Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I think what Orange said points at what I find dangerous with such laws. They are extremely vague and entirely depend on what people call offense, defamation, world views, and how all of this offends their world view to a point to disturb public peace. I think you will find as many interpretation of said laws as you will find people being offended over anything.

Like Muhammad caricatures... 

I really think that people opposed to modern 'blasphemy laws' just want an excuse to slander and defame people and their world views, because they themselves think them silly (or 'evil') or simply because they lack the capacity to envision to challange someone in debate without taking refuge in slander and defamation.

That's really probable.

On the other hand it's rather easy to say that. It could also be really easy to say that some religious people support those laws because they are just the same way unable to debate without taking refuge behind censorship and blasphemy laws....

We can go really far with that kind of suppositions.

I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.

So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.

@Nicoletta:
I think it's perfectly sane to call people like this naive, stupid or simply ignorant on this basis, quite depending of the magnitude of the (objectively) shown disconnection to reality. It is just much, much more difficult to call out certain religious beliefs for being balls-out-crazy than it is with other beliefs (such as popular conspiracy theories - you'll find remarkable similarities), simply due to the fact that this is religious, and therefore somehow sacrosanct.
Calling for euthanasia is something else since it doesn't really matter why you want to euthanize a group of people, because regardless of the reasons, this is actually a crime. Also why are we talking about euthanizing people in the first place?

Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.

Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.

Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.

While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.

Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.

In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.

[Publius Valerius]

I havent read all comments in this thread so I just Leroy Jenkins into this thread.

While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.

About "are much more open to debate and critique." Do you have a link for? I mean really?* Sorry Mithra. I have to tell you .... you are wrong. So I re-word your comment: "While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are AS SHITTY AS those followers of naturalistic scientism.****

Here I have to go off topic. Me personally I see it like Fredrick the great: Religion ist ein Aberglaube/religion is a superstition. Which those not mean this superstition is not politically useful.
For him was it easy to be religious tolerant, because he believed in none of them, so there is no ranking or fostering between those religions (Lutheran, catholic, etc..). And thats how I see it too. Iam so far away of those religions, that I even dont understand most of them.** Secondly as Fredrick mention, religion can be useful. And who am I, that I would go "atheist on their ass"? Iam far to much an non-Tim-Tebow, that I see it my mission in life to fix this problem.

He stated this in a talkshow, where he claimed that belief in God is a delusion and a dangerous one at that (he said both quite publicly in The God Delusion and The Root of All Evil). Asked what should be done with theists that don't want to give up on their 'delusion' he said something along the lines of (I paraphrase): As they are a potential dangerous to society, they should be placed in psychiatric institution and treated for their delusion there. Anyhow, his characterisation of theism as 'dangerous delusion' really does implicate such a treatment already.

That said, I'll try to dig up that talkshow for you. I follow him as he think he's a good educater of the general public about scince - although unfortunately he does that less and less - and simply a horrible example of a scientist thinking that he's more elegible to talk about philosophy (of religion) and theology then philosophers and scientists. Still, I'm not doing an index of what he said nor am I aiming to build an archive of Darwkins. So, I might not find it.

He mostly speaks of the dangers of religions. Dangers which still exist like, doomsday-predictions***, destruction of knowledge, human mutilation, exclusion or limitation of people, selection of rights and duties etc.... Which I have to say is a problem. Me personally Iam to much of an egalitarist and economist that I buy in such things (thats why I always have those skin tickling when someone is a elitist, racist, or tries to split humans and their rights/choices/tools/braincells/etc... in any shape or form (*looks angrily at the old slavery discussion and thinks: I should had wrote "are you a moron or racist"*).

As for me, as I said above. I see a lot of problems in religions, BUT HERE IS THE THING. There are bigger problems out there. As you and others already mention, hunger, clean water, education, etc... As that I would waist my time on such a thing. This so far below of my to-do-list, that I dont even see the need to rework the german blasphemy laws. I get why Bloodbird puts so much work in it... but again HERE IS ANOTHER THING: Your work should not just be to explain why it is important to you, BUT ALSO WHY IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO ME! And here is where you fail, as well as Bill Maher and Dawkins. I see the problem, that we make a "special snowflake for religion", but it is important? And if the answer for you is yes, fine. But it doesnt mean it is for me yes.

In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.

I reword: "In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger and problems than from some religious nutters."





Moves back into the shadows.....


______________
*I could tell you stories about three white-power-stooges, which spitted choices along of skin colors. And the reaction of those people.... Instate of asking what they have done wrong, they double down on stupid (Example: Gottis post were he tried to insult me with a Adam Sandler movie scene *facepalm*). Ehm... or the other time were two people have try to sell me that Heinrich=Nazi, but not the racist crab which one of them wrote to explain REAL WORLD SLAVERY. Somehow, his/her real-world racism wasnt a problem; It was seen from this person as a non-issue, but a last name Heinrich was a problem? So no, I dont see any positive or negative correlation between: "More open to debate and critique(1)" and "religion and/or Atheism(2)".
** Even my own Lutheran. I mean, I was raise up in a protestant west-german/rhineland enclave, which was more Prussian then the Prussian themselves. Even the local football/soccer was/is named Borussia. *facepalm*
*** Which always go hand in hand, that worldly laws are dont matter. Which implies even a bigger and more destructive nature of religions, and he even dont mention this. 
**** A good example would be Thunderf00t (which I love). But even he has his moment where I thing: What? Like his stone tick. Someone which buys a stone for two hundred bucks to fight headaches form his small bed-commode/chest of drawers in his sleep, believes also in a religion. I call it: "The magic stone fix me when I sleep religion". 

[Lyn Farel]

I dunno about other countries, but in Germany law professionals define exactly what is defamation and/or slander and application of laws follows these definitions. So, no, it's not a matter of people feeling offended about anything.

So... I don't think that you can reasonably claim that people hide behind these laws if they can't hide behind them to evade debate, really. Also, factually speaking, at least here in Germany, the big religious institutions don't.

Well yes, if you say so... I have no knowledge of how it works in other countries. Even if I have difficulties to believe you.

Trials in justice always implies for both parties to curb the laws to one's own defense and resorting to texts and then proving that said texts fit to your case and prove you in your right. The more vague it is, the more random it becomes, thus why we constantly have law acts and edicts made everyday by the government that gets amendments, again and again, until they either become more precise (the good way) or until they lose all their accuracy for private interests / politics sake.

However I will freely grant that I am rather attached to my country's tradition protecting the right to satirical pieces above all else, and while I would be tempted to say like you that we perfectly do the difference between satire and slander, I will refrain because I perfectly know that it's not, as seen in the Muhammad caricatures case, among other things like censored adds involving negative portrayal of the Church.

And I will also admit that memetic bullying of beliefs, minorities, or else, is worrying, but is unfortunately nothing new.

Actually wanting to euthanize someone isn't a crime (there is no thought policing in Germany). Calling for it is. If you want to ask why we talk this in the first place, ask Silas.

Also, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe to science a primacy in getting to know what is 'objectively true' and where there actually is a '(objective) disconnect to reality'. I come to find people that do so quite ignorant of other approaches to reality, approaches that actually have a longer history and work for more people practically.

Believe me it is quite difficult to call people out on the blind spots in regard to secular world views based on naturalism and scientism. Nowadays science is quite often taken to be as sacrosanct by people in the internetcommunity as they accuse the religions of trying to maintain themselves by 'blasphemy laws'.

While in fact religions nowadays - aside some fanatic fringes in the US and near east - are much more open to debate and critique than those followers of naturalistic scientism.

Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.

In western civilized nations there is a far bigger danger than from some religious nutters.

Well yeah, followers of Scientism are all fanatics, but in the case of religions, that's just a "fringe".

[Desiderya]

Nicoletta, I do not see the fallacy in ascribing science the primacy when it comes to questions such as 'how old is the Earth'. It is the only method to generate evidence based, verifiable results we have. I do not have to believe in them in the same manner that I do not have to believe in Father Tesla when trying to charge my phone.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There's a difference though in ascribing primacy in how to generate results and how to generate truth. Results don't imply truth, they only imply that something works, which doesn't have necessitate truth at all.

There's a difference between methodological and ontological validity.

All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works.  It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.

It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.

As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).

Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...

[Publius Valerius]

Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works.  It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.

About "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."
What the fuck? Really? Where do you have this (I never heared this, and who had teached you this***)? Secondly I have even Popper in my bookshelf.... so I dont mind if you qoute directly even in german for your prove.  So that your stuff dont comes out tine air.

It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.

Ehm I havent seen this "overconfidential attitude". But anyway. I bring it down.
- Publius likes sciences, and needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he needs food and water to survive*).
- Publius likes religion, and dont needs it for his work and live (*Publius rises fist fist to reality that he does not needs transcendence to survive*).

Does it mean nobody those need relgion? Of course not. This would be a inductive miss-conclusion. And (this time in this thread), nobody is gone this route. The same miss-conclusion would be also exist if you would now think, that "Publius likes sciences and relgion in the same way." I like them (for different reasons), but for me those two are two circles which only mildly hit/overlap each-other. Secondly: Luckily, my field of study was in macro-economics and political science/npö, so fields where you have 95% math anyway and almost no critical intercept point with religion.

Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...

Publius counts through the thread. Sees only himself, and even that only mildly. Mithra, you forget Lyn is a constructivist, as well as the others. The only mildly positivistic person here is me, and even I dont see myself as a radical positivist (not as a supporter of scientism). Because... I dont think science needs to answer transcendence questions. SO EASY IS THIS.

Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic  ):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?


________
*** Not that Iam hating. But this is so deep in "Wait-What land", that I have to ask.
P.S. before you do a Mithra again, as you done in the slavery topic. Please reread again. It helps. Example: Nobody said that scientism should be a substitution for religion. It is again a discussion only in your head, so please dont do a Mithra and answer to things nobody mention.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).

Anyhow:

How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.

(emphasis added by me)

The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.

As to who is in favour of science as the priviledged source of truth: Look at what Des and Silas wrote for example. Reconsider your counting.

Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.

[Publius Valerius]

Popper doesn't go the route to show that inductive logic can't be verified, his argument is another as he claims that science is in no need of induction (and works exclusively deductively, which is quite out of touch with reality).

Anyhow:

How is induction to be justified? There are in fact several questions here, corresponding to different modes of justification. One very simple mode is to take Hume's dilemma as a challenge, to justify (enumerative) induction one should show that it leads to true or probable conclusions from true premises. It is safe to say that in the absence of further assumptions this problem is and should be insoluble.

(emphasis added by me)

The interesting point is that there is a logically symmetric problem with deduction, as pointed out e.g. by Susan Haack in her article "The Justification of Deduction" (Mind New Series, Vol. 85, No. 337 (Jan., 1976), pp. 112-119). So Popper isn't getting around the problem there either.

Is this a anti-point for anything I mention? As for your comment "out of touch with reality"... It is your opinion... and you a free to voice your opinion. As for me I dont see him out of touch. I actually think, if you cant deductive explain our inductive findings you should not publish it. I think that way we would have less shitty and ideological political science studies/books. Or science books overall. I could give you hunderds of examples, where people defend their inductive miss-conclussion just it fits their Ideology. For example "the three white power stooges", which most likely has inductive findings of people which fits their ideology. But those it mean all of dark skin color people are this way? Or have less tools/choices/braincells/etc... No, of course not. Thats why I think, it isnt out of touch. Quiet the opposite, it helps people stay in touch. IN OTHER WORDS. If you dont cant explain deductive your inductive findings you should keep your mouth close (I know something that will never happen. As Books out of the left field get selled more... and you as author/prof can then visit John Stewart and co...) Something which I mention already two times here (to lazy to search for a link. But Samuel P. Huntington is a prime example for this. But I go off topic.



My questions mark was more into the direction of "Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works."





Ehm another question for you Mithra (before this thread goes totally off topic  ):
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?

[Publius Valerius]

Also, stop this babble about 'doing a Mithra' as if that'd be something to denote something bad, or I'll report you.

Report if you like. But when you dont read a full argument and just the two words which fits your Ideology, I will call out on you, as well as when you do a straw men argument. As for why I call it a Mithra? It is because I always see you doing this. Sadly I dont know why, It is something what only you can explain. But if you like to report me you are free to do so. And I will sit out my well deserved ban as I had done with my comment towards Gotti (to lazy to search the catacombs).

By the way. If the second thing is your problem (the name calling), maybe you should then stop useing terms like "tonygism" or "tonygish", because both have the same brain father.

P.S. Dont forget to answer my questions.
Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?

[Desiderya]

All that science says is that given the methodological decisions made, the axioms of science (e.g.: inductive logic works), the theories that are presupposed and the data one did gather empirically, that earth is older than 5000 years. It's not saying that Earth is in some absolute sense older than that. Scientific results are not at all verifiable (something that Popper already showed and even worse, since then it has been shown that scientific knowledge isn't even strictly falsifiable), because they depend on the axiomatic basis of Science. For the results (as in scientific theories) to be verifiable, the axioms need to be verifiable. Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works.  It can be shown, though, that one can't verify that inductive logic works.

It's exactly this overconfidential attitude of people in regards to what science can do that is quite typical of people who're so opposed to religion.

As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).

Just look at this thread and count the people that take the stance that we'd all be better off if science alone would be determining what is to be held true and that people who go 'against' (which oftentimes is really just not accepting it as giving ontologically absolute answers) it are silly, naive, stupid or simply ignorant...

Correct. You can't claim absolute truth. And I don't think it's been claimed, because absolute truth is for mental masturbation and evangelism. Objective truth might be a better term. Natural sciences make observations and attempt to model them (through mathematics, for example) in a way that allows to use these model to explain and predict the reality. These are, by definition, not precise in the most absolute sense.
However, they are solid enough to not just make predictions, but to also apply them with utmost precision. Despite being grounded in empirical data which is always prone to errors and interpretation, it can't be that faulty that we somehow get errors of the scale of 10^5. So, these principles are by all means quite well understood, or at least described.
You are correct that whenever we look into the past we can not outrule the possibility that something we do not understand happened that produces exactly the results we get while the same principles applied today are yielding perfect results, indicating a deity that makes everything(!), not just one aspect, look like he did nothing, just to screw with us. So that is indeed a possibility.

I can't tell you why there's gravity. I can explain how to model it and what you need to get it, though. I can't tell you why the Earth's exactly at this place either.

[Lyn Farel]

To be perfectly clear I don't know what to think of such blasphemy laws in Europe. Are we better without, or with them, as long as they protect every belief, and not just religion ? How does one draw the line between the right to satire and the rights of the offended ? The hell if I know, it's pretty much fucked up at both extremes either way.

I loathe some of those in a lot of third world countries, but as already discussed to death in the first pages of this topic, that petition looks ludicrous in that light, and even dangerous and counter productive.

Also, I won't continue to indulge in the current conversation as I do not hold the sufficient philosophical knowledge to do so, and for once do not have the time nor the patience to get more info about it just to be able to follow it as I did countless times already ICly on the IGS. I have always supported the right to religion and spiritual enlightenment if that's what make people happy, even scientists (considering that half of scientists in the world believe in a God). I can't grasp it, I find it utterly alien, silly, like a crutch, whatever you can call it, but I respect it, especially because I am totally devoid of it, and lack it myself. Religion (not organized) can probably offer other kinds of answers to spiritual venues. I of course find it sad to see some zealous atheists unleashing on religious people, especially on the internet, since IRL it's still exactly the opposite in most places. The only thing I see myself IRL are religious traditionalists that fight against progress and post modernism, and thus, are opposed to myself on the political landscape. However, I will never make the mistake to put them in the same basket with all believers of the world.

If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.

As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old. I couldn't care less about old religious answers on the matter. They have become obsolete. Someday probably, our own science of today will be proven obsolete too.

[orange]

As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.

It is actually related to the radioactive decay of Uranium to Lead. 

Carbon dating apparently does not work on materials more than a few tens of thousand years old.

If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.

There could be an argument that peer-reviewed scientific literature is controlled by the editors of prominent scientific journals, like Nature, Science.

This is actually an argument by the political right in the United States with regards to both evolution and climate change.  In the case of climate change, they assert a politically-based conspiracy exists to shackle the economy and feed money to unprofitable alternative energy companies (who in turn donate to their opponents political campaigns).

One of the biggest hurdles is reading any of the articles really requires an understanding of the jargon used.  Generally, the authors do not write the articles for general consumption, thus common definitions of words like proof, theory, etc, are misinterpreted by the layman*.

*Sadly, the use of layman here implies a relationship similar to that of religious institutions, in which trained experts (the clergy) is separate from the rest of the population.

So, like religion before it, a literate general population is necessary to break the holds of elites or powerful institutions on understanding the material provided.  In the case of western religion, this occurred with the printing press, renaissance, localization of the Bible, etc - today there are numerous versions of Christianity, to include those with personal beliefs/interpretations since the clergy no longer has a monopoly on reading and interpreting the Bible.

In the case of science, either (1) the scientific community must work to reduce the presence of jargon in their work or (2) the general populous must be educated to be scientifically literate.  The first case is likely the most straight-forward, since the population that needs to change its thought processes is smaller.  Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new clergy.

An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.

Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?

What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.

Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'. There is a hughe difference between a scientist and someone subscribing to Scientism. A scientist is someone doing science, which only implies that he has a methodological dedication to naturalism and therefore atheism. This is purely methodological, though. Someone subscribing to Scientism is of the opinion that Scientism is what can tell you about everything and that every question about things outside of the scope of science are meaningless and that the methodological dedication of science to naturalism therefore needs to be extended to an ontological naturalism of the type that only what science can show to be, exists.

And yes, those people would like to monopolize (I didn't say they did that already) determining what the meaning of all is and what truth is in their hands. Because they really think that they have figured it out. It's not malevolence, I think, but ignorance of their own ignorance. As Hannah Arendt said: The shocking truth about people that commit evil deeds is their mediocrity rather than that they are beasts soaked in evil to begin with. They are everyday men, just 'doing their job', as they understand it. And those people think that it is their job, as scientists, to determine what is true and the meaning of something.

I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.

That said, I agree with Orange: Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new [medieval] clergy. (And I think the role of communicator is one that clergy befits as well.) There is the problem of a quite similar relationship of scientist to 'laymen' like with the medieval church. Alas, I am sceptic in regard to approach (1), as jargon does fill an essential role in science, I don't think it's reducible to 'everyday language', else no one would have much of a problem to a) understand the equasions of quantum physics in the first place and b) there wouldn't have been produced so many differing interpretations. The language of mathmatics seems better suited to express the aspects of nature physics describes there, than our everyday language.

Educating everyone to be scientifically literate isn't such an easy thing either. I don't think that one should be forcing this on people. Also, it would be quite like medieval theologians forcing everyone into studying theology at medieval universities... And that's leaving aside the question whether people actually all have the mental capacity to understand, say quantum physics on the level of a physics student (not to say graduate).

As to peer review: In the middle ages there was an institution founded to review clergy internally, just like scientists are reviewing scientists nowadays. Of course it has played a role in history of which mainly the grim parts resound in our collective memory, I daresay. Or who thinks the Inquisition was a good thing?

I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all (P.S.: Obviously overstating. Rather all the 'cutting edge math' diversity continua) the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?

Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.

[Publius Valerius]

I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...

What have you wrote.... and what human (out of which field) said you should take out the math and statistic? Not that Im hating just curious.

Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works. 

A old question from ..... Where did you get this line? or Idea?

I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.

This is so out of the left field that I cant believe this. Not that Iam hating but from which field was the guy?

Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?

Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.

What ever you like... As I said I just Leroy Jenkins in to see if I see someone had done some errors again.  Because you have a huge tendency to do inductive conclusions, as well as split of humans/choices/Braincells/tools/etc.... Like ones where you try to sell me that "officer of the army in the air/aka pilots are somehow special humans (to lazy to search for the link)... or the slavery discussion where you split choice along skin colors (to lazy to search for a link) or above about "much more open to debate and critique"... as I said in the slavery topic it lets my skin tickling as well as I have brought there the bad joke: That I have to apologize to Rebecca Black and here "friday" song after hearing "Hot Problems" from Double Take. The same feeling have I often here on this forum, that I have to apologize to TonyG, because most of the stuff here is even worse. And you are one of those persons (next to Gotti and Hellgremlin) which I thought, and still think is worse then tongy´s stuff. After that it got even worse. Later, where I thought (and still think) wait, those this "white-power-fanboy or moron"*** try to sell that Heinrich=Nazi?


As for "I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant." Nah... just post it here... I dont mind it if it is german... you can add a transcript in english if you so deeply care. Because I have to say.... As I already mention above.... That Iam still not sell on the whole Idea that this topic should be important to ME, neither from Bloodbird or you. As I mention above Bloodbird failded as "missionary" for me (as well as many others. In science: Darwkin or entertainment: Bill Maher). Sadly you too... but you dont need to answer if your goal isnt "missonary". 

______
***This question is still open.