*fweeet* argument by bizarre definition, 15 yards and possesion
<Lore> Hrm. Wil Wheaton linked to Brunching.
<Lore> That's a sign of something.
<bob> he never linked to notmydesk
<ristoril> did... did you feel that? it's like the internet... shuddered.
<Lore> Probably just that Wil Wheaton is three years behind the times.
<Lore> So people are complaining that we quoted what they feel is a liberal science organization in one of our stories.
<Lore> The problem here is that under Bush, ALL science organizations are liberal.
<Leth> except Creation scientists
<Lore> Did I put quotes around "science"?
<Leth> dude, CONFORM TO YOUR REPUBLICAN OVERLORDS
<bob> science is neither conservative nor liberal.
<bob> it's just knowledge.
<SeanQ> thank you, Carl Sagan
<bob> BILLYUNS AND BILLLLLLLLYUNS
<bob> i'd rather be steven hawking, because my font here looks like his voice sounds
<ristoril> i think he'd be offended by someone as physically wracked as you imitating him
<Lore> bob: That is true. However, if the conservative orthodoxy is anti-science, then science is treated as liberal by society.
<ristoril> and science is just as much based on faith as religion
* Lore pulls out the semantics arguin' boots again.
<Lore> Oh wait.
<Lore> If we're going to get into the "is atheism religion" thing, I'll just sit it out.
* Lore puts on his sittin' it out boots.
<bob> i can wear boots too
<Samwise> rist, I feel it's misleading to say that trusting proof by induction is "faith".
<ristoril> you're trusting that induction can lead you to the answer
<ristoril> based on...?
<Zole> Well, yes
<Kyol> induction junction, what's your function!
<Samwise> The proof of induction as a valid method of proof is... an inductive proof.
<bob> i'll sit this one out until rist finally blurts out "but they're ONLY THEORIES!"
<ristoril> it's also recursive and faith based
<ristoril> i mean, if you go back far enough it turns out that your belief that you exist is based only on faith, so it's all faith
<ristoril> at which point the science over all people need to break down and say "we believe our faith is better than yours"
<Samwise> "something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
<SeanQ> please sir, after you
<mdxiZway> science is not faith in a religious sense, because the "truths" of science change as new theories supported by new evidence are put forward.
<Samwise> The connotation of the word "faith" is clearly religious
<Leth> Ever see the final scene in Blues Brothers, right after they stamp the receipt?
<mdxiZway> i can empirically prove this with my bookshelf
<ristoril> i can empirically prove that religion tends to change when new theories supported by new evidence are put forward
<SeanQ> christ, now you woke up shawn
<bob> using my powers of induction, i theorize that shawn is neither sleeping nor away
<Leth> ah HA
* Samwise calls a big ol' pile of bullshit
<SeanQ> aw let them go at it
<ristoril> The catholic church, for example, has reevaluated its stance on multiple things over time
<Samwise> rist, like say, galileo's theories supported by new evidence?
<Samwise> They finally got around to apologizing for that what, 15 years ago?
<ristoril> just saying that just because your faith changes with new 'discoveries' doesn't mean it's not faith
<ristoril> there's nothing *wrong* with science being based on faith
<mdxiZway> you're mixing up "faith" with "dogma" and "doctrine"
<Lore> The problem I'm seeing is that you're essentially categorizing every possible belief as faith.
<ristoril> i'm just trying to encourage intellectual honesty
<Lore> Even if we discard induction, we could say that observation is based on faith; the faith that what you see actually exists.
<Samwise> *fweeet* argument by bizarre definition, 15 yards and possesion
* Lore feels like the T-Rex in Dinosaur Comics of a sudden.
<ristoril> people who downgrade religion in favor of science are being intellectually dishonest when they say their truth is truth
<bob> and you're not, rist
<bob> or what sam said
<Lore> You know, I feel like I run into this line of reasoning all the time, particularly on #spinnwebe.
<ristoril> in quantum science, the scientists don't necessarily have faith that what they see exists
<Lore> Once again I search on Google for elightenment and find only #spinnwebe logs. "
<Lore> The template is something like "Well, you are saying that X and Y are different. However, I can come up with a tenuous definition of X that includes Y, so I'm going to take the stance that there's no useful difference."
<Lore> Where the tenuous definition of X includes the entire fucking alphabet.
<ristoril> so what do you call the idea that theres a grand unified theory of everything and we must find it?
<Leth> I call it bullshit
<mdxiZway> "a wish"
<ristoril> go throw a tank, hulk
<mdxiZway> "from the 1980s"
<Lore> I'd call it what you called it: an idea. What's your point.
<ristoril> scientists are pursuing it with zeal even though there's no indication that such a theory exists to be found
<Samwise> his point is that he's creaming his BVD's over the notion that someone will actually talk to him
<ristoril> i think it just says that science is a sort of faith
<bob> it did take him this long to misuse "theory" but i think i might've tipped him off before
<ristoril> it's a sort of faith that most of the world has decided to not call "faith" but I believe it fits the definition
<Lore> I pursued a decent burrito in Durham with zeal, even though there was no indication that there was one to be found. That doesn't mean it was a religion.
<Lore> Rist, my point is that your definition of "faith" includes every possible form of thinking.
<Freyja> are we saying science is a religion here?
<Lore> Rist is.
<ristoril> right, but you weren't using your belief in a burrito in Durham to denegrade the beliefs of people seeking veal parmesan
<Lore> And is thus useless.
<Freyja> man, what a maroon
<Lore> So you're saying that mockery defines faith?
<ristoril> i just have a problem with people automatically asserting that science is superior to religion
<Freyja> faith implies you're believing in something that cannot be proven
<Lore> Which is an entirely different issue than whether science IS religion.
<SeanQ> refuting that by saying they're the same is pretty... what's the word...?
<Lore> It starts with "stu"
<Freyja> the whole basis of science is proving things
<Freyja> hence, science is not faith-based
<ristoril> how do we know anything/everything can be proved?
<Leth> because things have been proved
<ristoril> i mean, in science even most everything is a 'theory'
<Leth> except "laws"
<Lore> Do you also have a problem with me saying I exist? Because I can't prove that to you either.
<ristoril> not really, unless you're going to use that to oppress someone or downgrade their existance
<Freyja> and theories, despite the creationists who want to call God one, are only ideas until they're proven
<Samwise> starts with "s", ends with "d", and has a "tupi" in the middle
<Freyja> they exist to be tested and approved/rejected
<bob> rist, what religions call god a theory?
<ristoril> i dunno
<bob> then shut the fuck up
<Freyja> fundies do when they're trying to ban books
<Lore> So again, you're not actually arguing that science is religion because you believe it, you're doing it because the scientists are all mean. And you're accusing others of intellectual dishonesty?
<Freyja> doesn't mean it's true
<Leth> If a religion calls God a theory, it no longer is a religion
<ristoril> i'm arguing that science has, at its core, faith
<Leth> it's an -ology
<Lore> It sounds like you're using your ideas about your definition of faith to "degrade" others who have a different definition.
<SeanQ> "People who drive Fords and denigrate people who drive Chevrolets should stop, because they're all cars!"
<Freyja> faith isn't the same thing as hope, or drive, or whatever
<Leth> science has at its core a lack of faith unless proven
<Lore> Which, you know, more power to you, but it smells like hipocrisy.
<Samwise> And it's been pointed out that your definition of "faith" is so encompassing as to not be a meaningful distinction
<SeanQ> "They are all, at their core, gasoline powered vehicles!"
<ristoril> and bob - the difference is just that religions don't take the time to say "we could be wrong" (or don't believe it)
<Leth> confidence in an idea != faith
<Freyja> that's a pretty big difference
<Freyja> that's the faith difference
<bob> "don't take the time"?!
<ristoril> (or don't believe it)
<Lore> Am I the only one seeing an irony in rist insisting that his belief that there is no one true belief is the one true belief?
<bob> it's not an issue of convenience
<Leth> they go out of their way to take the time to say otherwise
<Samwise> I'm way past irony
<Leth> I'm into bronzey
<SeanQ> lore: you've already given it more thought than he has
<bob> HEY RIST'S BOSS HE'S SMOKING WEED ON THE JOB AGAIN
<ristoril> well, what definition of faith would you use?
<Leth> I have faith that this Windows server will explode, but that's based on quantifiable evidence
<Samwise> To: Lab Technicians Re: The fragile boy in accts payable Please stop being mean to the gofer, and claiming it's 'science'. He's already very, very confused.
<Freyja> one that doesn't mean "all hopeful thoughts"
<bob> rist: faith is a belief in something that cannot be empirically verified.
<ristoril> i believe science's "Laws" fit the definition that was pasted, if you exclude the "especially" addendum
<bob> i don't have faith that you're a fuckhead, i *know* it.
<Leth> Faith in the sense of a religion is belief and trust in an unquantifiable concept
<Leth> My faith in Windows sucking ass is based on previous evidence
<Freyja> and science is all about quantifying things.
<Freyja> there's no place for faith in science
<SeanQ> 'strong conviction' =/ empirical evidence
<Samwise> Right, the suckage of windows can be quantified, measured, and proven to exist.
<Freyja> saying "because God/nature says so" is good enough for religious people, not good enough for scientists
<Leth> 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
<bob> the point of theories is that they are consistently proven or disproven by repeated testing
<Lore> It seems to me, rist, that you don't have a problem with science, per se.
<Lore> It seems to me that your problem is with observation and evidence.
<Samwise> I think falsifiability is a good test for whether something is faith or not
<Lore> Which is not the same thing as science.
<ristoril> not even that
<bob> sam: but god can wear a fake mustache
<ristoril> i mean, i'm not a religious person
<Leth> actually there you go Bob. You have faith in something you cannot empirically test. Therefore it's not science
<Lore> In other words, I currently believe that I am in a building in San Francisco.
<ristoril> i prefer science, and i'm an engineer, but I get the impression that people are "down" on religion because they believe science is the ultimate truth
<Leth> Can God create a disguise even He would be fooled by?
<Lore> Another person sitting near me might believe that she is running through the heather in Scotland.
<Lore> I say "Well, I observe that I'm in a building."
<Lore> She says "Well, I have faith that I'm in Scotland."
<Freyja> what's wrong with being down on religion because it's dead wrong?
<bob> heather's in scotland?
<Samwise> People who believe in God can be presented with any evidence you can think of, and they'll still have their belief, provided it was faith in the first place.
<Lore> You say "And you, Lore, have faith that your observations are correct."
<Leth> "No, he turned it into JUICE! Really!"
<Leth> "The Flood caused carbon dating to be wrong"
<Lore> And, what I'm inferring is that you also say "So quit being such a meanie about her Scotland thing."
<ristoril> well, no
<Lore> Now, as stoned dorm-room bullshitting goes, that's not half bad.
<bob> rist got wasted last night and dug out his philosophy 101 textbook
<bob> "we're all in a giant's dream!"
<ristoril> well, what got me started was : <bob> science is neither conservative nor liberal.
<ristoril> <bob> it's just knowledge.
<bob> it's true!
<bob> how is that wrong, rist?
<Lore> But trying to say it has any actual relevance to life is...
<ristoril> like having a conversation on the internet?
<Lore> Well, it's one thing to say "maybe what you call red is what I call green, but we just think it's the same because we can't know."
<ristoril> i think there was an implied "and therefore it's above reproach"
<Freyja> I hate to say this, but the coot is right
<ristoril> maybe i misread
<bob> ./msg lore the best part is, no one here knows i'm a dog
<Lore> It's another to use that information to argue that you should be able to run red lights.
<Leth> you didn't misread, you inferred something and assigned a motive
<Leth> plus, science is superior, and religion is for redneck inbreds who can't be bothered to work for their ideas
<ristoril> Unitarians change their beliefs based on new knowledge all the time, and taht's a religion
<bob> unitarians are just trying to get laid
<Lore> You see, I think Leth is a zealot about science, but that doesn't mean I think science is zealotry.
<Leth> no, I'm a zealot abotu being a prick
<Leth> slight clarification
<Lore> Ah, thanks for the correction.
<Lore> I have faith that you're a prick, but it's nice to have the confirmation anyway.
<Leth> Anytime! Love your magazine!
<Freyja> rist: do they still believe in a big man in the sky that nobody can see or prove is there?
<Samwise> See, the definition of "religion" has been muddied by the tax-free status.
<Freyja> if so, still faith-based! Not science-based!
<ristoril> Freyja: no
<Lore> Rist, EVERYONE changes their beliefs.
<Freyja> twain shall not meet
<Leth> except Cathloics!
<ristoril> i don't believe in God per se
<Leth> a lesser-known offshott of the Catholic church
<Samwise> jesus, you did get some good shit
<ristoril> certainly not in the Judeo-Christian sense of an omnipresent meddling guy
<Kyol> UNitarians believe in trying to get laid with the hot earth-mother believer over there.
<Samwise> You have an exchange student from cambodia or something?
<Lore> Fundamentalists change their belief that Diet Vanilla Coke tastes good if they actually try it.
<Lore> That's because the taste of soda is NOT THEIR FAITH.
<SeanQ> c'mon, lore, Diet Vanilla Coke isn't bad
<Lore> If you have a religion that believes in an omnipresent being, but everything else is negotiable, then the omnipresent being bit is their faith.
<SeanQ> I can sit by and watch you debate religion and science and politics, but DAMN YOU BOY STAY AWAY FROM MY SODA!
<Lore> And everything else is whim, or observation, or science, or something else.
<bob> sean, aren't you the one that drinks cinnamon rosewater coffee?
<SeanQ> proving I have no taste
<Leth> or sense of smell
<ristoril> so your contention is that the negotiablity of everything in science automatically excludes it from being faith?
<Leth> well, sorta ding, but sure what the hell
<Lore> Well, that's Leth's contention.
<Freyja> negotiability, not the right term
<Lore> My contention is that it's part of the goal of science to try to prove itself wrong.
<ristoril> but everything in science is not verifiable or verified
<Freyja> theories are not proven or disproven cause some guy in a lab coat says so
<Freyja> there's a process
<Leth> I SAID DING SO STOP TALKING DISCUSSION OVER
<bob> the similarity between religion and science, rist, is that they both put forward theories. the difference is that science seeks to prove whether they're right or wrong.
<ristoril> if you say the Laws of Thermodynamics are utterly true and cannot be wrong, then they're not negotiable
<Leth> ah fuckit, I'm gonna go finish my test plan
<Freyja> whether it's verifiable or as been verified isn't what distinguishes it
<Leth> no scientist says a Law is utterly true
<Leth> no scientist says ANYTHING is utterly true
<Freyja> the point is, science will try to verify it. Preachers will just say it is.
<bob> science always acknowledges "given our current understanding."
<ristoril> verify it how?
<bob> the point of testing theories is to advance that understanding.
<Leth> put it in a wind tunnel
<bob> make some dork in an IRC channel contest it
<Lore> ristoril: You're exactly right about the Laws of Thermodynamics.
<Lore> And that's exactly why science isn't religion, because it DOES NOT SAY THAT.
<ristoril> would it be accurate to say that science uses tools of its own devising to prove its theories (right or wrong)?
<Freyja> well, what would we use?
<Freyja> alien technology?
<Samwise> "tools of its own devising"
<jacquilynne> They have to, rist, the bible didn't talk about Thermodynamics, so they couldn't use that.
<Samwise> does a rock count? Like, not a shaped rock, just a rock I picked up, is that a tool of science's own devising?
<Lore> Science says, paraphrased and simplified "We have worked the laws of thermodynamics over like a motherfucker. We can't find anything wrong with them. They pass every test. We're going to go ahead and assume they're right for the purpose of working on other theories."
<Samwise> That's it, rist is copy-pasting from a fundie site
<ristoril> the scientific method etc
<Leth> I'd say he was playing Devil's Advocate, but I have no proof the devil exists
<Freyja> but you manage to miss the point by a couple light-years
<Lore> But if something pops out of a black hole that violates the laws of thermodynamics, it will be observed, accepted, and incorporated.
* bob arches eyebrow... so that's the *scientific* method you're using, hm?
<Samwise> Yeah, just like special relativity "fixes" classical mechanics
<jacquilynne> Science uses its own tools, sure, scientists invented 'measuring' and 'observing' and 'predicting'.
<Leth> e still equals mc^2 until someone proves otherwise
<Lore> If science was faith, it would never have incorporated relativity or quantum mechanics.
<Kyol> Although that isn't to say those both were accepted with open arms.
<bob> kyol, that's the point
<ristoril> so the malleability (for lack of a better term) of science excludes it from faith, then?
<Samwise> No, they had to be *tested* first.
<Lore> No, rist.
<Kyol> science as a _whole_ isn't faith based, but scientests have a nasty tendency towards it.
<Freyja> it's not that the beliefs change
<Lore> Don't think I don't see what you're doing.
<Freyja> it's that they're tested.
<bob> let's just give rist a nice big plastic bag to play with and come back later
<Lore> You've got stupid little examples of how individual religions or religious people have changed their minds, and you're trying to get us to phrase things sloppily so you can say "SEE? THIS IS THE SAME!"
<Freyja> dammit sam you were faster, but we've ALL BEEN SCREAMING THE SAME THING YET HE DOES NOT LISTEN
<ristoril> i have like 6 plastic bags here and they're all played out
<Samwise> then quit huffing the butane
<jacquilynne> It's not just 'science changes' that makes it not a faith, Rist. It's that science is predicated around the assumption that it will always continue to change and evolve and accumulate only those things that can be verified.
<Lore> It's like you're trying to pretend that Catholic Churches and French bistros are the same because they both serve wine.
<tieboy> science is stubborn but self-correcting
<Lore> What Jacqui said.
<Leth> bah, church wine sucks
<Freyja> whereas religion tends to work with one set of beliefs that has to be accepted as is, there's no real attempt to see if those are right or not they just are.
<bob> i think we'd be better off asking rist what he believes to be the definition of things like the scientific method, and then working step-by-step from there.
<Lore> I think I'd be better off actually working, unfortunately.
<Lore> Ah, well.
<Samwise> bob, getting rist to state his definition is like trying to catch a fart and paint it green.
<Leth> someone find a Babel fish and end this argument now
<ristoril> i'm gonna go to lunch and try not to get killed at a zebra crossing
<tieboy> why you're even talking to him is a mystery to me
<ristoril> i'll try to figure out if i understand what jacqui said, because it seems pretty profound to me
<bob> don't forget to bring some munchies with you; you'll need them soon
<ristoril> and food always helps bring understanding
<Lore> You might try cross-referencing it with what everyone else has been saying.
<jacquilynne> awww, the tard thinks I'm profound.
<jacquilynne> I feel so loved.
<Lore> Is rist the tard now?
<Samwise> he's donned that mantle with that discussion
<Lore> Or are we just calling him that because of this particular discussion?
<jacquilynne> Well, Mach's not here.
<ristJiffyBurger> an upgrade!
<Lore> Well, Kemlo and Lots used to be the tards.
<Samwise> er, donned that neon orange helmet, I should say
<Lore> And this channel abhors a tard vaccum.
<tieboy> there always has to be a tard, or everyone would turn on me
<Lore> It's long been my theory that we're all going to take turns being the tard until it's just Greg and Heather.
<bob> you mean i don't turn you on?
<Samwise> well, it's almost a guarantee that someone is going to say the stupidest thing we've ever heard, no matter how many times we've thought "OK, *that* is the stupidest thing I've ever heard"
<jacquilynne> This channel is just one long game of Last Tard Standing.
<Samwise> Lore: and the cheese stands alone
<Lore> I think I have a good four tards to do before I'm the tard.
<Lore> But I have no hope of being the last tard standing.
<Samwise> and picks a new farmer
<jacquilynne> I dunno, spinn doesn't come around much anymore. You might have a chance, Lore.
<Lore> Too many wordplay fugues for that.
<bob> the first rule about tard club is they all talk and talk and talk and talk
<Lore> I'm, at the VERY least, going to go before Mark, Heather, and Agto.
<Lore> Unless Agto starts talking about Bloom County more often.
<SeanQ> there's a Law of Conservation of Tard, so I have faith another will show up totake rist's place
*** Lore is now known as Kemlo
<Kemlo> Can I come back in now?
|Heather Garvey / Raven / firstname.lastname@example.org||I want to submit a log!|