The Bear's Key

An interesting but kind of scary thought, which no one is really speaking about: bin laden's former promise to bleed the U.S. economy might be seen as coming true by any nations/leaders hoping for such an outcome. Not to derail the thread or anything, just offering something to think about.

It's probably going to happen. Sometime in the future, peope will likely use advances in genetics and biochemistry to enhance the intelligence of animals. These can form a new kind of intelligent species for us to communicate with. But also the overly fanatic might claim we've been granted rightful dominion over those animals to do as we please, triggering debates on enslavement. We often make the final progress in such debates, but the real kicker is when people begin using the advances to place their own consciousness directly into animals -- whether it's a brain transplant and/or some kind of digitally-enabled transfer. Will the person still have rights in animal form? However, that's just an exercise for our imagination and really not the purpose of the thread. What I'm actually looking for is a collection of pretty smart animals, on video hoepfully, doing things we normally associate as being possible only for humans to do. Take a look at the skateboarding dog (who can also do lots more) in the following two vids. And post your own findings of smart animals doing human things very well.

I might've not expressed myself well, but I did cover those bases. Accurate, but surely many viewers don't interpret it as: "I'm not against people's beliefs -- just know science can't judge the untestable, as science is a record of calculations and testable predictions, able to be verified by many and consistent with previous records. And because of that I'm unable to give it professional scrutiny." Debunking harmful, testable beliefs is good. But disproving everything that isn''t science falls out of the jurisdiction of its purpose. Sicence isn't about truth. People usually make better decisions given the factual variables, or worse decisions given political/invented ones. You're right, it's ethical to denounce unethical practices. But I think padren explained better than me, on when it can be or should be done. If they make a scientific claim, then it's fair game. However, if it's not testable, don't use science to dispute it. A recognized scientist can precede their denouncement with "I say this as a concerned person, not as a scientist, because it's untestable." That might do wonders for how science is perceived in that instance. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Bingo. Why it's essential that more people know what science really is. And it's a highly discomforting issue. But that's a civil matter for the people to rise against, not for science to get involved or denounce -- unless claims against science are being made, or it's testable.

lol

This might be ironic, but cite your references. Ditto for that. You see, these very statements are unsceintific. Thus my point.

One reason people believe they "just have to" convince science of the existence of the supernatural is possibly due to many a reporter's claim that scientists have disputed its existence, or are skeptical of it. However, I'm not convinced that many real scientists have claimed anything of the nature. The reporter probably either asked a wanna-be scientist, or did get a real scientist's opinion but presented it as a factual statement. Or the reporter may have colorfully tweaked the answer, so the scientist's claim has been totally altered. For example, a scientist's response might be "it's certainly not science" or "there is no evidence" -- you know, the typically logical response to a question such as "is there any scientific basis to the phenomenon?" Of course they might really have meant, "no experiments have been conducted that follow the scientific method -- like producing observable results which have been verified, peer reviewed, and consistently tested by others. Because nothing is science that hasn't followed the strictest criteria necessitated by science to be labeled as science. It might be true/real for all we know, but it's not science." But then, if the reporter misrepresented it as "that stuff is garbage, unscientific, no basis in reality, etc", any viewer who believes its possibility, might think it unfair of science to debunk anything that's not immediately logical. However, such a viewer doesn't realize there's a fine distinction going on. Nobody's debunking the event, they're simply not mixing it with anything in science until it's passed the requirements that have been a discipline for centuries, and which enabled its stable growth into today's body of scientific knowledge. I mean, wouldn't Einstein's contributions have gotten a big dose of skepticism if no maths had supported not only Eintein's claims but also previously established works? In the link below is an example of a reporter claiming "scientists out there are skeptical and they say this is a sham". The vid is about farmers resorting to witchcraft, but you can imagine any documentary on religion, or the supernatural, etc, where the commentator says something similar. http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11921090&ch=4226713&src=news The vid helps imply that scientists consider the event, and perhaps others like it, unworthy of consideration -- and not for science, but for truth. If we're to bust this perception of what exactly science is and its purpose (which isn't to disprove the existence of something that it can't observe/detect), we have to define these and leave barely any room for misinterpretation. The question arises: if religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers didn't expect science to authenticate them, and if the science establishment discouraged certain physicist anti-supernatural book writers from giving the impression that science itself is out to disprove everything non-scientific (and their publishers weren't given much leeway to craft that impression either), wouldn't the entire problem become lessened overall? Also if ID followers better knew what the scientific method really is for, and what the purpose of science really is (and what "theory" means in the context of science), far less of them might view ID as a legit alternative to science. Because in their current view, science is the enemy of the non-scientific (especially vs religion), thanks largely to the political commentators who drill out such nonsense. But if you hear a person spewing that nonsense, it's best to view them as -- unknowingly -- a secondary mouthpiece for the political commentator, and thus hopefully able to unpollute their reasoning after science has been redefined correctly. Hardly anyone's to blame who says religion or the like is illogical, for there's been lots of harm caused by the associated establishments, thus it's probably our sensibilities lashing-out against a perceived injustice. But doing so in the context of science plays right into the hands of the scoundrels at fault. They desire a continual "us against them" perception going as fuel, especially when the science weakens their grip on the religious establishment and flocks in the network. The weapon those against science most often use is getting to frame the debate. The way to pull the rug from under them is to define science, clarify its purpose, make this known widespread, and discourage the portrayal of science as a truth yardstick or a destroyer of the non-scientific. And if you hear anyone claim something as being science which isn't, they're better educated by learning what science actually is than to be informed of how wrong their belief system is. Lastly, keep in mind the "reverse" form of astroturfing where a scoundrel is disguised as the opposition (e.g. scientists), in this case to make them appear out to crush everything holy. Or they'll reengineer the sockpuppet trick to cheerlead anyone who makes science look a certain way (e.g. intolerant).

It's a sensitive issue, but I don't think politicians should get involved. It's a matter for the courts (at that point where family disagrees), not a means to score in politics. lol. Maybe a bit, iNow does has a somewhat valid point. I stand (partially) corrected. They have elements of both, more one than another, so maybe the party is just confused. As am I now. But across Europe various parties' names seem to have that right-left identity problem. And btw I'm from the U.S.

I'm gonna have to put the job to someone with better eyes. [hide]This one sees all. [/hide]

Or maybe a cool thou? What is the lesson here? Maybe they'll know better from now on. And be glad they're not in China. *ouch* The scenarios beg a question. And I'll put it to you, the science forumer. Were these problems uncovered because the market corrected things (with its nifty invisible hand), or because of government regulations? Don't forget about lead in toys and so many other joys we get from unregulated nations. My answer is below. Don't peek until you've answered. (the winky face is keeping an eye out) [hide]In this case.....government regulation. However, it's often both the market and the government combined who provide the best mechanism for ensuring the safety of products. Anyone telling us it's entirely one or the other is usually a politician -- although we do rarely hear any calling for "small market" [/hide]

In a way, yes. It's a centre-right politics thing. Look at his affiliation. Plus his media ownership is a bit disturbing.

Yes. Unless the variables aren't in place. It's likely healthier to promote that instead of shrugging and hinging all bets on mutually assured destruction. And I don't mean you, btw

That is exactly my point. In nations like Russia or China, such a leader being placed into top government is really not such an impossibilty. I also have the same views with anything that grants leaders certain powers. For example, it's a mistake to even partially curb our rights in the name of security or to protect from threats, because if the wrong leader got into office, things could quickly go sour and irreversible. One more thing about so many nukes in the world, even in the hands of stable nations. Gotta wonder how Murphy's Law plays into that situation?

Well you were trying to be completely objective, a good thing. I apologize for coming off as if you posted in support of it, which obviously you were just attempting to be fair in your representations. Maybe I took it out of context, but looking now didn't find where specifically you meant this. In any case, your posts are well thought out and I do enjoy reading your contributions.

Wrong-O. If true, who'd on Earth care if Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc should possess nuclear weapons? It'd be as simple as Iran could nuke Israel, who in turn could nuke Iran. A self-perpetual deterrent. And presto! The faulty reasoning of mutually assured destruction. Heck, on that basis let's give all countries an arsenal of nukes. Please don't lose sight of who is cheerleading these faulty ideals. Interestingly, the same people whose most cherished/boasted idea of problem-solving has resulted in a nuclear arms stockpile that can obliterate the world many times over, are the same who pride themselves in the "solutions" which involve death (war, capital punishment, etc), harm (torture, injury), or fear. I'm not very impressed with their problem-solving. More like creating demand for a product. Anything that invites enemies and retaliation sentiment is bound to ensure the profitability of the war contractors in that line of business. Supply and demand. No business can exist without profits, and I'm sure none are too eager to toss aside billions in the name of peace. It's such twisted mindsets who dream up the official use of torture, and who pay certain A.M. radio or such pundits high money to advocate their positions and craft it to sound logical/effective.

Excellent. A president not trapped in a bubble. He might even one day stumble upon our discussions here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780205/wid/11915829?GT1=40006 All this makes him a very different President already.

And many religious people are also rational, thinking human beings, whose calculating logic helps them to rearrange and detail their lives in an orderly manner with the least chance of angering God -- even if this will often make them irrational, unthinking human beings (especially around things in life considered blasphemy). Yet I have met "creationists" who are very logical and desire to know more about evolution, or how legitimate it is. And I don't think it makes anyone incapable of logic if they believe in creation. Plus, doesn't the "creationist" term also have the same negative connotation as "evolutionist"? I'm somewhat middle of the road. I believe in God, yet stay clear of religions. I believe in my country's principles, but stay clear of nationalism. Those concepts are easy to twist by ill-meaning leaders. We've all heard that evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Yet its best chance of triumphing would be to overtake something good by representing and twisting it for power. Two birds with one stone, the best of two worlds: vanquish good by corrupting its meaning, and spread evil by that very process. And if you can't see that parts of religious establishment have done this, you're missing why people are upset at religion. But for any of us here who might vehemently loathe religion, I'd like to say be careful. People do become what they hate often enough, yet in reality they're not changing, but going from one extreme to the other. In other words, they're still extremists whatever side of the coin you look at. Too many people I know who before 9/11 hated the system, religion, or politics, afterwards went obsessively evangelical or pro-Bush and war. It's not the system, or religion, or political group you want to fight, but the criminals twisting it for personal benefits and claiming a high moral ground. If religion has a beef against evolution, it's because of those guys -- who are easier to spot because they are the ones feeding the propaganda into the network of society. It's in these guys' interest for you to believe all religion is against you, or all of a political group is against you, etc. You're more bound to give up at the strategically exaggerated size of the fight ahead of you. Very accurate. Even a so-called professional might be really childish and impulsive. Not always true. I know a person who heavily believes Creation but loves knowledge and is intrigued by science education. It's difficult for her to accept evolution only because she doesn't understand it well. However, she does have an open mind about the subject. Of course, it helps she doesn't always trust the church's views or religious politics. But she'll listen to the dogma and pick out good bits. Now that's open minded. I agree. Just because everyone's mindset on faith is connected solely to religion, doesn't make it so. For instance, we have faith that infinity goes on forever. Sure, intuitively it makes sense. But you can't reliably test for it. Also, we can't verify all experiments and facts we've come across, so we trust certain sources more than others. Which is also faith.

Let's exchange electrons ...Ooo, mine are excited now! Your reference frame or mine?

Maybe put "wings" on it with solar panels that resemble how satellites look. Except you would turn the wings 90 degrees so they're parallel against the car. (Satellite image example in the link below) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/GPS_Satellite_NASA_art-iif.jpg

More like unshakable fears of questioning God's word. (or the preacher's "interpretation" of it) Not always. They're pretty crafty when labeling. It'd be a mistake to usurp names like "bleeding heart" for aiding the poor, or "elitist" for knowing your facts and being well-studied, or "terrorist sympatizer/appeaser" for not wanting to stoop to their level.

I'd like an admin/mod to move my thread named "Addendum to..." (it's about 10 more threads down from here). I need it to go into the It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner discussion. Also, how many posts before I can just simply post there directly? My official post count says "6" but I have a feeling it's not counting them all either, for some reason. Regardless, I'm going to begin posting around so I don't have to keep asking for a "transfer". Once again, I give thanks to whicher admin/mod does it.

------------------------------------------------------- ....It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner ------------------------------------------------------- http://cartoonbox.slate.com/danwasserman/2008/12/18/ The death penalty is closely related to torture in one aspect. Many who oppose torture or the death penalty can't really express why they feel disgusted by it, nor have a clear reason at hand. Yet I think our subconscious tries to warn us (and meanwhile the right-wing tries to win us on the idea). Because it's not only about protecting the guilty from harm. I certainly don't feel wince if the bad guy is shot in a movie, but I do cringe if the hero is dodging bullets. So what else is bothering us? I think deep within, many of us know where the path to vengeance leads. We suspect that our most free and civilized nations achieved their current state in part by abandoning cruelty sponsored by government legilation. All we're doing is being protective of what keeps our nations on their path, and for good reason. We have the indications of what happens otherwise. The following western nations have all banned torture and capital punishment. Canada Australia New Zealand England Ireland France Spain Portugual Germany Greenland Iceland Scandinavia Netherlands Belgium Luxembourg Italy Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Austria Switzerland Compare that list to the following nations which permit capital punishment (and some of whom permit torture). Afghanistan Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belize Botswana Burundi Cameroon Chad China (People's Republic) Comoros Congo (Democratic Republic) Cuba Dominica Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Ghana Guatemala Guinea Guyana India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jamaica Japan Jordan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Laos Lebanon Lesotho Libya Malawi Malaysia Mongolia Nigeria Oman Pakistan Palestinian Authority Qatar St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Sierra Leone Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates United States Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe True, if you look here, both lists will contain hardline, extremist, and terror nations. But the western nations are solely within the upper list. Except for the U.S. The company we keep is a bit disturbing, considering what element they share with part of our society. That element we have in common is hardcore right-wing groups, and in fact they both share undenaible traits in the following list of traits. Ultra religious Gun-carrying is essential Hate secularism in government Battled against women rights The Crusades massacres of the past against non-believers, and the killing of infidels today Both start wars they'd rather someone else fought Censor everything as "immoral" that doesn't exactly fit their views. Fundamentalism Religious leaders of both sides call New Orleans an immoral wasteland and its flood a punishment from God Kill in the name of God Must be armed to the teeth and find a cause to use all those weapons Capital punishment Hate gays Persecution God has chosen their nation as having His "Righteous" Authority But returning to the subject at hand, let's end with a little humor. Stephen Colbert examining the 1000th capital punishment milestone. [[ mod note: POST MERGED FROM GENERAL DISCUSSION ]]

The gag is obvious immediately in the Warning box. The humor's message is typical of cartoons like the one below. The OP's image is portraying how wacky it is to dismiss a field of science just because it's labeled a "theory". The second clue in the OP's image is the "Kansas: as dumb as you think" caption. I can't imagine anyone took it seriously.

(Please migrate this to "It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner" Delete afterwards. Thanks to whichever mod/admin does it) Our safe vantage point from modern civilization seems to obscure your perception. The "century after century" periods of time did not have a reliable and fair system of justice, much less for torture. Witch hunts, persecution, lynch mobs were somewhat the norm and extracted confessions matched identically what the torturer demanded to hear. Is this what you balance the strength of your convictions on? Or perhaps you mean historical wars. Where they might've brutalized the captured soldiers, yet their extracted confessions were near impossible to verify in time since covert investigations would've been far slower and more dangerous than nowadays, as they lacked our electronic and satellite technology. Our civilized governments have evolved into what they are because we have abandoned the OFFICIAL dehumanization of people. When such occurrences happen on the street, it's one thing. But when it happens by official declaration of the government, it's an entirely different matter and (unfortunate) outcome.

Bull. The "where's the nuke set to go off in an hour" situation is a weak reason to officially explore torture. We all know that if such an event were to occur, that someone in the interrogation hierarchy would break the rules and use torture or any means possible to extract the information. When it comes to such an event, there is no rule of law. The consequences only apply if you had been wrong. The reason we don't make barbarism official is because rather than containing it to a few instinctive pivotal moments, you're letting it breathe through the corridors of the justice system, giving it a chance to fester and become ugly. And it will. You can't torture free of repercussion without being changed by it on some level, and even if some torturers are barely changed by it, most probably grow at least a bit uglier inside, and due to their positions of authority, this change of humanity reverberates into other areas of government and has a stronger impact on our culture. If our leaders can torture, it must be alright on a societal level for us to mirror their reasoning. For comparison, look to how police are trained meticulously to avoid shooting a person who reaches quickly and draws what could be mistaken for a weapon. If the person had indeed drawn a weapon, the repercussions for shooting that person vanish, yet the strict adherence to procedure exists for a reason. Although it makes it difficult for police, that's why you sign up as a public servant. The easy way does not adequately protect our rights. The hard way does. It's practically a sacred duty to our way of life. If you want to believe the politicians who tickle our scare rationales, first think a bit about something: how difficult is it to make a convincing excuse that supports practically any wrong? If a spouse detected the various clues of infidelity yet dropped their suspicions, it's usually because the mate crafted a good excuse. Torture leads to a place with benefits: for some in power. And they have enough money to attract the best excuse-crafters and those willing to stoop so low. And the result is evident in certain AM radio, TV commentators and related journalism. They are professionals employed solely to whittle away our nagging conscience or doubts. Usually they'll shout and/or have assistants echoing them in stealth mode by astroturf. Careful what pill you swallow. A right and a wrong doesn't make one a centrist. If a political strategist wants you to believe that a certain philosophy hasn't been given the same consideration as other philosophies, the best way to do it is getting you to accept that it's not an extreme philosophy, but rather a healthy and essential one. If they succeed, you might drift towards programming that gives equal weight and time to both extreme philosophies and normal ones, and in the end be misled to perceive it as fair and balanced.