Monday, August 8, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Overall it is worth it. Mostly good with some annoyances. He was able to recap some history of science in better form than other history-science books I'd read which surprised me as this wasn't really his goal. He brought up good points on demarcation and deduction and induction which made me think. He mentioned a few times something about how we are just human so can't look outside the box, this got me annoyed a bit but I'll have to go back and re-listen to get the details correct and see why,(ie we as humans use things-tools 'inside the box' to see a bigger picture of what we normally see in the box, we might not know for sure but maybe we can get a picture of the box) Or perhaps he was going into , maybe it was Nietzsche's, observator-participator problem viewpoint. I re-wrote the last two sentences here because I shouldn't dismiss or invoke that objection with an ad hominem bias attack like I was, of that that is what one can expect from a professor of philosophy, but should understand it more fully why it annoyed me. I did re-listen a bit but hadn't found that section my beef was with yet.
"the smoking gun of intellectual dishonesty" has been detailed out at this sight and I am thankful he felt like taking the time to deconstruct things.
It's to bad JWs can't seperate their views of science from their religion, they'd be better off.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Or so I was told again at the Memorial celebration. Inherited sin has to be one of the most abhorrent and morally bankrupt doctrines of them all. I guess how you view it comes down partially to how you view people , do you seem them as a means to an end or an end and of themselves. The other class'ist-authoritarian and 2 destinations stuff with one group having such surety it borders on paranoid schizophrenia was all part of the shebang to.
I guess I most probably am on the list, had a couple visits asking me to come. When asked if I was going at the time I thought well I'll just say yes and avoid the big whole hubba about it and then just not go. Then later I thought , nah I said I'd go and while there really wouldn't be any repercussions for not going it wouldn't kill me to go, even though later I was reminded I've earned death. Perhaps I'll re-visit/post my thoughts on this side point of honesty and lies as social lubricant versus it is always being better to tell the truth.
Anyway the same guy I studied with years ago was up there at the podium giving the talk, he never explained this inherited sin thing good the last time we talked together about it and this time was no different. All in all that old study wasn't to bad, I came away with the conclusion back then that using probabilities-Bayes theorem (not for the purpose of pascal wager crap) or Godel's theorem were a waste of time as they are based on assumptions to finish a set of axioms. That study was cancelled long ago because he felt I wouldn't get anything from it , so I said ok, later he did call back to see if I wanted to study again but I never bothered calling him back because I thought it over a bit and he was probably right as I do have this hang up on empirical evidence. And so that is thus part of the reason for my long hiatus, also because my wife doesn't ask me to go hardly ever anymore (assembly,circuit overseer visits). She actually didn't even ask if I was going to go to memorial this time and is actually figuring out her own beliefs which has caused her some concertation and dissagreement on issues like the gay and blood stuff, hurrah!
Next year I think I'd much rather go celebrate the day for the dead, probably better wine and bread and more of a party then trying to put a dignity cloak over old superstitious acts.