Of course, I'm sure that what your teacher means is that we can learn about morality from the Bible, which is quite stupid.
I'm gonna call you out right there and say that if you mean you can't learn about morality from the Bible, you're dead wrong. Even if you believe it is completely immoral, it shapes the moral beliefs of so many people that you can understand more about the ideas behind morality by studying it. The Bible is relevant to modern morality, so you can learn about morality from it. If you meant that a science isn't simply something that you can learn from, then excuse my anger.
I'm gonna call you out right there and say that if you mean you can't learn about morality from the Bible, you're dead wrong. Even if you believe it is completely immoral, it shapes the moral beliefs of so many people that you can understand more about the ideas behind morality by studying it. The Bible is relevant to modern morality, so you can learn about morality from it. If you meant that a science isn't simply something that you can learn from, then excuse my anger.
"Learn about morality" as in "learn what is moral," not "learn what shapes people's beliefs about morality."
I'm gonna call you out right there and say that if you mean you can't learn about morality from the Bible, you're dead wrong. Even if you believe it is completely immoral, it shapes the moral beliefs of so many people that you can understand more about the ideas behind morality by studying it. The Bible is relevant to modern morality, so you can learn about morality from it. If you meant that a science isn't simply something that you can learn from, then excuse my anger.
"Learn about morality" as in "learn what is moral," not "learn what shapes people's beliefs about morality."
Even still, regardless of what you believe is moral, you can learn about what is moral from reading the Bible, either as a positive or negative example.
Even still, regardless of what you believe is moral, you can learn about what some people think is moral from reading the Bible, either as a positive or negative example.
Even still, regardless of what you believe is moral, you can learn about what is moral from reading the Bible, either as a positive or negative example.
Not really. Unless you already have an opinion on what is and isn't moral, you won't be able to judge whether it's a positive example or a negative one.
I'm gonna call you out right there and say that if you mean you can't learn about morality from the Bible, you're dead wrong. Even if you believe it is completely immoral, it shapes the moral beliefs of so many people that you can understand more about the ideas behind morality by studying it. The Bible is relevant to modern morality, so you can learn about morality from it. If you meant that a science isn't simply something that you can learn from, then excuse my anger.
"Learn about morality" as in "learn what is moral," not "learn what shapes people's beliefs about morality."
Even still, regardless of what you believe is moral, you can learn about what is moral from reading the Bible, either as a positive or negative example.
If all you need is an example to learn morality, you can just as easily learn morality from a bodice-ripping Harlequin novel. Reading the Bible does not teach you morality. At best it helps you practice already established thought patterns.
Also, a science is a set of rules used to explain the relationship between facts and to predict the result of a future event. Science is repeatable and disprovable. Morals (and ethics) may be useful constructs, but there are no verifiable predictions made of the consequences of a moral/immoral action.
you can just as easily learn morality from a bodice-ripping Harlequin novel.
I would say more easily, as the sex scenes are usually a little less Lot and his daughters, and a little more lord fauntleroy getting his end away with the pretty servant girl.
Of course, I'm sure that what your teacher means is that we can learn about morality from the Bible, which is quite stupid.
I'm gonna call you out right there and say that if you mean you can't learn about morality from the Bible, you're dead wrong. Even if you believe it is completely immoral, it shapes the moral beliefs of so many people that you can understand more about the ideas behind morality by studying it. The Bible is relevant to modern morality, so you can learn about morality from it. If you meant that a science isn't simply something that you can learn from, then excuse my anger.
I meant a bit of both. Still, in principle, there is definitely something you could learn about morality from the Bible, but I'd say it's rather little compared to just about anything else you could choose to read. Sure, you'll see what other people consider to be a "moral code", and you might realise how obviously flawed it is, but that isn't what was meant. I don't think you'll attain much in the way of self-improvement.
Also, a science is a set of rules used to explain the relationship between facts and to predict the result of a future event.
Science also does not contradict itself. Biology doesn't say "All vertebrates must have backbones, unless they're special vertebrates." Biblical morality is plenty content to say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless the victims be of a different faith; then, thou shalt disembowel their pregnant, kill their men by the sword, and dash their babes upon the rocks."
It looks like netflix quality may suffer from lame Canadian ISPs.
Starting today, watching movies & TV shows in Canada will use 2/3 less data on average with minimal impact to video quality. For example, watching 30 hours of Netflix movies & TV shows will only use 9 GB of data, well below most Canadian ISP data caps. Previously, 30 hours from Netflix typically used 31 GB.
Why the change? We know that many of our Canadian members have monthly Internet data caps. This new default account setting will significantly reduce the amount of data Netflix delivers to you each month.
You now also have the ability to manage how much data Netflix delivers to you. Visit Your Account to adjust your settings anytime you want. Regardless of which setting you choose –– Netflix is still only $7.99 a month.
As always, we will continue to innovate and try new things to ensure Netflix is a great experience without high data use. If you have any questions, please call us at 1-866-923-1277.
They fired my Teacher Aide on Thursday. None of the administration told me about it and I heard second hand from other teachers. My workload has now made it so that I can not teach 'bell-to-bell' and also complete all paperwork necessary for each class period. When I addressed the administrator in charge of TA scheduling and asked when I could expect another TA, his answer was "tell me which classes are your busiest." and made no mention of when a new aide would be hired. Damnit.
Just had my piano practical exam. I was nervous and played off count so badly that my professor stopped me in the middle of the piece and told me to go sit back down. I've been stressed out about this exam for the past week and somehow it went far worse than I ever imagined. I feel mortified and shamed.
Luckily(?) I've been given the opportunity to perform again on Thursday, so I'm going to skip my afternoon class today so I can go home and drill.
Just had my piano practical exam. I was nervous and played off count so badly that my professor stopped me in the middle of the piece and told me to go sit back down. I've been stressed out about this exam for the past week and somehow it went far worse than I ever imagined. I feel mortified and shamed.
Luckily(?) I've been given the opportunity to perform again on Thursday, so I'm going to skip my afternoon class today so I can go home and drill.
Ouch, dude. Sorry to hear that. I can empathize; I recently had an exam I thought I was 100% prepared for go relatively poorly. I can still get a good grade in the course, but it sucked anyway. I spent the weekend after finding out my score in a depressed daze.
Best of luck on the retake. If anyone can nail it, it's you.
Science also does not contradict itself. Biology doesn't say "All vertebrates must have backbones, unless they're special vertebrates." Biblical morality is plenty content to say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless the victims be of a different faith; then, thou shalt disembowel their pregnant, kill their men by the sword, and dash their babes upon the rocks."
Science contradicts itself all the time. It's most successful when finding contradictions. "All mammals bear live young," Wait what's this platypus thing? "Newton's laws explain planetary motion," wait why does mercury precess so much? Only by finding these contradictions does scientific knowledge progress.
Science is a process. Scientific knowledge is knowledge acquired through said process. Scientific knowledge is commonly called Science for short. That's how I view it.
Science also does not contradict itself. Biology doesn't say "All vertebrates must have backbones, unless they're special vertebrates." Biblical morality is plenty content to say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless the victims be of a different faith; then, thou shalt disembowel their pregnant, kill their men by the sword, and dash their babes upon the rocks."
Science contradicts itself all the time. It's most successful when finding contradictions. "All mammals bear live young," Wait what's this platypus thing? "Newton's laws explain planetary motion," wait why does mercury precess so much? Only by finding these contradictions does scientific knowledge progress.
Science contradicts itself all the time. It's most successful when finding contradictions. "All mammals bear live young," Wait what's this platypus thing? "Newton's laws explain planetary motion," wait why does mercury precess so much? Only by finding these contradictions does scientific knowledge progress.Except science doesn't content itself with contradictions. Mammals are now just animals with hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional during the rearing of young offspring. Our job as scientists is to say "Okay, the previous hypotheses were incorrect. We must now rework them." Morality goes, "The previous hypotheses are correct in all cases, even when they are not."
Biblical morality is the equivalent of that most famous speech from 1984:
"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four." "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
As an experiment, I connected my PS3 hard drive to my computer. I did not format the drive but I think I may have screwed up the MBR. I put it in Windows and chose MBR under disk management. I knew this was a bad idea and closed the MBR dialog a couple times, but eventually thought "hey, its not like I'm changing the file system and erasing all the files." I thought it might just tell Windows that it's using an MBR, not a GBP. I'm such an idiot. The PS3 hard drive looks like it's fucked. In the PS3 it does not detect the system software. Basically, this.
ALL data on your PS3 HDD is encrypted by Sony's proprietary system. If you did not use the backup function ALL data on the drive is lost.
The playstation will not read it, and no other device can read it. Thus the data is gone.
No way around this.
Simple answer, all data (movies, pictures, games, whatever) is gone. ALL DATA means ALL DATA not some of it, or the things you don't carea bout, ALL OF IT is gone.
Does PSN keep track of my purchases or have I lost the games I bought too?
Science also does not contradict itself. Biology doesn't say "All vertebrates must have backbones, unless they're special vertebrates." Biblical morality is plenty content to say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless the victims be of a different faith; then, thou shalt disembowel their pregnant, kill their men by the sword, and dash their babes upon the rocks."
Science contradicts itself all the time. It's most successful when finding contradictions. "All mammals bear live young," Wait what's this platypus thing? "Newton's laws explain planetary motion," wait why does mercury precess so much? Only by finding these contradictions does scientific knowledge progress.
Science contradicts itself all the time. It's most successful when finding contradictions. "All mammals bear live young," Wait what's this platypus thing? "Newton's laws explain planetary motion," wait why does mercury precess so much? Only by finding these contradictions does scientific knowledge progress.
Except science doesn't content itself with contradictions. Mammals are now just animals with hair, three middle ear bones, and mammary glands functional during the rearing of young offspring. Our job as scientists is to say "Okay, the previous hypotheses were incorrect. We must now rework them." Morality goes, "The previous hypotheses are correct in all cases, even when they are not."
Biblical morality is the equivalent of that most famous speech from 1984:
"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four." "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
And that is why morality can never be a science.
Science can and should have a major role in the study and development of morality. At the very least, descriptive scientific morality is important - we should definitely study why and how people have a sense of morality, particularly through evolutionary and cognitive science. However, all you need for prescriptive scientific morality is to start with some set of core values - something along the lines of well-being of conscious creatures - and work out how to optimize human behaviours with respect to those values.
Granted, the is-ought problem is a valid issue, and so there is no scientific process for obtaining a set of core values. However, I think there are some rather obvious ones that are almost universal among human beings. How many people actually believe that death is preferable to life?
(If this discussion is going to continue, it should probably be in the morality thread)
Dear loud roommate who never leaves the house except to go to class: SHUT UP. You have your loud friends over every day, not once do you go over to their places to hang out, even when I tell you I have a lot of work due the next day. I'd just blast my music over you, but my headphones are currently broken and YOU KNOW THAT.
Guess who just left about €2,000 worth of camera on the desk in an internet cafe in Brazil? Hopefully this won't turn into my most expensive ever stupid mistake.
Guess who just left about €2,000 worth of camera on the desk in an internet cafe in Brazil? Hopefully this won't turn into my most expensive ever stupid mistake.
Saw that on Facebook earlier. Did you try calling the cafe?
Guess who just left about €2,000 worth of camera on the desk in an internet cafe in Brazil? Hopefully this won't turn into my most expensive ever stupid mistake.
Saw that on Facebook earlier. Did you try calling the cafe?
Thankfully I have people to do that kind of thing for me. The camera has been found, and I'll pick it up in 4 days time. Today I went out on a canoe on the Amazon river, and paddled past all kind of cool wildlife. And no camera! I felt kinda weird. I've carried a good camera on my travels for about 3 years now, so I felt a bit stuck with only my Flip Cam. Video only, no stills...
And in today's "How to be a good writer" lesson, we address how NOT to respond to critics and bad reviews. This woman, by reacting as she did, has quite possibly torpedoed her career as an author - this has gone viral, and I've seen it all over the goddamn place - it's not hard to imagine that publishers will be aware of this, and won't touch her because of it - because, as Stephanie Meyer and Mills and Boon show us, being an incredibly bad writer doesn't count you out of a writing career or a successful book - but because crazy isn't profitable in 99% of cases.
As a side note, for a writer, this Jacqueline Howett person has utterly hopeless spelling and grammar. Claiming that other people don't understand because she's English, and they're not doesn't help - 1)Being English doesn't mean you're incomprehensible, just that you have slightly different spelling and slang. and 2)You have to roam no further than many parts of her own native London to discover that being English doesn't automatically mean you can write or speak English terribly well.
Comments
Also, a science is a set of rules used to explain the relationship between facts and to predict the result of a future event. Science is repeatable and disprovable. Morals (and ethics) may be useful constructs, but there are no verifiable predictions made of the consequences of a moral/immoral action.
Sure, you'll see what other people consider to be a "moral code", and you might realise how obviously flawed it is, but that isn't what was meant. I don't think you'll attain much in the way of self-improvement.
Damnit.
Luckily(?) I've been given the opportunity to perform again on Thursday, so I'm going to skip my afternoon class today so I can go home and drill.
Best of luck on the retake. If anyone can nail it, it's you.
Biblical morality is the equivalent of that most famous speech from 1984:
"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
And that is why morality can never be a science.
At the very least, descriptive scientific morality is important - we should definitely study why and how people have a sense of morality, particularly through evolutionary and cognitive science.
However, all you need for prescriptive scientific morality is to start with some set of core values - something along the lines of well-being of conscious creatures - and work out how to optimize human behaviours with respect to those values.
Granted, the is-ought problem is a valid issue, and so there is no scientific process for obtaining a set of core values. However, I think there are some rather obvious ones that are almost universal among human beings. How many people actually believe that death is preferable to life?
(If this discussion is going to continue, it should probably be in the morality thread)
Damnit, Zoe.
As a side note, for a writer, this Jacqueline Howett person has utterly hopeless spelling and grammar. Claiming that other people don't understand because she's English, and they're not doesn't help - 1)Being English doesn't mean you're incomprehensible, just that you have slightly different spelling and slang. and 2)You have to roam no further than many parts of her own native London to discover that being English doesn't automatically mean you can write or speak English terribly well.