tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5655143511551098060..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Massimo's PicksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20119682993389994042010-06-08T21:44:25.782-04:002010-06-08T21:44:25.782-04:00Although Traister exaggerates some, regrettably he...Although Traister exaggerates some, regrettably he is also somewhat correct. Fatherhood has severely cut into my reading time. Can't wait until my 6 year old turns about 15 and doesn't want to have anything to do with me. :)Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04604847159462215168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80637144516911280772010-06-08T16:25:49.227-04:002010-06-08T16:25:49.227-04:00Sorry Massimo,
I misread Hemant's statement. ...Sorry Massimo,<br /><br />I misread Hemant's statement. <br /><br />"No one — including Dawkins — denies that religion offers benefits like community and hope."<br /><br />In the Australian discussion panel Michael has a link to, I think Dawkins denied there were any mental health benefits. <br /><br />Which would be consistent with Hemant's claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51915542026385635522010-06-08T16:08:52.497-04:002010-06-08T16:08:52.497-04:00Massimo,
David Sloan Wilson is right, at least ab...Massimo,<br /><br />David Sloan Wilson is right, at least about one "new atheist."<br /><br />Dawkins does deny any benefits to religion. You can see an example of this by following Michael's link in his May, 11th 2010 picks. <br /><br />When it comes to religion Dawkins isn't a scientist, he's a Puritan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79170198824216309802010-06-08T08:46:49.580-04:002010-06-08T08:46:49.580-04:00The podcast was so interesting that I just ordered...The podcast was so interesting that I just ordered the book.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72477332363802070452010-06-08T07:52:03.683-04:002010-06-08T07:52:03.683-04:00downquark,
well, if one thinks of that as the nul...downquark,<br /><br />well, if one thinks of that as the null hypothesis for SETI, it is very likely that it will never be falsified, since by far the most probable outcome of the entire program is that we won't find anything. This would be a very unusual case where the null has a huge advantage over the alternative hypothesis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74624328792259355372010-06-07T19:31:11.241-04:002010-06-07T19:31:11.241-04:00Loved the podcast.
This is probably a stupid ques...Loved the podcast.<br /><br />This is probably a stupid question but in regard to seti, wouldn't setting the hypothesis as "ET intelligent does NOT exist" satisfy the criteria of falsification.downquarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154074859072874873noreply@blogger.com