David Brin and Gregory Benford is a Public Group with 133 members.
 David Brin and Gregory Benford

 Public Group,
 133 members
Primary Navigation
Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
Expand Messages
 0 Attachment
On 01/07/2008, at 11:27 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
>
It's well worth reading Lenski's full replies. Utterly brilliant.
> On 1 Jul 2008, at 01:55, William T Goodall wrote:
>
>> "By John Timmer  Published: June 29, 2008  11:35PM CT
>> Noises off
>
> http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapediasevolutionaryfoibles.ars
Charlie.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
I love the Conservapedia. It's an endless source of humor. Maybe
I should sign in and create an account. Some articles, like...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Axiom_of_Choice
... lack enough "conservatism"; there's no line claiming that
the Axiom of Choice is atheistic mathematics and the work of Satan.
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
Alberto Monteiro wrote:> I love the Conservapedia. It's an endless source of humor. Maybe
Alberto
> I should sign in and create an account. Some articles, like...
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Axiom_of_Choice
>
> ... lack enough "conservatism"; there's no line claiming that
> the Axiom of Choice is atheistic mathematics and the work of Satan.
Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia.
I'd say it's a good thing, since I don't really want the
authors trying to edit Wikipedia!
There is an interesting question: Could Conservapedia just
copy articles on noncontroversial subjects from Wikipedia?
Maybe if they included an attribution in 6point type?
(I'm shaky on exactly what the public license for Wikipedia
content says.)
There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
about infinite objects whatsoever. One does, however, lose
lots of mathematics by doing so! You can argue that the
Infinite is the domain of the Deity, and hence unknowable.
Or decide that Infinite sets should be "neat and clean",
since the Great Spaghetti Monster would not tolerate
"messiness".
If you go the latter route, I'd recommend assuming the
Axiom of Constructibility, which states that "the only
sets that exist are the ones required by the other axioms
of set theory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on
Conservapedia, yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_constructibility
(Maybe they'll get around to copying material for it
eventually.) But this axiom implies the Axiom of Choice.
David
Large Cardinal Heresy, Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
> (Maybe they'll get around to copying material for it
Being religiously minded, I tend to take a totally different tact with
> eventually.) But this axiom implies the Axiom of Choice.
literalists. I agree that scripture is the inspired word of God. But, I
then to go whether it was intended to be taken literally.
Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But, he's
Catholic and suspect. Then the question comes to whether the four gospels
agree on the day Jesus died. They don't. John has him dying on the day
before Passover, the synoptic gospels have him die on the day of Passover.
Now, you think that this would have been noticed early: well it was. The
first apologist we have on record for including the gospel of John in the
Bible stated that John was not literally true, but spiritually true. So,
the guy who at least started the push to put John in the Bible said it
wasn't literally true. So far, that argument has been met with silence.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
David Hobby wrote:>
As if there were enough trolls in the Wikipedia...
> Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia.
> I'd say it's a good thing, since I don't really want the
> authors trying to edit Wikipedia!
>
> There is an interesting question: Could Conservapedia just
I am not a lawier, but I guess Wikipedia's GPL license allows
> copy articles on noncontroversial subjects from Wikipedia?
> Maybe if they included an attribution in 6point type?
> (I'm shaky on exactly what the public license for Wikipedia
> content says.)
>
the copy of Wikipedia stuff to any other site that has
similar licenses.
> There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
Maybe a conservative math should ban all things that come
> even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
> have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
> about infinite objects whatsoever.
>
from Satan, like those evil imaginary numbers or even the
blasphemous sqrt(2). If the Creator can make sqrt(2) rational,
who is Man to deny it?
> If you go the latter route, I'd recommend assuming the
Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
> Axiom of Constructibility, which states that "the only
> sets that exist are the ones required by the other axioms
> of set theory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on
> Conservapedia, yet:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_constructibility
>
> Large Cardinal Heresy, Maru
OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
>
absolute universal set...
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
> Original Message
For a while the Catholic church would only accept Cardinal numbers up to 72.
> From: brinlbounces@... [mailto:brinlbounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:32 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
>
> OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
> absolute universal set...
>
> Alberto Monteiro
:)
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
...>> There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,
Alberto
>> even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to
>> have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions
>> about infinite objects whatsoever.
>>
> Maybe a conservative math should ban all things that come
> from Satan, like those evil imaginary numbers or even the
> blasphemous sqrt(2). If the Creator can make sqrt(2) rational,
> who is Man to deny it?
A lot of people don't like imaginary numbers, so that would
be popular. I don't think it says in the Bible that sqrt(2)
is rational, so they'd probably let it stay irrational. : )
> Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
coverage.
> OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
Good plan, but this would be "God's Set", where our rules
> absolute universal set...
did not apply. You wouldn't want Russell's Paradox, where
you have to decide whether or not the "set of all sets
which are not members of themselves" is a member of itself.
Or would they care? I've never even heard a good answer to
"Can God make a rock he cannot lift?"
David
Omnipotent, and Omniscient, and Caring, and... Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Dan M <dsummersminet@...> wrote:
>
It would have been rather difficult for him to have been a Protestant.
>
> Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But, he's
> Catholic and suspect.
Are there conservative Christians who seriously say they distrust Aquinas on
the basis that he was Catholic? Or was that just to emphasize their
nuttiness?
Or, I'm guessing, you meant that his views were very much in line with
Catholic teaching?
Nick
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
> Original Message
Well, he could have been Eastern Orthodox, but he was Western. :)
> From: brinlbounces@... [mailto:brinlbounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:08 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Dan M <dsummersminet@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Good old Tommy Aquinas argued against that about 1000 years ago. But,
> he's
> > Catholic and suspect.
>
>
> It would have been rather difficult for him to have been a Protestant.
>
> Or, I'm guessing, you meant that his views were very much in line with
At the time of the reformation, Luther and Calvin, two of the leading
> Catholic teaching?
figures of the reformation tended to distance themselves from the teachings
of Aquinas and favor the teachings of Augustine. Even now, Reformed
Seminaries teach Augustine but not Aquinas. I think it has to do with the
dependence of the Catholic Church on the arguments of Aquinas and Luther and
Calvin wanting to go away from that route.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
Dan M wrote:>
No, if you take God's promise to Abraham, modified by the New
>> OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an
>> absolute universal set...
>
> For a while the Catholic church would only accept Cardinal numbers
> up to 72. :)
>
Testament interpretation, that the seed of Abraham cannot be
counted, then you must accept uncountable cardinals _and_
the manyworlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics!
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
David Hobby wrote:>
I guess the only vaguely math related topic in the Bible
> A lot of people don't like imaginary numbers, so that would
> be popular. I don't think it says in the Bible that sqrt(2)
> is rational, so they'd probably let it stay irrational. : )
>
is the approximation pi ~ 3.
>> Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
>
> Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
> they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
> site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
> coverage.
>
from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
...> I guess the only vaguely math related topic in the Bible
But how can we do mathematics without divine guidance!?
> is the approximation pi ~ 3.
>>> Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.
In my experience, the two differ a fair amount. To be fair,
>> Hence the question: How blatantly can they steal content
>> they want from other sources, just slapping it on their
>> site? It seems their best chance of getting comprehensive
>> coverage.
>>
> If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
> from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
> stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.
there are only so many ways to write entries on mathematical
entities.
David
What about large cardinals, isn't gluttony a sin?
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
BTW, it's frustating that the only reference to David Brin in
the Conservapedia is in article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Survivalist_retreat
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
David Hobby wrote:>
Ok, but it's easier to copy and paste than to "research"
>> If you consider that Wikipedia's math content was stolen
>> from Eric W. Weisstein's MathWorld, who, in his turn, also
>> stole from voluntary contributions, then I think it's fine.
>
> In my experience, the two differ a fair amount. To be fair,
> there are only so many ways to write entries on mathematical
> entities.
>
(copy from many)
> What about large cardinals, isn't gluttony a sin?
Is temperance an arcsin?
>
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
It's not even comprehensive. I could have written a
better survivalist entry... bleah.
 Alberto Monteiro <albmont@...> wrote:
> BTW, it's frustating that the only reference to
_______________________________________________
> David Brin in
> the Conservapedia is in article:
>
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Survivalist_retreat
>
> Alberto Monteiro
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl
>
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl 0 Attachment
In a message dated 7/1/2008 11:14:03 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
dbrin@... writes:
It's not even comprehensive. I could have written a
better survivalist entry... bleah.
Would a proluddite website be an oxymoron?
Vilyehm
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuelefficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brinl
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.