Japan researchers unveil robot suit for farmers
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrtY40uG7rv82UkLYk6m4hQeVDNe_MLPFCGBHx6yAqRye9k3QO5xVqjSvkHwigT7fXgO-If-wXepqkOCHZFm_-gUHEky-hqOtSJLP3_62VCFDF3eLiA1hP6ridfRZI-ZnVhzQyiJ5EsuWa/s400/aaastudentuses.jpg)
I'm an aging, shrinking farmer, and I need this!
A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.
***
If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?
***
If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic?
***
Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
1. The first and abiding point concerns plumbers showing up to critique Darwin and non-chefs critiquing chefs. Scott has denied that this is an appeal to authority, yet insists that authority trumps “outsiders”, who are butting in and are out of their league. (also related is #6 below).
2. Stephen J. Gould is invoked in an excerpt that makes his case that evolutionary science is different and therefore is allowed to use different standards. The bulk of the Gould complaint compares evo-science to law. But Scott also uses a hoops/pigskin reference as an “apples and oranges” argument. Evidence, the argument seems to be, is relative.
3. Next he compares evo-science inferences to Einstein’s inferences as a means of justifying their use.
4. Then the existing record of empirical evo-confirmations is cited.
5. Scott repeats that an hypothesis cannot be argued against unless a competing, superior hypothesis is first presented.
6. Finally he categorizes me in a fashion that appears calculated to imply that I lack credentials satisfactory to the task, in his opinion.
1. There is no possible way to use the metaphors of plumber vs. Darwin and diner vs.chef and not be referring to lack of authority or a requirement of authority. This is a common syndrome within paleo- whatever: If you criticize, you show your ignorance: so begone, ignorant one. In fact I was not challenging the factoids produced by archaeology; dinosaurs of all stripes existed as did huge sloths, mastadons, etc. What I was challenging – and still challenge – is the rationalization that accompanies these factoids. So the challenge is about process: the logic and rational relationships that are being used to declare TRUTH. Does it take four PhD’s in paleo-whatever to examine logic? In fact, how many biologists even study logic?In fact other sciences do use inference, and use it successfully and rationally. The process is to take data, draw an inference, form a hypothesis, design an experiment, limit the variables, take data, objectively analyze for conformance to the hypothesis, list deviations, draw another inference, repeat the above until deviations are under the instrumentation noise threshold. If this process converges, it will produce a factoid, which remains contingent, and therefore never becomes absolute Truth. There is no stopping at the pointin the process where the inference is made.
The process of determining actual Truth is not restricted to biologists and is not dependent upon one’s knowledge of paleo-factoids. Logic is a separate and universal set of truths and can be an acquired skill set if it is studied and applied rigorously and with intellectual honesty. Logic is not dependent upon any information set derived by any scientific pursuit; conversely, science is dependent upon logic. Illogically obtained, science data has no value.
So there are two fallacies at play, here. First the obvious Appeal to Authority Fallacy, second a weak Red Herring Fallacy where a demand is made that is not even pertinent to the issue: being an expert in X is not essential when observing logical processes common to all rational pursuits. But being logical is essential to being an expert in X, if X is a rational pursuit.
2. Gould is making a plea that is a Special Pleading Fallacy: X is somehow “special” and this makes it OK to exempt X from the constraints placed on the rest of the alphabet.
3. Here is my favorite. Einstein did in fact infer certain things mathematically. He did not however declare them fact until empirical confirmation was accomplished. He never declared them to be Truth. This is just a false use of an authority.
4. As I have done many times, I again asked to be made acquainted with which of Scott’s list of evo-things are actual, incontrovertible, empirical proof of evolution. This request has never been answered. I again request just one (1) instance of this. Providing a lengthy list of inferential presumptions does not make the case that evolution is as robust as other sciences. Part of the problem here is that evolution is not even completely defined, as redefinitions are to be forthcoming in this, the year of Darwin. The hypothesis remains malleable.
5. To claim that fallacies cannot be cited when identified unless a Truth is provided as well…. is false. A fallacy is a fallacy, and is false, period.
6. I might have hoped for a better classification than “armchair philosopher”, but I can see that it served Scott’s purposes. Biologists seem to have an almost accountant-like drive to classify and categorize things; but I had hoped for something more along the lines of “Templar of Logic”. Oh, well. At any rate it is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, and as I said above it appears designed to imply a lack of acceptable credentials on my part, so it was applied in the name of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. But again, I was not critiquing the details of the science, I was being critical of the conclusions of fact and truth being drawn, and there’s your apples vs. oranges.
"She does not represent the opinions of the vast majority of people who were there," said Emmanuel Lopez, who helped plan the event, one of many sponsored nationwide on Dec. 30 by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism ) Coalition.Presumably Lopez and ANSWER are OK with the random, indiscriminate bombing of Israel's citizens by Palestinian terrorists.
Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.
"Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," Lopez said.
Joseph Yanai, director of the Ross Laboratory for Studies in Neural Birth Defects at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, in Jerusalem, says that stem-cell therapies are ideal for treating birth defects where the mechanism of damage is multifaceted and poorly understood. "If you use neural stem cells," says Yanai, "they are your little doctors. They're looking for the defect, they're diagnosing it, and they're differentiating into what's needed to repair the defect. They are doing my job, in a way."The article goes on to say:
Transplanted stem cells have previously shown promise in reversing brain damage caused by strokes, as well as by neurological diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and Huntington's. But their use in treating birth defects is relatively new.While these stem cells were from embryonic mice, the next thrust will be into stem cells derived from the defective mouse itself, regressed from normal cells. This is intended to reduce the propensity for tumors and cancers inherent with embryonic stem cells.
"Well and good. Then, my questions for Stan are these:
Where is the inferential reference mountain for a young Earth?
Where is the inferential reference mountain for millions of separate acts of creation?
Where is the inferential reference mountain to account for the (presumably false) appearance of common descent?
Where is the inferential reference mountain for a non-evolutionary explanation for homologous structures, vestigial organs, common biochemistry, common embryological features, the fossil record, the origin of sex, neoteny, Hox genes, pseudogenes, mutualisms, ecological niche occupation, the origin of the eukaryotic cell, adaptive radiations, haplodiploidy in social insects?"
"Attempting to defuse the diplomatic tension occasioned by the call for Israel's destruction issued by the then-newly elected President Ahmadinejad at the previous month's "World Without Zionism" conference, Khamenei concluded his uncharacteristically moderate sermon with the following ringing remarks:'We Iranians intend no harm to any nation, nor will we be the first to attack any nation. We do not deny the right of any polity in any place on God's earth to exist and prosper. We are a peace-loving country whose only wish is to live, and to let live, in peace.'
"Without missing a beat, or evincing a discernible hint of irony, the reporter who covered the event continued:'The congregation of worshippers, some 7,000 in number, expressed their unanimous support for the Supreme Leader's words by repeatedly chanting, marg bar Omrika, marg bar Esra'il "Death to America! Death to Israel!"'"This is not as strange as it sounds. Chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!" has been the way Iranians applaud for over a quarter-century. When the soccer team from Isfahan scores a goal against the soccer team from Shiraz, its fans cheer wildly: "Death to America! Death to Israel!" At the end of an exquisitely performed sitar solo, the genteel audience in a concert hall in Tabriz shows its appreciation by loudly heaping imprecations upon "International Arrogance" (the USA) and "its Bastard Offspring" (the Jewish state). Even during the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Iranian participants have replaced their traditionally pious ejaculations of "I am at your service, O Lord, there is none like unto you!" with responsive Persian cursing sessions aimed at the Hebrew- and English-speaking enemies of everything that is holy. Like the daily "Two Minutes Hate" in George Orwell's "1984," this venom-spewing is the mantra upon which an entire generation of Iranians has been raised."