h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A culture that embraces the concept of Freedom of
Religion is a culture in which anyone can believe just
about
anything chosen (or indoctrinated from birth). It is a
Known Fact that some Religions include various
statements
that have been proved to be nonsense. Examples of
such
statements
are "The Earth is only a few thousand years
old." and "The Earth is located at the Center of
Creation."
If the culture also embraces the concept of Free Speech,
it
can be rather difficult to end the perpetuation of the
nonsense.
So, what might be done? Remember, we don't want to
restrict people from believing what they want, and we
don't want to interfere with letting them say their piece.
And, remember, some of what they say might not be
nonsense!
So, a Modest Proposal: Let there be a Law that requires
just one thing. Whenever someone spouts a statement
that has been PROVED to be nonsense, then that person
is
now, under the Law, required to ALSO present the
evidence showing why the other statement is nonsense.
In
this way the Law does not prevent Free Speech; it only
requires Additional Speech, and then only under certain
circumstances (when a statement has been proved to be
nonsense).
And the listeners get the whole story, not just the
nonsense. Hopefully, they will embrace the non-
nonsense, which means that the perpetuation of
nonsense got successfully stopped, after all.
[link]
|
| |
Well, that's a major problem solved then. |
|
| |
Some philosophical controversies already are nonsense vs nonsense. |
|
| |
The major problem I see, it's to assume that a prove of a nonsense will be accepted; even by the law. |
|
| |
Can you give a practical example? |
|
| |
//The speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of the universe// |
|
| |
Quit that!
For a second there all of the intuitive physics I've ever managed to grok started re-writing itself to accomodate this fascinating nugget of crap.
It hurts when that happens... and it happens a lot. If I don't use the re-write function sparingly all of space-time could unravell and then where would we be? Nowhere, and ain't nobody wants that. |
|
| |
[tatterdemalion], consider the overall Abortion Debate. Obviously the HalfBakery is not the place to take it up, but equally obviously, both sides can't be completely right, so one side, maybe even both, must be spouting nonsense here and there. |
|
| |
Perhaps I can pick a particular example without throwing everyone here into a tizzy, and an endless argument.... Many abortion opponents claim that every human, regardless of age after conception, qualifies as a person. However, when you think about the GENERIC meaning of "person", the claim turns into nonsense. |
|
| |
That's because, for thousands of years, humans have been willing to accept the possibility that non-humans might exist and also be persons. In ancient China, dragons are wise beings. In the Middle East, there are djinns. And in Europe, there are elves and brownies and other "faerie" beings. Not to mention that God, angels, and demons also qualify as person-class entities. |
|
| |
Of course, Science came along and began questioning the presumed existence of every one of those legendary entities. Nevertheless, recent news announced the discovery that dolphins have names and a language --strong evidence that those very real nonhumans might qualify as person-class entities. |
|
| |
So, if there can be two very different types of persons right here on Earth, what about the wide wide Universe, which contains more than 100 billion galaxies, each with more than 100 billion stars, and most of those stars probably accompanied by planets? To equate "person" with "human" becomes nonsensically ludicrous! |
|
| |
Which leads to a kind of conundrum for opponents of abortion. EITHER they have to inventory the Universe and make a huge long list, defining "person" as "all members of the human species, all members of the bottlenose dolphin species, all members of ...." OR they have to recognize that persons must have something in common that distinguishes them from mere animals, and that "something in common" can be distinguished by Scientific Tests, such that "A person is any individual organism that can pass these tests." |
|
| |
Some of those tests are quite simple. The "rouge test" involves a mirror and some makeup, and tests the ability of the subject to identify self in the mirror. A dolphin can pass that test, and so can a chimpanzee, and an octopus, and MOST humans. Cats and dogs generally fail the test; they act like the critter in the mirror is some other animal. And so do humans fail, that are younger than about nine months of age, after birth. |
|
| |
Like I said, there are other tests. If dolphins qualify as persons, I'd expect them to pass all of them. But very young humans FAIL all the tests; their brains simply haven't grown the person-class capabilities needed to pass those person-identifying tests. Which in turn logically means that even-younger humans, the unborn, with even-less-developed brains, only qualify as mere animals, and never qualify as persons. |
|
| |
See the conundrum? What is it that truly distinguishes persons from mere animals? If it is a species-specific thing, then why is it necessary to make a huge long list of all the person-class species in the Universe, instead of identifying the thing(s) that all those species must have in common, for personhood? Why not instead accept the Scientific Data, that individual organisms might pass or fail, regardless of species (e.g., Koko the Gorilla likely would pass most person-identifying tests, while practically-all other gorillas would fail)? |
|
| |
Obviously abortion opponents must reject the data, because otherwise they would have to accept the logical consequences that one of their fundamental arguing points had been PROVED to be nonsense. On the other hand, refusing to accept Scientifically Measurable Facts, plus logic, means one is exhibiting a completely different type of nonsense (stupidity). |
|
| |
I think the Overall Abortion Debate would be much-improved if, from now on, everyone who spouts nonsense also had to spout the data showing why it was nonsense! |
|
| |
What I learned in high school journalism class was
that you have to have secondary verification for
any fact in any news story. |
|
| |
There are multiple scientific sources that verify
that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old,
perhaps billions. |
|
| |
If someone wants to claim that the earth is only a
few thousands of years old, ask for secondary
verification (a source that is not the Bible). |
|
| |
I actually think there's insufficient nonsense in the world. We have a duty to spout total garbage in order to throw people back on the evidence of their own direct experience and sow doubt about what the media present to them, that media including ourselves. |
|
| |
// The "rouge test" involves a mirror |
|
| |
Any kind of proof that involves applying makeup to monkeys is bound to end in tears. |
|
| |
^^^ Didn't Jane Goodall say something about having either to define chimpanzees as human, or to rethink of the definition of human? |
|
| |
//On Breaking the Perpetuation of Nonsense |
|
| |
Isn't this a bit recursive, posting this on Halfbakery? |
|
| |
[Vernon], Lewis Carroll would like to introduce you to a Greek warrior and a tortoise, and so would Douglas Hofstadter. |
|
| |
Basically, this idea falls down because of problems with meta-reasoning. |
|
| |
This idea, which has been fraudulently presented as proven
fact, is utter nonsense, and I have here the published
results of a scientific study which entirely disproves any
and all claims made and associated with it, and also the
so-called 'theory' of evolution, and all that relativity
nonsense. |
|
| |
I am [The Alterother] and I approve this message. |
|
| |
Bullshit I cant, [bigs]. I'm the Heathen King. |
|
| |
Actually, the last line is a sardonic reference to the spoken
disclaimers that political candidates are now required to
include at the end of television and radio ads here in the
States. Look into 'swift-boating' or 'swift boat fiasco' for
details on the origin. |
|
| |
[Vernon] and heck, the whole lot of halfbakerdom is going to have to carry a card with the verbiage of one of these everywhere we go now. 'Yep, I'm a card-carrying halfbaker...' |
|
| |
Well, you're not wrong. I'm frequently two people in my
own head, and that's on a good day. Sometimes I'm so
many of myself that I can't sort out which one is me. |
|
| |
Johannes Scheiver actually founded a religion
back in the 1500's which demanded that no
unproven statements be made and that, in the
absence of proof, statements had to be qualified
accordingly. He theorized that a society founded
on such a basis would progress far faster than one
in which nonsense was allowed to propagate
unchecked. His movement ("Licht Wahrhaftigkeit"
or "Light of Truth") was otherwise similar in many
ways to the later Quaker movement, and gained a
considerable following which continued after
Schiever's death. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, it had never occurred to him that
the existence of god was open to question or
required proof. Gradually, with things like
Newtonian science coming along, the movement
ran into severe internal inconsistencies and more
or less fell apart. |
|
| |
He did not found it! It was his mistress. He spent years trying to supress it, and it was only after she died and he realised how much money it was bringing in that he turned around and became its public spokesman and leader. |
|
| |
When I first read the title I was concerned that it
meant the end of Halfbakery... |
|
| |
Personally, I think that just introducing a basic
probability and statistics course to the grade school
curriculum would go a long way to limiting the
amount of undesirable nonsense in the world. |
|
| |
It's simply amazing to me how many people complain
about a poll or paper they disagree with with the "no
one polled me" argument. |
|
| |
Equally annoying is the consumer complaint, after a
major company has spent millions advising the public
that their policy has changed, "No one told me about
it." |
|
| |
// introducing a basic probability and statistics course to
the grade school curriculum // |
|
| |
Shouldn't be difficult, just pay for it out of the art, music,
and PE budget...oh, wait... |
|
| |
It shouldn't be hard to introduce probability and
statistics to grade school curriculum- just write a
series
of grade school math textbooks that introduce those
concepts. |
|
| |
Slip in some concepts about critical thinking into the
grammar and "social studies" texts, while you're at it. |
|
| |
Actually, [Alter] I'm proposing replacing pre-
calculus/calculus, so junior/senior year of high school
in most states (not sure about overseas). Most
people who end up needing to take calculus in
college also end up needing to to take Probability
and Statistics. Whereas those who go into fields
where calculus is not needed would benefit more
from a basic understanding of statistics. |
|
| |
Originally proposed this idea in 1992. Brought it up
again in 2004, then again in 2012. : |
|
| |
A broadcast television station, airing accredited
courses in a variety of degree programs. The
broadcast facility is funded by commercial
advertising, just like any other station. Viewers
can watch and videotape courses- regular testing
and/or "homework," via fax, mail, or email, is
charged a small fee for grading. Final exams would
be administered at rented locations, again for a
relatively small fee. |
|
| |
This project requires the purchase of a broadcast
television station, a startup budget to pay salaries
the first year or so, and 9,000 hours
(approximately) of orignial educational
programming. |
|
| |
I believe degree courses in several areas could be
offered- math, physics, engineering, history,
literature, etc. |
|
| |
The targeted audience are those who are not
computer-savvy, or may not have access to
broadband, or may not have any internet access.
Televisions are cheap and almost universal,
computers are still not found in most homes. |
|
| |
Television University is an anti-elitist concept. |
|
| |
We are, in fact, already being educated by
television, in the guise of entertainment. We are
bombarded by bad science, improper ethics,
inappropriate behavior- but no one complains that
"Seinfeld" or "Friends" or "NYPD Blue" has created
any conflict of interest. |
|
| |
I'm proposing that bad, misleading information be
replaced with good, accurate information, and
that viewing TV be transformed into something
constructive. Turning a profit will insure a
continuing private investment, rather than
existing at the whim of political hacks. |
|
| |
The hope would be that the programming would
be picked up by a satellite service, once the
concept has proved itself to investors to be
profitable. Actually, the programming could be
started as a cable-access channel operating
24/7/365. I would have suggested this first, but
the real stumbling block is obtaining the 8,760
hours of original college-level programming. |
|
| |
A few years ago, I went so far as to make out a
programming schedule, having 13-week semesters,
4 semesters a year, so that a BS or BA degree
could be earned in two years (of very intense,
condensed study). I think I calculated I could
schedule 20 or so possible degree programs
running simultaneously- thus the name Television
University. Some material would be run at odd
hours, but that's what VCRs are for. |
|
| |
Television is the most powerful communications
technology in human history, yet in its present
form it's being used to make people stupid. I
propose Television University, a television channel
that broadcasts college course material 24/7, to
make people smarter. Degree courses would be
offered in Aptitude/Essential Skills (math,
language skills- reading, writing, vocabulary,
spelling, problem solving), Management, Industry
Specific Knowledge (specific industries-
automotive, aerospace, finance, health, etc),
Office Skills, Computer Software and IT, Languages
and Communication, History, Psychology,
Philosophy, etc. |
|
| |
Course material would be presented in traditional
broadcast format with commercial advertising
breaks: 10 minutes of advertising per hour of
programming. Advertising would be appropriate to
the course material, and advertising revenues
would be used to support the programming, rather
than charging tuition. |
|
| |
The hook is that, after watching the course
material, the viewer/student pays a fee to take a
proctored test for course credits, which add up to
an accredited degree in the degree program
studied. Some courses will require material to be
submitted, such as term papers or other materials;
these would be submitted via mail, email, or fax,
graded for a fee by a qualified instructor or
advisor, and credits issued toward the appropriate
degree. |
|
| |
My original idea would have allowed viewers to
tape the material with a VCR for convenient
viewing later, but "On Demand" would make
material available at any time, but would have to
include advertising (the price you pay for free
education). |
|
| |
Now, I just need about 8,700 hours of original
educational programming... |
|
| |
Originally, back in the '90s, I had thought to use a
traditional broadcast TV station. VCRs were high
tech at the time, but technology has progressed
to the point that cable and/or satellite TV is fairly
common and reasonable in cost for most people.
Whatever the medium, the idea is to have tuition
costs paid for by advertising, having students pay
only for taking exams and having assignments
graded. |
|
| |
Brainbench.com offers something similar, in the
form of a specialized learning program and fee-
based examinations for certifications. My proposal
goes a bit beyond in offering accredited degree
programs. |
|
| |
Television is a powerful educational tool. Currently
it educates people to be mindless, gullible
consumers, and provides cheap, shallow answers
to very complex questions. |
|
| |
[MechE]: I love it. Calculus is useless unless you go into a
field that requires you to learn it all over again anyway. |
|
| |
I had the luxury of attending an alternative high school
that allowed upperclassmen to 'upgrade' to college
courses, so I filled out my senior year with geometry. |
|
| |
[whlanteigne]: post it, and they will bun... |
|
| |