tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5075221728130708274..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The LA Times on ghosts, aliens and why paranormal belief is good for usUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2318572230555298932008-12-23T06:09:00.000-05:002008-12-23T06:09:00.000-05:00I think many people who believe in supernatural ph...I think many people who believe in supernatural phenomena, including god, think somehow rationalists are trying to take the fun or wonder out of life. For instance, it boggles my mind that parents actively deceive their children to believe Santa exists and they think it's a cruel deprivation of a fond childhood experience if you tell kids that Santa is not real.<BR/>I really think it's unfortunate in this day and age that while people collectively benefit from the products of scientific advancement, they don't seem to appreciate the actual process.noinlairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10842401007754012522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71433764443363999172008-12-20T22:01:00.000-05:002008-12-20T22:01:00.000-05:00LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, which ha...LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company, which had filed for bankruptcy. Perhaps Intellectually bankrupt content leads to the same financially.JustJoePhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882794348703779345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62041731251252907272008-12-17T22:33:00.000-05:002008-12-17T22:33:00.000-05:00I'm very happy for blogs where encounter really th...I'm very happy for blogs where encounter really thoughtful, rational comments something that our society should encounter in long standing institutions, what a mess!ICAROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011489587453349908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26067419782518504462008-12-17T21:45:00.000-05:002008-12-17T21:45:00.000-05:00sorry,How much can I get from this?...sorry,<BR/>How much can I get from this?...ICAROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011489587453349908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32948725875548781952008-12-17T21:43:00.000-05:002008-12-17T21:43:00.000-05:00Really, Do you think that we can expect something ...Really, Do you think that we can expect something different of institutions based on the law of value?<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I wouldn´t expect a change in the content of "news" at least our society change its values for ohter differents to: How can I get from this? This reflects the aim of capitalism and not in fact the unbridled one.ICAROhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011489587453349908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13857896085995255132008-12-17T01:17:00.000-05:002008-12-17T01:17:00.000-05:00I've recently been reading Charles Seife's interes...I've recently been reading Charles Seife's interesting book <I>Zero: the Biography of a Dangerous Idea</I>. It discusses the role of this strange number in our cultural history and its use in our understanding of the world, e.g., in Calculus.<BR/><BR/>Its use produces counter-intuitive results right from the start, as in simple multiplication and division, yet it is clearly probative. I have a very thin grasp of these matters, but I would certainly hesitate to say that maths are merely constructs.<BR/><BR/>By the same token, I would hesitate to endorse arguments such as the the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, which depend on the denial of "real" infinites. Seife provides a context for such arguments in the Aristotelian denial of zero.paul01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06306440944379183875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89543905856790725762008-12-16T23:41:00.000-05:002008-12-16T23:41:00.000-05:00J writes:I don't think math is "real", in the Plat...J writes:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think math is "real", in the Platonic sense, or whatever it's called. I see it as a logical construct of our minds, and therefore limited by the working of our minds. Of course it is linked to things in the real world. But the rules we have now could be changed and still work equally well, be consistent ...</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree: math is indeed real. Here's why "changing the rules" doesn't matter. Theorems in mathematics link premises with conclusions. Provided the premises are true, the conclusions <I>necessarily</I> follow. Pythagoras's theorem depends on Euclidean geometry, so that, for example, it doesn't work on the surface of a sphere. There is, however a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#The_Pythagorean_theorem_in_non-Euclidean_geometry" REL="nofollow">generalization</A> of it that does. So changing "the rules" is really not an issue.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87958825441130708812008-12-16T22:37:00.000-05:002008-12-16T22:37:00.000-05:00Re: the math question...Well, I'm no philosopher, ...Re: the math question...<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm no philosopher, and math is philosophy to me (it sure ain't science), so all I have is my uninformed opinion -- hasn't stopped me before, has it? :-)<BR/><BR/>I don't think math is "real", in the Platonic sense, or whatever it's called. I see it as a logical construct of our minds, and therefore limited by the working of our minds. Of course it is linked to things in the real world. But the rules we have now could be changed and still work equally well, be consistent, I've heard -- there was a book about that a while ago, but unfortunately I haven't read it and can't remember the title or author.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone know which book I'm referring to?J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46269771662671896642008-12-16T22:31:00.000-05:002008-12-16T22:31:00.000-05:00Indeed, any newspaper (or other media outlet which...<B>Indeed, any newspaper (or other media outlet which purports to engage in journalism) which disseminates any editorial, essay, or press release from the Discovery Institute instead of tossing it in the "reject" pile suffers in quality thereby.</B><BR/><BR/>Ah, yes. It's the common plague of "balance in reporting", I guess. They have to always put forth "both sides", regardless. Find any crook who supports "the other side". And of course they assume there are only two sides to anything, to begin with. So if they don't publish the drivel from the DI, they will be accused of "not being fair and balanced", "not hearing both sides".J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74528273799754316192008-12-16T14:26:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:26:00.000-05:00sorry, adjunct, not adjust.sorry, adjunct, not adjust.Chris Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008164143878605805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7453699795244723352008-12-16T14:15:00.000-05:002008-12-16T14:15:00.000-05:00"do they have junior fellows?"Actually, no. It tu..."do they have junior fellows?"<BR/><BR/>Actually, no. It turns out they only have Senior Fellows and Adjust Fellows. Distinctions without a difference.<BR/><BR/>see http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ if you don't believe me.Chris Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008164143878605805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20123376400785834652008-12-16T09:06:00.000-05:002008-12-16T09:06:00.000-05:00Hmmm..."Then couldn't it be said that ghosts do in...Hmmm...<BR/><BR/>"Then couldn't it be said that ghosts do indeed exist as they are the products of neuronal activity of the person imaginining them?"<BR/><BR/>Sure. But they are then phantoms of the brain and not external phenomena to that brain. That is most likely matter and energy but not matter and energy that someone outside of that brain can verify as a phenomena they have experienced. A ghost in that case would not be the kind of ghost that people say that they believe in which skulks, haunts, moves objects, etc. Those ghosts have nothing going for them. Hallucinations...well there's plenty of evidence for those.Peter Bucklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660306787777777265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17377847438290257772008-12-16T08:12:00.000-05:002008-12-16T08:12:00.000-05:00..."are the product of neuronal activity and exist......"are the product of neuronal activity and exist only insofar a material basis to support them exists. Hence we are back to matter/energy..."<BR/><BR/>Then couldn't it be said that ghosts do indeed exist as they are the products of neuronal activity of the person imaginining them?<BR/><BR/>Seems a stronger claim could be made for mathematics?Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28103211555534942842008-12-15T13:19:00.000-05:002008-12-15T13:19:00.000-05:00Hmm.. not so sure about the maths example. Do math...Hmm.. not so sure about the maths example. Do mathematical laws cease to exist when the last neuron dies out? Sounds like Bishop Berkeley's tree in the woods argument.<BR/><BR/>I have to agree with Mikespeir, supernaturalism is a natural product of a mind designed to infer deeper structure and revere the profound.<BR/><BR/>Guess I can expect similar flack when my book "SuperSense" comes out next April<BR/><BR/>http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/<BR/><BR/>Best<BR/>bruceBruce Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14325018916938254179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7366009162087110482008-12-15T08:32:00.000-05:002008-12-15T08:32:00.000-05:00I'm more a proponent of naturalism, but I'll grant...I'm more a proponent of naturalism, but I'll grant that belief in the supernatural can have its benefits. One of those is that it gives us a focal point beyond ourselves. What I'm not convinced of is that the same thing can't be accomplished in some other way, without having to delude ourselves that the unseeable is, in fact, real.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1231476301563253922008-12-15T07:48:00.000-05:002008-12-15T07:48:00.000-05:00Nick,nice example, and as I'm sure you know, discu...Nick,<BR/><BR/>nice example, and as I'm sure you know, discussions rage in the philosophy of mathematics about the ontological status of mathematical constructs. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, I maintain that ideas (of which mathematical theorems are just one set of examples) are the product of neuronal activity and exist only insofar a material basis to support them exists. Hence we are back to matter/energy...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67820897239683395742008-12-14T23:28:00.000-05:002008-12-14T23:28:00.000-05:00I certainly don't believe in the paranormal, b...I certainly don't believe in the paranormal, but I do contest the notion—identified as "materialism"—that "matter (and energy) is all there is." As Bill Clinton famously put it, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."<BR/><BR/>What, for example, is mathematics? Pythagoras's theorem is true independent of matter and energy. One might object that only a material being can <I>appreciate</I> Pythagoras's theorem, but that seems a bit weak.<BR/><BR/>I chose mathematics because it's a rather "clean" example, but I believe there are many others. At a very general level, <I>meaning</I> somehow seems to transcend a materialist framework.Nick Barrowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11224940659269649220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54340359645084168192008-12-14T22:34:00.000-05:002008-12-14T22:34:00.000-05:00Re: SheldonMassimo didn't say that the L.A. Times ...Re: Sheldon<BR/><BR/>Massimo didn't say that the L.A. Times isn't a quality publication: Rather, he said that their reputation as a quality publication should (ideally) be predicated on the quality of what they publish, and their publication of Klinghoffer's abominable crap is inconsistent with their reputation for quality. Indeed, any newspaper (or other media outlet which purports to engage in journalism) which disseminates any editorial, essay, or press release from the Discovery Institute instead of tossing it in the "reject" pile suffers in quality thereby. Everyone involved with the Discovery Institute is a dishonest hack - a proven con man with a poorly concealed agenda and no good arguments to advance that agenda, only vague bullshit and outright lies. Helping a con artist run their con is generally considered to be at odds with journalistic ethics - or any other ethics, for that matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64870592815631046632008-12-14T20:33:00.000-05:002008-12-14T20:33:00.000-05:00So, basically, here we are in the 21st Century wit...So, basically, here we are in the 21st Century with an allegedly educated, supposedly intelligent man making an <I>argumentum ad populum</I> in favor of ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggedy beasties, and things that go bump in the night. Not to mention calling rationalism "pallid."<BR/><BR/>Combining occultism and anti-rationalism explains so much about support of ID.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86991547225579145782008-12-14T18:31:00.000-05:002008-12-14T18:31:00.000-05:00But is it fair to conclude that a newspaper is not...But is it fair to conclude that a newspaper is not a quality publication simply based on the decision to publish an opinion piece?Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.com