- - - - - Nov05/89 23:01 105:137) Brian Holtz: But one can convert to Conservative or even Orthodox, right? - - - - - Nov06/89 20:45 105:149) Brian Holtz: Star, if you can't become "A Jew" through conversion, but only through your X chromosome, then Jewishness is by definition a biological trait. - - - - - Nov17/89 22:13 105:159) Brian Holtz: Wrong, Daniel. Faith is belief without evidence. We have _plenty_ of evidence that in dealing with the everyday world, it's useful to think of exactly one line being through any two points. Similarly, we have experimental confirmation that space is non-Euclidean in the presence of extra-ordinarily strong gravitational fields. - - - - - Nov17/89 23:04 105:161) Brian Holtz: Then what is "faith", Dave? Science throws away _precisely_ those axioms that _don't_ have real-life applications and implications. What kind of "faith" is it if the belief has to prove itself? - - - - - Nov18/89 14:38 105:163) Brian Holtz: If by mentioning "desire" you mean that a belief without concern for its justification is faith, I certainly agree. I don't think "proof" is an interesting standard for such justification, though, since I think the only proofs are either the Cartesian "ergo sum" or fundamentally tautological. A proved thing is something that is impossible to doubt. While I have no desire for proof that, say, one George Washington was America's first president, I don't think it's useful to call that belief of mine "faith", since I hold it only in light of a whole lot of evidence. Just as I wouldn't claim that George Washington can be proved to have been our first president, I didn't claim that it can be proved that exactly one line exists through any two points. I said that there's tons of evidence to treat both propositions as true in our everyday lives, and I doubt you could find a mathematician who doesn't. - - - - - Nov18/89 14:58 105:166) Brian Holtz: "Proof" is irrelevant, because nothing very interesting can be proved without assumptions. What matters is _evidence_. You are right that there really is no evidence either way on the existence of God, just as there is no evidence either way on the existence of Santa Claus, angels, the bogeyman, the devil, and the tooth fairy. Therefore, we should hold none of these things to exist, until some evidence can show us otherwise. Your last two sentence are confused. To science, a "useless" proposition is _precisely_ any proposition that has no real-life implications. - - - - - Nov18/89 16:13 105:168) Brian Holtz: Science does _not_ "throw away" the assumption that exactly one line can pass through two points. For example, I can make you a very rich and very famous graph theorist if you can show me how to lay two or more straight lines between two points in the graph of, say, a circuit design. I don't think you're going to be able to find a proposition that science would find "useless" but which has some implications. - - - - - Nov19/89 09:45 105:173) Brian Holtz: A proof is a sequence of symbolic transformations of propositions in which all the transformations are valid under some system of logic. - - - - - Nov19/89 10:13 105:175) Brian Holtz: Of course. A proof only tells you that the steps are valid; it says nothing about the validity of the initial propositions. - - - - - Nov19/89 14:07 105:178) Brian Holtz: So, are we all agreed then that science is not simply another kind of faith but is precisely the _absence_ of faith? - - - - - Nov19/89 14:22 105:182) Brian Holtz: But Nicholas, the method of science is put to the test _every day_. Science has put men on the moon. Science works. Religion doesn't work, except in sociological and psychological ways that are readily explainable in the larger context of science. And if tomorrow nature ceases to be uniform, and induction stops yielding fruitful insights, we scientists will toss our working assumptions about the uniformity of nature and the utility of induction out of our toolkit, and cast around for replacement assumptions that _work just as well_. If a method doesn't work, science doesn't use it. There's no faith involved. - - - - - Nov19/89 21:33 105:193) Brian Holtz: Dave, since there is indeed roughly "no evidence in either direction" concerning the existence of god, I provisionally assert that god does not exist. I make the same assertion about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy; do you? Nicholas, I take science to be the business of making accurate predictions. Science has no faith; science trusts any given method of making predictions only as long as that method can show itself to be working. Now, it would sure help prediction-makers if nature were uniform, but placing a value on accurate predictions is not the same thing as assuming that accurate predictions can be made. Yes, religion "works", in the sense that religion can get things done, _if_ the things you want done are things like cowing people into certain behaviors, or numbing people against certain realities. But science "works" far better -- not in the sense that the things it can do are necessarily Better, but in the sense that it can get lots more kinds of things done. - - - - - Nov19/89 21:57 105:196) Brian Holtz: But Brett, the evidence for Christianity is the same kind of evidence as that for Islam, or Mormanism, or just about any revelation you choose. I believe a battle called Waterloo happened in 1815, because battles happen all the time in 1989. When was the last time you saw water turned into wine, or people raised from the dead? Any god with a little imagination could convince scientists of his existence. Send down another son, and have him violate a physical law or two. Or, as Carl Sagan suggested, hide an interesting bitmap improbably early in the binary expansion of pi or e. - - - - - Nov19/89 22:20 105:198) Brian Holtz: Sorry, Nicholas, but confer race conditions initially hid your response from me. What do you mean by "logically invalid"? If you mean that scientific theories don't have apodictic, logical certainty, well: so what? And just what do you mean by "truth"? I think that truth is indeed roughly "whatever works". I didn't beg the question; it's _your_ hypothetical religionist who assumes what is "relevant to human concerns", and what "ought to be done". I said that as an epistemological system, science delivers more useful knowledge than does revelation-based faith, under just about _any_ notion of utility that doesn't itself beg the question. For instance, if your measure of the utility of knowledge is the extent to which it gets people to obey the Ten Commandments, _that's_ begging the question. - - - - - Nov20/89 22:56 105:204) Brian Holtz: Nicholas, logical validity is far too strong a condition to test the fruits of an epistemological method. For instance, science predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The proposition that the sun will rise cannot be logically proved -- i.e., it is "logically invalid" -- but so what? The prediction is still useful, under just about any measure of utility you please. Do you really think we need a definition of The Good to decide that the knowledge yielded by science is more useful, is more powerful, has more uses, can get more done, etc., than the knowledge yielded by faith in revelation? I defy you to give us a value-minimal criterion of utility under which scientific knowledge isn't far more useful than revealed knowledge. (Watch this folks; he won't even try.) Or if utility isn't your bag, how about predictions? Certainly the ability to make accurate predictions is a good way to compare two epistemological methods, isn't it? Do you doubt that science is better at making predictions than is revelation? But we stray from my main point, which is that science is precisely the habit of thinking without faith. VoT, you are right that - - - - - Nov20/89 22:56 105:205) Brian Holtz: the current _provisional_ body of scientific knowledge would break down if temporal consistency did so, but that's _good_: to science, a theory/proposition/body of knowledge that could never break down in the light of any evidence is contentless. You see, nearly all of science's current _results_ depend on our (daily more-confirmed) assumption of "temporal consistency", but science as an _epistemology_ does _not_. The epistemology of science merely says that accurate predictions are good things, and that any method or assumption justifies itself to the extent that, and only as long as, it yields accurate predictions. - - - - - Nov21/89 23:47 105:212) Brian Holtz: Let me restate my position, Nick, because I don't think you understand it. First of all, I think it's fruitless to talk about proofs or logical validity. The only propositions that are logically valid are tautologies and, maybe, the Cartesian "ergo sum". Nothing else. For instance, the proposition that "the sun will rise tomorrow morning" can't be proved and has no logical validity, but it is still a different kind of proposition from "the sun will blow up tomorrow morning". Second, I think its fruitless to throw around the words "true" and "Truth". The very use of the words implies that we agree on their referents. If we _did_ agree on their referents, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now, my contention that science does not rely on faith can be restated as follows. There is no well-formed proposition that science accepts solely on the basis of some authority. There is no well-formed proposition that science accepts unless it shows itself to be useful in making accurate predictions. I further contend that you can't say either about revelation-based religions. Now, in my second "there is no..." I used a narrow conception of utility based on making accurate predictions. We are comparing two methods of knowledge acquisition -- science and revelation-based religion, and I think that you could broaden my conception of utility in that statement to _any_ way you care to measure the quality of knowledge - - - - - Nov21/89 23:47 105:213) Brian Holtz: qua knowledge. For now, though, I'll just point out that your hypothetical religionist's measure -- that knowledge should be judged on whether it promotes "human community" -- is _hardly_ a measure of the quality of knowledge _qua knowledge_. - - - - - Nov22/89 18:40 105:224) Brian Holtz: Yes. Morgan, what do you mean by "inner focus"? What do you mean by "pure qualities of the mind"? Forgive me, but I can't discern any meaning in such phrases. If they are just a fancy way of saying "introspection", well, I hope you don't think that mystics have cornered that market. Professional science doesn't work with introspection much, but only because professional science confines itself to phenomena that are public and repeatable. However, just because introspection doesn't find its way into the scientific journals doesn't mean that people with a scientfic bent don't do introspection. They _do_, it's just that they have to get either a) drunk or b) a Nobel prize before they have the guts to go public with their introspections. :) Shawn, I don't dismiss the possibility of a god, but so what? The list of things whose possibility I don't dismiss is infinite. A sampler: god, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, flying cows, black swans, etc. Not a very interesting list to be in, eh? Star, by "well-formed proposition" I mean statements other than tautologies ("X is X.") or diagonalizations ("This statement is false."). It's a niggling point, and since non-well-formed propositions are usually blatantly so, you can forget about the qualification, if you like. Yes, evidence is subjective. _Every_thing is subjective. If anything were objective, I doubt this item would be this long. - - - - - Nov22/89 18:41 105:225) Brian Holtz: No, I don't think that reliance on subjective perceptions constitutes "complete confidence or trust". When I crossed State Street today, I had only an operational, provisional confidence that none of the cars I was trying to dodge was invisible. I can't say that I had faith, because my confidence was built up over tons and tons of subjective perceptions, and could be completely erased by the single counter-example of an invisible Mack truck. :) - - - - - Nov24/89 19:15 105:229) Brian Holtz: I defined above what "well-formed" means. An "authority" is a person or text the statements of which are considered dispositive and beyond doubt. An "accurate" prediction is one that is confirmed by later events. It is most assuredly _false_ to say that revelation-based religion accepts no proposition solely on the basis of some authority. Haven't you heard of the Bible, the Koran, and the Pope? It is also just as false to say that religion accepts no proposition for reasons other than its predictive utility. What predictions do the Ten Commandments help us make? I don't know what you mean by "maximize utility", and I never said that science can dispose of all questions that humanity faces. What I _do_ say is that science does not involve faith, and that faith is ultimately a bad thing. - - - - - Nov24/89 22:46 105:232) Brian Holtz: No, I will _not_ take "well-formed" to mean anything having to do with some god's "will" -- that would be a craven begging of the question. "Well-formed" as I described it is not "vague": within any formal logic, tautologies and diagonalizations can be defined precisely. But no matter, because English tautologies and diagonalizations are only a little more blatant than invocations of some god's "will". So drop the "well-formed", and we'll talk about _all_ propositions. Your citation of Aquinas is aimed at a straw man. I never said that no religion holds _any_ propositions that aren't based on authority -- I just said that _science_ doesn't hold any. If we substitute "religion" for "science" in my original statement and negate it, we get: "There is _some_ proposition that religion accepts solely on the basis of some authority." Do you deny that this is true? If not, then repeat for me the derivation of the Ten Commandments; my copy of the Bible left that part out. Whose veracity is "beyond doubt"? How could you ever show that someone is incapable of lying? An "accurate" prediction is one that is confirmed by later events. By "confirmed", I mean that no one could reasonably deny that the events were as predicted. For instance, a Turkish friend of mine recently reminded me that in 1986 I predicted that then-Vice President George Bush would be the next President of the U.S. I would call that an "accurate" prediction, since I don't think anyone could - - - - - Nov24/89 22:46 105:233) Brian Holtz: reasonably deny that the events in question were as I predicted. So again: I assert that there are some propositions that revelation-based religions accept without regard to their utility in making accurate predictions. If the only grounds you have to deny this assertion really just rely on prior assumptions about some god's will, then I doubt our audience will be convinced by it. The question about the value of faith is a far more complex (and important) one than the original question of whether science involves faith. Sure, faith "addresses more-relevant questions" than does science, but I would argue that faith addresses those questions very poorly. Faith is self-delusion. - - - - - Nov25/89 10:57 105:236) Brian Holtz: First of all, I didn't concede that "well-formed" was "vague" -- I simply realized that you and our audience might lack the formal background to understand how precise the terms "tautology" and "diagonalization" really are. You can look them up in any good book on formal logic, and you _won't_ find therein any reference to "god's will" (which is what you were trying to introduce through the loophole of "well-formed"). Yes, I indeed defined an "authority" as a person or text the statements of which are considered dispositive and beyond doubt. I can also define "Tooth Fairy", but that doesn't mean I believe _either_ should be relied on. My point is that religions have persons or texts the statements of which are considered dispositive and beyond doubt, but that science has no such authority. _Of course_ science may or may not accept some propositions solely on the basis of some authority, "depending on how you define 'authority'". But the way _I_ defined it (which you ignored), science accepts no such proposition. Once again you are conflating epistemology with ethics and just about everything else. Remember, our primary argument here is whether science has faith, and whether science is better at providing knowledge _qua knowledge_ than is religion. I propose that a good measure of the quality of knowledge _qua knowledge_ is its utility in making accurate predictions. What I mean by "knowledge qua knowledge" is knowledge _in itself_, and not as a - - - - - Nov25/89 10:57 105:237) Brian Holtz: tool in some broader _ethical_ system the assumptions of which are begged from here to high heaven. And yes, I _did_ define "accurate predicton" and even "confirmed by later events": when no one could reasonably deny that the relevant later events were as foretold. Now, you have three options: 1) Agree with me that helpfulness in making accurate predictions is a good measure of knowledge _qua knowledge_. 2) Propose some other measure of knowledge _qua knowledge_ (i.e., _not_ by refering to some broader ethical system or some "god's will"). 3) Deny that knowledge can be evaluated qua knowledge. Yes, I suppose I would argue that accurate predictions have not only epistemological but also ethical utility, but that's a _separate_ issue. Do you understand what I'm saying here? When I say that science provides "better knowledge" than does religion, I'm not measuring knowledge on some ethical scale of Goodness (as you are trying to do); I'm saying that by the only criterion (mine) on the table for judging knowledge _in itself_, science provides better knowledge as measured by _that criterion_. If you want to discuss whether faith is a good thing, I think we should move one of these two discussions to a new item. - - - - - Dec07/89 02:35 105:253) Brian Holtz: Nick, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to reread my last response (236-237). Do you or do you not "agree with me that helpfulness in making accurate predictions is a good measure of knowledge _qua knowledge_"? If not, can you propose "some other measure of knowledge _qua knowledge_" that doesn't refer to "some broader ethical system or some god's will"? Or do you "deny that knowledge can be evaluated qua knowledge"? Would you please stop ducking these questions? By "utility" in making accurate predictions I mean (as implied in my previous response) "helpfulness" in making accurate predictions. That is, I am proposing that knowledge _qua knowledge_ should be judged by its utility/helpfulness/effectiveness in making "accurate predictions" (which I've defined above). Now, do you or do you not agree with my proposal? On the separate issue of the value of faith: faith is self-delusion because it yields knowledge by a process that isn't as good at yielding knowledge as are other processes. Faith is a hallucinogen. - - - - - Dec14/89 01:21 105:276) Brian Holtz: Nick, I'm not impressed when you call my four- or five-times-repeated proposal that helpfulness in making accurate predictions is a good measure of knowledge qua knowledge "problematic". If you have a "problem" with it, why don't you share it with us (other than idly complaining that I haven't "justified" it as "true" -- what does "true" mean?) ? Knowledge is usually taken to be some correspondence between mental states and some external reference system. For knowledge to objectively evaluated, that external reference system has to be public: that is, it has to be based on publicly available perceptions. But since those perceptions are publicly available, reporting them as they happen is no test of a knowledge-yielding process. Instead, a better test is reporting them as they _will_ happen, and then seeing if they do. There, Nick; are you happy? I don't mind intellectual tail-chasing, since I'm by now certain that I'm better at it than you, but I'm still holding out the hope that your only form of rejoinder isn't a knee-jerk request for me to arbitrarily expand on anything I happen to type. Let me remind you that mine is _still_ the only proposal on the table for an objective way to evaluate knowledge, and that you have still said zero in the way of critiquing it or providing an alternative. You say "faith yields knowledge", but you forget that it isn't as good (by the only objective measure on the table -- mine) as yielding knowledge as is science. - - - - - Dec14/89 01:21 105:277) Brian Holtz: Brett, I've never been to Kansas City, but I believe in it because I've heard reports of similar cities from the same sources, and I've verified first-hand that those cities exist. I never met Pontius Pilate, but I've heard reports of similar prelates and mayors and such, and I've verified first-hand that those mayors exist. Now, when was the last time you saw a resurrection? 2+2=4 is _not_ an unquestioned "absolute" in science; it is a _tautology_. What that means is that the symbol string "2+2=4" evaluates to true under a particular definition of the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "4". Science uses that particular definition because it is objectively useful in making predictions. What predictions can you make with _true_ absolutes like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? VoT, isn't the (unjustified) belief in the divinity of Jesus "common to all forms of Christianity"? Or at least, (unjustified) belief in some supreme divinity? Science and religion _are_ mutually exclusive, because religion requires faith -- unquestioning acceptance of some proposition --, while science is precisely the practice of holding no proposition to be beyond doubt. - - - - - Dec15/89 23:44 105:288) Brian Holtz: Reread my responses :212-213. The basic issue is whether science requires faith. I'm defending the following statements: 1) There is no proposition that science accepts solely on the basis of some authority. 2) There is no proposition that science accepts unless it shows itself to be useful in making accurate predictions. 3) Neither (1) nor (2) can be said about religion. Nick, you haven't "explained" why my proposal (that knowledge qua knowledge be evaluated on the basis of its helpfulness in making accurate predictions) is "not justified" -- you've just asserted that to be the case, and have not said anything to back it up. I, however, gave a justification for the proposal in my last response, which you have completely ignored. VoT, again I have to disagree that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Religion requires faith. Science is the practice of thinking without faith. Dick, we are comparing science and religion as knowledge-yielding systems, not scientists and religionists as people. Can you give me even a single proposition that science accepts solely and unquestioningly on the basis of authority? Brett, just because the statements in Acts about Roman provincial government are credible doesn't mean that its reports of the supernatural _are_ credible. We can believe the first sort of statement because we have independent evidence that the Roman empire existed, and first-hand experience that governments can and do exist. We have no such - - - - - Dec15/89 23:44 105:289) Brian Holtz: independent evidence that anyone was resurrected, and (as you admitted) we have no first-hand experience with modern resurrections. No, Brett, Metropolis does not exist in the same way that Detroit, Boston, and Providence do, and I doubt that any reports of its existence that you have heard come from the same kind of source that tells us of the latter three cities. My Rand McNally shows me how to get to each of the latter three; tell me, how do I drive to Metropolis? Yes, the truth-value of "2+2=4" depends on the definitions of its constituent symbols, and _nothing else_ -- that's why it's a tautology. "2+2=4" is like "a triangle has three sides": statements like these _cannot_ be false, because their truth is based only on the definitions of their constituent symbols. The statements which it's interesting to say are beyond doubt are not tautologies, but rather statements that could possibly be falsified by experience: "there are no black swans", "cows can't fly", "Jesus was the Son of God", etc. Science accepts no such statement solely on the basis of some authority. - - - - - Dec16/89 13:34 105:293) Brian Holtz: VoT, having-faith and having-no-faith are mutually exclusive. If you have-faith, you cannot have-no-faith. If you have-no-faith, you cannot have-faith. In general, the propositions (X) and (not X) are mutually exclusive. This is kind of basic. I never said that science can address all human concerns, or answer all questions. For instance, science cannot yet answer "why are we here?", but a healthy scientific skepticism _can_ awaken us to the possibility that "why are we here?" has no answer. The problem with faith -- holding a proposition to be beyond doubt because it issues from some authority -- is that it unjustifiably closes the mind to a possibility: namely, the possibility that the proposition could be false. Religion is not necessarily useless, but neither are hallucinogens. The question is: when can self-delusion (such as that constituted by slavish acceptance of a proposition on the basis of some authority) ever be useful? - - - - - Dec16/89 19:50 105:295) Brian Holtz: Heck, Liz, I believe in one or two of the Commandments myself (;-), but not because they were scratched into a rock by a flaming bush that I have been told I 'shall not put to the test'. Isn't it better to regulate social behavior with rules that people derive for themselves, instead of rules handed down that people are forbidden to question? - - - - - Dec17/89 00:13 105:300) Brian Holtz: Brett, the difference between my quasars and your God is that the evidence that for quasars is publicly available and publicly reproducible for anyone willing to invest the effort. That is, you could conceivably become an astrophysicist and check out the evidence for yourself. If you try to do the same for revelation-based religions, your inquiry will inevitably stop cold at some authority -- person or text -- the statements of which can have no independent verification. So what I mean is that as far as I know all Christians believe in the divinity of Christ solely on the basis of a textual authority -- the New Testament -- the statements of which about the supernatural we have no way to verify. Nick, if utility is an "authority", what statements has it ever made that one could take as unquestionable, even if one wanted to? - - - - - Dec17/89 13:30 105:306) Brian Holtz: You can run, but you can't hide, Nick. See ya next year. ;) VoT, I don't think I ever said the Bible was useless. The Bible is a literary, historical, and philosophical masterpiece. I hope you don't think that because I believe Jesus wasn't divine, I therefore believe that what he espoused was worthless. On the contrary, I agree with a lot of his ethical positions. My major disagreement is with people who accept Jesus's positions because of who the Bible said he was and not because they find his positions convincing. (Of course, I do disagree with some of what Jesus preached, especially his fatalism and his diminution of the real world in favor of some unseen next world.) Wendy, I don't think I've ever said there's "absolutely no God". As we all know, one cannot prove a negative. However, I do say that there's as much evidence for God as there is for Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Great Pumpkin, etc. But I'm curious: why do you react so sharply to my (allegedly) saying there's "absolutely no God", when far more people say far more often that there absolutely _is_ a God? I'm going to assume it's because you know me so well and hold me to higher standards, ok? :-) - - - - - Dec17/89 19:13 105:310) Brian Holtz: Of those three choices, I would have to say that Jesus was a megalomaniac, although not necessarily a world-class one: lots of people have believed themselves to be divine. Just because (parts of) his ethical teachings are convincing doesn't mean that everything he ever said could only have been true. Wendy, if presenting a case for an opposing opinion constitutes "attacking" someone's beliefs or "belittling" their faith, then I suppose I'm guilty, as are all the people on this item who are eloquently disagreeing with me. But I don't buy this modernist tendency to so tightly identify a thought with its thinker, so that an attack on the former becomes an attack on the latter. I have nothing but respect for people who think enough of me that they take my objections seriously and consider me reasonable enough and open-minded enough to be worth arguing with. To my mind, disagreeing with someone is a compliment, and insulting someone is an admission of stupidity, which means the only real way to injure someone with your rhetoric is to not consider them worth spending it on. - - - - - Dec18/89 23:12 105:314) Brian Holtz: Why do you believe he was God, Whit? - - - - - Dec18/89 23:43 105:316) Brian Holtz: You mean he "wasn't" God, but is now? :) Forgive me for not giving away the store in my choice of tense... - - - - - Jan10/90 23:45 105:338) Brian Holtz: But Brett, the "other first century events that are taken as historical fact" are things that happen all the time: wars, risings and fallings of empires, deaths of rulers, etc. When was the last time someone resurrected himself? Would you please explain how the popularity of an ideology has anything at all to do with its validity? Christianity is widespread -- big deal. So is astrology, Marxism, Islam, Hinduism, animism, etc. - - - - - Jan12/90 23:03 105:342) Brian Holtz: Yo, Brett, you mind answering my question? Sure, the resurrection of Jesus is "as well documented as anything else for the first century", but that means very little when you remember that most other first-century events were wars, risings and fallings of empires -- things that still happen all the time. Again: when was the last time you heard of a resurrection? Don't you get it? For the resurrection of your favorite Nazarene Jew, we have nothing like the historical, physiological, and archeological evidence that we have for, say, the reign of Herod. Just because a text mentions an event that we have separate reasons to believe actually happened, doesn't mean that every other event the text mentions is just as believable. Would you care to address this point? Hello? - - - - - Oct22/89 02:21 169:52) Brian Holtz: Oh, please, Daniel, after Mike's statement in :45 that "a lunatic wouldn't attract followers that would go forth and change the face of the world", my :49 can not be taken as anything but sarcasm. Did you really not recognize it as such, or do you hold that lunacy as monumental as Hitler's can only be denounced in terms clear even to the dullest? - - - - - Oct22/89 02:12 193:32) Brian Holtz: _Do_ we know when Jesus was born? I thought that even the year was in dispute. - - - - - Oct22/89 18:32 193:44) Brian Holtz: What year did Halley's comet come by back when Jesus was born? - - - - - Nov05/89 10:45 193:54) Brian Holtz: So, do you just ignore Christmas? Do you go to work on Dec. 25? Remember, Christmas was just grafted onto traditional celebrations of the winter solstice. Hell, as an atheist I think both God _and_ Yahweh are dead, but I'll take any excuse to have a holiday. - - - - - Nov05/89 16:32 193:69) Brian Holtz: This is all very edifying, but can someone tell me: what word can I use for the god of the Old Testament without having Sandy jump down my throat? - - - - - Nov05/89 18:15 193:72) Brian Holtz: No harm done, Sandy. Say, why don't you call your anti-Christmas Party a "Winter Solstice Party" instead? I, for one, find the shortening of the days quite depressing, and think the beginning of their lengthening is something worth celebrating. - - - - - Nov09/89 00:11 193:88) Brian Holtz: How many people have ever died that way, Gordon? Is there some place around here I can try it? - - - - - Oct25/89 06:13 210:3) Brian Holtz: The predictions aren't 75% accurate; it's just that you're imaginative enough in 75% of the cases to think of whatever turns out as having fit the prediction. - - - - - Oct25/89 18:58 210:14) Brian Holtz: No, it's more like issuing the edit "Thou shalt not _worship_ rocks." When you invent a god, his first commandment should be "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." - - - - - Oct25/89 19:10 210:16) Brian Holtz: If I were a high priest, I would be very nervous if people started thinking that events could be influenced or predicted by anyone other than my god(s) and his duly-annointed representatives. - - - - - Oct25/89 22:40 210:21) Brian Holtz: John, if I'm a high priest I'm going to prohibit any such activity that my flock is likely to believe in, whether _I_ believe in the practice or not. Divided loyalties make leaders nervous, no matter how silly they consider the competitor. - - - - - Oct26/89 06:15 210:23) Brian Holtz: Eating, drinking, screwing, and smoking of course are not practices that are thought to predict or influence events in ways that might divide one's supernatural loyalties. (What'd you _think_ the "any such" meant in my "any such activity"? Is all that ganja ruining your short-term memory? ;) So we agree that a high priest doesn't have to think a Tower of Babel is going to reach heaven before he starts to get worried that his flock thinks it will? - - - - - Oct27/89 01:44 210:30) Brian Holtz: Waitaminnit, Julie, you couldn't protect yourself against cards? What were the cards doing? - - - - - Oct27/89 20:05 210:37) Brian Holtz: With absolutely no reproducible results. - - - - - Oct27/89 22:24 210:39) Brian Holtz: I think there's a big distinction to be made between accupuncture, faith healing, hypnotism, and other possibly psychosomatic phenomena, on the one hand, and astrology, ESP, reincarnation, etc., on the other. I'd love to see interesting new sciences built up to explain these latter sorts of phenomena, but first the phenomena have to actually happen, in a reproducable way. - - - - - Oct28/89 17:32 210:43) Brian Holtz: Could you elaborate on that, Henry? - - - - - Nov01/89 19:49 210:58) Brian Holtz: Exactly what do you mean by "ESP", Henry? What is the "ESP hypothesis"? Animism is a phenomenon that has arisen independently in many different cultures, but that doesn't mean that the natural world is composed of 'spirits' -- it just means that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize. Similarly, claims of extra-sensory perception are the inevitable result of the fact that not all of human perceptual processing takes place at the conscious level. For instance: using _words only_, tell us _precisely_ how you tell whether a given face is your mother's. Can't, huh? Must be ESP. - - - - - Nov02/89 20:14 210:60) Brian Holtz: Well, in :54 you said you've had some experiences which "fit the ESP hypothesis". So I'd like to know: exacty what experiences, and exactly what hypothesis? - - - - - Nov02/89 22:08 210:62) Brian Holtz: Sorry, but what you said don't suffice me. ;) What kind of "thought transference"? Were you in eye contact at the time? Did you pluck a very large random number from somebody's mind, or was it more on the order of "Our eyes met from across the room, and we both knew at that moment that tonight we'd be in each other's arms"? - - - - - Nov03/89 20:19 210:64) Brian Holtz: So when I try to anticipate how I'd react in, say, a stick-up, I'm experiencing ESP? Doesn't that dilute ESP to a rather thin gruel? Sorry, but I model my future choices often enough that I don't think of my resulting perceptions as extra-sensory. Wake me when your "vision snippets" include things like newspaper headlines or stock market quotations. - - - - - Nov06/89 21:01 210:67) Brian Holtz: So what qualifies as a "completely unexpected scenario", John? I don't think there's been a concrete example of ESP given on this item _yet_. And remember: given that we only have conscious access to the tip of our cognitive iceburg, how can you be sure that the "extra-sensory" isn't merely the subconscious? The only thing that will convince me is when you make testable predictions about things other than your thoughts, feelings, and actions. - - - - - Nov06/89 22:16 210:69) Brian Holtz: There's _no difference_ between skepticism and offering the simplest explanation for the phenomena at hand; the latter is the definition of the former. And no, I can't answer my first question: I have yet to hear concrete example #1 in this item of the fearful powers of the tarot, or of an unexpected scenario revealed through ESP, etc. My "point" is that I have yet to hear of any credible evidence for the supernatural, and I doubt that anyone on this item has any for me. - - - - - Nov09/89 00:25 210:80) Brian Holtz: No, John, I'd say the supernatural is the extra-physical, not the extra-sensory. What do you mean that I've "defined the evidence for myself"? Gary, what does it mean for the tarot cards to come up in the "right places"? Did they spell out s-p-a-c-e-s-h-u-t-t-l-e-e-x-p-l-o-d-e-s or something? And could your astrologer-friend make real predictions, as opposed to vague characterizations of personalities? - - - - - Nov09/89 00:54 210:82) Brian Holtz: What kind of tests were they? Were they like "What random number between 1 and 1 million am I thinking of?", or were they more like "What emotion am I feeling right now?" ? - - - - - Nov17/89 22:56 210:118) Brian Holtz: I think Steve is indeed defining away the supernatural when he equates it with the irrational. Steve, I don't think anyone's saying that the tarot doesn't work in some internally consistent way; I think they're just saying that the tarot works in some internally consistent way that can't be accounted for by current science. The supernatural that _I'm_ interested in is the extra-physical: that which cannot be ultimately accounted for by the physical sciences. I'm not impressed if you say that the tarot jogs the mind in unusual ways; the same can be said of a punch in the face. I want to see someone consistently reproduce phenomena that science can't explain: Read my mind. Produce mass-energy out of nothing. Predict the future. Comparison-sort any list in less than (n * log n) time. C'mon, folks; with a little magic, these things can't be all that hard. Do any one of them, and I'll make both of us rich. - - - - - Nov17/89 23:41 210:119) Larry Kostecke: I tried reading your mind, but I got a non-zero return code. But I can predict the future: Brian Holtz will enter another response to this item! - - - - - Nov18/89 15:08 210:121) Brian Holtz: Come again? I just listed a handful of things that would falsify my belief that all reproducible "supernatural" phenomena can be ultimately accounted for by the physical sciences. I should think the conservation of mass-energy would be the easiest physical law to violate, what with all these occultists spouting off about the "energies" they tap into. - - - - - Nov20/89 23:08 210:125) Brian Holtz: Oh, so self-consciousness is supernatural if it's extraordinary? Well, I think that the "ordinary" is a very tiny subset of the "natural", and am thoroughly bored by reports of the merely extraordinary. - - - - - Nov22/89 18:46 210:129) Brian Holtz: Yeah, it's _so_ distracting when you pay attention to such trivial details like whether a repeatable phenomenon can't be accounted for by the known physical laws. So many of my seances have been messed up that way.... :) - - - - - Nov23/89 21:36 210:131) Brian Holtz: Sure I can. When someone wins the lottery -- once -- I casually dismiss it as chance (don't you?). But if someone could predict every time what number those little ping pong balls produce, I would take note. - - - - - Nov24/89 12:38 210:133) Brian Holtz: How do you "investigate" something that only happens once? How do you find a "pattern" in a sequence of length one? Look, John, your questioning my demand of repeatability is clearly a red herring, since people don't buy tarot cards on the expectation that they'll work only once. People don't read horoscopes thinking they'll be accurate only once. People don't claim mystical powers if they think the power is good for only one shot. - - - - - Nov26/89 16:53 210:135) Brian Holtz: Well, good luck finding a response of mine which suggests I oppose further investigations of anything. Yes, if the lottery works once, it's worthwhile. However, it's simple to tell a lottery ticket that has worked from one that didn't. Are you saying there are people out there who read horoscopes or take Tarot readings because "someday, SOMEDAY, my horoscope/reading is going to make a true prediction, and I just can't wait". Oooooooookay. - - - - - Nov26/89 22:13 210:137) Brian Holtz: Ohmigosh. In that case I reverse my position. Totally. :) - - - - - Nov27/89 22:30 210:139) Brian Holtz: I never scoff at testing; I scoff at beliefs unwarranted by testing. - - - - - Nov27/89 22:46 210:141) Brian Holtz: Ah, so all those people buying The National Enquirer wear their lab coats when they settle down at home to read it? Come oooooon. In my book, you're not a true "tester" unless you suspend belief until the tests are passed. Can you really say with a straight face that the average mystic (e.g., our respondent who was "scared off" by tarot cards) is suspending belief? - - - - - Oct25/89 23:00 212:2) Brian Holtz: Forgive me, Mike, but your item text is so general that I'm not how much content it has. That is, I don't think phrases like "true change" and "real difference" have much in the way of referents. But I'll bite anyway. Why is it that change, originality, and authenticity are so highly valued in modern times? Why is it more important that a restaurant be "new" or "undiscovered" than that it serve good food? Why is it more important that a novelist be "authentic" -- i.e., not be putting one over on the critics -- than that her novels be (in any sense) good? And, why in your item text are you more worried about making good life-turns instead of having a good life-destination? - - - - - Oct26/89 06:33 212:4) Brian Holtz: So you don't want to have kids, Karl? The desire for immortality -- of one's genes, name, or creations -- is deeply ingrained in all of us, because individuals without such desire are outbred by those with it. I suppose my name will be forgotten too, but I'm still going to sow my favorite memes far and wide in hopes that they'll trickle on through history to some positive effect. - - - - - Oct27/89 01:50 212:10) Brian Holtz: No kids yet, Eric. First things first.