ydoaPs

What things "are" is a philosophically unanswerable question. We only have access to phenomena; we cannot legitimately describe noumena. Unless, of course, you're a behaviourist in which case there's no problem. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck.......

How is a mathematical model not an ontological model? Mathematics is every bit of a legitimate language as English or French. It just happens to be far more formal and precise. As such, it makes far more detailed descriptions of events than English can ever make. The sentiment behind "that's not an explanation; that's math!" type statements speaks to a profound failure in the area of philosophy of language.

Often the first premise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (All things which begin to exist have a cause) is justified via induction and appeal to our everyday experience as evidence for the inductive inference. However, I posit that this is possibly the weakest inductive inference possible. The Kalaam argument is universally understood to be referring to what is called Creation Ex Nihilo. That means the universe was created from nothing; it was not assembled from previously existing matter and energy. This presents us with a problem since all available information for this inductive act is that regarding what is known as Creation Ex Materia. That means something is created from other pre-existing things. These are two very different meanings for "beginning to exist". Let's look at the probability for this inference. Bayes' Theorem, is how we can check to see that we made a good inference. Bayes' Theorem says that the probability that a given proposition is correct is equal to the probability that that proposition is correct in light of the available evidence divided by the sum of the probability that that proposition is correct in light of the available evidence and the probability that that proposition is false in light of the available evidence. [math]P(h|e.b)=\frac{P(h|b)xP(e|h.b)}{[P(h|b)xP(e|h.b)]+[P(~h|b)xP(e|~h.b)]}[/math] In all of that, there are only 3 numbers we need to find. The others are either repeats (the first term on the denominator is an exact duplicate of the entire numerator) or they are derived from other numbers (the first number in the second term of the denominator is derived from the first number in the numerator). P(h|b) is the probability that a proposition is true without looking at any evidence (P(~h|b) is derived from this as it is the probability that the proposition is not true[given two options]). P(e|h.b) is the how well the proposition fits the available evidence. P(e|~h.b) is how well the competing proposition fits the available evidence. So, let's take the claim that there exists at least one thing which began to exist ex nihilo with a cause. For the sake of argument, I'm going to generously grant P(h|b) as being 60%. Now, since every example we have of something beginning to exist is ex materia, P(e|~h.b) is 100%. That's a huge issue. If anything, it seems to me, probability dictates that it is much more likely that any event which has a cause has a natural cause.

There are two sources of ideas: sensation and reflection. Sensation gives us perception of outward things and reflection gives us perception of our minds and allows us to make complex ideas from the impressions given to us by sensation. In one of those two regards, reflection is just a form of sensation that allows us to sense inward things. It is just as unreliable as our outward senses.

Actually, based on the rules he set forth prior to the cogito, it is an illegitimate step. Descartes started out by saying we must discard all sensory information because our senses can fool us. To get to the cogito argument, Descartes had to realize that he was thinking; that is, he utilized an act of reflection. Reflection itself is a form of sensation as it is one's way to sense one's own thoughts. As such, it was inconsistent for Descartes to use it in his argument. This, however, is far from the only place in the Meditations where Descartes cheats. No we don't; the one thing Descartes did do legitimately was to bring the problem of solipsism to light. This is a problem which has still not been solved.

It also allows the use of torture, btw. So, this bill allows a citizen to be abducted and imprisoned and tortured indefinitely without notice to anyone at the mere suspicion of being a "terrorist". It also passed with a supermajority which means a veto by Obama would be meaningless.

The thread as a whole was tl;dr, but I have just a couple of points. Science is a subfield of philosophy, so I'd rather say philosophy is indeed relevant to science. Where do you think the concept of falsification came from? Didn't Gödel do that? Ok, not really. He just proved that any formal language as complex as mathematics cannot be both consistent and complete. So, either it cannot prove all true theorems, or it can prove false ones (perhaps even both). However, I do not know which one(s) it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false I'm fairly certain this would require a Constitutional amendment to be legit, since we're granted the right of Habeas Corpus. If Obama has any integrity, he'll veto this. On a side note, what constitutes a terrorist group? North Georgia Militia? The Tea Party? OWS? The Congress that passed this terrible bill?

I attended Skepticon IV last weekend, and it was very much worth the drive and time change. There were several very good talks. Hemant Mehta spoke regarding math education, PZ Myers gave a run down on what junk DNA does, and Richard Carrier spoke about Bayes's theorem and how it can effectively be used as a mathematical formulation of Sagan's famous quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The very best talk, though, was that of JT Eberhard. He spoke about mental illness. A few of the videos of the talks are up on YouTube, and I'm going to link to JT's talk, because I think it's one that needs to be heard. You can see the other videos (as well as those from previous Skepticons) by going to the channel that uploaded this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UI-YvrHZVvk

No, you're just suffering from selective reductionism. When you pick a level and stick with it consistently, stars do fit the definition provided by the OP fairly well.

The same way amoebas "do" swallow other organisms.

But, do micro-organisms choose to do anything in a sense that stars don't? Any choice (yes, even those made by humans) is the play between cause an effect. Planets pull on stars, and stars pull back. The result of this is the wobble we use to tell if distant stars have planets. Taking the intentional stance (as one does when one says micro-organisms 'choose'), this is the star trying to maintain equalibrium. This sounds just as much like an interaction between the star and its surroundings as a plant growing toward the sunlight. Is a plant not alive? While there may be good objections to the thesis of the OP, this is not one of them. The elements making up a star do determine many things about it. Its colour and solar activity, for instance, are dependant upon its chemical composition. One could easily draw a parallel (as you just did) between the chemical composition of a star and the genetic makeup of living organisms. Just like in biological evolution, the genetic data the parent gives to its offspring is not the same as what it was given by its parents; it has mutated. One can see what chemicals are in any given star, so, if one knows the sequence of stars, one could presumably give the chemical makeup of the parent star.

Were the goals of the TEA Party more or less vague than those of OWS?

Is that surprising given the main news sources for the majority of Americans?

Apparently CERN measured neutrinos going faster than c. Say WHAT?

(x)(Sx->Px) where S is the property of being science, P is the property of being philosophy, and the domain of discourse for x is limited to fields of study.

Yes, we have a soul and it is made of thousands of tiny robots.

There are a few things, imo, that should be out of the reach of pure capitalism. Minimal health insurance should NOT be for profit; one would think that this would be common sense for any moral individual (although, I do like the idea of added premiums for private rooms, internet, etc). Public education (both pre-college and college) should be out of reach of capitalism (a good tax-funded post-high school education system would increase revenue without raising taxes). And the printing of money should NEVER EVER be at the whim of private corporations like it is now (which has led to our monetary system being based on debt rather than value).

It doesn't.

Yes.

Will FOX survive the fall of Murdoch's media empire?

No, religion does not make the world a better place. The correlation between religiosity and societal health is a strikingly inverse one.

I can't find any questions about moles, but that doesn't stop you from volunteering the information.

So, what do you guys think of Google+? So far, I've not got enough people in my circles to really be able to tell. I also haven't played with it much yet.

And it's been carbon dated to be Medieval.....not to mention the fact that Jesus was a middle eastern Jew instead of a European.