now
poetical bits
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, October 15, 2009
ebook reader
[ http://gizmodo.com/5380942/exclusive-first-photos-of-barnes--nobles-double-screen-e+reader ]
"The layout will feature a black and white e-ink screen like the Kindle has—and a multitouch display like an iPhone underneath. Pow!"
This could be the first ebook device that makes sense.
"The layout will feature a black and white e-ink screen like the Kindle has—and a multitouch display like an iPhone underneath. Pow!"
This could be the first ebook device that makes sense.
Where to find the answer to: Is Wikipedia reliable?
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia ]
Friday, April 13, 2007
Designers, whiners
How many designers from the Dallas design district will show up today for the Darwin vs. Design conference at SMU, expecting, with that catchy title, to learn something about their craft? Probably not any.
How many Darwinists from SMU will show up? They are, after all, playfully 'invited' with a Discovery Institute schoolyardtaunt. We'll see. (If they can stay awake though the talks.)
Is it by luck that SMU is the site for Discovery Institute's roadshow and also the leading site for a germinating Bush Institute? Or is it by design?
April 14, 2007
Zachary Moore (of Goosing the Antithesis) is one blogger covering the Discovery Institute promotional event at SMU. First up: Lee Strobel.
As anthropology student Ben Wells writing in the The Daily Campus notes, technically the 'host' of the event is SMU Dedman Law School's Christian Legal Society. (Junk science and junk law—a marriage made in heaven?)
April 15, 2007
In this week's news:
CBS Radio kills Don Imus show over 'ho' slur
Entertainer Don Ho dies at 76
(the Designer is a Joker?)
How many Darwinists from SMU will show up? They are, after all, playfully 'invited' with a Discovery Institute schoolyardtaunt. We'll see. (If they can stay awake though the talks.)
Is it by luck that SMU is the site for Discovery Institute's roadshow and also the leading site for a germinating Bush Institute? Or is it by design?
April 14, 2007
Zachary Moore (of Goosing the Antithesis) is one blogger covering the Discovery Institute promotional event at SMU. First up: Lee Strobel.
As anthropology student Ben Wells writing in the The Daily Campus notes, technically the 'host' of the event is SMU Dedman Law School's Christian Legal Society. (Junk science and junk law—a marriage made in heaven?)
April 15, 2007
In this week's news:
CBS Radio kills Don Imus show over 'ho' slur
Entertainer Don Ho dies at 76
(the Designer is a Joker?)
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
God's Talk and Archimedes' Point
From a subversive christian:
To take a position at an Archimedes' Point² is to take a point outside of a system to achieve an unbiased viewpoint³. What is the Archimedes' Point for Godtalk? One observation could be: Political—or more commonly, sociological—beliefs precede religious beliefs, and hence the Godtalk that results. (The heated Iraq War debate among churchmen is a good example that would support this view.) The Archimedes' Point would be to the place sit back and observe how Godtalking and Godtexts are used in the world.
1. Those who are not Godtalkers themselves—But wait! I have just used the G-word so that makes me one, no? Would I then be aGodtalker?—might want to know: What does it take to be a competent one?
2. This term is derived from Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point by Huw Price, who uses Archimedes' vantage point outside the earth ("Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world") to motivate the idea for standing outside time to understand perplexities of cosmology and quantum mechanics.
3. This may be a progressive process, if one is naturally suspicious that "complete" unbias is achievable.
As the title of my post on Dawkins explicitly says, my point is more modest: there are better champions of atheism than Dawkins. For all I know, he's an absolute genius when it comes to genetics and evolutionary theory. I'm not competent to judge. But when it comes to Godtalk--not so much.This is my take as a curious observer:
Dropping the word "God" into a conversation can be like dropping a turd into a party punch bowl.I think this is generally the case. Even among a party of Godtalkers¹, there is suspicion of the purpose of the entering of the word. Did the person who entered the word do it to make a point about politics, moral codes, or something else? (One example: a Godtalker can introduce the word to say that prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong with another Godtalker at the same party believing something different. Most everyone is familiar too with how social progressive Christians and social conservative Christians parse and pick Biblical texts differently.) Does Godtalk give the speaker an advantage of authority, or an appearance of authority?
To take a position at an Archimedes' Point² is to take a point outside of a system to achieve an unbiased viewpoint³. What is the Archimedes' Point for Godtalk? One observation could be: Political—or more commonly, sociological—beliefs precede religious beliefs, and hence the Godtalk that results. (The heated Iraq War debate among churchmen is a good example that would support this view.) The Archimedes' Point would be to the place sit back and observe how Godtalking and Godtexts are used in the world.
1. Those who are not Godtalkers themselves—But wait! I have just used the G-word so that makes me one, no? Would I then be a
2. This term is derived from Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point by Huw Price, who uses Archimedes' vantage point outside the earth ("Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world") to motivate the idea for standing outside time to understand perplexities of cosmology and quantum mechanics.
3. This may be a progressive process, if one is naturally suspicious that "complete" unbias is achievable.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Religiously scientific
I'm not enough of a busy bee to be a registered participant in this Easter weekend's blogswarm Blog Against Theocracy 2007, but some aspects of this interest me. For example, The Barefoot Bum asks Is science a religion?. I tend to think this swarm would would say the answer is 'no', but I'm not so sure this is the right answer. So I will proceed with the alternative answer that 'yes', science is a religion.¹
A problem to answering 'no' to the previous question is that then there is distinction between non-religion (which supposedly includes science) and religion, or that there are two 'spheres' that should remain separate. Call the two spheres N and R. The problem with this is that now the R-sphere can claim immunity from criticism from the N-sphere. The R-sphere can continue to perpetrate all sorts of anti-humanistic dogma. (There are countless examples of that, of course.) When R-sphere people enter the N-sphere, you are not allowed to question them. Could N-sphere people, by excluding R-sphere subjects, actually be unwittingly perpetuating R-sphere influence?
Say, on the other hand, that science is a religion. (It just happens to be the God-less religion of naturalism. So what?) So when R-sphere subjects are now included in classrooms, they would not have any protection from critical analysis. (Everything would be a religious subject: Bible, physics, poetry, math, government, woodshop, Buddha, economics, Shakespeare, sex education, ... .) Wouldn't, in effect, the R-sphere disintegrate, no longer being a protected domain?
1. In my attempts to 'deconstruct' the distinction, you can decide which 'side' I am helping. (Although of course I am very sympathetic to Richard Dawkins viewpoint, but don't tell anyone that.)
A problem to answering 'no' to the previous question is that then there is distinction between non-religion (which supposedly includes science) and religion, or that there are two 'spheres' that should remain separate. Call the two spheres N and R. The problem with this is that now the R-sphere can claim immunity from criticism from the N-sphere. The R-sphere can continue to perpetrate all sorts of anti-humanistic dogma. (There are countless examples of that, of course.) When R-sphere people enter the N-sphere, you are not allowed to question them. Could N-sphere people, by excluding R-sphere subjects, actually be unwittingly perpetuating R-sphere influence?
Say, on the other hand, that science is a religion. (It just happens to be the God-less religion of naturalism. So what?) So when R-sphere subjects are now included in classrooms, they would not have any protection from critical analysis. (Everything would be a religious subject: Bible, physics, poetry, math, government, woodshop, Buddha, economics, Shakespeare, sex education, ... .) Wouldn't, in effect, the R-sphere disintegrate, no longer being a protected domain?
1. In my attempts to 'deconstruct' the distinction, you can decide which 'side' I am helping. (Although of course I am very sympathetic to Richard Dawkins viewpoint, but don't tell anyone that.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)