241–250 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My sanity is perfectly fine, thanks, and my beliefs are not beholden to the standard you define as "wacky."
Do you believe God communicates with you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. You underestimate the number of scientists with absurd beliefs. There are people who believe in parallel universes, dark matter, spooky action at a distance, wormholes, time travel, simulating the human brain in silico, more than 3 spatial dimensions, strong artificial intelligence, aliens, etc. Dealing with the absurd is a fundamental part of the…
What the hell are you talking about? Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned. They hypothesize about them, then they try to formulate theories and then they try to test these theories, by means of experiments. When they do get to perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, finally know what the truth is. Not so much the same as with the…
The only things actually pertinent to monotheistic doctrines are "invisible" and "living".
> Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned.
Of course they do. They create models and then try to interpret them using what looks more like philosophy than hard science. What they get sometimes is nothing short of unsubstantiated belief in absurd things. But as long as they don't try to pass that as the scientific truth, we don't mind. Crazy beliefs might lead to new discoveries, specially in that nebulous phase of hypothesis formulation.
Well, at least they weren't being politically correct, right? Personally, I look down on people who are members of any political party. I truly try not to be biased, but it's pretty hard not to generalize. People who seek out association with amorphous groups just seem intellectually weak, lazy, or worse. The irony is that I'll probably be down-voted for stating my opinion (the way things are these days). Edit: Actua…
No, you'll be down voted for being pretentious. This is a lazy, "I'm so superior hahaha look at how great I am" comment. You're being this guy. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
But, on the other hand, I know I violated the guidelines, so I took a risk. Just trying to prove a point.
I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events. As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Climate conferences, academia Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming exists.
It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist, just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist. Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with their source of funding. GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with hard science anymore.
I do very much agree that spending motivates most "do-good" groups more than simply doing good does. In that sense, I agree that global warming and other such causes are very political. That indeed is a similarity between politics and academia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell are you talking about? Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned. They hypothesize about them, then they try to formulate theories and then they try to test these theories, by means of experiments. When they do get to perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, finally know what the truth is. Not so much the same as with the…
> beardy invisible man living in the sky The only things actually pertinent to monotheistic doctrines are "invisible" and "living". > Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned. Of course they do. They create models and then try to interpret them using what looks more like philosophy than hard science. What they get sometimes is nothing short of unsubstantiated…
Read the definition from wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty"
The reason why you're confused is simple; you conflate casual speech with literal definitions. When you hear scientists say "I believe that... blah blah" is a figure of speech. In the same way I used "what the hell" but I really don't believe in hell :)
What they mean actually is "I hypothesize that ... blah blah". That's why you won't see any scientific papers saying "I believe that the number must be something around... 42".
And by the way, even if they believed in the sense that you said, any evidence contrary to their beliefs would make them adjust their beliefs ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you'll be down voted for being pretentious. This is a lazy, "I'm so superior hahaha look at how great I am" comment. You're being this guy. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
Sure, you can be annoyed with my tone or even not like me personally. But, down-voting me just for one of those reasons - that's just a form of suppression / censorship. But, on the other hand, I know I violated the guidelines, so I took a risk. Just trying to prove a point.
Calling it censorship, though, makes it sound like you think of HN as your blog. HN is a forum; a downvote is the virtual equivalent of what happens in a real public forum when people—as a group—decide to walk away from someone so they can talk without that person's viewpoint interrupting them. It's not censorship; the person is still free to talk. It's a decision to not listen, and a persistent notice posted that the person is—for people whose tastes agree with those that walked away—not worth one's time listening to.
You can say anything you like by responding to an HN comment as a quote on your own blog. Anyone trying to deny you that would be attempting censorship. Everything else, though, is just the reaction of a community-as-organism to something that community doesn't like. It's no more censorship than a single person ignoring you and walking away is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? How? EDIT: I was asking not because I disagreed, but because I was hoping the parent would elaborate on that point. The person who replied to my post did a very good job at that.
Because being listened to in a reddit discussion isn't a right that anyone has and not having it doesn't hold anyone back in any way. My views wouldn't go down well on a religious forum. Am I bothered? Do I look bothered?
That's precisely what the article talks about, and reddit is a great way to experience the kind of bigoted dogmatism the article discusses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way to have a holier-than-though attitude right off the bat. "Oh, look at me, I am so misunderstood for having OPINIONS" Your opinions are that it's OK to casually look down on people for having political views. I think that's a legit reason for someone to think that your opinions are full of it and are worth downvoting.
Actually, I just meant that opinions in general are not tolerated anymore (not only mine). Look, you have to understand that I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Having an opinion and expressing it was a big thing, back then. But, these days, it's all about conformity (or seems so, to these eyes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Politics are people's private business What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.
I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.