On the socialization of children

[Adios]

Discounting a possibility or even a hypothesis (of which there are many regarding what happens when you die) isn't science. It isn't even religion. It's worse than that - its being a smart arse for the sheer hell of feeling good about yourself. Don't talk down to me, kid, you could never dream of reaching those heights 

Discounting hypotheses is what science does.  You take a bunch of observations, form hypotheses about what could explain those observations, and then test those hypotheses until they all fail (and they will fail, sooner or later.)  In the meantime, you can choose to operate under the assumption that one or more of the hypotheses that hasn't been falsified yet is "good enough" to make decisions on, preferably the one that has been subjected to the most rigorous tests without cracking in half yet.

Science doesn't try to find evidence to support a hypothesis; it tries to falsify every hypothesis and then picks from what's left standing.

Personal beliefs and personal bias does not belong in this process. And the science i used to know wasn't in such a hurry to find an explanation of a thing they just decided to go with 'what is left over.'

It isn't that science is "in a hurry" to find answers that they take shortcuts, as much as we need working solutions now.  Scientists understand that theories are subject to revision - it's not "we'll believe this theory because nobody has a better one yet, case closed" but rather "we'll believe this theory because as of right now there isn't a better one, but if a better one comes along we'll look into that."

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."

Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know.  There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet.  Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations.  And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."

I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Kill the tissue, but not the organism, if it retains thought, then the tissue isn't responsible for thought.

Too bad that hypothesis has been disproved.

Many times the adjacent brain tissue adopts the function of the missing part.

You can see this in traumatic brain injuries and cases where half of people's brains have been removed.

Do try again.

The left and right hemispheres are, more or less, copies of each other, that's not really a good comparison. You can remove half because there are structures in the other half that do the same job. And if this was an absolute, then why do we see differences in people before and after they are lobotomized?

It's not an absolute, however your argument was.



In general I agree with you, Kai and GA, that for each thought we have, it is a physical event, my point was merely that it's not a hard and fast rule of location and it's fraught with uncertainty.

How the adjacent tissue regains functionality is not well understood. The holy grail of science, that is, how our minds work, is still mostly unknown.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to have a great deal of doubt when it comes to consciousness and especially death.

Overgeneralizing specific bits of knowledge to apply to something that currently is unknowable, untestable isn't a big deal, you just look silly.

It's the dressing up pseudoscience to look like scientific knowledge that gets me. Though you should read more Dawkins as he does a better job of it.

[Unkl Dad]

Great, so Nephew Tid is apparently right, as Cram's Gram is a thought within Cramulus and we can weigh him.

Atheism is too much of a commitment.

This isn't a cult?  Do I get my money back?

There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.

You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.

By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist.  OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.

Not my point at all. If you live on in others, then you continue to live on well after you are forgotten because of the the direct and indirect impacts that you have on everything. I'm talking about things that once actually existed. This is an extension of the Cram's Gram posts.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Great, so Nephew Tid is apparently right, as Cram's Gram is a thought within Cramulus and we can weigh him.

Atheism is too much of a commitment.

This isn't a cult?  Do I get my money back?

There is however, this board. As long as this board exists, or the Discordian wiki exists, Cramulus will continue to exist. There could also be writings about Cramulus in the future, for all we know. We know a bit about Julius Caesar, Socrates, Khufu and Sargon, etc. By this definition, they still exist.

You could go a step even further and say that the way things are have been subtly influenced by everyone. I can account for the major events of my life over the past 11 years as largely stemming from one seemingly small decision I made in the Arboretum. This includes other junctures I have come across in the process, people I've met and interacted with along the way. I have influenced these people, and they have influenced me. So whether I am remembered in 200 years other than a weathered tombstone, I have still contributed to those 200 years of history, obscure or not.

By that definition the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns and the perfect glass of wine exist.  OK, but I don't think it would be wise to wait for rabbits to start laying colored eggs.

Not my point at all. If you live on in others, then you continue to live on well after you are forgotten because of the the direct and indirect impacts that you have on everything. I'm talking about things that once actually existed. This is an extension of the Cram's Gram posts.

If you don't like my ideas don't use them. I was trying to offer an alternative afterlife "possibility"/interpretation to tell your kids if you're worried about depressing them by saying, "your Mormon god isn't real and when you die you stop existing. The end."

As far as the OP goes if you want to instill free-thinking in your children, then let them figure it out for themselves. Free-thinking does not need to mean atheist. Though it does mean to be Discordian. Let them think for themselves, schmuck.

[BabylonHoruv]

When I asked my parents about death they said "sorry, we don't know"  That was a bit unsettling.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

As far as the OP goes if you want to instill free-thinking in your children, then let them figure it out for themselves. Free-thinking does not need to mean atheist. Though it does mean to be Discordian. Let them think for themselves, schmuck.

What I think Unkl Dad is saying is, what is the best way to do that, given that children need guidance and input from their parents.

I don't know, and I think it really depends on the child and circumstances, and that Unkl Dad's intuitions are best to guide him on this.

[Golden Applesauce]

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."

Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know.  There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet.  Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations.  And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."

I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.

The thing is, tests can't confirm that any particular theory about general rules is true.  How could you prove, even in principle, that whatever laws of nature that held in the past will hold in the future?  You can't point to a long history of laws of nature not changing as evidence that laws of nature don't change, because that's circular logic - "laws of nature held constant in the past" only implies "laws of nature will hold constant in the future" if it is true that laws of nature are persistent across time.

Sure, you can build a model of a bridge and stress test it - but the belief that this is an accurate model of full scale bridges is itself a theory.  You can't prove that you've taken every variable into account without making the model of the bridge the actual bridge itself and then subjecting it to every possible event, no matter how unlikely.  The WTC really was designed to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliner at the time - the engineers concluded that a Boeing 707 crashing into the building would cause terrible fires from the fuel killing lots of people, but the building itself wouldn't collapse.  The airplane that actually did crash into the towers was a 767, which weighs about 70% more empty than the 707 and carried a lot more fuel.

[the last yatto]

So I fucked up and had kids.
                                          \

[Unkl Dad]

Didn't mean to bend anyone out of shape, received many things to think about and really appreciate the angles.  Back to the shadows before my lack of ability to convey my sense of humor..., bah, see ya and thanks again.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You think Unkl Dad is bad?

You guys would shit bricks if you watched any of Louis CK's material about kids.

I thought his opening was funny.

Actually, come to think of it, it's even funnier that some people are offended by it.

Wasn't it obviously a joke? Jesus.

[Jasper]

You forget that it is traditional to take umbrage at any perceived moral misstep, and to needlessly harsh each other constantly.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You forget that it is traditional to take umbrage at any perceived moral misstep, and to needlessly harsh each other constantly.

This! There's few things I enjoy more than pretending I have morals just to make someone feel uncomfortable. I'd feel guilty about this but, y'know...

[Adios]

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#GroHumKno - note that Popper published his main book in '35, so this view actually predates "the science you used to know."

Imagine this conversation:
"Here's a design for a bridge, will it hold?"
"Don't know.  There's a guy name of Newton with some clever ideas about forces, and some people working on some theories about 'mechanical stress,' but nothing that's been proven yet.  Being more than 50/50 sure is just a sign that you're being an idiot - I mean, we don't know for sure yet that physical laws even exist, or if there's just been a really long chain of events that coincidentally match up nearly perfectly with the equations.  And if there were such things as physical laws, there's no reason to think that they'd still be in force once the bridge gets constructed - just because they've held for as long as people can remember doesn't mean they'll still work tomorrow."

I will maintain that scientists who are interested in finding facts will use the 'what is left over' as a starting point and not a conclusion. To use a point that is left over as a conclusion is a perfect platform for failure. To use your bridge theory a model can be built and stress tested in a controlled environment so your argument doesn't work. The construction of a bridge has proven practices that work and tests that can confirm. The designers don't just rush out and build them and use cars driving over them as a test bed.

The thing is, tests can't confirm that any particular theory about general rules is true.  How could you prove, even in principle, that whatever laws of nature that held in the past will hold in the future?  You can't point to a long history of laws of nature not changing as evidence that laws of nature don't change, because that's circular logic - "laws of nature held constant in the past" only implies "laws of nature will hold constant in the future" if it is true that laws of nature are persistent across time.

Sure, you can build a model of a bridge and stress test it - but the belief that this is an accurate model of full scale bridges is itself a theory.  You can't prove that you've taken every variable into account without making the model of the bridge the actual bridge itself and then subjecting it to every possible event, no matter how unlikely.  The WTC really was designed to withstand a direct hit by the largest airliner at the time - the engineers concluded that a Boeing 707 crashing into the building would cause terrible fires from the fuel killing lots of people, but the building itself wouldn't collapse.  The airplane that actually did crash into the towers was a 767, which weighs about 70% more empty than the 707 and carried a lot more fuel.

I never meant to convey that once a law always a law. Of course as environs change so do rules. But what will remain are certain rules, to go back to your bridge example, a certain arch in the construct will withstand X weight. Then using known rules someone designs prestressed steel. Methods may have changed, but the same rules still apply. Since no one can foresee all events in the future all they can do is plan as best as they can. A flood, for instance. A bridge may be capable to withstand X cubic feet of water washing over it, but then debris will pile up with unknown force and collapse the bridge. Wear and tear, age, usage, all of these come into play.

In spite of all of this there are still certain proven starting points that are adhered to. This is what I mean by taking 'what is left' as a starting point and proving what one can within these bounds.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.

[Adios]

It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.

Sorry, I will stop posting.