I posted this comment on (the radio show) Philosophy Talk's blog:
Interesting discussion. I lean towards the view that miracles are abundant, but perspectives are limited.
Another point: science is faith-based. My Dad & I had this discussion many times -- have we ever seen atoms, molecules, or for that matter the Earth from space? Not personally -- we take the word of others to be true (or pics/videos which w/current tech could easily be falsified.)
Similarly, science is not actually a compilation of facts -- it's a compilation of theories about observed/recorded phenomena which are subject to many flaws, most notably the flaws of the theoreticians and their framework/worldview.
To continue, NAZI's and many USA/Euro scientists have conducted the cruelest experiments on unwilling victims (NAZI's experimented w/sterilization & many forms of vile surgeries, plus we know of Tuskeegee experiments & now Guatamala STD experiments) in pursuit of 'science'. Much of science continues these practices today on unwilling animal subjects, from genetic experiments to grafting & organ farming to cross-breeding & vivisection & brain experimentation on living creatures).
Worldview is a key factor for all these developments.
While I like many of the developments of science, I would like an option to collectively choose to not pursue various technologies which are like a 'Pandoras Box' of potentially evil outcomes -- nuclear weapons, GM foods (on a massive scale), and bio-war (virii & killer bacteria) are among my top list of BAD science pursuits.
Personally, I think that the products of billions of years of evolution are miraculous. I know of no evidence to show that evolution is the sole factor in current human development (ie could aliens have intervened? Etc.) Also I've experienced psychic & spiritual phenomena which I can't explain scientifically.
Last point: science requires repeatable processes for verification -- it uses deductive reasoning to figure things out. However, the possibility of unique occurrences and singularities which can't be repeated are challenging for our science of today to handle. No ways to test or repeat. Similarly, research can be skewed by manipulating the participants, the factors, changing test parameters, throwing out certain data, or locations. In many studies, the results are hidden inside the margin of error -- and occasionally (as with the global climate change 'debate' & w/research into tobacco and alcohol) the funders of the research may only release scientific research which validates their set viewpoints.
So if molecules are galaxies, if animals have souls, if the Earth &/or Sun are conscious living creatures, if water is sentient, etc -- all this and more are phenomena that science can't answer today. Same w/divine concepts; using science to tackle them is like using a speedometer to measure someone's emotions. Wrong machine, wrong device, and ultimately wrong approach.
rekzkarz.com
ps: After I submitted this comment, the machine couldn't accept my post bc my homepage listed didn't have http in front. What a great analogy for how framing affects what we can accept as input!! A little less strict parameters on the input data @ more flexibility on the results -- but some data don't fit our requirements.
Google discontinues a bunch of stuff
Google discontinues (from Google's Blog post in 9/2011) http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/fall-spring-clean.html
Aardvark: <-- don't care
Desktop: <-- good! This was such an 'invasion of space', and Google kept having messages pop up asking me to install it.
Fast Flip: <-- no big.
Google Maps API for Flash: <- don't care.
Google Pack: <-- another annoying Google thingie. Bye bye!
Google Web Security:<-- I don't care, but some folks might.
Image Labeler: <-- was almost like 'hot or not' or 'rate me date me', except for *all* of Google's images. Oh well, I don't care. Do you?
Notebook: <-- Gah! At least my Google 'bookmarks' is still around. I was using Notebooks for awhile, and they were sorta ok, but at least they say they'll auto-export all Notebook
data to Google Docs.
Sidewiki: Another loss! This was cool -- if you installed Google Toolbar, you could write up notes/code/info on any sites. The idea was to share that data w/others, but I just noting when a site was crap & reminding myself to ignore that site. Oh well...
Subscribed Links: <-- don't care part 3.
Gee, do I find it annoying that Google decides what to continue & what to discontinue without offering up some of that IP to the masses. Why not release that code to the world & let the opensource world choose what to continue???
Where's the -1 button?!?!?!?!?
I'm also ready to see Google+ hit the discontinued section. I signed up, and have regretted it ever since. Google+ to me is like the awkward, challenging, and annoying Google Wave (which also vanished) -- they need to hire more UI designers to help them build web-apps which are easy to use!
Gee, do I find it annoying that Google decides what to continue & what to discontinue without offering up some of that IP to the masses. Why not release that code to the world & let the opensource world choose what to continue???
Where's the -1 button?!?!?!?!?
I'm also ready to see Google+ hit the discontinued section. I signed up, and have regretted it ever since. Google+ to me is like the awkward, challenging, and annoying Google Wave (which also vanished) -- they need to hire more UI designers to help them build web-apps which are easy to use!
BrassRing jobsite -- SUCKS!
Brassing SUCKS! I'd like to say it 100x.
There was a job I wished to apply for -- finally something which is a good fit for me. It was only posted on BrassRing's jobsite. Against my best wishes, I signed up.
I regret the experience already. I'd like to have a chat with the designer of the website.
Many job-sites understand that applicants are their clients as much as the companies seeking new employees -- and thus they make the sites relatively easy to submit your information. In fact, the best sites upload your resume (pdf or doc or rtf) and scan it for info, show the applicant how their info was scanned (ie parsed), and then allow the applicant to add additional materials as needed.
BrassRing on the other hand requires the user to create a ridiculous username/password combination (including a password of 8 characters which *must* have a 'special character'), then immediately asks users to submit a 'unique number' consisting of their month and day of their birthday plus the first 6 numbers of their social security.
Perhaps I won't get this job, but I did not submit this info -- why should I reveal my personal info to a third party that doesn't have any type of contact info on their website?!?!?
Anyway, despite all the relevant info being listed on my resume, the website asks me to manually retype my education and work experience. What I've chosen to do to bypass much of these badly designed HR systems is to put my most recent work experience and my college, and leave everything else off.
But the end of this rant is near; the information revolution is all around us, but bad designers sabotage the revolution continuously. Rather than me inputting our data one million times, the 'open signon' and 'open protocols' should be enabled so I can have my profile configured and appearing however I wish, have that content marked up by XML so these HR sites can peruse me and parse my data, but I can present what I wish -- and not present my social or personal info that is not relevant. If we can't get this done with opensource, maybe Linkedin will do it for us?
The future is almost here -- or so they tell me -- but for jobhunting, it's got a ways to go yet.
There was a job I wished to apply for -- finally something which is a good fit for me. It was only posted on BrassRing's jobsite. Against my best wishes, I signed up.
I regret the experience already. I'd like to have a chat with the designer of the website.
Many job-sites understand that applicants are their clients as much as the companies seeking new employees -- and thus they make the sites relatively easy to submit your information. In fact, the best sites upload your resume (pdf or doc or rtf) and scan it for info, show the applicant how their info was scanned (ie parsed), and then allow the applicant to add additional materials as needed.
BrassRing on the other hand requires the user to create a ridiculous username/password combination (including a password of 8 characters which *must* have a 'special character'), then immediately asks users to submit a 'unique number' consisting of their month and day of their birthday plus the first 6 numbers of their social security.
Perhaps I won't get this job, but I did not submit this info -- why should I reveal my personal info to a third party that doesn't have any type of contact info on their website?!?!?
Anyway, despite all the relevant info being listed on my resume, the website asks me to manually retype my education and work experience. What I've chosen to do to bypass much of these badly designed HR systems is to put my most recent work experience and my college, and leave everything else off.
But the end of this rant is near; the information revolution is all around us, but bad designers sabotage the revolution continuously. Rather than me inputting our data one million times, the 'open signon' and 'open protocols' should be enabled so I can have my profile configured and appearing however I wish, have that content marked up by XML so these HR sites can peruse me and parse my data, but I can present what I wish -- and not present my social or personal info that is not relevant. If we can't get this done with opensource, maybe Linkedin will do it for us?
The future is almost here -- or so they tell me -- but for jobhunting, it's got a ways to go yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)