definition and the origin I am certainly an agnostic … since I do not know if there is or isn’t a god.

This is what the dictionary has to say about atheism
1 archaic: godliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

and the origin : Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Skipping the archaic definition , I certainly fall into 2a .. as awkwardly as it is phrased .. I do not believe there are any deities.

I am in fact .. an agnostic atheist.

Well … as Groucho Marx once said … Hello I must be going … there is dancing to be had

Lola Sep 3rd 2010 at 09:40 pm 45

Ann Coulter exhibits just about the least Christlikeness as anybody I’ve ever seen. Every time I hear about something she’s going on about I think “don’t feed the trolls.”

Winter Wallaby Sep 3rd 2010 at 10:01 pm 46

Nicole, just curious - what sort of dancing do you do?

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 01:30 am 47

WW @ 46

Well … I mostly Contra Dance, but also do some swing and Salsa … I am guessing most people have an idea of what swing and Salsa is , but got that blank look in their faces when they read ‘contra dance’ .. If a picture is worth a thousand words than a video is worth ten thousand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXfUjKVXfZc

Dave in Boston Sep 4th 2010 at 02:09 am 48

Detcord: it’s like how the existence of the babel fish (would) prove the *non*-existence of God; proof and faith are different things.

Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2010 at 02:30 am 49

Nicole @47. Cool!

Freezer Sep 4th 2010 at 05:45 am 50

Winter Wallaby @16: I’ve heard the stamp collecting analogy many times, and I always respond thusly: If your aversion to stamp collecting is such that your personality and beliefs, even your public persona, are shaped by it; if you think of yourself in terms of not collecting stamps; if you will gladly expound on why you don’t collect stamps to anyone who will stand still long enough… yes, it does rise to that level. Tell me you don’t know of (if not know personally) “non-stamp collectors” of that stripe, I’ll concede the point.

Czhorat Sep 4th 2010 at 06:37 am 51

@Freezer

if over 90% of the population were stamp collectors, if they worked to put their stamp, so to speak, on law and the running of government, and if they vocally preached that non-stamp collectors would never be redeemed (or cancelled or something) then you very well might get non-stamp collectors with a chip on their shoulder.

For the record, I’m an atheist. I doubt any of my current crop of co-workers know because it doesn’t come up, but it’s hardly a secret. I will talk about it if asked. That doesn’t make it a religion.

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 07:06 am 52

Nicole, the contradancing clip is indeed cool! Reminds me of square dancing, as I guess it should.

Detcord, what do you call someone who doesn’t believe in the authority of a Google “define:” search? Do they need to claim certainty in their disbelief, or is serious doubt enough? Are you a Googtheist or a Goognostic?

Freezer Sep 4th 2010 at 07:12 am 53

@ Czhorat: I wasn’t referring to all atheists, whom I imagine are more like you in attitude. When I say “Atheism can rise to the level of religion”, I refer more to Hitchens-type* Atheists (note the capital “A”). The kind who are every bit as smug and superior as any bible thumper you care to name. Who are just as passionate about God not existing as any devout Christian (or Jew or Muslim or…) is that He does.**

And again, like the aforementioned bible thumper, I accept that they are not the norm.

* Though I highly suspect Christopher Hitchens’ true god is his own ego.
** I firmly believe that atheists of the “Capital A” stripe are less “God does not exist” and more “Religion sucks.”

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 07:33 am 54

I have to come back to this a bit more seriously. Detcord, at 39 you are just being strangely insistent and sticking to your very odd and very incorrect faith in application of definitions that you pull out of any convenient source.

I think the root of the problem in this thread is that you are linking “holding a belief” with “being able to provide a proof”. Also mixing up “holding a belief” with “holding a belief absolutely”. Also mixing up “not believing P” with “believing not-P”.

As ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE DIRECTLY TOLD YOU IN SELF-REPORTS OF THEIR BELIEF SYSTEMS, they do not sense any self-contradiction between “I think we do not have (and probably cannot have) certain knowledge either that P nor that not-P”, and “My view is that not-P”. (Or more mildly for the second point “I do not hold the view that P.”) This is formally perfectly consistent. Why do you insist that it is inconsistent?

I am slightly abstracting in the hope that you will see the point in terms of the formal logic of the analysis. It does not change anything when we go back and re-concretize with P as “There is a God” or however that should be expressed here.

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 08:05 am 55

Some possible belief positions:

a. “I think we cannot have certain knowledge of either P or not-P”.
b. “I am certain that [I know that] P.”
c. “I am certain that [I know that] not-P.”
d. “My view is [I think that] [I believe that] P”
e. “My view is [I think that] [I believe that] not-P”
f. “I do not hold the view [do not think that] [do not believe] that P.”

Some observations of the formal relations of the above:

1) a. contradicts b.
2) a. contradicts c.
3) a. is consistent with d.
4) a. is consistent with e.
5) e. implies f.
6) f. does not imply e.
7) a. is consistent with f.

A number of people (and I would join them) have asserted a. and have self-described that part of their belief system as “agnostic”.

A number of people (and I would join them) have asserted either e. or f. and have self-described that part of their belief system as “atheist”.

On the basis of formal observation 4 (or 7) those people maintain that they are not inconsistent; and further that they can be both atheist and agnostic.

Detcord and perhaps others think that the term “atheist” requires not just e. or f. but the stronger c. Then on the basis of formal observation 2, they take the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” to be inconsistent.

Neither Detcord nor I nor Google nor Webster can really determine whether e, or f. or the stronger c. is the ruling sense of “atheist”. So we can’t settle whether “atheist” and “agnostic” are consistent or inconsistent.

But we can easily affirm — it’s just logic! — that a. and e. are consistent, and that a. and f. are consistent. And that people asserting either of those pairs should be found not-guilty of contradicting themselves — regardless of the terminology they overlay on those specs.

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 11:03 am 56

mitch4 @ 52

It is similar … but a lot of contra dancers don’t like to square dance … myself included

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 11:13 am 57

All this talk of non-stamp collectors has reminded me of this you tube channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector

Warning … N-SC is an atheist and his videos point out contradictions , and moral problems in the bible in an humorous and animated way

Ted in Fort Lauderdale Sep 4th 2010 at 11:15 am 58

I think the (exclusiveness) distinction that Detcord is trying to make between atheism and agnosticism is coming from a “faith” perspective - you either believe something or you don’t. Those who are saying _both_ are coming to this from a “scientific” perspective - the evidence to date leads to certain conclusions, but as new evidence could arise, those conclusions are potentially subject to change. To make an analogy to evolution - those who don’t “believe” in evolution do that largely on the basis of their acceptance as a matter of faith of things (like the Bible) that they see as contrary to accepting evolution, and no change in evidence would affect that belief/lack of belief because the acceptance of the “faith” is not evidence based. In general, scientists accept evolution as true based on their interpretation of the evidence, but will change this view if presented with (sufficient and valid) evidence that contradicts it. So a “both” on the atheism/agnosticism question would say that based on the existing evidence, they see nothing that justifies concluding that a deity exists, but accepting of the fact that new evidence could change that. Denying that new evidence could change the conclusion would make the atheism as much a “faith” as the various theisms.

Igelino Sep 4th 2010 at 11:46 am 59

Hey Nicole likes contra! I like contre, it’s a hoot. And a good workout. But whenever I think of the name, I think of rebels in south america with machine guns, shooting a burst into the air after every “gypsy”. : )

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 11:49 am 60

Here is another way to look at it

If you know something you also believe it

If you believe something you may or may not know it

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 12:30 pm 61

Nicole, Dave in Boston, mitch4, Ted in Fort Lauderdale

Well, hello – and thanks for dropping in – and disagreeing.

Nicole (44) You are right, this is a discussion on semantics or the meaning of words. I like the 2 definitions you posted. They are clear and to-the-point. I confess I am a little disappointed that you don’t seem to comprehend them. Look at your own agnostic answer again:

“I am certainly an agnostic … since I do not know if there is or isn’t a god.”

Spot-on. Now look at your second definition for atheist: “a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity”, from which you say,

“I do not believe there are any deities.”

In your first line you say you’re not sure (don’t know), and in the second you say you are. You cannot, by the definitions you gave, be both.

I think the area where you are possibly getting confused is in the word, “believe”, which means to, ”accept as true” – as recorded in my Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, which I am holding in my hand right now (come and see Dave in Boston). It is not a quibble word, but the, “acceptance of the truth or actuality of anything” – the F&W definition of Belief. See, right here… just peek over my shoulder Dave in B.

An Agnostic is not sure, an Atheist is. Why do you want to take 2 words with very close, but distinctly different meanings, and blend them into one blah meaning?

Sure, you can have your own meanings. You can make up words too, and if others find them useful, they will be taken-up and eventually added to the lexicon of the English language.

But you’re not doing that here. Here you are trying to destroy the subtle, but very clear difference between two distinctly different words which convey uncertainty in one and certainty in the other.

Why?

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 12:39 pm 62

mitch4

Sorry I haven’t responded to your several posts. Whilst attempting to follow your various twist and turns, a’s to e’s e’s to f’s and SHOUTING, my brain started to overheat and I blew a fuse (yes, I’m old enough for fuses, and never made the switch to circuit breakers )

So, if 10 men (and women) say I’m ill, I’d better lie down? Have you read, “12 Angry Men”?

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 12:59 pm 63

Ted in F (57)

Like Nicole, I think you are confused by the meaning of “believe”. As I posted, above, it has a very distinct definition. It’s not a quibble word.

My perspective is (oops, sorry, the cat just jumped on my keyboard and announced it was ‘dinner time’).

As I am trained in the Sciences, my perspective is precision. It’s not easy, but I try hard to use words precisely. Thus, your position that those claiming ‘both’ seems odd to me as scientists strive for precision and ‘both’ mingles the definitions of 2 words together - making both less precise - and more confusing. Hardly a scientific position - but not bad from a ‘faith’ one.

I should also note that most scientists accept the “Theory of Evolution” as the current best explanation for the presence of life on Earth, based on the facts to date. Should these facts change, or new facts emerge, that acceptance will (or should) change to accommodate the new reality.

This cannot happen with religion as religion does not rely on fact, but on faith.

Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2010 at 01:26 pm 64

Freezer @50: And my other example @16? If you think atheism is a religion because some atheists talk about their lack of beliefs a lot, or have it shape their personality, then do you also think that opposition to universal health care is a religion?

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 01:36 pm 65

Detcord, responding to Nicole, says

In your first line you say you’re not sure (don’t know), and in the second you say you are. You cannot, by the definitions you gave, be both.

But she didn’t actually say that.

I understand why you’re claiming she said that — you’re drawing too strong an implication from “believe”.

The applicability and compatibility of “atheist” and “agnostic” are in a way a red herring here. It’s okay if among us different people take their meanings differently, within a range of standard usage, and this results in disagreement about compatibilities and implications between them.

Let’s see if we can bypass those terms and see what we do and do not agree on, among the underlying claims (and the claims about the relations).

If you truly are “trained in the Sciences” and your “perspective is precision” you should not be getting all flummoxed at a few precisely worded statements just because they are laid out in a list and then discussed in a shorthand that refers back to them by number. Just put your finger up to the screen above as you read below, or whatever helps.

So … please consider, and if you wish please post, which of the following you agree with and which you don’t. I’ll do the same, but will keep my response in a separate post from this questionnaire.

1) There is a deity (monotheistic and in some way connected to the world of our experience). [That specification should be read into all the following.]

2) I think there is a deity.

3) I hold it true that there is a deity.

4) I believe that there is a deity.

5) I am certain that there is a deity.

6) It is a certain truth, an absolute certainty, that there is a deity.

NEGATIONS –INNER

7) There is no deity.

I think there is no deity.

9) I hold it true that there is no deity.

10) I believe that there is no deity.

11) I am certain that there is no deity.

12) It is a certain truth, an absolute certainty, that there is no deity.

NEGATIONS — OUTER

13) It is not the case that there is a dety.

14) I do not think that there is a deity.

15) I do not hold it true that there is a deity.

16) I do not believe that there is a deity.

17) I am not certain that there is a deity.

18) It is not a certain truth, an absolute certainty, that there is a deity.

NEGATIONS OUTSIDE AND INSIDE SCOPE OF THE TRUTH JUDGEMENT

19) It is not the case that there is no dety.

20) I do not think that there is no deity.

21) I do not hold it true that there is no deity.

22) I do not believe that there is no deity.

23) I am not certain that there is no deity.

24) It is not a certain truth, an absolute certainty, that there is no deity.

RELATIONS

25) There is not much difference among 2, 3, and 4.

26) There is not much difference between 5 and 6.

27) There is not much difference between {2,3,4} and {5,6}

28) There is a significant difference between {2,3,4} and {5,6}

[Clearly to ask 27 and 28 in that form I am taking for granted 25 and 26.]

Similar to 25-28 for the variously negated forms.

Andréa Sep 4th 2010 at 01:45 pm 66

My Agnosticism comes down to, “I don’t know if there is a (G)(g)od or not, and it wouldn’t make any difference in my life either way.”

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 01:52 pm 67

Ha, the 8 with parenthesis turned into sunglasses!

Detcord, there is one point you make that is clearly right. If you believe something, you think that it is true.

But there is a simple fallacy you are committing from that: “If you do not believe something, you think that it is false.” Have you run into the idea of logical SCOPE (of the negation and truth-or-belief judgement) within a statement? That’s what my “inner” and “outer” are about in #64.

You say to Nicole:

Look at your own agnostic answer again:

“I am certainly an agnostic … since I do not know if there is or isn’t a god.”

Spot-on. Now look at your second definition for atheist: “a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity”, from which you say,

“I do not believe there are any deities.”

In your first line you say you’re not sure (don’t know), and in the second you say you are. You cannot, by the definitions you gave, be both.

But “I do not believe there are any deities.” is not a statement of being sure there are not. It is a negation of a holding a belief. That is where you go astray.

Not (Believe (N, G))
does not equal
Believe (N, Not (G))
where N is Nicole and G is the proposition “there is a deity”.

They are not equivalent. Nor can you go from the first to the second. (Probably you can go from the second to the first, but that has no bearing.)

And that’s not even taking into account the difference between Believe and Believe to be Certain.

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 01:58 pm 68

Thank you, Andréa, for that succinct and clear statement at 65. (Also Ted and Nicole!)

To ““I don’t know if there is a (G)(g)od or not, and it wouldn’t make any difference in my life either way.” I would add “And my view is that there is not.” Having a view on the matter does not belie my not knowing.

Ted in Fort Lauderdale Sep 4th 2010 at 02:09 pm 69

Detcord@62 - You have picked one of several definitions that “believe” has (the religious one), and are holding everyone else to that definition. But you don’t get to pick the definition either. Per Merriam-Webster, definitions of believe include:

1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK

So having as a belief a view that is not religiously (faith) based but rather is a conviction based on evidence, or even just an opinion is perfectly valid. Your claim that you are being scientific by being precise in your use of definitions is valid only to the point that your definitions are - if you selectively choose your definitions to match your preferred conclusions, you are playing semantic games.

Your final 2 paragraphs echo what I said - that someone who takes an evidence-based view of the world rather than a faith-based one is open to changing their views if the evidence changes, and in spite of your seeming rejection of the validity of that approach, that is the position of the people who are atheist/agnostics…

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 02:09 pm 70

My response to my questionnaire in #64: 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) no 5) no 6) no — 7) yes yes 9) yes 10) yes 11) no 12) no — 13) yes 14) yes 15) yes 16) yes 17) yes 18) yes — 19) wha? 20) no 21) no 22) no 23) yes 24) yes — 25) yes 26) yes 27) no 28) yes

[13-14-15-16) yes] == Atheist

[17-18) yes], plus [23-24) yes] == Agnostic

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 02:40 pm 71

Ted (68)

“You have picked one of several definitions that “believe” has (the religious one), …”

That’s probably because we are discussing one’s attitude to religion.

James Pollock Sep 4th 2010 at 02:50 pm 72

Pfft. A lot of contention created by the unstated assumption that one’s beliefs are fixed and unchanging, which they are not. Just as it is possible for a person to change religious beliefs, it is possible for them to waver between two (or more) of them.

If we’re going to play definition games… Where is the dividing line between faith and schizophrenia? Both are indicated by a continuing belief in the absence of evidence, right?

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 02:58 pm 73

mitch4 (bunch of numbers)

Atheist = No
Agnostic = Don’t know, not sure, don’t care
(Enter personal religious preference here) = Yes (and this is how it is according to [Enter Name Here]’s personal religious preference)

Re: Your number list, 1 to 6 are different ways to say the same thing. Likewise 7 to 12 - but WAY COOL that thanks for showing me!

CIDU Bill Sep 4th 2010 at 03:00 pm 74

I always thought the religious/atheist/agnostic thing was a lot simpler than this:

I’m certain there’s a God
I’m certain there isn’t a God
Dunno

CIDU Bill Sep 4th 2010 at 03:03 pm 75

James, that’s an easy one: faith is when you talk to God, schizophrenia is when He talks back.

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 03:07 pm 76

James P (71)

“Where is the dividing line between faith and schizophrenia?”.

As I understand it, the correct answer from anyone of faith is, “I’m right and you’re crazy!”.

Oh! and welcome to the party

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 03:09 pm 77

CIDU Bill (73)

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Ditto (74)

- I like this one

Dana Kuhar Sep 4th 2010 at 03:38 pm 78

I always thought the religious/atheist/agnostic thing was a lot simpler than this:

I’m certain there’s a God
I’m certain there isn’t a God
Dunno

Pretty much. But “certain” may be too strong. We don’t want cases like this:

Dana: I’m an atheist, I don’t believe there is a God.
Dan: What makes you so certain?
Dana: Certain of what?
Dan: Certain that there is not any God.
Dana: I didn’t express any certainty. All I said was what I don’t believe.
Dan: So you’re an agnostic?
Dana: No, I told you, I’m an atheist: I don’t believe there is a God.

CIDU Bill Sep 4th 2010 at 03:50 pm 79

You’re mixing meanings of the word “believe,” Dana: in religious terms, “believing” something means you’re certain of its existence. Don’t blame me, I didn’t create the language.

Of course, this double meaning of the word sets the stage for the George-and-Gracie dialog you quote.

Ted in Fort Lauderdale Sep 4th 2010 at 05:07 pm 80

Bill@78 - I’m not sure why you are requiring the “faith-based” definition of _believe_ here. Dawkins and others are I am sure applying a scientific method here - there’s no evidence for the existence of a deity, there’s no logical requirement for a deity in order for the Universe to work, therefore the simplest explanation is that there is no deity (i.e., they are atheists in that they have no “belief” that God exists). However, they are scientists (or at least accept the scientific method) which means if the assumptions/information leading to this conclusion change, the conclusion can also (i.e., they are not _absolutely_ certain, so they are agnostics). If you insist that the definition of atheist is that “I am (in a religious, unchangeable, “faith-based” way) *CERTAIN* that there is no God”, then you force anyone who refuses to make faith-based as opposed to evidence-based judgments to be agnostics - as well as basically rendering them incapable of making any judgments besides “I don’t know”. A scientist or other evidence-based person may be 99 & 44/100% sure that something is so, but will (very rarely?) be absolutely certain, since evidence and understanding are pretty rarely absolutely complete. That doesn’t mean that their 99 & 44/100% isn’t qualitatively different than a simple “I don’t know”…

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 05:31 pm 81

True or false

Believing something is the same as knowing something

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 05:31 pm 82

Ted (78)

Science is never certain, by definition. The best one can get in Science is: Generally accepted by most scientists. Issac Newton was generally accepted by most scientists - until Einstein came along. And although Einstein does extremely well with things very large, he had difficulties with things very small, as described by Quantum Theory.

Faith, on the other hand, is supposed to be an absolute. Either one believes, with all their heart, or one doesn’t. As I recall, the Apostle Thomas allegedly acquired the sobriquet “Doubting” because he demanded evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. Good science, but from a “faith” perspective … Oops!

Nicole Sep 4th 2010 at 05:40 pm 83

Bill

All religions are faith based … Faith is believing in the face on no evidence or even contridicory evidence . Religious people can not profess to know there is a God since knowing precludes faith

I am doing this from my blackberry … So my participation is limited

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 05:58 pm 84

You’re mixing meanings of the word “believe,” Dana: in religious terms, “believing” something means you’re certain of its existence. Don’t blame me, I didn’t create the language.

I agree with Ted and Nicole in #79 and #82. But even aside from that, just accepting the sense of ‘belief’ that requires ‘certainty’, I think there is still a problem with the negative. Bill, if we take ‘believes’ as ‘is certain’, what is ‘doesn’t believe’? Wouldn’t it be ‘is not certain’? Rather than ‘is certain that not ___’? This is what I meant earlier about scope.

So Dana’s statement “I don’t believe there is a God” under substitutions from your definition, still only becomes “I am not certain there is a God”, not “I am certain there is not a God.” But she thought that was enough to count herself an atheist.

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 06:01 pm 85

My tags didn’t come out right — the first paragraph of #83 was quoted from Bill’s #78.

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 06:17 pm 86

Nicole (82)

You are applying the lexicon of Science to the philosophy of Faith (or religion). At the philosophical level, all disciplines are equal. The Science one requires evidence of the 5 senses variety, but the others are not so constrained. In Law, for example, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus a defendant may be found guilty, or not guilty, but never innocent - though the acquitted are welcome to ‘claim’ innocence on the steps of the courthouse.

Religion usually goes wrong when its adherents attempt to explain the natural world through their own Religious Dogma. Likewise Scientists do not offer explanations beyond what can be 5-senses measured - and their explanations are called theories because one can never be absolutely ‘certain’ in science.

So, Scientists can “believe” in something they cannot “prove” via scientific methods.

Detcord Sep 4th 2010 at 06:23 pm 87

…and it’s time for me to retire as it’s almost midnight (here) …

mitch4 Sep 4th 2010 at 06:24 pm 88

Nicole usefully poses the question:

True or false
Believing something is the same as knowing something

In modern epistemology there have been attempts to define ‘knowledge’ as ‘justified [or warranted] true belief’, which already adds a couple of conditions onto simple belief. And even that formulation is inexact, as some very cute examples [too long for this margin] can show.

So the answer of course is No, as Nicole obviously knows and was aiming to point out.

But it’s not clear Detcord appreciates the point the same way. He says, at #72,

Re: Your number list, 1 to 6 are different ways to say the same thing. Likewise 7 to 12

referring to my #64, which includes the following, with a question about the equivalence or not:

1) There is a deity (monotheistic and in some way connected to the world of our experience). [That specification should be read into all the following.]

2) I think there is a deity.

3) I hold it true that there is a deity.

4) I believe that there is a deity.

5) I am certain that there is a deity.

6) It is a certain truth, an absolute certainty, that there is a deity.

Detcord, I’m glad you do not distinguish 2 from 3 from 4 as very different; nor distinguish 5 from 6 as very different. Now I could rewrite the list a little shorter, I know you are all looking forward to working thru it in detail !

However, it is highly problematic to take 2-3-4 as just the same as 5-6. This amounts to answering Yes to Nicole’s challenge question and is pretty clearly incorrect.

I think my neighbor is at home this moment. I’m pretty confident, and that’s my belief. But I’m not sure, or certain, nor do I really know it. Do you maintain I must know it?

James Pollock Sep 4th 2010 at 06:35 pm 89

Scientists have a few axioms that they take on faith: A) The universe has rules, B) it is possible for humans to learn and understand the rules, and C) The rules don’t change (or if the rules change, there are rules that describe when and how they do.) Wihtout these, science collapses into a philosophical discussion.

Ted in Fort Lauderdale Sep 4th 2010 at 06:53 pm 90

Detcord@81 - but that means that the only definition for the existence of God that can be accepted (at least by you) is a faith-based one, even though many in the faith community (including a number of the clergy that are up-in-arms over Stephen Hawking’s recent pronouncement that God wasn’t necessary to create the universe (which isn’t the same thing as declaring God doesn’t exist, but the reaction of the clergy seems the same)) claim that God’s existence can be proven in a non-faith-based way. The fact that they have apparently failed to do so to the satisfaction of any outside the faith community (largely because their arguments either depend on acceptance (on faith) of certain axioms or source materials as given or depend on circular logical arguments) doesn’t change the fact that there are those _in_ that community that seem to feel that belief doesn’t have to be purely tautological (”I believe because I believe”).

Also, there are different degrees of belief - going back to Wikipedia (which you chose to base some arguments on…) and an article on “Proof of the existence of God”, there are definitions for strong and weak forms of atheism and agnosticism given (my comments in [brackets]):

Atheism

The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, therefore one should assume that no god exists. [Note that this isn’t the same as _knowing_ there are no gods]

Strong atheism

Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that no gods exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods. Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example stating that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (for example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of such a god is a priori false. [This would match your definition]

Metaphysical naturalism is a common worldview associated with strong atheism.

Weak atheism

The term weak atheism (or negative atheism) is used in two main senses, describing those who (a) do not assert strong atheism (”no gods exist”) but rather the more minimal statement that for a variety of reasons (principally the lack of credible scientific evidence) there are no good reasons and no credible grounds for believing that gods exist (”I do not believe that any gods exist”); or (b) neither believe that gods exist, nor believe that no gods exist. This is orthogonal to agnosticism which states that whether gods exist is either unknown or unknowable. It should be noted that there is some controversy about this use of the term. [The (a) form is the one I have been using here. It seems that those going with a faith-based definition for belief treat (b) as equivalent to agnosticism, which this definition considers a different thing.]]

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims — especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims — is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism as a broad umbrella term does not define one’s belief or disbelief in gods, agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists. [Note that by this definition, you can certainly be a atheist/agnostic]

Strong agnosticism

Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. [This seems to match the view of many/most in the faith community - you can’t _know_, you can just _believe_]

Weak agnosticism

Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable. [This would probably be closer to what I am considering the scientific view - there’s no empirical evidence (one way or the other) now, but there could be in the future]

======end quote======

I am not saying that you are wrong by your definitions, nor that faith is not by definition absolute. I am just questioning whether atheism and agnosticism need by definition be based on faith, or whether the weak atheism and perhaps weak agnosticism definitions here don’t offer what I am suggesting - that it is possible for them to be evidence- rather than faith-based and therefore non-absolute.

Tim Sep 4th 2010 at 08:06 pm 91

@Molly #41,
I was on an airplane once with somebody from the Florida conference of the United Church of Christ. I would consider him to be an expert on that religious group. He said that he was one of that 40% who wasn’t sure if there was or wasn’t a god - and he was one in charge of the group.

Would it seem more reasonable if I said that 39.68% of the group were agnostics? Come one, be reasonable. That was his estimate, not mine. If somebody gives me better statistics, I’ll change what I’ve been saying. They’ve got every Constitutional right to believe whatever they want; however, it is not what the mainstream churches believe, and it is not what the general public defines as “Christianity.”

Mark in Boston Sep 4th 2010 at 11:32 pm 92

Re: Believe

A long time ago I read a philosophical article that started out something like this:

A man woke up one morning to discover that his color vision was all distorted. The wallpaper was red instead of blue; the sky was yellow, the sun was green, the grass was pink etc.

He went to the doctor. The doctor told him he had a certain rare condition. The only cure was an operation on both eyes, and after the operation his eyes would have to be bandaged up for several days.

The man consented and had the operation, and when the bandages were due to come off, he was taken to a dark room. The doctor removed the bandages, then turned on the lights. The only thing in the room was a large colored piece of paper attached to the wall.

The doctor asked the patient what color the paper was.

The patient said, “I believe it is red.”

“No you don’t,” said the doctor.

“What do you mean?” asked the patient.

The doctor explained, “If you BELIEVED it was red, you would have said ‘It is red.’ You think it is red, but you believe it might possibly not be red.”

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 01:51 am 93

Good morning everyone

So … I will continue to be brief , even though I am back at my laptop it is near 2 am and tomorrow is the all night dance — hmmm maybe I should say later

There seems to be a meme going around here that religious belief is different than day to day belief. That is that religious belief implies certainty. Sorry to disagree once again .. but that is simply not true. I am sure many people have doubts about their religious beliefs, but there is one very prominent religious figure that expressed doubts about God. That would be Mother Teressa.

Again .. religion is a faith based belief system — if you believe something based on faith , you can not have certain knowledge because then it isn’t faith anymore.

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 01:52 am 94

A shout out to Mitch4 for covering my butt while I am having a fine weekend of dancing.

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 01:54 am 95

Detcord

I can certainly hold something to be true and not know it.

I hold it to be true that there is other life in the universe.
I do not know there is other life in the universe

It really is that simply

mitch4 Sep 5th 2010 at 02:03 am 96

Detcord #85 (and maybe CIDU Bill at #78), you may be dropping into the substantive debate on the underlying question “Does god exist” rather than the methodological / epistemological taxonomy of belief systems we had heretofore been discussing. I don’t know what else to make of this appeal to different spheres of validation. I think it’s fine if believers want to believe, and say “My belief isn’t based on scientific-like argumentation from physical phenomena and observables, but includes other bases of belief and truth-evaluation, including faith and revelation.” That’s fine — for the underlying question. But there is no warrant for applying that altered standard to the methodological / epistemological taxonomy questions of who gets to call themselves atheists, agnostics, and believers.

Ted’s #89 is such a clear and brilliant selection from the wikipedia with his excellent commentary thereupon, that I would be happy to leave that as the last word in the methodological / epistemological taxonomy thread. (Though I admit I’m a little disappointed nobody seems inclined to respond to my points about logical scope, which I thought got to the heart of [forgive me for putting it this way] Bill’s misunderstanding of the Dana dialogue and similar preceding discussion.) I’m not sure why some of the discussants have been reluctant to let others of us claim the label “atheist” — is it that you feel it as such a negative that you want to help us avoid insulting ourselves??

Thank you and goodnight!

Detcord Sep 5th 2010 at 05:39 am 97

mitch4

As you’re covering Nicole’s … derriere, …

Nicole (80)’s question was a piece of Sophistry - though I’m sure it was unintentional. As Bill noted, though he didn’t put it in quite these terms, the meaning of words can change, depending on which branch of Philosophy one is engaging in. The branch of philosophy we’ve been discussing is the Religious one, and here, as Bill noted, Belief and its companion, to believe, are absolute in accordance with the philosophical lexicon of religion. Other philosophical branches may have different lexicons, and some words may overlap, but carry a different meaning - in those other branches of philosophy. That’s why comprehensive dictionaries usually present definitions in a list. Otherwise, one definition should suffice - but often doesn’t.

Take her assertion in (94). Her usage of the term ‘believe’ seems closer to that branch of philosophy known as “Epistemology”, not Religion. This quote from the Wiki discussion on Epistemology seems to capture Nicole’s (94) position well:

“Belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, while truth is an objective state independent of the individual, i.e., a fact.”

There is some quibble room here as Nicole uses the phrase “…hold to be true…”. Does she mean “…believe to be true…”, which in her term is more hopeful than certain? Or is she employing the phrase the same way the drafters of the Declaration of Independence intended when they wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”, which I believe was intended to communicate a much stronger, more absolute, position in the way that ‘belief’ is absolute in Religion?

Given the recent discoveries in Science, I’d say the probabilities are reasonably high that ‘life’ of some sort exists outside the confines of our little blue planet. But Science requires ‘evidence’ to support such assertions, which is why Nicole can honestly say she does not ‘know’ that life exists in the Universe.

Actually, I’d call her on that one because Earth, surprise, surprise, IS part of the Universe and as we “know” life exists here, then we know life exists in the Universe. We do not, yet, “know”, that life exists elsewhere in the Universe, but the probabilities are ….

Detcord Sep 5th 2010 at 06:40 am 98

mitch4 (83)

Going back to your comments about Dana’s response. Dana’s entry too is a piece of sophistry. He/she bounces in and out of the lexicon of religion to suit his or her immediate purpose. All this communicated is confusion - which may be the intent - hence the sophistry assertion.

Mark in Boston (91)’s recital is interesting. The doctor, as part of the scientific community, has take the patient’s use of the word word ‘believe’ as an expression of doubt or uncertainty. It that environment, the doctor is correct - from a scientific perspective.

Now if he were speaking to a priest or rabbi…

In your own (95) comments, I think you’ve missed the point. Your comments remind me of this New Testament passage:

“For many are called, but few are chosen” — Matthew 22:14, KJV

As I understand it, a number of Christians believe this means God calls many to Heaven, but only chooses a few to enter - and a number of theologians assert this is backwards, From what I read, God calls all, but few, for whatever reason, choose to enter. An interesting point - that we all get to choose, rather than the other way around.

I’m a bit … let’s say amused by this comment of yours, “But there is no warrant for applying that altered standard to the methodological / epistemological taxonomy questions of who gets to call themselves atheists, agnostics, and believers”.

To which I’d like to say, “Okay, and you can call yourself BLUE and claim to have 3 ears and 5 eyes…”, but that would be silly.

We human beings create words in order to develop the means to express ourselves. Our ancestors have created a wide lexicon of meaning - which they have bequeathed to us to facilitate that expression. That is our warrant, though Ted’s example demonstrates that we can change it too. I personally think the folks who generated what Ted reported are twisting themselves into knots to express the wide range of uncertainty (in the West) with regard to Religion. Most of us are probably agnostic to one degree or another - whether we acknowledge it or not. All that means is that we are uncertain, whereas a few are certain positively (i.e. religious), and others are certain negatively (i.e. atheists).

Simple, really.

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 11:14 am 99

Detcord @ 96

I disagree .. my question is not sophistry. I think it resolves the issue

If belief is the same as knowing, then when you believe, you know.
If they are different, then you can believe without knowing .

In fact there are people who believe even knowing that facts refute their beliefs

As far as life in the universe goes, I was writing at 2:00 am and after three plus hours of high energy dancing … give me a break … yeesh

Detcord Sep 5th 2010 at 12:53 pm 100

Nicole (98)

I am shocked, SHOCKED! to find that Nicole disagrees…. (and apologies to Captain Renault)

As we are discussing religion, to believe is to know, to be certain of one’s belief. That’s the lexicon of religion. Also, as we are discussing religion (and not science) facts can be (and generally are) irrelevant. Indeed, in some religions, to believe without facts is supposed to be a more blessed state (antonym being Doubting Thomas).

If you are comfortable with this position, then yes the issue is resolved - and you can go back to bed

How was the dancing by the way. (I did 2 years of Swing dancing lessons myself. It was fun, till a fire burned the hall down) I mean, the place was smoking’

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 05:37 pm 101

Detcord @ 100

Sorry, but I continue to disagree. Even when talking about religious belief, to believe is not necessarily to know. I have no doubt that for many it is the same, but I equally have no doubt that it would not be difficult to find a believer who when questioned if they “know there is a God” would honestly answer “No”. I am forced to point out again that most famously Mother Teresa had doubts about God , yet maintained her faith
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/06/teresa.letters/

It appears to me that your basic argument comes down to this: Religion uses the words belief and know differently than in the common parlance. Well, to be honest I don’t know if that is true or not. However, this discussion started because of the claim that one could not be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. So …. I will grant that when discussing believers, they use belief and knowledge in a way that is synonymous, however I will not grant that non believers use the words in the same way. So now we have come full circle and I will repeat one of my early statements … as a non believer …. I do not believe in god or gods, however I do not claim knowledge that there no god exists … that is to say that I am agnostic about god’s existence, but do not believe that god(s) do exist.

The dancing is great …. and am off to more this evening. It’s an all nighter … but I usually quit around 4:00 am. I have done some swing dancing and am fair at it .. but there is something tribal about the contra dancing that is almost transcendent for me .

Detcord Sep 5th 2010 at 06:27 pm 102

Nicole,

Thank you for your last comment. I think I now understand where you’re coming from - and you seem to understand where I’m coming from. I wouldn’t expect most non-believers to, “use the lexicon of religion”, unless, like me, they are sticklers for accuracy. I get it from my engineering training - we do it with precision - though my wife insists I was born that way. Maybe she’s right.

In this discussion, my focus was on the meaning of specific words. It was not about the existence, or non-existence, of any sort of Deity. Given your view of the word ‘believe’, it is my perception that you are not sure there is a god (or God). The second part of your sentence tells me that you’re not sure there isn’t one either. In the lexicon of Religion, that makes you an agnostic. If you were certain, that would make you an atheist - or a believer (depending on which way you went).

Maybe Mother Teresa was agnostic as well. I’ve known a lot of nuns, and if all of them really believed in God, I’ll eat my hat. Some did though, and religious lexicon or not, it is human to have doubts on occasion. Shoot, even Jesus, if one accepts the published Gospels, had doubts of a sort in the Garden of Gethsemane. But when push came to shove, he behaved like a believer. So did Mother Teresa. I suppose that’s the real difference.

Have a good one - and ’shake a leg’.

Nicole Sep 5th 2010 at 06:54 pm 103

Detcord @ 102

Perhaps the problem is in my literal interpretation of the word “know” ,

I do not believe there is/are god(s) in the same way I do not believe in leprechauns … I would never claim to know that leprechauns do not exist and in the same way I would never claim to know that god(s) do not exists.

make of that what you will

off to shake a leg and other parts of my body

Dave in Boston Sep 6th 2010 at 01:02 am 104

Detcord: trouble is, English, being a natural language, does not admit that degree of precision. At least not attached to single words, whose exact meaning is ambiguous and underspecified. To successfully be that precise you need to use more words and describe what you intend to express in more detail. It’s also often helpful to use phraseology that maps in clearly understandable ways to well-defined constructs in formal logic… but even that has its own set of traps.

Detcord Sep 6th 2010 at 03:59 am 105

Dave in Boston (104)

In a way, I can see your point. I think the English language can be very precise, but as language is communication, and communication normally requires at least 2 participants, such precision can be marred if the participants do not share the same understanding about a given word. I don’t know how religious Cidu Bill is, though at a guess I’d say very, as he understood the religious aspect of the term ‘believe’ instantly.

I’ve read articles by wordsmiths decrying the blending, merging and downright dumbing down of the English language as these fudges detract from that precision we’ve been discussing. Dictionary publishers used to be the main line of defence against this erosion, but it seems sales rule nowadays as publishers, in pursuit of the almighty dollar, seem keen to publish the brief lexicon of whatever fad is ascendant.

C’est le vie!

Igelino Sep 6th 2010 at 04:02 am 106

Davie in Boston: of course all that on top of the words being in different contexts. In this thread we have at least three - Philosophy, Theology and common usage. Each of these contexts imply different meanings of the words and aren’t really interchangeable.

Skaloop Sep 6th 2010 at 04:29 am 107

Detcord, you may well be one for precision, and “agnostics believe it is impossible to know the true nature of god, without denying god” is a precise statement. I, however, am one for accuracy, and that statement is not accurate; the final three words are not necessary parts of the definition.

Also, the dictionary does not defend how words are used, it displays how they are used. A dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no dumbing-down of the English language; the only way a language can be dumbed-down is by restricting it. Expanding usages of terms, even to the detriment of your desired precision, expands language rather than simplifying it. These wordsmiths who decry blending and merging are decrying the very things that make English a wonderful language, and are the very things that are advancing the language towards ever more usefulness.

Detcord Sep 6th 2010 at 08:15 am 108

Skaloop (107)

Welcome back

… just for accuracy’s sake, I think your first paragraph is aimed at a comment Nicole made in line 101 (2nd para, last line). In other words, “Not me Gov.”.

I disagree with your second paragraph, but not fundamentally so. There certainly isn’t an army of lexicographers with sharpened quills stabbing the pen-hand of those who misconstrue whatever language they happen to be documenting (though I’m sure some wish they could )

However, the very establishment of a dictionary is a marker in the zeitgeist asserting, “this means that”. Why else would we all refer to them and come back with an, “Ah but, according to ‘X’ this means ‘Y’ “, if we didn’t think we were quoting from an authority of some sort or another?

In the past, lexicographers used to be much more circumspect about the inclusion of new words into their texts as they wanted to ensure such words stood the test of time. Now, perhaps for increased sales, they seem to be more keen to capture new words as soon as they hit the street - even if they subsequently vanish just as quickly.

Sure, the English Language is growing and adding new words all the time - and I agree with you that this is a good thing. I am not so sanguine about the blurring of existing words, especially when the nuance of meaning helps to define a critical boundary - such as the difference between Atheist and Agnostic. By your initial reasoning, the two are synonomous, and could be used interchangably. So, one of them is superflous? I don’t think so.

Richness comes from diversity, clarity and the potential for a wide range of nuanced expression. If we blended the meanings of all the word together, which is the reductio ad absurdum to your argument, we might as well go back to grunting. Ugh!

Morris Keesan Sep 8th 2010 at 01:02 pm 109

Nicole #56, where I dance (around New England and upstate NY), contradance callers almost always call a few squares during a dance (usually two squares in a row, to save time forming the sets). But the kinds of figures we dance usually resemble contra figures, not the formalized Western Square dancing that many contra dancers dislike.

I’m trying to guess where you were for the weekend: Brattleboro Dawn Dance? If you go to NEFFA, or the Old Songs Festival, look for me some year and say hello. I’ll be the guy there with long hair and a beard.

Nicole Sep 8th 2010 at 01:46 pm 110

Hey Morris

A small world, surely our paths have crossed. I live in upstate NY — near Kingston. Friday and Saturday night I was dancing in Greenfield… the Mecca of contra dancing (the reference to Mecca keeps this on topic) , Sunday was indeed the Brattleboro Dawn Dance. I have been going to the Flurry and Neffa for years and was at Old Songs this year.

I’m the woman who has long hair and wears short skirts

I am so glad you described yourself … I know exactly who you are.

I wonder if there is a way to take this conversation private …. I can only imagine most people are not interested in our dance experiences

Elyrest Sep 8th 2010 at 01:48 pm 111

Morris K & Nicole - All this talk of dancing makes me think that I need to check this out. Where is a good place to start? Do either of you have any recommendations?

Cidu Bill Sep 8th 2010 at 01:51 pm 112

Nicole, I have access to the e-mail addresses, so I can privately send Morris yours if you want me to.

Nicole Sep 8th 2010 at 02:10 pm 113

Bill … sure send Morris my email and you can send Elyrest my address as well

Nicole Sep 9th 2010 at 07:38 am 114

Ok … I know this thread is winding down, but I was listening to a heathen podcast to day and they mentioned something that I thought was relevant to the atheist/agnostic - knowledge discussion.

One of the main differences between believers and non-believers is that non-believers have FAITH (<—-important) that there is a god. As Mark Twain once said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”, while this may be an extreme position on what faith is, it is at least sometimes accurate. Faith will often cause people to reject evidence that is contrary to what they believe — the rejection of evolution in favor of creationism is a good example. It is faith that elevates belief to knowledge for the believer. It is faith that makes theism and gnosticism equivalants.

As an atheist I have no faith that there is no god, I simply see no evidence for one and therefore see no reason to believe in one. Should someone present me with evidence that there is a god, then I would change my beilef accordingly. It my lack of faith that allows me to say that I am an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. It is the lack of faith that makes atheism and agnosticism different.

Detcord Sep 9th 2010 at 08:20 am 115

Nicole (114)

I can see you are determined to be both, so I won’t argue this particular subject any further. Your approach is, or shall I say, appears to be, a Scientific one - in accordance with the Philosophy of Epistemology (where the concepts of science originate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology - assuming you’r curious

Fair enough.

Nicole Sep 9th 2010 at 06:06 pm 116

Detcord @ 115

Of course I am curious and I would say that is a fairly accurate description.

What other approach would an atheist take other than scientific ?

We can drop the subject now that I have worn you down (snark alert …. not serious)

James Pollock Sep 9th 2010 at 08:33 pm 117

Most mathematical systems start with axioms, which cannot be proven but which are assumed to be true. From there, theorems are developed as a result of the interactions of the axioms. Now, the interesting thing is that if you start with different axioms, you can create entirely different mathematical systems. Geometry was locked into the Euclidian system for 2000 years, because it seemed to be an accurate model of the real world. Imagine the shock, then, when some of the non-Euclidean geometries turned out to be not just thought experiments, but to have application in the real world, too. The one I remember is that in Euclid, parallel lines never intersect. Some mathematician (I could look it up but I’m lazy today) built a geometry based on an axiom that parallel lines DO intersect… and that geometry turned out to have application if your “plane” is actually the inside of a sphere.

Perhaps many of the different variations on religious faith we have today will turn out to be not as mutually exclusive as we currently think they are.

Nicole Sep 9th 2010 at 09:32 pm 118

James @117

This is similar to my bowl of vanilla ice cream theory. Imagine if you will, a bowl of vanilla ice cream sitting on a table in a room full of twenty people, each with a spoon. One by one, each person takes a taste of the ice cream and then are asked to give their opinion of it. Not surprisingly, there are pretty much 20 different opinions. Too cold, Too soft, Tastes amazing, I hate it … etc . Each person has a subjective opinion of what the vanilla ice cream is. Like your suggestion, perhaps religions are like that .. a subjective view of god….. of course to make the analogy more accurate, some of my ice cream eaters would have to try to kill the people who have a differing opinion of the ice cream … or force others to agree with their opinion of the ice cream …. but other than that …… I think it is spot on

Danny Boy (London Derriere) Sep 9th 2010 at 09:53 pm 119

http://www.gocomics.com/reynoldsunwrapped/2010/09/09/

A real Ha Ha in this context!

James Pollock Sep 9th 2010 at 11:17 pm 120

You eat vanilla ice cream with a spoon? This is directly contrary to the Cone Doctrine, you infidel.

Winter Wallaby Sep 10th 2010 at 12:19 am 121

Nicole, your analogy sounds good except. . . aren’t you an atheist? If there’s no god, how does this analogy work? It’s just 20 crazy people babbling about ice cream that isn’t there.

BTW, Elyrest, I’m not a strong dancer, but I’ll put in a recommendation for swing and Lindy.

Detcord Sep 10th 2010 at 03:16 am 122

Nicole (116)

Well, Einstein allegedly said the definition of “Insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I think I managed, just, to vary my challenging approach somewhat, but I was getting to the “same thing” phase and decided to pull back from insanity.

What did you think about René Descartes assertion, “…that the only thing that he could not logically bring himself to doubt is his own existence…”

I ask because Descartes position, with regard to knowing absolutely, seems very similar to the one you expressed in your replies in this thread.

Albert Einstein”In some of your previous What

Detcord Sep 10th 2010 at 03:18 am 123

Oops!

I didn’t notice that last line was still in my comment. That is to say, I didn’t “know” it was there when I hit “Send”.

Sorry about that, Chief!

George P Sep 10th 2010 at 07:21 am 124

Winter Wallaby, her analogy is still valid; it’s just that many people think that there’s a lot more in the bowl than just ice cream.

Nicole Sep 10th 2010 at 08:27 am 125

Winter @ 121

I am an atheist, but I came by it honestly. Like most atheists, I went through slow deconversion, examining different religions and ideas about god. Eventually I came to the conclusion that no one had it right and that was when I started thinking about the concept of god … in the end it didn’t make sense and I let go of that as well.

All that is so that when I say the vanilla ice cream analogy was a idea that I had along the way to my atheism.

BTW .. Julia Sweeny documented her deconversion in her one woman show “Letting Go of God”. Funny and touching. The details are not the same, but the general story is very familiar to many atheists. I highly recommend it.

Andréa Sep 10th 2010 at 08:31 am 126

I was raised an Atheist and converted to Agnosticism.

Nicole Sep 10th 2010 at 10:32 am 127

Detcord @ 122

The reason I am being such a stickler on the difference between believing there is no god and knowing there is no god is that I feel when I say I know there is no god, I don’t leave room for the possibility that I am wrong. I don’t think I am, but it seems arrogant to insist that I have knowledge that I simply can’t have.

I don’t KNOW what I think about Descartes statement … HA HA HA .. get it ?? don’t ….know ? ummmmm yeah .. never mind

I suppose in principle I agree with it, but it doesn’t really have any practical application. I can’t live my life qualifying everything with doubt. While it is true that we can’t actually know something there are things that our common experience tells us are fact and we can for all intents and purposes claim knowledge.

The world will still exist tomorrow. While it is true a Vogon constructor fleet could come in the middle of the night and destroy the world in order to make an hyperspace bypass, our experience says that will not happen and the earth will be here when my alarm clock goes off. I have had experienced the world continuing to exist, everyone else has had the same experience. I feel safe in saying that I have knowledge that the earth will still exist in 24 hours.

So while an interesting philosophical point not terribly useful in navigating life.

Detcord Sep 10th 2010 at 01:16 pm 128

Nicole (127)

Well, this is Philosophy we’re now discussing, so it’s not really intended to be directly useful. It IS intended to focus and provide a basis for thought. That’s what Descartes was saying. His own thoughts prove, even if only to himself, that he absolutely exists.

The same goes for you, and me and everyone else with the power of thought. From that basis, all else follows and Descartes provides a mechanism for expressing that thought by way of the 5 senses. Yes, these senses can be fooled, which is why Science only goes so far as Generally Accepted Theory.

However, from a ‘getting on with it’ perspective, it’s a pretty good basis for navigating life, wouldn’t you say? Well, okay, the Hitcher’s Guide to the Galaxy just might, in a pinch, come in handy too. … and don’t forget your towel!

Nicole Sep 10th 2010 at 02:32 pm 129

Detcord @ 128

“I think therefore I am” … short an to the point.

Actually I could argue that you can not even be sure of your own existance. At least not in the accepted sense of the word. We could all just be constructs in a brain (god’s?) and not have anymore existance than characters in a book.

I haven’t panicked yet. Just for the record I am mostly hamless, but I am not babeling, fishing for compliments. I stopped doing that after I turned 42 and figured that life, the universe and everything was more important. Well… time for a gargleblaster … So long and thanks for all the fish

James Pollock Sep 10th 2010 at 03:46 pm 130

Nicole, is that guy bothering you? Why not come with me… I’m from a different Planet.

Detcord Sep 10th 2010 at 04:22 pm 131

Nicole (129)

I am beginning to think you could argue ‘anything’. Descartes had an answer to the position you seem to be adopting. He said…

” “I do not exist” is a contradiction in terms; the act of saying that one does not exist assumes that someone must be making the statement in the first place. Though Descartes could doubt his senses, his body and the world around him, he could not deny his own existence, because he was able to doubt and must exist in order to do so. Even if some “evil genius” were to be deceiving him, he would have to exist in order to be deceived…”

Sounds pretty comprehensive - and he even anticipated your point - from about 400 years ago. I’d call that ‘impressive’. Now, following Descartes thinking, it’s true that I may have created you in my mind, to challenge and goad me to greater degrees of intellect - since I can only be sure that I exist - but assuming you DO exist, you could say the same about me.

Now, there’s a thought!

Lola Sep 10th 2010 at 05:49 pm 132

I was reading this article today and though “how apropos to this discussion.” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62071/title/Treat_science_right_and_it_could_help_save_the_world

Especially this part “I have a four-out-of-five rule for scientific method. Here it is: If you make an observation, develop a theory you think can explain it. Then design some further experiments to test the validity of that theory. If four observations out of five fit, the theory is almost, and I stress almost, certainly right. If only one out of five fits, the theory is almost, almost certainly wrong. We can never say it was wrong. But we can say it’s almost certainly wrong. We must leave the way open for that element of doubt….”

Winter Wallaby Sep 10th 2010 at 10:00 pm 133

Nicole, what you say makes sense, but I wonder if your distinction is based more on a logical distinction, or on politeness. How do these three statements differ for you?

1) There is no god
2) There are no fairies
3) There is no Vogon constructor fleet on route to destory Earth tonight

You say at #127 that it would be arrogant to say that you know statment (1), but you also say that you feel safe in saying that you know statement (3). What makes these statements different for you? Do you feel OK with statement (2)?

My feeling is that, for me, all these statements are similar at a purely logical level. I have no evidence for any of the entities described in (1-3), so I feel OK making statements (1-3). I wouldn’t say that I know any of these things with certainty - but, leaving aside Descrates’ “I think, therefore I am,” I’m not sure there’s anything I know with 100% certainty. What makes saying (1) or (2-3) different for me is a purely social difference. It’s impolite to be too forthright about your religious differences, so I tend to word (1) as “I think there is no god, but don’t know with certainty.” Similarly, I don’t feel that it’s wrong for a Christian to think that I’m going to hell - but it becomes rude if they become too shouty about it.

Do statements (1-3) differ in some logical, non-social way for you? For example, do you think there is more evidence for god than for a Vogon constructor fleet? Or that there’s no evidence for either, but that god is nevertheless more likely?

Nicole Sep 10th 2010 at 10:03 pm 134

Detcord @ 131

Why I do believe that was a compliment … and if not don’t let me know

While Descartes may have anticipated my I am not sure he answered my position. But before I continue let me clarify that I mean when I say exist. I am using exist to mean being as an autonomous entity, self contained. I suspect this is also what Descartes means as well.

So … let us return to my position. If I understand Descartes correctly, he was saying that doubting his existence proved he existed, because someone must be doubting and that someone was him.

So… consider multiple personality disorder. Someone may have an untold number of personalities within them. Each personality appears autonomous when in front, but they are just constructs of the core personality. I have no doubt that any member of the system has his or her own thoughts and can in fact doubt his or her existence. Yet when integration occurs the personality disappears into the core personality — it no longer exists. So the question for Descartes is: Until they are integrated do all those personalities exist in the same way he says he exists ? I would say no, they are simply constructs with no true existence. In the same way I would say there is no way to know I am not a construct in some being’s mind with the ability to doubt my existence.

BTW .. did I mention that I am an agnostic atheist

Nicole Sep 10th 2010 at 10:28 pm 135

Winter @ 133

If you go back and reread what I wrote, you will see that I what I feel comfortable asserting is that the earth will be here in 24 hours. The earth’s continued existence is bolstered by the billyuns (a tip of the hat to Carl Sagan) of years the earth has existed.

Of course something could happen in the night to destroy the earth .. a Vogon constructor fleet for example. I, of course, have no reason to believe that will happen, and that is why I feel I can claim knowledge that the earth will still be here in 24 hours.

On the other hand I have no experience of god or vogon fleets. So while I do not believe in either of them, I can not claim knowledge of either’s existence or non-existence.

The question I have for you is: What makes you think faeries don’t exist ?

Elyrest Sep 10th 2010 at 11:29 pm 136

“I do believe in fairies, I do! I DO!”

James Pollock Sep 11th 2010 at 12:27 am 137

I am comforted by the fact that 100% of the previous predictions that the Earth would NOT be present in 24 hours have been proven incorrect. Of course, I have also been 100% successful in demostrating my simple plan for immortality (don’t die).

Dave in Boston Sep 11th 2010 at 01:30 am 138

First you have to define existence. That’s not so trivial. For example, there’s a sense in which (for example) the empty set exists and the largest prime number does not exist. But that concept has quite a different flavor from the “existence” of what we conventionally call “the real world” and I would hesitate to say that I necessarily exist in that sense; furthermore, many people, particularly those with little formal grounding, would likely say that the empty set doesn’t exist in the conventional sense because it’s just an idea somebody made up.

But let’s suppose we agree on a definition of existence in the sense that Descartes meant. Now we have to show that thinking implies existence. First you have to figure out how to state that proposition formally; this is often not trivial, and, in general, the more obvious a proposition is informally, the harder it is to sort out formally. Then you have to prove the proposition.

The argument Detcord cited above (that thinking implies existence because if you don’t exist you can’t think) is a tautology: the statement “if I did not exist, I could not think” is equivalent to (the contrapositive of) the original proposition “if I think, then I exist”. That’s not a proof. Rather, it’s the kind of statement we use when we try to get other people to accept our chosen axioms — we argue that they should be taken to be true because they’re so fundamental that nothing we commonly understand would make sense if they were false. Which is not a surprise, because “I think, therefore I am” is an axiom, not a theorem. I think if we dig deeply enough we’ll find that, if anything, the definition of existence follows from this axiom rather than the other way around. If you don’t believe me, try answering this question: does anything exist? And if so, how do you know?

paperboy Sep 11th 2010 at 01:45 am 139

I got the idea that “I think, therefore I am” was not an argument or proof, but simply a basis for Descartes continuing to philosophize. That is, if he didn’t exist, why bother with all the other deep thoughts?

Detcord Sep 11th 2010 at 04:34 am 140

Nicole (134)

I get more LOL’s from my discourse with you than any of the comics posted here, so yes, it was a compliment.

Even when you get tautological (as you are now), you still force me to think - which is the most expensive thing, calorie-wise, a body can do (and also the most rewarding IMO). I can’t answer your multiple personality disorder question directly, because I don’t have one myself, and therefore - as per Descartes - cannot really be sure it actually exists elsewhere. All I can be sure of is that I exist, and yes, that is an Axiom as per Dave in Boston.

I might be nothing more than a thought in God’s mind (assuming there is a God), or a mote in the eye of the Universe (which is more literally true in my current self-possessed reality), but the fact that I can contemplate such proves my existence - however transient that existence may be. I am here, now in the Eternal Present.

“BTW .. did I mention that I am an agnostic atheist” Umm, NO, I don’t ‘believe’ you did. What do those terms mean, anyway?

Detcord Sep 11th 2010 at 04:49 am 141

I just noticed Cidu Bill’s latest strap-line. “Learn what Ann Coulter and Descartes have in common!” I think we’ve just hit the Big time. Woo Hoo!

someone else Sep 11th 2010 at 04:52 am 142

You know, it wouldn’t take much more than one hour or so to sit down and read “A Discourse on the Method” and see for yourself what Descartes at least said he was doing. Without that, it’s a case of “Just walk away, Réné”.

Nicole Sep 11th 2010 at 09:31 am 143

Detcord @ 140

“I get more LOL’s from my discourse with you than any of the comics posted here, so yes, it was a compliment.”

You get more LOLs from your discourse with me …. because they are so ridiculous ????

I reread my post and I am not seeing where I was being tautological.

So, this raises the question. Do thoughts exist and in what sense? I would say that the thought exists, what what that thought refers to may or may not. For example if I think about my cat (putting aside the question of : how do we know it it real?) My thought refers to a real thing, I can experience it with all my five senses. However, if I think about a google billion dollars that is mine, the thought exists, however the money does not.

So … if we are just constructs, thoughts like the money, in some being’s mind I would say that we do not exist in the sense that the cat does regardless of our ability to doubt our existence because those thoughts come, not from ourselves, but from the core being. They are not our thoughts.

Nicole Sep 11th 2010 at 09:50 am 144

Dave in Boston @ 138 and paperboy @ 139

I think I answered this question further up. We can’t know that anything exists. Not in the literal sense of the word know. However that does not matter for all practical purposes, since as best as we can tell, everything does exist.

In answer to the question of “if I do not exist, why why bother with all the other deep thoughts?”, is that because I appear to exist. Since I can not know the ultimate reality or non reality of anything, but existence seems to be the state of things, I must function as if everything exists. So regardless of the ultimate state of existence, thinking deep thoughts is perfectly legitimate.

And to that I would slightly amend Descartes statement to read “I think, therefore I think I am” .. how’s that for hubris ?

Nicole Sep 11th 2010 at 09:51 am 145

someone else @ 142

Where’s the fun in that ?

Detcord Sep 11th 2010 at 11:51 am 146

Nicole (143)

I don’t generally laugh AT people, though I do enjoy laughing WITH them. I think the former is a bit mean, but the latter can be loads of fun. For example, if someone is in distress, I generally help (I’m a registered First Aider), rather than stand back, point a finger, and giggle. However, if someone does something silly, recognizes the fact, and starts laughing about it, I will happily join in.

Unexpected twists also make me laugh, and that’s what I’ve been getting from you. You develop positions that I had not thought of, which forces me to think - and I find that amusing. Okay, maybe I’m just weird.

Re: Tautological. You use more words that this, but in essence, you seem to be saying, ‘I doubt my doubts therefore I doubt my existence.’ If so, then it does not answer the question, “Who is doing the doubting?” I think you’ve intimated that some greater being may have created an entity that ‘could be’ a simulacrum of “you”, but that just shifts the issue to that other entity. Where did “it” come from?

Nice try thinking up a gazillion dollars. I tried it myself, and can confirm it doesn’t work. So, this ‘assumed’ reality must have rules of some sort or another, such as, “matter cannot be created or destroyed…” perhaps?

I have a feeling you don’t like, or feel uncomfortable about, absolutes. Your concession, “I think, therefore I think I am”, makes this plain - at least to me. I admire your tenacity (another source of LOL), so I think I’ll simply bank that acknowledgment and carry on.

Give your cat a cuddle from me. Well, at least THINK about it anyway.

Nicole Sep 11th 2010 at 12:15 pm 147

Detcord @ 146

I am afraid this will be brief as there is yet more dancing to be had and I must get ready to head down to NYC.

“it does not answer the question, “Who is doing the doubting?” ”
Actually I think I have answered the question … If I am a construct, then the creator of that construct is the actual doubter. That was the point of my MPD illustration … while it appears that there are all these other personalities in existence, and some may have doubts about it’s existence it is the core personality that is actually doing the doubting.

In some ways you are right about my opinion of absolutes. However I do believe in an ultimate reality .. that is to say an absolute, objective reality. What I am more wishy washy about is “do I/ can I perceive that objective reality” … my gut feel is no. We use our filters to experience and interpret everything. I do however try to be as objective as I possibly can be.. which is why I hedge at using the word “know” … Objectively I don’t absolutely KNOW , so while I can have beliefs or what I call practical knowledge (i.e. the sun rises in the east) , I don’t think I can have absolute knowledge.

And yes I know the sun doesn’t actually rise

mitch4 Sep 11th 2010 at 12:45 pm 148

The invaluable Ogden Nash:

LINES FRAUGHT WITH NAUGHT BUT THOUGHT

If you thirst to know who said, “I think,therefore I am,”
your thirst I will quench;
It was Rene Descartes, only what he actually said was,
“Je pense, donc je suis,” because he was French.
He also said in Latin, “Cogito, Ergo sum,”
Just to show that he was a man of culture and not a tennis tramp
or a crackle barrel philosophy bum.

Descartes was one of those who think, therefore they are,
Because those who do not think, but are anyhow, outnumber them by far.
If of chaos we are on the brink
It is because so many people think that they think.
In truth, of anything other than thinking they are fonder.

Because thought requires the time and effort to reflect, cogitate,
contemplate, meditate, ruminate and ponder.
Their minds are exposed to events and ideas but they have
never pondered or reflected on them
Any more than motion picture screens meditate on the images that
are projected on them.

Hence our universal confusion.
The result of the unreasoned, or jumped at, conclusion.
People who think that they think, they secretly think that
thinking is grim.
And they excuse themselves with signs reading THIMK, or, as
Descartes would have said, PEMSEZ, and THINK or THWIM.

Instead of thoughts, they act on hunches and inklings,
Which are not thoughts at all, only thinklings.
Can it be because we leave to the Russians such dull pursuits as
thinking that the red star continues to twinkle so?
I thinkle so.

Dave in Boston Sep 11th 2010 at 04:36 pm 149

Paperboy: yes, that’s the point.

Detcord: I don’t see how you can be sure that you exist. I’m not sure I exist — certainly it seems like a reasonable working hypothesis, it’s not inconsistent with available evidence, and it’s not exactly something I lose sleep over, but being sure? No, not like I’m sure about things that can be proven from a clearly understood set of axioms. Something new could come along tomorrow and upset all our ideas about consciousness and the nature of reality; then what?

James Pollock Sep 11th 2010 at 05:33 pm 150

Dave, I’m not sure you exist, either… but for the moment I’ll take your word for it.

Winter Wallaby Sep 11th 2010 at 08:49 pm 151

Nicole #135: But what I said is that you feel safe in saying “there is no Vogon constructor fleet on route to destroy Earth tonight.” If you feel safe saying that the earth will exist tomorrow, you must also feel safe saying there is no Vogon constructor fleet headed here tonight. You can be agnostic about Vogons more generally, but not about that specific instance of Vogons.

Re: fairies. I’m not sure if that was a serious question, but I will answer. I think fairies don’t exist because I’ve never seen any evidence of fairies, and the purported powers of fairies seem inconsistent with my knowledge of how the world works. It’s true that it would be more conservative to say “I don’t believe in fairies,” than “I believe there are no fairies,” since I don’t have absolute knowledge that there are no fairies. But I don’t have absolute evidence of the non-existence of September-12th-bound-Vogon-constructor-fleets either, or indeed absolute knowledge of anything, so it would seem weird to me to say that that lack of absolute knowledge makes me agnostic about fairies. So my question for you is: Are you agnostic about fairies in the same way that you’re agnostic about God? Are you agnostic about September-12th-bound-Vogon-constructor-fleets?

So much dancing. I am jealous.

Detcord Sep 12th 2010 at 05:16 am 152

Dave in Boston (149)

I am sure I exist for the same reasons Descartes expressed it (i.e. cogito ergo sum, Je pense donc je suis). [He expressed it in both Latin and French]. Everything else is subject to the doubts you mention, but somebody has to be doing the doubting/thinking.

How I exist is another matter entirely. This lump of protoplasm typing away at my computer may be a complete fabrication. I like to think I am in some celestial place sipping something cool - as opposed to HOT, but that is all conjecture - or wishful thinking. But still “thinking”.

As she seems to be a very nice sort of person, I did not want to point out to Nicole that her answer to the question, “who is doing the doubting?” actually postulated the existence of a Supreme Being. I.e.

“Actually I think I have answered the question … If I am a construct, then the creator of that construct is the actual doubter.” : Nicole (147)

You see, somebody has to be there to do the doubting and if “doubt” exists, then existence … exists. We can go ’round the Wrekin’ till the cows come home - and beyond - about the nature of that existence because we cannot be absolutely sure of anything else - except the reality of our own thoughts. Even if a “Supreme Being” is having those thoughts for us, then said Supreme Being exists.

Oh, and I certainly expect, “Something new could come along tomorrow and upset all our ideas about consciousness and the nature of reality;”. This “something new” might legitimately be called, “Death”, and based on the evidence of my 5 senses (which are uncertain), I have some expectations regarding that probability, but even that goes into the Realm of Conjecture, as I can’t KNOW what comes after death, even if it is nothing.

I have some ideas though ….

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 11:48 am 153

Winter Wallaby @ 151

Ok since you insist …

The reason I feel safe that there is no Vogon fleet on it’s way here is that, to the best of my knowledge, Vogons are an entirely made up species. While it is true that somewhere in this vast universe Vogons exist, just as Douglas Adams described, I feel that the extremely low probability of a fictitious species actually existing combined with the low probability that any species (much less a fictitious one) will destroy the planet allows me to sleep at night secure in feeling the earth will not be destroyed by a Vogon constructor fleet.

Of course the point I was trying to make is that while I say that the earth will be here in 24 hours, I can not claim absolute knowledge of that fact, and ever after my explanation above, a Vogon constructor fleet could actually be on it’s way here to destroy the earth. Or more generically, an asteroid could crash into the earth destroying. And while there have been worldwide cataclysmic events, they seem to be rare. It is that rarity that makes me feel safe in saying that the earth will be here tomorrow.

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 12:14 pm 154

Detcord @ 152

There seems to be a couple of misunderstandings here.

Re: doubt and existence. As I recall, the argument was that since I can doubt my existence, someone must be doing the doubting therefore I exist. I do not disagree that doubt requires a doubter. I would agree that the existence of doubt, or any thoughts, for that matter, proves that a thinker exists. The point I was making is that there is no way to know that thinker is ME. Or more to the point .. Descartes was mistaken (hubris alert) in saying “I think therefor I am” … more accurately “I think, therefor someone is thinking”. My point all along was that thinking does not prove my existence, not, thinking does not prove any existence.

Re: postulating the existence of a supreme being .. a rather long way to say god . Certainly one could use my construct idea to postulate a supreme being, but that was why using MPD as an example was so useful. The thinker COULD be god … or it could be someone with MPD.. or an alien whose consciousness is far different than what we think our is … or any number of thinkers. The fact that there is a thinker in no way adds credence to the postulation of a god or gods. It could in fact be thinkers all the way down.

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 01:43 pm 155

Hi, Nicole. You say “I do not disagree that doubt requires a doubter. I would agree that the existence of doubt, or any thoughts, for that matter, proves that a thinker exists. The point I was making is that there is no way to know that thinker is ME.” As Descartes’s cogito is usually taken, the “I am” is not referring to the physical human being, nor even to the mind (or soul) housed in the particular brain (to update it a little) but just to the thinking entity, the nexus of the activity of thought, whoever or whatever that might be.

He gets a little extra mileage out of the Latin in this, as French (like English) is [as someone remarked earlier?] a so-called non-Pro-Drop language, meaning the “je” or the “I” is explicitly uttered — but the Latin just shows first-person by the verb form. So that even further removes the difficulty about whether “that thinker is ME.”

But from that you can see it has to be a first-person statement. (More or less.) I am not authorized to say “Nicole is thinking, hence Nicole is” since I can’t be certain about either part of that let alone the inference. Nor can I even say “Mitch is thinking, ergo Mitch is”, which was quite correct in your quoted point. Unless, that is, I have arbitrarily assigned that name to whatever is doing the thinking that it observes is going on.

All we get left with is “There is a thinking mind, capable of observing itself thinking, and in fact now thus observing these thoughts.” If we said “A thinking self..” which is probably just as good or better, you see why it has to be 1st person.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 02:28 pm 156

Now, can you prove the generic case: I (verb), therefore I exist. It seems to me that thinking isn’t so special, and any active verb should work here; I’m not as sure about passive verbs but I’m guessing them too. Generally, if there is doing, there must first be existing.

I’m with Nicole… observing that thought exists implies that a thinker exists… but not necessarily identity.

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 03:02 pm 157

James: Well, thinking does count as very special. (This of course is trying to take it from a Cartesian point of view, or the typical modern version of Descartes, not my own.) Thinking is the only thing he is left sure about. Everything else has been doubted. “I was playing tennis, so this afternoon I was.” Nope, doesn’t count: maybe it was all a hallucination, fed to me by an evil deceiving demon. Or, since it was cast in the past tense, maybe the memory is a fake implant.

More later, maybe …

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 03:10 pm 158

Mitch4 @ 155

I was with you up till the very end. A thinking mind is not the same as a thinking self… at least as long as you are using the word self as an first person equivalent. The whole point of this discussion is that the self I perceive as me …. may in fact not be the self that is thinking the thoughts.

James @ 156

I disagree … as pointed out earlier … our sense can be fooled and so any active verb is not equally usefully. I can think I am running, but I may not actually be running, I can think I am having sex, but I may not actually be having sex. In this I think Descartes was correct, thinking is the only proof of existence

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 03:15 pm 159

“I’m with Nicole… observing that thought exists implies that a thinker exists… but not necessarily identity” — So is Descartes in agreement with this. And so is my #155. Did I give the impression otherwise?

I’m afraid I’ve stopped following the original religious argument this may still be involved with, so maybe there is something more hanging on that. But the pronoun in “I think, therefore I am” has never meant anything other than “the thinker”. It’s not you or me or a physical human being. Is somebody in this thread taking the other side?

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 03:29 pm 160

Nicole @ 158 —
[BTW my 157 was responding to (and quoting) James at 156. But it’s pretty much the same point.]

I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with. I don’t mind retracting ’self’ but I think you’re giving it a lot more import than it carries. It just means ‘the thinking consciousness’. It doesn’t carry any of my social identity and history, at least not as veridical (those may be part of the content of the thinking).

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 03:48 pm 161

Hmmmm it may be that we are slipping into arguing over semantics …. self/I verses a self/thinker.

If the “I” in “I think therefor I am”, refers to the thinker and not to the personality that appears to be thinking, then we are in agreement.

Otherwise … Cry havoc… and let slip the dogs of war

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 03:55 pm 162

I said “More later, maybe …”. Okay, here it is:

Anyone: This is why Descartes is such a peculiar yet important figure in Modern philosophy. Sometimes people offer the cogito as some deep or sweeping affirmation. It’s anything but! It’s his last-ditch stand against the progression of doubts his method has led him to. And it’s not a whole lot. It isn’t even “Our knowledge of the External World” as Bertrand Russell put it in the title of one of his general-audience books.

To take a step back: Descartes was disturbed that he had accepted things that he later saw as false. He decided he wanted to avoid this, and to do so adopted the method of rejecting anything he could not be certain of. He came up wth all sorts of clever reasons why he could not absolutely trust most of his beliefs, starting from the experience of being fooled by dreams, and reports of people suffering hallucinations. The last little tiny shred he had left at the bottom of this “on the way down” process was the experience of thinking, and the reasoning that there had to be some kind of … mind or soul or self … some consciousness within which the thought was taking place.

This is not sweet affirmation. This is deep radical skepticism. Centuries of Western philosophy built variations on these riddles and tried to see whether they could come up with satisfying answers to these problems of skepticism and solipsism. At the end of the 20th Century the formulation was sometimes in terms of “the brain in a vat” with electrodes feeding in sense data. There was the question “What if the universe was created five minutes ago, complete with our memories and the apparent physical traces of history?”. The “problem of other minds” may or may not have been adequately addressed. Underlying “The Matrix” was the problem of our knowledge of the external world. All of this came from the seed of Descartes taking his path of doubt all the way down to the scrappy remnant of “cogito ergo sum”. [And some philosophers in later years would say he wasn’t even entitled to stop there.]

Since Descartes didn’t know about electrodes in brains, or zombies, or computer simulations, his puzzles to raise doubts about our trust in the evidence of our senses was cast in terms like an evil demon dedicated to deceiving us. (And doing so in a pretty much consistent manner.)

If this were the end of the story, we would think of Descartes as the great skeptic, the great solipsist, the great doubter. Even with the cogito included as part of the story. It just represents rock bottom.

But Descartes the man was a religious believer. (Or wanted to be, or convinced himself he was..) So he couldn’t rest with the rock bottom. He wanted to build everything back up. Here’s his approach to that rebuilding: “Wait a minute, how could there be an evil demon consistently deceiving us? The loving God would not permit that!”

Many subsequent philosophers who didn’t have the same religious underpinning to their beliefs, followed Descartes on the way down but then couldn’t see his answer as a viable way to build everything back up. So either they urged accepting the doubts [and arguing about whether it matters for daily living in the ordinary world], or tried to find a different way to build back up, or looked to challenge the downward path of doubting before it can get a good start.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 04:12 pm 163

#157: Starting with “I was playing tennis, so this afternoon I was.” The verb in that sentence is “was”, which is the past tense of “am”. So if you insert “am” into my template, you get “I am, therefore I exist”. Valid, if somewhat circular.

#158: Here a similar problem: The verb in “I think I am running” is “think”… and I believe we’ve already accepted “I think, therefore I exist” as valid. Alternatively, if we pull “running” out of your sentence, use the present tense form (”run”), you get “I run, therefore I exist” which again to me seems valid.

#159: I’m not sure your point here. Descartes wanted to prove to his satisfaction that he exists, as the foundational point for proving that other things exist, also. I don’t believe he’s done so… he’s proved that SOMETHING exists. In English, the correct article is “a”, not “the”. He’s proved that A thinker exists, not that THE thinker exists. (As a corollary, everything that follows based on the identity of the thinker and his ability to “vouch for” the existence of anything else fails as assumed, not proven.) This is the solopsism trap. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 04:35 pm 164

Oh, I forgot to spell out… the generic template does not require that the object of the verb be capable of thought. So if the tennis ball says “I bounce, therefore I exist”… that’s valid, too.

(I’m not saying that talking tennis balls exist… I’m saying IF a talking tennis ball existed, and it wanted to prove that it existed, it could use this argument… )

(I’m not saying talking tennis balls that WANT anything exist, but if a talking tennis ball existed that wanted to prove it existed, it could use this argument.)

(… Never mind.)

Detcord Sep 12th 2010 at 04:48 pm 165

Nicole(154)

You’ve been very gracious with me and your acknowledgment that doubt requires a doubter is about all I can ask for. For me, Occam’s Razor now applies. To wit, “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. What Occam meant was, if there are 2 (or more) plausible explanations for something, then the theory with the fewest new assumptions is ‘usually’ the correct one. Note ‘usually’. Occam’s Razor is not an absolute.

With regard to Occam’s Razor, he would consider your introduction of a second element (a deity, or whatever) as an unnecessary addition to the question, “who is doing the doubting”. You do not need a deity, god or Supreme Being to postulate your own existence - though you can have one if you wish it. Think about it.

Oh, and the pseudo-turtle reference was another LOL

Detcord Sep 12th 2010 at 04:57 pm 166

mitch4(162)

Well… Yah! That’s pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Descartes is considered to be the grandfather of modern science. That’s why he is such an important figure in our collective history. His foundation is on that one axiom of existence. In addition, he made this ‘leap of logic’ in a time of religious … obstinacy?

According to the histories I’ve been reading, he felt compelled to ‘postpone’ some of his most seminal works after discovering what the Roman Catholic church was doing to Galileo Galilei. Given the circumstances, I can’t blame him for his rebuilding approach. Also, he took a shot at describing the Natural World, as scientists continue to do to this day. Can’t fault him for that, even if he got some of it wrong.

I do like the idea of ‘radical skepticism’ though.

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 05:04 pm 167

James, in #163 and #164, I’m just not with you in seeing that anybody’s point in any of this was proving any sort of existence.

Oh, I forgot to spell out… the generic template does not require that the object of the verb be capable of thought. So if the tennis ball says “I bounce, therefore I exist”… that’s valid, too.

(I’m not saying that talking tennis balls exist… I’m saying IF a talking tennis ball existed, and it wanted to prove that it existed, it could use this argument… )

Uhh, yesss, it could say that. But would it be able to assert any of that with total certainty? No, because maybe it didn’t really bounce, despite all appearances. Maybe it was just wrong about that belief that it bounced. Is there anything it could not possibly be mistaken about? Yes, if it took one step back and noticed that it was reasoning (about bouncing and so on), then “I am reasoning” would be beyond doubt. (Or so says Descartes — before DeHorse.)

There’s no gold medal for existence — one’s own or another’s (or another thing’s). The prize is for certain knowledge. If that knowledge is knowledge of existence, great, that’s extra gravy.

Frankie Darro Sep 12th 2010 at 05:30 pm 168

Hi guys - sorry I’m late. I got delayed by um, …summer. It’s been absolutely gorgeous here in sunny SoCal. Anyway, at the risk of causing severe whiplash, can I point out something from the original post concerning Ann Coulter? She claims Obama is an atheist (along with all liberals). Her “proof” is almost entirely based on the fact he does not meet the requirements for her definition of a Christian. In other words, her definition of atheist is - not Christian (and she gets to decide who is a Christian). I know, it’s Ann Coulter, what can you say? But doesn’t this strike you as just a tad bit egregious, even for a crazy right-wing nut job?

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 05:43 pm 169

You say “maybe it didn’t”… but the statement is “I bounce”, not “maybe I bounce” or “probably I bounce”… the act of bouncing proves existence. This is like saying that “2 and 2 may not equal 4… because 2 might have been 1 or 3 or pi.” You have to work with what is given… which is “I bounce, therefore I exist”. That bouncing might not have occurred is not within the scope of this particular statement. “I might or might not bounce, therefore I exist” is a different proposition, left for the reader (the answer is not in the back of the book.)

The key point in proving existence is that this is a necessary, key step before proving anything else… which means that if anything else is proven (or observed reliably in the first instance) that existence may be reliably inferred. “I thought I bounced” is inconclusive, but “I bounced” is not. If existence cannot be proven, then neither can any other attribute (and this remains true no matter how much evidence accrues.)

Yes, this logic relies on the (heretofore unstated) axiom that something must exist before it can do anything else, and also on the (heretofore unstated) axiom that effect follows cause. Both of these are required to escape the solopsist trap… as far as I can reason… (results not guaranteed accurate)

I’m training to be a lawyer, not a philosopher. Therefore, MY outward belief in YOUR existence depends on whether the existence or the non-existence side is paying me. Your mileage may vary.

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 05:52 pm 170

But James, in #169 you seem to be saying the ball is infallible. (About the bouncing.) How come? Are you relocating the burden of proof? I think it’s still on Mr. Spalding

Winter Wallaby Sep 12th 2010 at 05:56 pm 171

Nicole #153: OK, fair enough. Although if you feel safe saying that the world will be here tomorrow, you must also feel safe saying that some religious beliefs that people actually believe are wrong. For example, you must feel safe saying that the Messiah will not come back soon, or that if he does, his return will not mean the end of the world.

However, we made our comments one or two days ago, and I must reluctantly concede that the Earth was not destroyed by a Vogon constructor fleet last night. So you win this round.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 05:57 pm 172

Frankie, that’s why liberal thinkers lose arguments with conservative ones, even the crazy right-wing nutjobs. A liberal thinker starts with the concept that they might possibly be wrong, and therefore they need to consider all possible sources of knowledge… but the conservative thinker starts with the idea that they are absolutely correct and therefore rejects sources of knowledge that are contrary because they are obviously wrong. (Note that “liberal” and “conservative” here have meaning other than “Liberal” and “Conservative” as political positions. Liberals can be conservative and Conservatives can be liberal.)

To drift back to theology from philosophy, the Old Testament is pretty clear that nobody but God gets to decide who is righteous and who is not… (Noah and his extended family made the cut, everybody else, not so much.) But in the New Testament, Jesus suggests that it is, in fact, possible for Christians to recognize other Christians in this world, pre-judgment, by their actions (in the parable of the good Samaritan). At the very least, Ms. Coulter needs to review the sin of pride, and also the commandment about bearing false witness.

But first, we have to agree on whether Ms. Coulter, in fact, exists.

Winter Wallaby Sep 12th 2010 at 05:57 pm 173

BTW, Bill, I feel like there’s some false advertising going on here. I have been following this thread, and still don’t see what Ann Coulter and Descartes have in common. . .

Cidu Bill Sep 12th 2010 at 06:01 pm 174

What they have in common, Winter, is this thread.

Cidu Bill Sep 12th 2010 at 06:03 pm 175

If Ann Coulter didn’t exist, James, it would be necessary for the conservatives to invent her.

Although… Voltaire notwithstanding, it might be more accurate to say that if Ann Coulter didn’t exist, it would be necessary for the conservatives to invent Sarah Palin.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 06:05 pm 176

I haven’t assumed that the ball is inerrant… I simply limit the validity of the statement to cases where it is correct. Just the same way that “2 + 2 = 4″ is only true in cases where “2=2″. If 2 may or may not equal 2, then “2 + 2 = 4″ is not valid.

If the ball bounces, then it exists. If the proposition is false (the ball does NOT bounce) then its existence is indeterminate.

Frankie Darro Sep 12th 2010 at 06:16 pm 177

Skaloop (107) and Detcord (108) with regard to the nature of dictionaries (sorry, I’m playing catch up here). Whether a dictionary is prescriptive or descriptive has been an on going debate since probably, oh, 1755. The fact is, they have to be both. Some tend more toward the prescriptive, and some more to the descriptive. It used to be, a good reference librarian would know which was which, and point out the proper tool for the intended use. I’m not sure that is the case anymore, especially with the advent of the internet. I don’t mean to slam librarians (God bless ‘em), it’s just that except for extreme cases like the OED, the descriptivites (is that a word?) seem to be in the majority (maybe its all part of our more egalitarian times). The point is, you can’t just pick up a dictionary and whip out a definition to prove or disprove a point. You have to understand the philosophy of its editors, too.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 06:23 pm 178

Bill, wouldn’t you say that what the Conservatives invented was an inerrant Ronald Reagan? A Reagan who never raised taxes, never sold weapons to Iran, who never made deals with terrorists, who never made mistakes of any kind?

Mark M Sep 12th 2010 at 06:32 pm 179

Is this what liberals do with their free time?

mitch4 Sep 12th 2010 at 06:36 pm 180

James, thanks for your answers in 176 to my blunt yes/no questions in 170. But you seem to be stepping wide around my 167. Please take a look back at that.

I guess we’re looking for two different things. You seem to be always asking about existence. I am always asking about sure knowledge (on behalf of the Cartesian-on-the-way-down point of view, anyway).

“If the ball bounces, then it exists.” Agreed!

“The ball can say ‘I bounce, ergo I exist.’” It can say that. (Well, we’re positing that much…) But is it right? The inference, in the hypothetical, would be fine. But as the putative content of knowledge, it’s no good. He does not know, with certainty, that he bounces. He can’t know, with certainty, that he bounces. (In this world of Cartesian doubts.)

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 06:38 pm 181

Frankie, the fact is that prescriptivity with regard to dictionaries are doomed to failure, as language usage does change with time. Words take on new meanings, lose their old meanings, or, in some cases, cease to be used at all. This is more true in spoken language than in written language, where additional cues to meaning are available… (”Dude!” means one thing at a 20-year high school reunion and another in a men’s room. And potentially a third thing in a men’s room with Senator Craig and a police officer.*)

*For the record, these three things are:
“You used to have a lot more hair”,
“Stop peeing on my shoe”, and
“Please don’t arrest me, I just have a wide stance, is all.”

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 07:00 pm 182

Mitch, a tennis ball cannot know, with certainty, anything… because a tennis ball cannot know, period. I feel fairly safe in this assertion… but I don’t feel like trying to prove it. In the solopsist philosophy, it is not possible to know anything with certainty… and I remain unconvinced that, once in that trap, there is any exit. The only way out of solopsist thought is to assume some fact, and build from there (as geometry is built from axioms that cannot be proven.) For example, how do you prove that “reality” exists? Well, you define “reality” as the degree to which your observations correlate with the observations of others… but first you have to prove that “others” exist, and that “others” are different from “I”. It is possible that all of creation exists only in the active imagination of a single mind… and that the “I” that thinks this is only a subset of the “I” that exists. As I stated before, I am willing to assume that “I” and “you” are, in fact, distinct and separate entities… but I cannot prove it. It’s axiomatic. But once we have that axiom, a great deal of interpretation is possible. The geometry you wind up with depends on the axiomatic assumptions you start with… and, I hold, the same thing is true with regards to “philosophical geometry”… the assumptions you start with determine the belief system you end up with.

DesCartes’s path out of solopsism starts by “proving” that DesCartes himself exists, and then building from that foundation to prove that other things exist by relation to DesCartes. Others who follow that path, start with the same first step… they prove to themselves that they exist, and then build on that to prove that other things exist. But, a closer analysis reveals that DesCartes DIDN’T prove that HE existed… He proved that A THINKER exists. He just assumed that there was identity, that DesCartes = the thinker. He hasn’t proved his way out of solopsism, and neither has anyone else who uses that path.

Solopsism is the tar baby of philosophy… once you come in contact with it, it will consume you. Just as Br’er Rabbit was unable to escape the tar baby no matter how hard he fought, Philosopher’s are unable to escape solopsism no matter how much they think.

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 07:12 pm 183

How about this, mitch: If you cannot prove conclusively that you exist, you cannot prove conclusively that you know anything “with certainty”. That is, that existence is a necessary precursor to “knowing with certainty”. That I (assuming I exist) will always be able to undercut someone else’s claim of “I know with certainty” with an attack of “I don’t know that you exist”. Because if you don’t exist, you don’t do anything, including “knowing with certainty.” Thus, every claim of “I know with certainty” must carry a corollary “and I can prove that I exist” or the “knowing” claim is suspect.

Frankie Darro Sep 12th 2010 at 08:47 pm 184

James Pollack (181), because “language usage does change with time. Words take on new meanings, …” is precisely why we still need the prescriptive dictionary. There needs to be some place to point out “this is an obsolete usage; this is slang or non-conventional usage, etc.”, and as alluded to by Detcord, if we devolve to the point that any usage is correct just from the fact that it is used, we lose nuance and precision. As I said, we need both prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. While “prescriptivity is doomed to failure” seems a bit strong to me, it is definitely currently out of favor:-(

James Pollock Sep 12th 2010 at 08:57 pm 185

Any usage is correct if the listener/reader can understand what the speaker/writer intended. The task you want (maintaining the previous meaning of words) properly belongs to the annotator/commenter… it is opinion what the author intended, not authoritative. If the speaker uses a word “incorrectly”, but the listener “incorrectly” interprets it but gets the speaker’s intent, that is a successful communication even though both speaker and listener are “incorrect”.

People will inherently make mistakes. For example, compare what I think my name is, and what YOU think my name is. I happen to think my usage is correct and yours is not… but I understood you just fine. If Hamlet tells Ophelia she belongs in a nunnery, I suppose it makes a difference if you know that in Shakespeare’s time, a “nunnery” did not contain nuns. But a skillful actor will make it clear that Hamlet is rejecting Ophelia, regardless.

The prescriptive function comes from the collective body of literature, both high and low.

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 10:23 pm 186

Oh My … go away for an afternoon and someone lets slip the dogs of war

It looks like we have moved on from Descartes to dictionaries … I’ll try to catch up later.

In the meantime ………

Detcord @165

Would you hate me if I said that I pretty much agree with you? My MPD example not withstanding it is unlikely that I am not the thinker of my thoughts. In fact from the start I was just trying to point out that “I think therefor I am” … where “I” is me, a name I call myself, just ain’t necessarily so … and as you pointed out Occam would agree with me.

I suppose in the end I am just a Material Girl. These are all fun, intellectual exercises, but
I pretty much believe that WYSIWYG (within reason). If I were to meet you on the street I would have no reason to believe you were anything other than you appear to be.. a living breathing human being. Likewise I have no reason to believe I am not the thinker of my thoughts.

We may come to learn there are other layers of reality, but I am not sure it would make much difference to me in my day to day life, since I can’t experience those other realities. After all, quantum physics are strange weird and wonderful, but we function in a Newtonian physics world

I knew you would get thepseudo-turtle reference

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 10:24 pm 187

Mark M @ 179

You mean think ? Yeah … we do that

Nicole Sep 12th 2010 at 10:41 pm 188

Bill @ 175

What is really truly frightening is that Ann Coulter is starting to sound like a moderate when compared to some of the real crazies out there. Sharon Angle (the second amendment solution) comes to mind.

CIDU Bill Sep 12th 2010 at 10:52 pm 189

Agreed, Nicole: Coulter may have paved the way for the newer crazies, and now they’re making her irrelevant. I believe she actively hates Sarah Plain with all the venom of a first wife who’s been replaced by someone younger, prettier and more popular.

Winter Wallaby Sep 12th 2010 at 11:28 pm 190

J. Pollock:

Any usage is correct if the listener/reader can understand what the speaker/writer intended.

Not quite. If you’re on a job interview, and say “I ain’t had no problems with any of my previous employers,” the interviewer will understand what you intended, but the usage is incorrect for the purpose of getting you the job. I agree with your general sentiment, but I’d say instead that the purpose of knowing prescriptive English rules is to indicate a certain social background and education, in situations where indicating those things is useful.

I’d add that while we associate language change with descriptivism, there have been prescriptive language changes as well - cases where prescriptivists have arbitrarily changed the rules of the English language and made it stick.

Winter Wallaby Sep 12th 2010 at 11:29 pm 191

Even by the standards of this blog, the topic drift seems particularly strong this time. . .

Elyrest Sep 12th 2010 at 11:55 pm 192

Winter - This is more like continental drift. I find it rather impressive and very interesting to read even if I’ve only flitted in and out.

Cidu Bill Sep 12th 2010 at 11:58 pm 193

Winter, after almost 200 comments, it’s less “drift” than “macroevolution.”

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 12:18 am 194

#190: I disagree that this is inherently bad for a job interview… it would depend on the job, the interviewer, and the interviewee. There are certainly people who look upon “book learnin’” with skepticism… displaying an overly broad vocabulary and precise grammar might be a negative in some interviews. I don’t contend that this is true in the general case, but it can be true in specific cases.

So, to the general case… the tone of voice might make a difference here. Perhaps the intent is to imply a sense of humor, which can be a plus.

Finally, your last sentence does you in. Prescriptivists can make all the prescriptions they want, arbitrary or not… but the ultimate measure is whether they can “make it stick”… that is, if they can get it adopted by the majority of the language users. Point… Game… Match.

Frankie Darro Sep 13th 2010 at 01:03 am 195

James Pollock - a thousand pardons, that was purely a typo (or maybe imprecision on my part), not a Freudian slip. But as long as I am here.

“Any usage is correct if the listener/reader can understand what the speaker/writer intended.” Well and good, but I think the previous 180+ entries testify to the fact that is one helluva big “if”.

“The task you want … properly belongs to the annotator/commenter…” If I understand you correctly, shouldn’t one of the roles of a dictionary be that of (collective) annotator/commenter?

At this point I was going to comment on your bringing the concept of “incorrect” into the discussion, as I was using prescriptive in the sense of “customary usage”, i.e. guidance or clarification of how to use a word (as opposed to descriptive, which merely documents usage without comment or judgment). Then I looked up prescriptive, and lo and behold there is a definition specific to linguistics that refers to setting rules of “correct” usage. But you knew that, didn’t you? If we accept Detcord’s Law, (we are discussing language, therefore we must use the lexicon of linguistics) I must concede that I have been misusing the word in this context.

Perversely, this brings us around full circle to your first quote above. If there is understanding between the two parties, then the communication is, in your words, successful. But what of those cases where the communication is not successful? I was obviously using a different sense of the word prescriptive than you were. Misscommunication ensued. If I hadn’t discovered the previously unknown to me definition, we could have chased each other around the block for another day or two (not really, I tire easily). The entire first half of this thread boils down to two different interpretations of the verb “to believe”. (The second half seems to be bogged down in the definition of “to be”, but I am not a big fan of philosophy, so I will stay away from that.) Detcord finally put his metaphorical foot down, and declared that a religious discussion must by default use a religious lexicon (thus Detcord’s Law - or prescriptive rule, if you will). Now I don’t think for a minute that he changed anyone’s mind or even proved that he was “correct”, but at least everyone quit chasing their collective tails. Before, everyone’s definition of “to believe” was equally valid, but communication was unsuccessful. Afterward, communication was successful to the extent that the participants could say “I understand your position. I may not agree with it, but at least I know why we are in disagreement.” At this point, the discussion either dissipates (or in this case evolves into a new discussion), or the participants can renew their efforts in a more focused analysis of their disagreement, as appears to be happening in the second half of this thread.

Winter Wallaby Sep 13th 2010 at 01:15 am 196

James, I’m not sure what point I made that you think you’re disputing. I didn’t say it was inherently bad for all interviews. My second sentence pretty clearly qualifies the type of interviews that it’s important for: “the purpose of knowing prescriptive English rules is to indicate a certain social background and education, in situations where indicating those things is useful.” My point is that no rules of English are inherently good or bad, but knowing prescriptive rules is important in many situations, and not because the prescriptive rules are better for communication. In other words, the “correct usage” for language is context-dependent, but is not just based on whether you’ve communicated your intent to your listener. None of the examples you give contradict this.

But, uh congratulations on winning your, er, point, game, and match, whatever match you think you’re competing in.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 02:22 am 197

Frankie first: A dictionary is not a commentator, and here’s why: Each different person means something slightly different when a word is used. An annotated work contains two separate things… the original work in the words chosen by the author, plus the annotations chosen by the annotator. The annotator’s work is to explain what the annotator’s sense is of what the original author intended. It is specific to the work annotated. To say “in common usage, word X means this” is not the same as “in this passage of this work, author Y chose word X because” The annotator tackles the meaning on three levels… what the work as a whole means, what each specific phrase means, and what individual words mean. The annotator includes the context of a specific usage (as, a few postings back, I described three separate meanings for “Dude!”… and I did not provide anything close to an exhaustive list. The compiler of a dictionary cannot compile all of the meanings intended by every author to use a word… they can only select the most prominent and attempt to group the similar, and some will be left out.

Speech Communication is what my first degree was in. The purpose of language is to convey ideas from person to person. Telepathy not having been fully developed yet, language is imperfect and imprecise at accomplishing this, so there is usually some loss of meaning in the transfer. Usually, we employ feedback and feedback monitoring to ensure that our intended meaning has been transferred, but even with these mechanisms, misunderstandings occur. (In a sitcom, hilarity ensues. In real life, misunderstandings more often lead to strife, discord, and unhappiness… although successful communication can have these effects as well.)

People who read a lot, from many different types of writing, tend to accumulate larger vocabularies than people who do not. When we encounter a new word while reading, we try to figure out what the word means by examining the context. That guess gets refined every time we encounter that word again. When we have sufficient trust in our understanding of the word, it gets added to our working vocabulary. Repeat as needed. We can learn usage of a word from the way it has been used. Some people need a different system (proofreaders and editors, for example, have to be sure they know what words the author meant to say.) and must resort to reference materials. Other people do so for personal reasons (for example, being afraid to use a word incorrectly for fear of appearing foolish in public.)

So… prescriptive = describing how something (words in this case) is to be used. Any other use is forbidden and incorrect and you are voted off the island. Descriptive = this is how this word has been used in the past (with references so you can go check for yourself). Prescriptive dictionaries are doomed to fail in the long run, because people don’t always follow the rules set down for them by other people.

Consider this guideline: An apprentice is learning the rules. A journeyman knows the rules, and follows them. A master knows when to break the rules. So Mark Twain can get away with “ain’t”, but I can’t. Anyone who reads “Huck Finn” and decides that Mark Twain didn’t know how to write in English because he uses words that aren’t in the (prescriptive) dictionary (or are on the “strongly frowned upon” list) is making a very big mistake. In 1989, when Homer Simpson started saying “D’oh!”, people understood what he meant even though this word did not appear in any prescriptive dictionary. In 2010, people figured out what Sarah Palin meant by “refudiate” (and only a few critics looked it up to see if it was in the dictionary.)

As was pointed out, dictionary editors are nearly all some combination of prescriptivists or descriptivists… and both points of view will remain. What changes is the relative strength between these two viewpoints. The descriptivists will win the battle in the long run, because that’s the way humans use language… it constantly evolves. New words come into the popular lexicon, old ones fall into disuse, and in between, words find new or additional meanings. Prescriptivism attempts to set it in stone and keep it from changing… doomed to failure in the long term.

Winter Wallaby Sep 13th 2010 at 02:33 am 198

It’s perhaps appropriate at this point to look up the definition of “dictionary” in the dictionary:

DICTIONARY, n.: A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work. - The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 03:18 am 199

And now WW: (with regard to #190/196)
You said “If you’re on a job interview, and say “I ain’t had no problems with any of my previous employers,” the interviewer will understand what you intended, but the usage is incorrect for the purpose of getting you the job.” and I countered that this is not necessarily true. Dependong on what the job is, who the person being interviewed is, and who the person doing the interviewing is, using colloquiallisms and poor grammar may actually be a better choice if the aim is to get the job. Specifically, it might be better than a complex sentence with lots of “five-dollar words” if the job I am seeking is a more humble one.

You went on to say “I’d say instead that the purpose of knowing prescriptive English rules is to indicate a certain social background and education, in situations where indicating those things is useful.” and again, I say that there might be isolated cases where you do NOT want to indicate how literate you are, and there are, as you say, cases where it is not useful to use correct grammar (or pronunciation of words for spoken communication, or spelling for written forms). Internet comment postings being a notable example. Second, there are times when the tone of voice is more significant than the actual words said. For example, a sarcastic tone of voice implies the exact opposite of the words actually spoken. Suppose I am interviewing for a prestigious law firm in New York City, but my past employment has been in non-prestigious firms in small rural towns. I might use your exact words in indicate that I realize that my past work has been in more humble surroundings… but use the tone of voice to indicate that I know the difference between where I was and where I want to be.

I think your statements that “proper” language is vital is probably far more true for minorities than it is for middle-aged white guys like me.

So… I don’t think your statements that use of “incorrect with reference to prescriptive dictionary” language is necessarily incorrect for the purpose of getting a job. Communication feedback and feedback monitoring will be an important step in determining what the “correct” use of language during the interview will be.

The “correct” level of compliance with prescriptive dictionary usage is not based on the meanings of the words I speak. The meta-message of all the communication in a job interview is “you want to hire me, because I am completely qualified to do the job you (the interviewer/employer) want or need done.” If THAT message is received, then my language usage has been correct. If not, then my language usage has not been correct. That message will be conveyed by far more factors than mere word usage. It is possible that I may convey the message I wanted to convey (”Hire me!”) even if some of my words were used in violation of prescriptive definitions. (And again, sometimes my word usage may not be “correct” on purpose, if I think that will better serve my message.)

Finally, I disputed this statement specifically: “I’d add that while we associate language change with descriptivism, there have been prescriptive language changes as well - cases where prescriptivists have arbitrarily changed the rules of the English language and made it stick.” Cases where “prescriptivists have arbitrarily changed the rules of the English language” are not changes to the English language. At least, they aren’t unless and until the “stick”. It is still usage by the general public that determines what a word “means”… not what the dictionary editor says it means, or should mean. And that’s descriptivism. So you conceded that even where prescriptivists TRIED to steer the language, it was still up to the descriptivists to decide if they were successful. So these aren’t “cases where prescriptivists have arbitrarily changed the rules of the English language” after all. It’s more like “cases where usage has followed the prescriptivists suggestions.” See? A hardcore prescriptivist attempts to COMMAND usage, but cannot do so without the consent of the actual users of the language. From the descriptivist point of view, the prescriptivists can only SUGGEST… and usage may or may not follow.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 03:34 am 200

I should point out that descriptive/prescriptive is a big topic in law school, because use of language is what we intend to charge money for. First, a team of very smart people will write down what they mean as clearly and unambiguously as possible, and after that other very smart people will attempt to find ways in which those words may be made to mean something totally different. The Supreme Court set down the rules by which courts (and therefore other people) figure out what a statute (law) means. First, if the statute has a clear meaning in “plain language”, then that’s what it means. After that, the rules get complicated. The challenge being, “plain language” is a moving target (i.e., the descriptivists are winning the argument with the prescriptivists). Add in the fact that courts can be interpreting documents written 100, 200, or 300 years ago, and it gets super-tricky. Most of the problems come in interpreting what the Constitution means (and how we figure out what the Constitution means). Courts have struggled with just about every phrase in the Constitution. And that’s probably the easy one! State constitutions are much easier to amend (particularly in states that allow amendment by initiative) and so tend to be much longer, much more intricate, and much more likely to have confusing or even contradictory language in them. This is why it takes three years of school after a bachelor’s degree to become a lawyer in the U.S.

Detcord Sep 13th 2010 at 04:16 am 201

Frankie Darro (167)

First I have to echo Nicole and say “Wow! Has this thread moved…” Neat!

Regarding prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries, I’m in both camps. The English lexicon gets its power, at least in part, from its ability to grow and accommodate new meanings. I am on record in this thread support this aspect.

However, I am also on record stating that we need to preserve existing meanings too, or we will find ourselves fruitlessly arguing points of order or become lost in misunderstandings. You make that point well in line 184.

Even worse, to my mind, we will lose contact with the written past. The vocal past, as some have obliquely noted in another thread, has been so decisively lost that we must rely on interpretations of interpretations multiplied by ‘X’. As a student of history, I find the loss distressing, but this is nothing when compared to the way certain cultures – especially religious ones – interpret, and take guidance from, their past. If James Pollock is correct, it seems we are thus doomed to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 04:42 am 202

Re: losing contact with the written past: There is a reason most current volumes of Shakespeare are annotated. And look at some of the archaic language in the King James Bible. Many, if not most, schoolchildren already find great literature of past generations to be impenetrable… Those guys were WAY too wordy and long-winded (I’m looking at YOU, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Charles Dickens. James Fenimore Cooper, you are OFF the reading list.)

As verbose as I’ve been tonight, I’ve got one more… the word “thou” as used in the Bible is actually the same exact word as “you”. Back in ye olde tymes, they used a symbol called a “thorn” to represent the “th” fricative sound. The thorn looked like (you guessed it!) a Y. So the word “ye” is pronounced “the”, and the word “you” is pronounced “thou”… if you’re in King James’s Court, anyway.

Nicole Sep 13th 2010 at 07:40 am 203

Winter Wallaby @ 171

I do feel safe in saying that there are no gods .. No Zeus, No Odin, No Yaweh, No Allah, Vishnu, Anubis etc ……

I also feel safe in saying that there are no supernatural beings or events whatsoever. There is only the natural we don’t understand.

However, it is impossible to prove a negative, and there is a chance, albeit a slim one, that I am mistaken in my rejection of gods, supernatural beings, events and Vogon constructor fleets. Should evidence arise to disprove any of the above statements I will be happy to change my views.

Nicole Sep 13th 2010 at 07:45 am 204

Bill @ 189

So does that mean that Sarah Palin will be replaced by someone even more crazy ? And at what point will someone from the republican party stand up and says ‘Whoa … hold on a minute … that is just plain crazy talk”

Detcord Sep 13th 2010 at 07:59 am 205

Nicole (204)

“at what point will someone from the republican party stand up and says ‘Whoa … hold on a minute … that is just plain crazy talk”

That’s easy. When they discover they’re in agreement with Liberals!

Morris Keesan Sep 13th 2010 at 08:13 am 206

Wow. You go away for a two-week vacation, then immediately take a break for the holidays while simultaneously trying to cope with severe jet lag, and a comment about a crazy woman turns into a discussion of linguistics. I echo others who say that this is neat.

On the general discussion of the English language, I have to point to this t-shirt. As an example of an attempted prescriptivist change that never quite stuck, but that some people think is a “rule” of “correct” language, I refer you to the attempt to rule against splitting infinitives in English, which I believe was an invention of some German-influenced grammarians, trying to describe English grammar via Latin grammar, based on the fact that it’s impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, since a Latin infinitive is a single word.

Winter Wallaby (198) points out the danger in saying “look it up in the dictionary”, since what we’re always doing is looking it up in a dictionary, and the choice of which dictionary can be a very useful tool in arguments of this sort.

Nicole’s comment #203 is why I prefer the term “non-theist”, which I came across (if I remember correctly) in a book by Michael Shermer, probably his Why people believe weird things : pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time [a rather disappointing book, by the way, because it’s mostly just a collection of essays about the things people believe, instead of addressing the “why” question promised in the title]. “Non-theist” sums up the “not believing in gods” part, without getting into the philosophical minefields of provableness [I originally wrote “provability”, but my dictionary of choice preferred this] implied by “atheist” or the wishy-washy uncertainty implied by “agnostic”.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 11:23 am 207

Detcord, there is no such thing as “when they are in agreement with liberals”… the political spectrum is often thought of as a straight horizontal line, with liberals at one end and conservatives at the other, but it’s actually a big circle. There are some subjects where the liberals have actually come around to argue a conservative position, and vice versa; For example, a conservative political opinion on abortion would be that the government has no authority to make private decisions, while the liberal political opinion would be that the government needs to at least monitor these kinds of decisions for everyone’s best interests, if not deciding for people outright (in China, which still has actual leftists, reproductive policy is set by the government.) Similarly, a conservative opinion would be that if a person owns some land, they should be able to use it however they see fit, with the neighbors and non-property-owners not getting a vote. But when you apply that to Cordoba House, again the positions flip.

It’s like the opposite of magnets (in magnets, opposites attract and likes repel; in politics, opposites repel and likes attract.)

Detcord Sep 13th 2010 at 12:57 pm 208

Um, James, it was a ‘joke’. Lighten-up a bit. Life’s too short to take it that seriously.

I agree with your ‘big circle’ comment - which means my joke comment was intended to mean, “Never!”. Geddit?

Morris Keesan Sep 13th 2010 at 01:15 pm 209

James Pollock, #202: No, the King James Version uses both “you” and “thou”, often in the same verse, and they’re different words. The 17th century is much too late for the thorn and the y (different letters) to still be confused with each other. I can never remember which is which, but “you” and “thou” are the formal and familiar second-person pronouns, corresponding to the French “tu” and “vous”.

and #172:

A liberal thinker starts with the concept that they might possibly be wrong, and therefore they need to consider all possible sources of knowledge… but the conservative thinker starts with the idea that they are absolutely correct and therefore rejects sources of knowledge that are contrary because they are obviously wrong.

That’s what liberals like to think about themselves, but unfortunately, it’s not true. Studies have shown that people on all sides (liberal, conservative, Liberal, Conservative, etc.) tend to think of themselves as open-minded, and people who disagree with them as close-minded, but we’re all about equally likely to hold onto our beliefs and reject arguments, and evidence, that disagree with those beliefs.

Detcord Sep 13th 2010 at 01:22 pm 210

Morris (206)

Welcome back. I like your T-shirt. Did you get it on holiday (vacation if you’re in the US)?

Re: Split-infinitives. I’ve always understood it was 19th Century English stuffed-shirts who were fascinated (beguiled?) by Roman history and its inheritors (the Romance Language countries). So they tried to impose rules on the English Language which - as you rightly point out - are de facto in Latin, but non-existent in Germanic ones - where English gets its roots.

I confess I’m glad the English-speaking peoples ‘cocked a snook’ at the idea, but it took some time to sink in. I love Roman history myself, but not to the split-infinitive degree.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 04:02 pm 211

Detcord - please refer to post #200, second sentence. That training is hard to shake.

Morris - I don’t buy into your claim that everybody sticks to their preconceived notions with equal vigor… if that were true, there would be no such thing as debate. We all know that there are some people who think about stuff a lot, and people who really don’t (insert any television “vast wasteland” joke here). I shied away from using the word “dogmatist” on purpose (since we’ve already been through religion in this thread) but I’m not aware of any studies showing that people have roughly equal amounts of it (and, at the risk of scoring points for your side) I don’t buy it. One of my profs during the 80’s was researching the link between dogmatism and critical thinking skills, and he found almost no correlation… my interpretation was that dogmatism amounts to a “blind spot” where we won’t see evidence that conflicts with our chosen belief. Outside of the blind spot, critical functioning works just fine. And, some people have “blind spots” on subjects that other people don’t. So, for example, a person can be quite set on whether or not Han shot first, but open to considering who is in the car next to Gandalf in the “You shall not pass” cartoon (it’s still Gollum). But I think that some people have bigger “blind spots” than other people, and I would argue that some people are more able to work through their blind spots than others. Scientists are SUPPOSED to put aside their blind spots if observed data doesn’t conform to the theory… they don’t all do it all of the time, but I think they DO do it more often than others do.

Way more complicated than what I wrote the first time, sure. But I maintain my claim that the original is still accurate for the limited case in which it was offered.

Detcord Sep 13th 2010 at 04:22 pm 212

James - I know where you’re coming from. My brother’s been a big shot lawyer for a long time. I love my brother, but for a many years, family conversations tended to … descend … into the juris doctoral arena. Not so much fun then. He’s learning to pull back some, I’m learning to distract him toward less ‘disputatious’ ground. He’s very good with law. I’m very good with science (Masters Degree), so we now stay away from those two subjects. Keeps things civil.

If you can separate the two (law and life), trust me, you’ll have a better experience in both.

Have a good one!

Todd Sep 13th 2010 at 05:44 pm 213

I read that entire article about why Obama is an atheist, and it didn’t seem that outlandish, so I read this thread hoping to find some real substance to why everyone thinks that Coulter is a nutjob. For the moment, I’m sticking with the theory that she’s a nutjob because she doesn’t believe the same way the nutjob liberals believe.

I think the words “atheist” and “agnostic” are intended to be defined so you can’t be both.

I’m usually more agnostic, but when I encounter discussions like this, it’s then that i find myself believing that there must be a God. Because these things prove there’s a devil, because he’s standing behind you whispering in your ears, and if there’s a devil, there must be a God.

Todd Sep 13th 2010 at 05:52 pm 214

Talking about changing language, I’ve wanted someone to push for an “official” renaming of the letter “w”. I see the options as “wee” (like bee, cee, dee), “way” (jay and kay), “ew” (like el, em, en). More of the consonants follow the “ee”, so I’m leaning that way, but try any of those when sending someone to a web page. “Wee, wee, wee, Google.” “Way, way, way, Google.” “Ew, ew, ew, Google.” Sadly, for this. “Dub, dub, dub,” sounds the best. But “dub” sounds much more street, and less academic.

Lola Sep 13th 2010 at 05:55 pm 215

Words are amazingly flexible things and this thread is the perfect example of just how malleable they are. CIDU Bill at 189 … Now that’s funny. Plus it has the ring of truth about it, so it could very well be so.

What ever you want to call them, atheist, non theists, agnostics are probably a lot more common that anybody thinks. I often muse about how much easier my life would be if I would just pretend to go along. So getting back to Ann Coulter, I think she might actually be right for once, though not for the reasons she states.

Lola Sep 13th 2010 at 06:00 pm 216

Todd, how about Wuh Wuh Wuh.

I’ve always thought that double-u was kind of funny. In Italian u is vou (I have no idea how to spell it, but it’s pronounced like you with a v instead of a y) and W is doppia vou, so they are doing the same thing with it.

Lola Sep 13th 2010 at 06:04 pm 217

I’m sorry for the typo. In Italian ….V….is vou.

Kilby Sep 13th 2010 at 06:09 pm 218

@ 209:

… “you” and “thou” are the formal and familiar second-person pronouns, corresponding to the French “tu” and “vous”.

Originally, “thou” was the normal, “familiar” form, and “you” was the “polite” or “formal” salutation. The reason that prayers directed to God use the “thou” form is that one is supposed to address God as “Father”, therefore as a parent, thus with the “familiar” form of address. This convention has now been warped by the passage of time: the modern ear reacts to “thou” as an unfamiliar word, so that it sounds like an especially formal mode of address, which is exactly the opposite of the original intention.

P.S. There is a relationship between the shapes of the old “thorn” letter and the modern “y” (printers who did not have a “þ” would use “y” as a replacement), but “you” and “thou” are separate word forms. “You” derives from a declination of “ye”, which was originally a plural form. This has parallels in other languages, such as German, in which the “formal” word for “you” (”Sie“) is conjugationally equivalent to “they”.

James Pollock Sep 13th 2010 at 06:12 pm 219

Actually, I wasn’t entirely honest. I’ve been like this for a long time; the law school is recent. I’m just glad I found a career path where “will argue ANYTHING, from either side” is seen as a good thing.

Kilby Sep 13th 2010 at 06:26 pm 220

@ 214 & 216 - German pronounces “w” as a single syllable, making web addresses starting with “veh, veh, veh” three times quicker than “double-you, double-you, double-you”. Unfortunately, I can’t see a solution for English that is both unmistakeably unique and better than the existing pronunciation. Saying “wee wee wee” sounds either like an effusive Frenchman, or an exhortation to urinate on the domain.

P.S. Walt Kelly once published a cartoon tribute to his assistant in Pogo: he transcribed “Wally Wood” (three syllables) as “Double-U, A, Double-L, Y; Double-U, double-O, D” (fifteen syllables).

Nicole Sep 13th 2010 at 06:29 pm 221

Todd @ 213

The idea that Obama might be an atheist is not outlandish, as I said much much earlier , there is speculation in the atheist community that he is actually one of us.

Quick … name one high profile liberal who has made comments like these about those on the right
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html

The operative words are ‘high profile”…. please give citations

Morris Keesan Sep 13th 2010 at 09:26 pm 222

Detcord #210, thanks. I don’t actually own that T-shirt; I just came across it on the web. I’m now in the USA, but when I was away, I was on holiday; at least, that’s the box I checked off on the Australian immigration form.
I think where the Germans come in is that I remember being taught that it was German grammarians who codified the formal rules of classical Latin grammar, centuries after it was a dead language. I don’t know if the English grammarians who tried to forbid split infinitives were basing their prohibitions on the German version of Latin.

Morris Keesan Sep 13th 2010 at 09:36 pm 223

Kilby @218, thanks for that explanation. This clarifies, for example, the usage in the KJV at the beginning of Deuteronomy chapter 5, where Moses is speaking to the people using the pronoun “you”, and then as soon as he begins, in verse 6, to quote the word of G-d, the “you” changes to “thou” and its declined forms.
I’m fairly sure that there’s no equivalent change of tone in the original Hebrew, where the pronoun is rarely explicitly written as a word by itself, tending more to be stated in the inflected versions of other words.

Winter Wallaby Sep 13th 2010 at 09:54 pm 224

James P. #199: Again, I didn’t claim I was saying something inherently true about all job interviews. My very next sentence, which you seem determined to ignore, qualified it to “sitations where indicating [knowledge of prescriptive English rules] is useful.” You are quite correct that I didn’t specify what those situtations are, and break them down by the job, the person doing the interview, the region of the coutry, your tone of voice, etc. . . I also didn’t specify that the country was an English-speaking one (if the country was France, the choice of English is a bad one, regardless of grammatical choices), or that you were being interviewed by humans (the Zenobian overlords only communicate by flashing colors, and your choice of vocalization would be a deadly insult!). I didn’t do any of those things because they were irrelevant to what I was saying. You don’t argue against a claim that there are situations where X occurs by pointing out that there are situations where X doesn’t occur, any more than you argue against the existence of white horses by describing gray ones.

You can argue which situations knowledge of prescriptive English rules are useful all you want, but you’re arguing with yourself, not with me. You seem determined to win a debate with a prescriptivist, which is cool, but since I’m not one, that doesn’t have anything to do with me.

Winter Wallaby Sep 13th 2010 at 09:55 pm 225

Nicole #203: That makes sense. My level of confidence in god(s) is pretty much the same, except I don’t call myself “agnostic” because then by that standard, I’m “agnostic” about (just about) everything. Not that I dispute your right to describe yourself as “agnostic.” As Jesus said “What’s in a name? A rose, by any other name, would still be going to hell.”

BTW, I’ve been looking for a new dance, and theres[*] contra dancing in my neighborhood this weekend. Will give it a try.

[*] A prescriptivist might think this word should get an apostrophe, but if you understood the sentence without it, it doesn’t need it.

Winter Wallaby Sep 13th 2010 at 09:55 pm 226

Studies have shown that . . . we’re all about equally likely to hold onto our beliefs and reject arguments, and evidence, that disagree with those beliefs.

I am absolutely certain[*] that that’s not true. And nothing you say can convince me otherwise!

[*] Or at least as certain as I am of my existence.

Nicole Sep 13th 2010 at 10:20 pm 227

Winter Wallaby @ 225

I suppose technically I am an agnostic about everything. Perhaps another way to look at is that what I claim to know is subject to new information

Re: Contra dancing … good luck … I hope the band … and the other dancers are good. That will make a world of difference in your experience. Oh … if I have one piece of advice for new contra dancers … don’t resist if someone tries to point you in the right direction.

Igelino Sep 14th 2010 at 09:14 am 228

Winter: don’t forget to notice how many dancers have long hair, and how many girls have short skirts, and how many boys have beards. ; ) You’re sure to recognize Morris and Nicole.

Nicole Sep 14th 2010 at 10:05 pm 229

Winter Wallaby @ 227 and Igelino @ 228

I don’t know where you are Winter, but be warned that here in the Northeast, and especially in New England it is not unusual to see boys in short skirts at contra dances as well — why ? because it is fun to dance in a skirt

Morris Keesan Sep 15th 2010 at 12:23 am 230

I don’t think I see many men dancing in short skirts. Where I dance, the men tend to wear longer skirts.
And a longer (loose) skirt is much more fun to dance in, because of the way it flows during turns and swings.

So I’ve been told.

And I echo Nicole’s advice about letting experienced dancers steer you in the right direction (Me, I don’t just
point; I physically move people in the right direction, with as much gentleness as seems necessary. And
I appreciate having other people push me to where I need to be, if I get distracted or lost during a
complicated figure).
Along with this, my own advice: walk. Don’t go skipping or jumping around; you’ll use up much more energy than necessary getting to where you need to be, and you’ll tire yourself out, along with the other people trying to dance with you.

Winter Wallaby Sep 15th 2010 at 01:05 am 231

Thanks for the advice Nicole and Morris. I like dancing, but I’m not particularly good at it, so I’m pretty happy to follow if someone points me in the right direction. (Although, as it turns out, I may not be able to go this week.)

And thanks for the warning, Nicole. Now if I see a man in a skirt I should be able to avoid flipping out. As a male myself, I’m envious of how good long skirts can look during turns, but I think I’ll just stick with pants for myself the first time out.

Igelino Sep 15th 2010 at 06:07 am 232

Now you’ve got me wondering how Gandalf’s robes would look in a spin.

Igelino Sep 15th 2010 at 06:24 am 233

Oh, and Winter, you don’t have to “dance”. It’s a folk dance - everyone can do it. No special training required. The mistakes aren’t usually how you move, but where you move to. That just takes practice, and fellow dancers are very helpful.

I cannot dance for the life of me. But I can do contre. Newcomers are always welcome. 40 people is more fun than 12.

Part of the fascination for me is a couple dozen bodies moving around randomly while you somehow maintain order with by focusing on your own position and once you’re in the right position, changing focus to your current partner.

Can’t describe it. Just do it. : )

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 07:49 am 234

Winter Wallaby @ 231

Morris is right, most men wear long skirts, but some of the young’uns are starting to see the advantage to shorter skirts. You can get some pretty rockin’ (and revealing) twirl with the right short skirt (that is where bike shorts come in) . I like short skirts better than long because if your legs get sweaty, then long skirts stick to them.

Morris is also right about conservation of energy. Dances last on average about three hours, you will be pretty much “power walking” for ten to twelve minute dances (ocassionally longer) with short breaks inbetween … you will get your exercise, I promise

Back to men in skirts: I think in general men are totally missing out on an extremely comfortable item of clothing. I am not talking about tight little mini-skirts here, but any skirt that is relatively loose, knee length or longer. I find them MUCH more comfortable than pants or shorts … especially in the summer.

At this point I don’t care what we talk about on this thread…. my goal it to get it to 300 posts .. that would be a record for sure

Elyrest Sep 15th 2010 at 08:18 am 235

I agree with Nicole about the skirts. They are wonderfully cool and comfortable. I’d much rather wear a skirt than pants any day. I also think men are missing out by not wearing them and this is a double shame as most men I know have very nice legs.

Kilby Sep 15th 2010 at 08:32 am 236

… I don’t care what we talk about on this thread…. my goal is to get it to 300 posts .. that would be a record …

I’ve seen padded post counts (far) exceeding that number over at the “Curmudgeon”, but I’ve never understood why it should be a worthwhile goal. Quite the opposite, if you ask me.

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 09:26 am 237

Kilby @ 236

I am not suggesting we pad the posts, but as long as the posts are a natural evolution of the conversation , that the topic of the posts do not have to address the original thread topic.

It is not a worthwhile goal any sense, any more than watching your car odometer roll over is worthwhile, but we all get a little thrill when it happens. For some unknown (to me at least) reason we humans like round numbers , and regardless of what they count consider attaining a large round number a milestone. The Curmudeon, not withstanding, I don’t think any thread on this site has had 300 posts. So not only do we get a large round number but we also have a record number of posts for this site… what could be more worthwhile than that ?

At Pharygula there is the never ending thread which, according to the owner, is over 1,000,000 posts

And I would like to personally thank you for helping us reach the goal of 300, any additional donations will be appreciated

(If you insist — I could start the whole atheists VS agnostic discussion again — I do have another point to make, one that was not made earlier — heh heh heh )

Paperboy Sep 15th 2010 at 02:20 pm 238

Sorry, Nicole, I agree with Kilby#236; striving to reach a big,round number is not worthwhile, and I will not be a part of it.

Paperboy Sep 15th 2010 at 02:21 pm 239

Not me; no way.

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 02:29 pm 240

Paperboy @ 238 - 239

That is OK … no need to participate if you don’t feel good about it

Detcord Sep 15th 2010 at 03:43 pm 241

Nicole

How do you make the smiley with the red teeth, or is is tongue? I know the colon, short dash and right parentheses makes the smile and the semi-colon a wink and thanks to mitch4 eight to the bar, er, right parentheses gives us Mr. Kool , but I don’t have that big lippy smile. What’s the code?

Morris Keesan Sep 15th 2010 at 05:45 pm 242

Re: skirts, I’m much too conservative a guy to wear a skirt, even to a dance, but I’ve seriously considered
getting myself a Utilikilt. The problem is that it’s an expensive garment, especially given that there are fairly
limited occasions where I’d wear it (as a friend said to me about this a couple of weeks ago, “Going to
science fiction conventions means never having to say, ‘Where could I possibly wear this?’, but even with all
of the cons and folk festivals I typically go to, that’s less than 20 days a year).

My wife is trying to talk me into trying one of her skirts for NEFFA next year, and if she convinces me, then
Nicole might get to see my knees in April.

CIDU Bill Sep 15th 2010 at 06:18 pm 243

Morris, I think 20 is a big over-estimation: isn’t it a fashion faux pas for a man to wear the same skirt to every event?

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 07:25 pm 244

Detcord @ 241

Tongue it is … Colon dash uppercase P : - P and without the spaces

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 07:32 pm 245

Morris @ 242

I know a few guys who wear utilikilts to the dances, though at the risk of dashing your dream, I am not sure what the difference between a utilikilt and a skirt is, but …….

On the plus side … they look pretty indestructible .. so one should last you forever.

I am very jealous of the (mostly) young women who can twirl an uncountable number of times during a ladies chain (the rest of you get your minds out of the gutter … that is my place)

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 07:35 pm 246

Bill @ 243

I easily spend 20 days a year at festivals and major dance events (I don’t consider the Dawn Dance a festival) Of course I wear a skirt almost every day … but that is not the question here

No one notices what you are wearing if you are a good dancer

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 07:37 pm 247

Detcord @ 241

Oh I forgot … a grin is Colon dash uppercase D

Frankie Darro Sep 15th 2010 at 09:18 pm 248

So how come my frowny face (way back at #184) didn’t convert? Do you have to do something special to make these work? Or is Mr. Frowny not one of the chosen?

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 11:08 pm 249

Frankie Darro @ 248

This is an experiment … I think it is because you didn’t put a space between the last letter of the word and the colon:-(

Nicole Sep 15th 2010 at 11:09 pm 250

Yep that was it

Morris Keesan Sep 15th 2010 at 11:35 pm 251

Nicole #245, the main difference is that Utilikilts are tailored to fit men. Their website gives clear on-on-line
instructions for how men should determine their size, and their message to “cross-dressing women” is to
just phone them and consult, because they’re not designed for a woman’s waist and hips.

and #246, you dance more than 20 days a year, but you don’t wear the same skirt on all of those days, do
you? that was Bill’s point in #243.

And speaking of #243: Bill, I don’t know. I think the real fashion faux pas is if a man goes to an event
wearing the same dress as another man.

(BTW, Paperboy, I saw what you did there in #238 and #239; cute)

Winter Wallaby Sep 15th 2010 at 11:47 pm 252

First!

Detcord Sep 16th 2010 at 02:55 am 253

Morris K (251)

You do recall what the kilted Highlander said when asked if anything was worn under the kilt? His response was, “No sir! Everything is in purrrfect working order!” Will you be saying the same - especially with all that … twirling?

*

Thanks Nicole!

James Pollock Sep 16th 2010 at 03:02 am 254

Technically, 256 is a round number (in binary, it’s 100000000) so you’re almost to a big round number…

James Pollock Sep 16th 2010 at 03:02 am 255

But 255 is NOT a round number, it’s 11111111.

Igelino Sep 16th 2010 at 04:51 am 256

Nicole Sep 16th 2010 at 07:28 am 257

Morris Keesan @ 251

Hmmmm .. I am not sure I buy it … pants yes, I know many women who have problems with pats because of thier hips … either too much hip or not enough (I’ll let you decide if I am talking about the pants or the women). To that end, manufactures of women’s pants will sometimes offer the same pant with more or less generous hips. I have never seen similar offering around skirts

My goodness… no … I would not wearthe same skirt to all dances and festivals. But then again I have enough skirts that I could wear a different one to each dance/festival and sometimes I change in the middle.

Nicole Sep 16th 2010 at 07:29 am 258

Winter Wallaby @ 252

I laughed out loud at this comment

Frankie Darro Sep 16th 2010 at 01:30 pm 259

Thanks, Nicole

Winter Wallaby Sep 17th 2010 at 12:33 am 260

Technically, 256 is a round number (in binary, it’s 100000000) so you’re almost to a big round number…

Technically, 261 is a round number (in base 261, it’s 10), so just one more to go. . .

Elyrest Sep 18th 2010 at 04:21 pm 261

One more!

Couldn’t let that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hang on forever Winter.

Morris Keesan Sep 18th 2010 at 09:10 pm 262

Yes, but for those of us with 10 fingers each, 300 is a much rounder number.

James Pollock Sep 18th 2010 at 10:20 pm 263

If you use those fingers to count in binary, you can count as high as 1,023.

Detcord Sep 19th 2010 at 05:18 am 264

James (263)

If you use those same fingers in Base 10, you can count to 35. Granted, it’s not nearly as big a number as 1023, but it’s also a heck of a lot easier.

mitch4 Sep 19th 2010 at 09:57 am 265

At the height of trying to embrace nerddom, I developed the habit of ding a rapid binary counting-up on my fingers — as a sort of variant on “twiddling one’s thumbs” as a distraction while stuck in a boring wait. I would just extend my hands unobtrusively in something like typing position, and just start tapping away, with “finger down” counting as a 1 and “finger up” as 0. The pattern in the last three or four fingers of the right hand becomes pretty automatic, so only for higher transitions would I pause and consciously manage the switching.

But when you get swift at it, the count up to 1023 does not actually take all that long, and you’re not particularly amused anymore. Ah well.

Igelino Sep 19th 2010 at 10:45 am 266

… if you use those same fingers in base 3, you can count to 59049 …

Because in normal counting, only the presence of a finger counts. In James’ method, the finger has two positions - up or down. In base three, the finger has three positions - up, down and halfway.

Base four would be 1048576 - using up, down, halfway up and halfway down. : - P

Detcord Sep 19th 2010 at 10:53 am 267

You know, I’ve been trying out this finger-counting in binary - and now my fingers hurt. Ouch! I should think playing a piano would be easier - and I KNOW that’s not easy as I’ve tried.

(Yes, I even managed to play a recognizable tune too ) - and not in binary.

Nicole Sep 19th 2010 at 01:02 pm 268

You guys are the best …keeping the dream alive

Dave in Boston Sep 19th 2010 at 04:32 pm 269

ok, I’ve clearly missed the boat on the philosophy by being away a couple days, but I can’t let this go by: 35?

9 is obvious, and it’s easy to get to 29 or 39 by adding elbows as tens, and there’s a standard way of going up to 99 with two hands in more or less base ten, but I have no idea how to do 35. I guess there’s a fairly easy way in base 6 that goes up to 35, but you said base ten…

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 05:52 pm 270

Yeah, I’m with Dave in Boston on this one (well, not with him in Boston; I’m actually just outside Boston). I have no idea how Detcord gets 35.
I have my own method for counting in sort-of-base-10 which goes up to 99, but I don’t know whether it’s standard. I use it for counting rests. Right thumb folded against the palm for one, add index finger for 2, etc. up to 5, then lift thumb for 6, continue lifting fingers until the pinky comes up, resetting the right hand to zero, at which point the left hand starts counting in the tens place. Sort of a bimodal base 5 system, or maybe base 5×2. I developed this system, which is probably not unique to me, after observing Japanese counting small (<5) numbers on their fingers.

Igelino Sep 19th 2010 at 07:13 pm 271

Morris, sounds like you’re using a system like the roman numerals - a 5/2 system. Your thumb is like the presence/absence of V, and the fingers are like I II III and IIII(IV). Maybe you’re using the same system they did when they developed their system. : ) It’s actually surpürisingly easy to convert between roman numerals and base ten.

Whaddya think, Morris and Dave? Shall we ask Detcord how he got thirtyfive? Or could it be an embarrassing question for him?

James Pollock Sep 19th 2010 at 07:33 pm 272

At the risk of re-covering old ground, I stumbled across a couple of Frazz strips that cover religion and agnosticism.

See 5/29/200 and 11/20/2003.

There may be more, I’m only up to May of 2004.

James Pollock Sep 19th 2010 at 07:40 pm 273

One danger of binary finger counting is encountered with the numbers 4 and 5, and again 772 and 773.

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 07:45 pm 274

James #272: I’m surprised Frazz was being published in the year 200.

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 07:49 pm 275

James #100010001: 772? huh? 132 I understand, but 772?

Also, I don’t think 5 is particularly problematical. The extra finger (thumb or little finger, depending on which way round you’re holding your hand) is enough to disrupt the canonical gesture.

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 08:27 pm 276

We don’t usually discuss editorial cartoons here, but this one seems apropos to some of the discussion about 50 posts ago.

Nicole Sep 19th 2010 at 09:26 pm 277

Since we have slipped back to talking about Lady Gaga’s meat dress, I think it only fair to note that a year or two ago the contestants on America’s Next Top Model did a shoot where they wore meat panties

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl0/1/13839/11_2008/ANTM-MEAT.preview.jpg

And yes I watch America’s Next Top Model … like you don’t have any guilty pleasures

Winter Wallaby Sep 19th 2010 at 09:38 pm 278

Thanks Elyrest (#10) - unfortunately, the nice round number has been messed up by the subsequent posts. We need to get to a nice round number and stop. We have a long way to go to the next round number, #100. (That’s 68121 for those of you still stuck in base 10.)

Detcord (#13) - like others, I’m curious. 35?

Morris Keesan (#1f) - I don’t understand the relevance?

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 09:51 pm 279

Wallaby, back around post #22810, we started talking about skirts.

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 09:52 pm 280

Ack. That “10″ was supposed to be a subscript, i.e. 228 base 10. Wordpress stripped out my &ltsub&gt tags.

Morris Keesan Sep 19th 2010 at 09:53 pm 281

I mean my <sub> tags

Elyrest Sep 19th 2010 at 10:14 pm 282

Nicole - I watch America’s Next Top Model too, although I only started watching it last year, so I never saw the meat panties. Now that I write meat panties my mind is filled with all sorts of Arlo thoughts - and I don’t even eat meat!

paperboy Sep 20th 2010 at 01:30 am 283

When Lady Gaga says “These steaks are going directly on my hips” she means it literally.

paperboy Sep 20th 2010 at 01:32 am 284

I’m sure Lady Gaga plays piano well, ’cause she’s definitely got the chops.

Detcord Sep 20th 2010 at 03:30 am 285

Wow! Go off-line for a bit and the Earth moves. You’re encouragement, Nicole (268) seems to have worked wonders.

The 35 count is easy. I believe it dates way back (i.e. B.C.) and I understand it is still used in the market place of some Middle Eastern countries today. It goes like this:

Start with 2 fists - that’s zero.
1. Left thumb is 1
2. Left thumb and index finger is 2
3-5… Carry on until all five fingers show - that’s 5
6. Close left hand to fist and raise right hand’s thumb - that’s 6
7. Keep right hand thumb up and raise left-hand thumb - that’s 7
8. Repeat lines 2-5 to get 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Twelve is right thumb and right index finger, with left fist. Repeat progression until 35 is reached - all fingers of both hands extended.

Simple - which is probably why ancient (and probably illiterate) market sellers adopted it.

Kilby Sep 20th 2010 at 04:15 am 286

@ Detcord (285) - making it effectively a base 6 system.

I find it interesting that this system starts with the thumb. For “normal” counting, most Americans start with the forefinger, and open the thumb last (for “five”), whereas Germans start with the thumb, and open the pinky last.

I once witnessed a German priest count off three important points in a sermon with isolated fingers: “one (thumb) … two (forefinger) … three (middle finger) …”
The problem was that he spent quite a while discussing that third point, and never retracted that isolated middle finger the whole time he was talking. It was hilarious, but nobody said anything, except for one teenage girl who could not completely control a short, but emphatic giggle.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 04:39 am 287

Nicole,

“I never thought I’d be asking Cher to hold my meat purse.” - Lady Gaga to Cher at the MTV awards.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 04:55 am 288

Detcord, I don’t think you’ve gotten the spirit - you could have at least asked if we were sure we wanted to hear it… yep base 6, I should have been able to guess that.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 04:59 am 289

I’m still fascinated by Morris’ 2/5 system. I’ve never seen an explanation as to why a 2/5 system (like in Roman Numerals) would evolve, and never could think of anything that made sense. And here comes Morris, inventing one independently.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 05:01 am 290

Maybe James’ problematic numbers are related to actually holding the fingers in the air, extended or closed. Some combinations are very difficult.

Detcord Sep 20th 2010 at 08:04 am 291

Kilby (286)

I see your point about Base 6 (Mea Culpa X 3).

Regarding which finger starts the count, I believe this technique existed a few thousand years before Americans started pointing the finger. Also, as you noted, the Germans begin a count with the thumb. Indeed, if you were in a German gasthaus or bierkeller and held up your index finger to order, you’d get 2 drinks - and be expected to pay for them. In Germany, thumbs-up is the signal for 1.

Ingelino (288)

Sorry I didn’t stretch it out. I wasn’t thinking. :’(

Detcord Sep 20th 2010 at 08:08 am 292

Of course, the danger now is that we’re going to blow right past 300. The various discussions have been too interesting to stop.

Nicole Sep 20th 2010 at 08:21 am 293

Detcord @ 262

If we blow by 300 we can shoot for 400

Kilby Sep 20th 2010 at 09:21 am 294

@ 287-293: That’s exactly what I meant by “padding the count”. I’m all for an interesting discussion on a variety of subjects, but as the thread balloons, the page takes longer and longer to load. Artificially fragmentation may lead to Curmudgeonesque numbers, but it just makes things harder to read (and research) in the long run. Who in the world would expect to find pleasant discourse about ordinal (literally “digital”) numerology buried under the inflammatory article(s) way up at the top of this thread?

Nicole Sep 20th 2010 at 09:46 am 295

Kilby @ 294

I couldn’t disagree more. Padding to me means posting inconsiquental messages with the express purpose of pushing up the post count. With the exception of a few ‘joke’ posts, all the messages on this thread have been segues based on previous comments … that is to say it is a normal conversation.

No one one would expect to find discourse on digital numerology here, any more than they would expect a discourse on the semantics of atheist vs agnostic or any of the other topics touched on here. They are called threads for a reason.

So … where would you move the discourse on digital numerology (or meat panties) to that would make it more acessable to others not already involved?

Imagine for a moment that you get to a party already in progress… the current discussion is about digital numerology. Do you stop conversation and ask the particpants to tell you how the conversation reached this point ? I personally jump in where I can.

I can’t do anything about how long it takes to load

Winter Wallaby Sep 20th 2010 at 10:56 am 296

I know Descartes is a long-dead part of this thread, but I thought this was interesting. I wasn’t too excited about The Discourse On Method when I first read it, because after “proving” that he exists, Descartes immediately goes on to “prove” the existence of a soul independent of the body, and of God, and both proofs strike me as rather silly. This discussion inspired me to go back and take a second look, and while the ontological proof of the existence of God still strikes me as pretty silly, I noticed this gem:

. . . I found that the existence of the [Perfect] Being was comprised in the idea in the same way that the equality of [a triangle’s] three angles to two right angles is comprised in the idea of a triangle. . . and that consequently it is at least as certaint that God, who is this Perfect Being, is, or exists, as any demonstration of Geometry can be.

So he doesn’t exactly conclude that God exists with 100% certainty, but just that there’s as much evidence for God as for the rules of (Euclidean) geometry. I thought it was a rather interesting distinction. Particularly now that we know that the angles of a triangle do not always add up to two right angles.

Winter Wallaby Sep 20th 2010 at 10:58 am 297

Morris #279: OK, I’m fine with men wearing skirts, but if they’re going to be wearing meat skirts, I don’t think I’m going to like contra dancing. . .

Nicole Sep 20th 2010 at 11:10 am 298

Winter Wallaby @ 296

I must admit that I have read the ontological proof of god a number of times and am still not all together sure I get it. It seems to say that since we can concieve of a perfect being , therefore it must exist. How does that differ from “If I can conceive of unicorns” they must exist.

I think that Descartes has made a logical falicy of equivalincy in his triangle argument (regarless of what the angles add up too) . While I can concieve of a triangle, I can then create one and so either the truth or lie of Euclidean geometry

Winter Wallaby Sep 20th 2010 at 11:24 am 299

Nicole #296: I’m not the right person to ask, since as I said, I find the ontological proof of God pretty silly. I’d phrase it more like “If unicorns exist, they would have the property of existence. So unicorns exist.” But that’s pretty much what you said. I’m not sure that there’s something to “get,” I think the ontological argument is just a bad argument.

I think when you read classics by great/famous thinkers, there’s always the tendency to try to figure out how their arguments make sense, and if they don’t, reinterpret them so that they do make sense. But a lot of the great/famous thinkers came up with a lot of nonsense along with their great thoughts. For example, I rather liked this post asking why we try to assume that many of Kant’s writings that seem like “gobbledy-gook” actually make sense, and try to figure out what they mean, when Kant’s writings about the immorality of masturbation and the morality of killing bastards are clearly unredeemably gobbledy-dook.

paperboy Sep 20th 2010 at 11:48 am 300

Detcord#291: “Germans begin a count with the thumb. Indeed, if you were in a German gasthaus or bierkeller and held up your index finger to order, you’d get 2 drinks - and be expected to pay for them. In Germany, thumbs-up is the signal for 1.”; That was what tripped up an American posing as a German in “Inglorious Basterds”.

Winter Wallaby Sep 20th 2010 at 11:54 am 301

We did it! I declare this thread over. Please everyone, no more comments, it will mess up our nice round number. I’m serious about this.

Winter Wallaby Sep 20th 2010 at 12:18 pm 302

Wait a minute. . . . . Dammit!

paperboy Sep 20th 2010 at 12:23 pm 303

You FOOL!!! Oh,well; on to 400…

Detcord Sep 20th 2010 at 01:00 pm 304

It was kinda nice being mentioned in the last (300) post.

Oh well, on to 400!

Paperboy (300)

I never saw “Inglorious Basterds”, but I understand WWII American agents were spotted in Europe when they switched their fork to the right hand to eat the meat they just cut. Still are, in fact. Nobody but Americans (as far as I know) do this odd little switcheroo.

Detcord Sep 20th 2010 at 01:10 pm 305

Kilby (294)

Just a thought - and kindly meant. Perhaps your slow page-load is due to a system in need of an upgrade? Until fairly recently, my mother ran with Windows 98 - and the equivalent lack of RAM to go with it. I finally got her to upgrade (which in her case meant buying a whole new machine) and now she is back surfing happily in the 21st Century. Yes, her line speed was excellent, but her system just couldn’t make use of it.

Seriously, this page takes naught but a second to load on my system - which I admit is fairly high-end - though even I am in the process of upgrading.

Nicole Sep 20th 2010 at 02:05 pm 306

Thank you … thank you all for making a girl’s dream come true

Kilby Sep 20th 2010 at 03:21 pm 307

@ Detcord (305) - Actually, I use exclusively Mac OS X for surfing, I wouldn’t dream of attaching my “other” productive work system (under Windows) to the Internet. Pulling the plug is the easiest and most reliable way to keep a Windows system clean. The load time isn’t really the primary issue at all, CIDU comes up fairly fast, and I could accelerate it by upgrading to more bandwidth on my DSL connection if that were necessary. I simply think that there is no point to any artificial target number of posts, and a monsterous thread is simply that much harder to review.

@ Nicole (295) - I agree, there has not been any significant amount of off-topic drivel in this thread, but there have been a good number of “fractured” posts aimed at driving up the number to reach the (now surpassed) goal (although occasionally with good comic effect, such as @ 238 & 239). Still, I would be more in favor of Bill opening a new conversational thread when the original bone of contention has dropped out of sight. The word “Muslim” was last seen @53, and “Coulter” was last here @221.

@ Kilby (220) - As long as I’m at it, I need to submit a correction: Kelly’s assistant on Pogo was George Ward, the tribute to Wally Wood (who illustrated for MAD Magazine) was because of the numerous Pogo parodies that appeared in MAD. I got mixed up on my “double-yous”.

paperboy Sep 20th 2010 at 04:00 pm 308

Thanks for the Pogo correction, Kilby; I knew Wood could imitate just about any cartoonist, but I never heard of him being a Kelly assistant.
By the way, the way the lady doth protest too much, I’m starting to think Ann Coulter may be a Muslim.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 04:10 pm 309

Detcord 305 - Win98?! What pages even loaded? I have a few virtual 98 machines for old games I still toy with, but if I would try to browse, I’m sure I would get the Media player warnings on every page.

Morris Keesan Sep 20th 2010 at 04:31 pm 310

Kilby (307), re: “fractured” posts, I’d like to point out that my post 279 through 281 were not artificially fractured. #279 was a genuine unexpected misfeature of WordPress, and 280 was a genuine flub on my part.

But this whole thread points out why the popular Wordpress blog format is not a good medium for long discussions, because pages take longer and longer to load (based more on one’s network connection speed than the speed of one’s computer, I would think), and it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of
which postings one has read, and to follow sub-threads as the conversation diverges into multiple topics. In all of these respects, Usenet newsgroups are completely superior, and it’s a real shame that Usenet seems to be dying. In the newsgroup I’m most active in, we experience topic drift all the time, but the medium makes it easy to follow the drift.

Igelino Sep 20th 2010 at 04:58 pm 311

Fractured posts are bad? I thought they helped distinguish separate sub-threads. A little like turning your head to comment to the person on your left at a party.

Kilby Sep 20th 2010 at 05:23 pm 312

@ Igelino (311) - They would do that only if there was a way to separate subthreads within the main posting (our comments have no “subject” field). Another limitation is the way that the RSS feed works: it generates a separate entry for every comment, but it frequently overloads, so that I often see only ten new listings, even when demonstrably more comments have been posted. I could use the “e-mail notification” feature, but in some cases that would swamp my inbox (this thread has averaged nearly 18 comments per day for two and a half weeks). Bill has no control of how the RSS feed works, and I’m still trying to figure out when and why it sometimes drops the ball.

Nicole Sep 21st 2010 at 12:11 am 313

Kilby @ 307

I don’t think anyone fractured their posts intentionally other than the people who did it for comic effect and those are a small number. Just for the record (as it were) the whole “lets reach 300″ was for comic effect. After all, 300, is an artificial goal. I could have just as easily suggested we go for 313 .. in which case this would be the message that reached the goal. Still it has been fun watching the number of posts grow.

Now … 400 THAT would be a goal worth reaching for.

Sorry it takes longer to load the page

James Pollock Sep 21st 2010 at 01:14 am 314

If you don’t stick to just the hands, you can get considerably higher counts (though working with the toes is tricky, it CAN be done with practice. That gets you to 2^20 or over 1 million (2^21 for the menfolk.)

Either way, I can count the number of meat panties I’ve ever seen on one hand.

Detcord Sep 21st 2010 at 03:22 am 315

Igelino(309)

Yep! Windows 98. Start-up (including access to the web) was a hoot. (Sarc warning). In the morning, my mother would start the machine, then go away, have her coffee, breakfast, etc. and an hour later, she’s be on. It took me an hour and a half to get Hotmail up.

Imagine the fun I had when I went to confirm my return flight (and seat). Yes, it was doable, but only just.

Detcord Sep 21st 2010 at 03:31 am 316

Kilby(307)

Just curious, but how do you obtain updates and bug fixes (a notorious issue with MicroSoft) for those machines you never connect to the web? Granted, isolation is the best way to keep viruses and other malware from one’s systems, but exchange of data is a big (but not only) part of owning a computer.

Igelino Sep 21st 2010 at 06:10 am 317

Detcord, so you have hindered her ability to multi-task. Shame on you. One thing, though - when I do boot a win98 (or earlier), it is up in an instant.

I also have servers that aren’t on the internet. They’re w2k with just the service packs. They only need to exchange input data and results. I’ve never had a problem with that. They’re stable and they do the job. No need to mess with them. Some day they may need an upgrade. When that happens, I’ll deal with it.

Microsoft’s fix delivery sucks because it wants a connection. But they do know that many servers aren’t on the internet, so they give you a way to get the fix onto disk (like usb) and take it to the machine that needs the update. Just have to find the stinking commands and parameters from their websites, because the specific changes too often.

Kilby, I miss posts too. I can’t do anything about it. I would like there to be a way to not miss any, but that’s outside of control. But how would adding threads help?

Last time I checked, around the post 294, the page was hardly 1/3 MB (including ads), whereas the yahoo home page was close to a MB.

Igelino Sep 21st 2010 at 06:15 am 318

My post 317 is awaiting moderation. Oh, there it is “microsoft delivery s*cks” heheh.

Anyway, long posts are hard enough to skim, and even more so if they contain more than one topic.

James - 2^22 for the women folk.

Dave in Boston Sep 21st 2010 at 06:19 am 319

There are enough ancient vulnerabilities in win98 that a good chunk of that hour was probably spent running virus code.

It used to be possible to download updates manually on a different computer and then transfer them over, e.g. by floppy or whatever. (Another way is to dual-boot a safer OS and plug in the network only when Windows isn’t running.) But I don’t think Microsoft allows this any more. (Do they?)

Of course, shuffling floppies around, or today USB sticks, is itself a fairly good way to transfer viruses.

someone else Sep 23rd 2010 at 07:39 am 320

What happened? Did someone mention Hitler?

Morris Keesan Sep 23rd 2010 at 08:05 am 321

someone else, are you trying to invoke Godwin’s law?

Kilby Sep 23rd 2010 at 09:30 am 322

@ Detcord (316) - I much prefer the security of surfing the Internet with Mac OS X. I handle my “offline” Win2k system the same way Igelino does (@317). It’s perfectly satisfactory for virtually everything I need to do with Windows, and if there is software that is so obnoxious about needing a connection, then I almost certainly don’t need the software (this happened about a year ago with a photo album program, so I ended up getting the album made by a different service).

P.S. @317 - Breaking a rambling thread into manageable chunks would not allieviate the RSS hiccups, it would merely make it easier to maintain an overview within each thread. Let me emphasize (c.f. Nicole @313) that the load time for the computer is not the controlling issue, it is the scroll time for the human who is reading the page that is important!

P.P.S. I saw @319 in the RSS feed, but not 317 or 318. Now I’m wondering whether the “moderation delay” might be a factor related to the disappearing entries.

Detcord Sep 23rd 2010 at 09:52 am 323

Kilby(322)

Moderation delay factor is certainly one cause. There may be others, but I don’t know ‘em. I don’t know all the causes for moderaton, but more than 1 link will do it (I’ve been guilty of this but, thanks to Bill, have mended my ways). Naughty words seems to be another (not me Gov.). That’s why a line reference, such as the one I’m using to address you, may become inaccurate over time.

Igelino Sep 23rd 2010 at 10:43 am 324

Oh yeah, scroll time, Kilby. For the longer threads I go into them through a post number instead of the thread. The scrolling is a pain, yes.

Naughty words is why I get moderated. zsucksz is one. It looks like zshitz gets translated to “this” and doesn’t get moderated anymore.

We could start pasting dictionaries here to see which words get moderated. That would take us over 400 posts for sure.

Igelino Sep 23rd 2010 at 10:46 am 325

Heh, my #324 got stuck even with the “z” in the words. lol

Kilby Sep 23rd 2010 at 01:29 pm 326

@ Detcord (323) - moderation doesn’t bother me in the slightest (quite the opposite, the incredible civility in this forum is one of its most endearing features), and most of the moderation triggers are quite understandable. I was only speaking of the moderation delay as a possible contributing factor to the problem of posts that get added to a thread, but (for whatever reason) do not show up in the RSS feed. I don’t think Bill can (or should) be bothered by the RSS problem, but it would be nice if Wordpress could find and fix the glitch.

Nicole Sep 23rd 2010 at 05:30 pm 327

Re: scrolling

The page down key works wonders …. just sayin

Winter Wallaby Sep 24th 2010 at 01:44 am 328

Hey, contra dancing was fun! Thanks for the recommendations/information Nicole/Morris/Igelino. I saw several people with long hair and beards or short skirts, so I assumed they were all Morris and/or Nicole. But then when I went up to them and said “hey, I figured out what the comic meant,” they just gave me blank looks, so maybe I was wrong.

Detcord Sep 24th 2010 at 03:14 am 329

Nicole(327)

Page down key is good. For a really long thread like this one, I find selecting the slide-bar and just dragging it (up or down) works really fast too.

Dave in Boston Sep 24th 2010 at 04:23 am 330

if only wordpress could be made to serve nntp…

Igelino Sep 24th 2010 at 11:31 am 331

Heya Winter, cool! Did you end up wearing a kilt after all?

Nicole Sep 24th 2010 at 12:23 pm 332

Winter Wallaby @ 28

Actually it was me … I just was playing with you

Glad you enjoyed it .. I have be contra dancing for about 15 years. I love the dancing, music and the people.

If you don’t think I am prying, could you tell me where you were dancing ? I am very curious.

Winter Wallaby Sep 25th 2010 at 04:58 pm 333

Igelino #331: nope, although I did see a man in a skirt, so it’s good I had Nicole’s warning to stop me from pointing and shrieking.
Nicole #332: It was in a small community center in Seattle, so I think you’re on the wrong coast to know about it.

Morris Keesan Sep 25th 2010 at 05:11 pm 334

Nicole @332: Just to help you feel young, or me to feel older, or something: I started contradancing several years before Al Smith stopped drawing Mutt and Jeff. But I don’t dance nearly as much as you do; when I’m at an event where dancing is happening, I’m likely to be sitting in with the band, or off somewhere else playing music.

Detcord Sep 25th 2010 at 06:39 pm 335

I never thought I’d see a Nicole post with the phrase, “I am very serious”, in it. Will wonders never cease.

Winter Wallaby Sep 25th 2010 at 10:27 pm 336

I never thought I’d see a Nicole post with the phrase, “I am very serious”, in it.

Unless you’re seeing some other post that I’m not, you still haven’t.

(Or are you just trying to boost the comment count? We already reached 300, take it easy!)

mitch4 Sep 29th 2010 at 05:35 pm 337

Pew Center quiz of religious knowledge: http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge

(I scored 15/15, and only one was a semi-guess.)

They also have an article on how the scoring distributes for religious affiliation etc.

mitch4 Sep 29th 2010 at 05:39 pm 338

The report is at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest

Whoa, that URL gives some spoilers!

Elyrest Sep 29th 2010 at 06:50 pm 339

mitch4 - Thanks for the link as I love to take quizzes. I scored 15/15 also and would’ve liked to see the the original 32 question test. My guess is that agnostics and atheists know a lot about religion because they are generally well educated. I studied quite a few religions before I rejected them.

Winter Wallaby Sep 29th 2010 at 08:33 pm 340

Thanks, mitch4, that was pretty interesting.

Elyrest, the 32 questions are here - http://pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx in abbreviated form, with a link to the full questionnaire.

According to the link supplied by mitch4 in his second link, atheists and agnostics (and Jews) do better even if you correct for their higher education level. I think your last sentence really explains the better performance of agnostics and atheists. If you’re pretty sure Christianity (for example) is right, there’s no need to bother learning a bunch of nonsense about other religions. (White evangelical Christians do better on the Bible questions than agnostics and atheists). If you don’t know which, if any, religion is the one true religion, you might shop around a bit before giving up.

I have no idea whether ”The Stars Are Indifferent to Astronomy” is a good album, but I might have to buy it just on the basis of its awesome name

Ann Coulter: ”Obama is Not a Muslim”

340 Responses to “Ann Coulter: ”Obama is Not a Muslim””

Leave a Reply

comics

Other Sites of Interest

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Meta

September 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug				Oct »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30