patrick.net

Almost all successful people have been great artists of some sort.

Peter P says

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

E = mc^2

Science has never proved anything, my ass.

Peter P says

Science is as political as religion. It is self-correcting only if its participants are willing.

Science is the exact opposite of politics. It knows no cultural, geographic, racial, or class boundaries. Claiming that it does is just plain wrong.

As for any person who refuses to accept empirical evidence that a theory is incorrect or incomplete is not taken seriously in the scientific community. Theories cannot contradict observations, and experiments must be repeatable to be accepted. Let's apply that to religion. Unless Jesus can walk on water again in front of us, we're not going to accept that he did it.

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

Your knowledge of history is as abysmal as your knowledge of science. History is full of scientific revolutions that completely shock the scientific community, but are quickly accepted because of the evidence. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, but today we don't believe there is even a center at all. People used to think the universe was static and eternal, whereas we measured it's age as 13.75 billion years. People used to think that gravity was slowing the expansion of the universe. Much to everyone's surprise, in 1998 we discovered through evidence and observation that the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Dan8267 says

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

I probably misspoke. But my statement was actually a tautology. All system of knowledge can only create knowledge that fits inside their systems.

So it was clearly and demonstrably correct. Just meaningless. :-)

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

JodyChunder says

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

Jody, I forgive you.

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

As applied to genetics?

Moderate Infidel says

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

very true

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Peter P says

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Yes!

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

Bap33 says

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

You can have mine.

Okay, rejecting grace can't be rational can it?

This is now beyond existence.

Peter P says

Okay, rejecting grace can't be rational can it?

This is now beyond existence.

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?
Shouldn't he should be spending his time giving divine grace to the billion starving babies?
The real fact is, divine grace, like God and religion came from man's imagination.

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

Peter P says

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

thunderlips11 says

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious
backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you
to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

dont forget, his coming was fortold. That was a kinda new twist to things.

thunderlips11 says

Peter P says

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

I thought grace is simply doing something beautiful without being required to do so.

In a religious-agnostic way, divine grace is simply grace performed by a willful God.

Is it necessary that God be willful?

Peter P says

All system of knowledge can only create knowledge that fits inside their systems.

Actually, that's neither a tautology nor true. The tautology you are aiming for is A system of knowledge can only incorporate knowledge that fits within itself. A system, in general, could of course produce knowledge that doesn't fit within the original system's bounds by creating a revised system. Science does this all the time. Example: The Theory of Relativity subsumes Newton's Theory of Gravity as a limiting case.

Fine. You win. :-)

It's not about winning. It's about clarifying.

Peter P says

Greatest I am says

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards

DL

Ever heard of infinite regression?

Yes.

Now deal with my question and do not just try to sidestep it.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

Greatest I am says

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

Our culture is a form of moral relativism. It is not surprising that we consider things most people do, innately or not, as "moral."

Besides, we cannot fully take moral responsibility if we do not set the initial conditions.

We not not totally "free" to make moral decisions because we react to "decisions" made by others.

Hogwash.

We choose according to all we know plus our hardwired sense of morality.

Stop hiding in other peoples clichés and pet phrases.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Now deal with my question and do not just try to sidestep it.

I just did. Infinite regression takes the paradox out of self-causation.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

`

Yes. And it knows enough to correct it`s mistakes as new information comes in instead of ignoring mew and better ideas the way religions have.

Science is self-correcting while religions wait for their fantasy Gods to correct their more stupid ideas and will li.ve with them forever as they wait for their fantasy to become real.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

We choose according to all we know plus our hardwired sense of morality.

There is no hardwired sense of morality.

People took some of our hardwired behaviors and called them morality.

Raw says

Thank You science......

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=wo_t5#/video/world/2013/01/04/pkg-chance-uk-safer-world.cnn

You fear what your God already embraces. The genocide of mankind. Remember Noah?

God is good. Not.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Science is self-correcting while religions wait for their fantasy Gods to correct their more stupid ideas and will li.ve with them forever as they wait for their fantasy to become real.

Market is self-correcting. Science is just the sum of all scientific egos.

Peter P says

I just did. Infinite regression takes the paradox out of self-causation.

Following that idea, there is no god, no creator of the universe. Time dilation simply approaches infinity as you approach the Big Bang. No causality for nature itself, no god.

Greatest I am says

eligions wait for their fantasy Gods to correct their more stupid ideas and will li.ve with them forever as they wait for their fantasy to become real

This is called, "the god of the gaps" argument.

Peter P says

There is no hardwired sense of morality.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/g8mynrRd7Ak

Additionally, squirrels will sacrifice their own lives to save other close family members. Meerkats will risk their lives to save the offspring of others.

There is much hardwired sense of morality in our species and others. This hardwiring is the result of evolution. Now, now all of morality is hardwired though. Brains continue to develop morality where genes left off.

Peter P says

Market is self-correcting.

The market never learns from its mistakes.

Peter P says

Science is just the sum of all scientific egos.

Never has such a blatantly false statement been made on this site. An infinite sum of egos could not achieve placing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. That takes knowledge, understanding, skill, and productivity. And that is but one of a multitude of accomplishments of science.

That Internet thingy that you are using to have this argument, is another accomplishment of science. As is the doubling of the human life span, the virtual elimination of childbirth deaths for both baby and mother, the ability to communicate and travel anywhere in the world, air-conditioning, and all the things that make life today comfortable and safe.

Dan8267 says

The market never learns from its mistakes.

No matter how much I wanted that to be true, the market is really very good at making itself efficient. Otherwise, why would old trading models stop working?

Dan8267 says

An infinite sum of egos could not achieve placing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth.

Yet without which we would not have to go there at all? The moon is not made of cheese, you know? :-)

Dan8267 says

As is the doubling of the human life span

Not sure if that is a good thing.

And do not confuse science with technology. The creative spark is a very intuitive thing. Science might have been use to validate theories, but it is more of a matter of epistemology.

Note that I am not dissing mathematics, logic, and other form of reasoning.

I am pointing out the empirical nature of inductive reasoning and its limitations.

There is no profit in going to the moon per se. It was an amazing feat, and it stroked a lot of ego, but so what?

Things might have been invented or improved as a side-effect. Then it is really a matter of marketing and financing.

Peter P says

No matter how much I wanted that to be true, the market is really very good at making itself efficient.

If the market were efficient, then the Goldman Sachs of the world would be out of business. As much as I wished the market was efficient and self-correcting, it is not. If the market actually learned from its mistakes and improved itself, the housing bubble would have never happened.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/339761-just-how-efficient-is-the-market

Robert Shiller showed back in 1981 that stock price volatility is far too high to be attributed to new information about future real dividends

Research by Abarbanell and Bernard at Michigan University has shown that companies that surprise with higher than expected profits do not instantly get repriced. 25 to 30% of the repricing happens up to six months after the initial news.

Even the father of efficient market theory, Eugene Fama, has cast doubt on its validity by showing that small cap stocks and low price to book stocks outperform the efficient market model

Josef Lakonishok, Joseph Piotroksi and David Dreman in many different studies have shown that value stocks based on low price to book, low price to earnings and other metrics significantly outperform glamour stocks.

As just one of several identified momentum effects, research by George and Hwang found that stocks near their 52-week highs tend to be systematically undervalued (investors use this level as an “anchor”, so they tend to be reluctant to buy a stock as it nears this point regardless of new positive information).

Dan8267 says

If the market were efficient, then the Goldman Sachs of the world would be out of business. As much as I wished the market was efficient and self-correcting, it is not. If the market actually learned from its mistakes and improved itself, the housing bubble would have never happened.

I think you have an overly simplistic view of market efficiency. Rent-seeking can be profitable even in the face of market efficiency.

The market is self-correcting, yet it may not happening. It is just being as efficient as possible.

That said, the market is NOT completely efficient. It is about 97% (just a number I pulled from my ass). It corrects inefficiencies, but there will always be the new ones.

And by the way, the market is a representation of expectations, not of established facts. Of course the stock prices will diverge from what a value model will predict.

The market is about crowd psychology.