Hummings of a Happy Hurkle

Just ran across this amazing cross reference of the James II bible:

http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/bibleviz/index.html

The strikingly obvious thing from this visual representation is that the Christian Bible is about Israel, Judah, Jerusalem, David, Egypt and other Jewish and pre-Jewish stuff, and almost anything except Jesus/Christ.

Nothing like a picture to put it in context.

Ever wondered why English translations of Chinese signs and notices are so bad? And in particular, why they may contain words that are simply not used in polite circles?

Here is an article that explains why, with some detailed analysis and absolutely classic examples. In a word: people relying on bad software.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/005195.html

All politicians have three reasons for doing anything.

1. A politically correct, official, on-message reason for public consumption.
2. A credible, honest-sounding, unofficial reason for off the record briefings.
3. The real reason.

The only way to work out the real reason is to ignore what they say and watch what they do.

Philosophers have debated this question for centuries — you have to make your own choice as to what it means to you. There is no final or absolute answer to the question.

For me, free will is simply the ability to choose rationally among competing alternatives, coupled with the idea that you are then responsible for the results. It is of no consequence if your choices are limited sharply by circumstances, or if (being a rational person) you would always make the same or similar choices in similar circumstances.

I reject any form of predestination, and I am happy that there is enough randomness at lower (perhaps quantum) levels to ensure that no event can ever precisely duplicate itself. This ensures that even a computer program can yield different results at different times, and leaves the human mind with plenty of degrees of freedom.

We conduct our affairs as if there were free will; it works; enough said.

I think there are two different paths by which people come to believe in things. I call them type E and type A beliefs.

(more…)

I’m not sure exactly what Intelligent Design is. I’ve read the material and listened to the arguments. it could be creationism or it could be religion, but as I’m not an expert on either I won’t speculate.

One thing is patently obvious, though. Intelligent Design is not science. I know science and it doesn’t look anything like this. So teach it if you must, but don’t even think about teaching it in science class.

Not everyone accepts this view instantly, so it seems I need to explain my position.

No, I am not closed-minded. However, I have reached a firm conclusion based on the available evidence: astrology is bunk. I shall stick with that conclusion unless or until someone comes up with far better evidence than any I’ve seen so far. I offer two approaches.

A. If astrology is proposed as a physical fact, it must conform to the rules of scientific investigation. There must be a hypothesis, and an experiment. The experiment must rely on objective methods, observations and interpretations. These are well established, so I don’t need to go into them.

At the conclusion of the experiment, both sides must accept the outcome: astrology is confirmed, or it is refuted, or further experiments are clearly needed.

My reading of the current situation is that either no such experiments have been conducted to the satisfaction of any scientists, or any experiments that have been conducted have totally failed to confirm astrology as a physical fact. (The lack of successful claims on the $1m prize offered by the Skeptics provides further evidence, if it were needed).

In this situation, a scientist will reach same the conclusion I have: astrology is bunk. A non-scientific person who would like astrology to work will refuse to accept the situation and will keep demanding “an open mind”. In my opinion the only closed minds are those who refuse to accept the evidence and keep looking for physical fact where there is none.

B. If astrology is not proposed as a physical fact, it need not conform to the rules of scientific investigation. Those who wish to use astrology as a personal tool to guide themselves or others in their daily affairs are (as always) free to believe whatever they wish.

I do not wish to deny people their cherished beliefs. In return, I ask that they do not propose as physical facts, any events and mechanisms which clearly have no such basis. Astrology is one of these, but there are countless others.

To all of them I say: XXX is bunk! (Substitute your own favourite in here).