Interesting Stuff Thread

robindch · 05-09-2016 3:05pm

Has anybody tried to read The Ultimate Ambition in the Arts of Erudition, a long, rambling and contradictory fourteenth century islamic text written by a retired civil servant named Shihab al-Din al-Nuwayri?

If so, your job should be much easier now as the work has just been translated for the first time into English and it seems like it might be just a little bit fun in places:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/08/24/in-the-attic-of-early-islam-shihab-al-din-al-nuwayri/

robindch · 06-09-2016 2:43pm

African churches invest in mobile app tech to keep tabs (literally) upon their flock.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37249513

Cabaal · 13-09-2016 8:50am

Always interesting

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Bristolscale7 · 13-09-2016 9:21am

Cabaal wrote: »

Always interesting

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Brutally effective to see that flat line kick up at the end. We're ****ed.

looksee · 13-09-2016 9:29am

That's interesting - and it does account for 'the flood' - if not Noah and his ark - just about the right (for Creationists) amount of time ago!

robindch · 06-10-2016 1:58pm

Dr Quantum demonstrates the mind-bending Double Slit experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Thargor · 13-10-2016 11:53pm

I still dont understand that tbh and I have genuinely tried to wrap my head around it over the years, its just seems completely mad.

Same for quantum entanglement, I dont doubt they exist it just doesn't seem possible. Why is the universe set up like that?

looksee · 14-10-2016 3:36pm

But all the experiments were watched, both by people and cameras. Why would an artificial eye in that particular spot make a difference? Did they try moving the artificial eye further and further away to see how much 'awareness' the particle had?

130Kph · 14-10-2016 4:14pm

I’m throwing my lot in with Carlo Rovelli’s interpretation on this one…..er… I think.

According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli,[59] observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object.

In the case of an electron, if it is initially "observed" at a particular slit, then the observer–particle (photon–electron) interaction includes information about the electron's position. This partially constrains the particle's eventual location at the screen.

If it is "observed" (measured with a photon) not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no "which path" information as part of the interaction, so the electron's "observed" position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function. This makes the resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits.

looksee · 14-10-2016 10:02pm

That is really interesting, I think

. Sadly I don't have the remotest clue what you are talking about, I kinda wish I did!

pauldla · 28-11-2016 5:48am

The BBC's In Our Time recently had an episode about the Baltic Crusades in the 12th century. Very interesting.

robindch · 28-11-2016 6:02pm

The harder, the bigger.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/17/literal-interpretation-of-bible-helps-increase-church-attendance

Guardian wrote:

Churches that are theologically conservative with beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible grow faster than those with a liberal orientation, according to a five-year academic study.

“If we are talking solely about what belief system is more likely to lead to numerical growth among Protestant churches, the evidence suggests conservative Protestant theology is the clear winner,” said David Haskell, the Canadian study’s lead researcher. The findings contradict earlier studies undertaken in the US and the UK, which attempted to discover the underlying causes of a steep decline in church attendance in recent decades but concluded that theology was not a significant factor.

The results of the new study are likely to fuel anxious debate among church members about the reasons for decline and what measures or approaches might stimulate growth. Those promoting evangelical styles of worship and strict adherence to what they see as biblical truths will be bolstered by the findings.

The authors of 'Theology Matters: Comparing the Traits of Growing and Declining Mainline Protestant Church Attendees and Clergy' surveyed 2,225 churchgoers in Ontario, Canada, and conducted interviews with 29 clergy and 195 congregants. The paper is to be published in next month’s issue of the respected international journal, Review of Religious Research. The researchers compared the beliefs and practices of congregations and clergy at mainline Protestant churches whose attendances were growing with declining churches. On all measures, the growing churches “held more firmly to the traditional beliefs of Christianity and were more diligent in things like prayer and Bible reading,” Haskell said.

Among the key findings are:
Only 50% of clergy from declining churches agreed it was “very important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians”, compared to 100% of clergy from growing churches

71% of clergy from growing churches read the Bible daily compared with 19% from declining churches.

46% of people attending growing churches read the Bible once a week compared with 26% from declining churches.

93% of clergy and 83% of worshippers from growing churches agreed with the statement “Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body leaving behind an empty tomb”. This compared with 67% of worshippers and 56% of clergy from declining churches.

100% of clergy and 90% of worshippers agreed that “God performs miracles in answer to prayers”, compared with 80% of worshippers and 44% of clergy from declining churches.

The study also found that about two-thirds of congregations at growing churches were under the age of 60, whereas two-thirds of congregations at declining churches were over 60.

Services at growing churches featured contemporary worship with drums and guitars, while declining churches favoured traditional styles of worship with organ and choir. According to Haskell, research on general social groups has shown that those with a consistent unified message and clear boundaries with people outside the group are attractive to outsiders.

“Conservative believers, relying on a fairly literal interpretation of scripture, are ‘sure’ that those who are not converted to Christianity will miss their chance for eternal life,” he said. “Because they are profoundly convinced of [the] life-saving, life-altering benefits that only their faith can provide, they are motivated by emotions of compassion and concern to recruit family, friends and acquaintances into their faith and into their church. This desire to reach others also makes conservative Protestants willing to implement innovative measures including changes to the style and content of their worship services.”

[...]

recedite · 28-11-2016 11:59pm

I wonder if the "theologically conservative" people are increasing in number though. Or are they just re-organising and grabbing market share within a declining market.

Or to put it another way, have these kind of people always been around in roughly the same % of the population, but previously were happy enough to be the more enthusiastic "Holy Joes" within mainstream congregations.

An interesting argument holds that 1 in 5 people will always have a preference for religion over science-based reason. If these are "the wheat" then they will naturally tend to regroup and band together, as "the chaff" gradually blows away with the winds of time.

robindch · 27-12-2016 2:02pm

Missed this - Robert Todd Carroll, author of the Skeptics' Dictionary, died in August:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Todd_Carroll
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html

magicbastarder · 08-01-2017 10:02pm

donald clarke in the IT responds to people who objected to his 'i can't even' review of scorsese's latest:

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-conflict-between-theists-and-atheists-has-become-a-godawful-bore-1.2926466

Hotblack Desiato · 10-01-2017 2:17am

Good article although his usual dismissive attitude towards Dawkins et al. is apparent again.

Bristolscale7 · 12-01-2017 11:41pm

An interesting 'unofficial' course offered by two faculty at the University of Washington:

Calling Bull**** in the Age of Big Data
http://callingbull****.org/syllabus.html

The link works if you replace the **** with sh1t (but an i not a 1)

robindch · 12-01-2017 11:56pm

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

http://callingbull****.org/syllabus.html

The link works if you replace the **** with sh1t (but an i not a 1)

Also works if one uses a link-shortener:

http://tinyurl.com/he9kk8f

Good to see Harry Frankfurt's excellent essay, On Bullshit, listed as the first coursebook.

Cabaal · 18-01-2017 10:25am

Titan Touchdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msiLWxDayuA

Bristolscale7 · 02-02-2017 11:21am

A website that helps people navigate the difficult ethical issues we face:

www.canipunchnazis.com

oscarBravo · 02-02-2017 11:29am

Jon Rosenberg weighs in:

Michael OBrien · 02-02-2017 1:58pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jon Rosenberg weighs in:

That is not what non violence approach advocates in this circumstance. Most of the time both sides are so busy hurling slurs at each other that they don't even hear the other side. The idea of escalating this to actual physical violence does not solve this problem, it only hardens both sides.
People are swayed by information and emotion, by seeking open and reasonable discourse, it may be possible to find areas of common misconceptions that defuse the tension between both sides and also point out mistakes or find out that your view had mistakes in it.
Of course if someone is actually attacking you, you will have to defend yourself, but just talking on the street does not qualify as deserving an assault.
The idea that if you view yourself as 'anti-fascist' while displaying all the same traits as those you despise, is simply a game of semantics that make the person feel more legitimate in their own thuggery.

oscarBravo · 02-02-2017 2:21pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

People are swayed by information and emotion...

Insofar as some people are swayed by information and others by emotion, I'll agree with you. There are people out there that are positively immune to facts.

Michael OBrien · 02-02-2017 2:29pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Insofar as some people are swayed by information and others by emotion, I'll agree with you. There are people out there that are positively immune to facts.

Oh I agree, but the only way to find that out, is to talk and listen. Punching people only vindicates their perceived victimhood.

Mark Hamill · 02-02-2017 2:50pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Oh I agree, but the only way to find that out, is to talk and listen. Punching people only vindicates their perceived victimhood.

There are people who contradicting them with facts vindicates their perceived victimhood. What do you do with them?

Michael OBrien · 02-02-2017 4:47pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are people who contradicting them with facts vindicates their perceived victimhood. What do you do with them?

Can you clarify? "What do you do with them?" refers to what group, the people contradicting or the people they contradict.
In the first case, I don't see its relevance to the discussion. In the latter it is still not an argument for violence, as it only enhances the victimhood attitude by those that hold opposing viewpoints as they see it escalating.

Mark Hamill · 02-02-2017 5:09pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Can you clarify? "What do you do with them?" refers to what group, the people contradicting or the people they contradict.
In the first case, I don't see its relevance to the discussion. In the latter it is still not an argument for violence, as it only enhances the victimhood attitude by those that hold opposing viewpoints as they see it escalating.

I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?

Michael OBrien · 02-02-2017 5:26pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. There are always going to be those that enjoy seeing the world in black and white terms, either for or against, either a believer or non believer. They usually don't have much going for them outside of that as they have to resort to such narrow terms.
However they are still people and you have two options that are non violent. You can ignore them or isolate them publicly. The first is obvious. The media and the public simply consider them socially laughable and absurd that even talking about them is a waste of oxygen, the other is to repeatedly refute their claims whenever they publicly pronounce them, so that anyone listening TO them sees them as misinformed. The people making the claims may not ever change, but that is not a huge issue, you will always have outliers in society, people that have gone so far down the rabbit hole of their beliefs that they forgot there is anything else but the hole.

For those that seek to punch someone they don't agree with, what does that solve. The person STILL will not change their mind by punching them. If a society 'protector' does nothing other than pander to their basest instincts, or seeks to frighten people into pushing their opposing agendas down dark alleys or secret meetups, then that is not a society worth saving. Fear will rule and majorities govern by brute force. Sounds pretty like the society people want to avoid.

Mark Hamill · 02-02-2017 5:35pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

However they are still people and you have two options that are non violent. You can ignore them or isolate them publicly. The first is obvious. The media and the public simply consider them socially laughable and absurd that even talking about them is a waste of oxygen, the other is to repeatedly refute their claims whenever they publicly pronounce them, so that anyone listening TO them sees them as misinformed. The people making the claims may not ever change, but that is not a huge issue, you will always have outliers in society, people that have gone so far down the rabbit hole of their beliefs that they forgot there is anything else but the hole.

What do you do when both of those options fail, like they did with Trump who was seen as a joke by the Media, and constantly and publicly refuted every time he talked nonsense (pretty much every time he opened his mouth)?

Michael OBrien · 02-02-2017 6:02pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What do you do when both of those options fail, like they did with Trump who was seen as a joke by the Media, and constantly and publicly refuted every time he talked nonsense (pretty much every time he opened his mouth)?

They have not failed, nor was that the reason he rose to power for now. Trump is a symptom of a larger issue with both sides of the debate. Punching people would not fix that. discussion might.
Look, what is the point of punching someone, who is not actually physically threatening you? What does that really solve?
As far as refutation of trump is concerned, there are some on the 'left' that cannot even listen or read what Trump says and represent it fairly either. The lack of objectivity is what helped Trump rise to power, with people ignoring the risk of his ascension to prove a personal point (like voting for a third party or not voting, or being obsessed with "anyone but killery" type rhetoric.).
There is plenty of blame going around for all sides in regard to Trump. I frankly was very very surprised he 'won', believing that he would ultimately fail, but then the republicans played pretty dirty with vote rigging and propaganda while the democrats were idiots pushing for another Clinton while the overwhelming public opinion was for change.

recedite · 02-02-2017 9:36pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm referring to people who, when contradicted with rational arguments and logic and facts, will claim they are under attack.
What do you do with those people who will always play the victim no matter how you oppose them?

Ignore them?

robindch · 03-02-2017 10:55am

recedite wrote: »

Ignore them?

Worked with the A+ crew.

Hard to see it working against DJT though.

Michael OBrien · 03-02-2017 12:53pm

Came across this interesting interview of Thomas Friedman. His comments about Trump and how to handle him and what lessons to take from his rise to power is, in my view, very on point.

Mark Hamill · 03-02-2017 2:45pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

They have not failed, nor was that the reason he rose to power for now. Trump is a symptom of a larger issue with both sides of the debate. Punching people would not fix that. discussion might.
Look, what is the point of punching someone, who is not actually physically threatening you? What does that really solve?
As far as refutation of trump is concerned, there are some on the 'left' that cannot even listen or read what Trump says and represent it fairly either. The lack of objectivity is what helped Trump rise to power, with people ignoring the risk of his ascension to prove a personal point (like voting for a third party or not voting, or being obsessed with "anyone but killery" type rhetoric.).
There is plenty of blame going around for all sides in regard to Trump. I frankly was very very surprised he 'won', believing that he would ultimately fail, but then the republicans played pretty dirty with vote rigging and propaganda while the democrats were idiots pushing for another Clinton while the overwhelming public opinion was for change.

I am not advocating for punching people, I am just asking what are the alternatives when logic and facts fail, and they did fail in relation to Trump.
Trump was ignored, then responded to with logic and reason and facts, all the while being mocked and satirised too. None of it mattered, it had no effect. So what do you do in that case?
As for listening to and representing Trump fairly, I find it's far more often than not Trump supporters who don't listen to or represent him fairly, "alternative facts" and all that. Come to think of it, they didn't listen to or represent Clinton fairly either. Many Trump followers just heard the bits they wanted to hear, from both sides, and ignored the rest.

Mark Hamill · 03-02-2017 2:48pm

recedite wrote: »

Ignore them?

That only works if everyone ignores them. But what if other people don't? How many people have to start agreeing with such people before ignoring them no longer makes sense? What do you do when ignoring them plays into their hand?
"See, he can't even respond to me, he has no argument!"

recedite · 03-02-2017 6:52pm

If you don't agree with other people's viewpoint, or find it offensive, then you can always ignore them.
If the offending nazis start interfering with other peoples freedoms, then that is another matter.
In a nutshell then, "punching a nazi" is not acceptable unless that nazi is actively engaged in nazi activities which affect others in a tangible and negative way.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-02-2017 2:29am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=milbW4RDIco

F**k me I am glad I didn't see this at time of broadcast, wouldn't have been able to sleep for months. Nonetheless at 9 years old I was reading adult newspapers at the time, and a couple of months later (35th anniversary of Hiroshima) there was all sorts of stuff about how far the vaporisation, blast, and radiation effects would reach from a (puny enough) one megaton bomb on O'Connell Bridge.

Conclusion was we're f**ked! especially as we have shag all in the way of civil defence.

But this is worth watching all the way through, especially to see those with strong belief in their country's ability to protect them crumble before your eyes. When the poop hits the fan we're all fooked. Except fo the Swiss, obviously.

Calibos · 06-02-2017 1:58am

I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-02-2017 2:19am

There is an argument that a balance of reasonably equally matched forces prevents a war from happening. When either side has the power to destroy much of the enemy in a first strike, then this is credible. This argument didn't work out well in the 19th century, 'balance of powers' where each side feared the other but still thought they could risk war without their own destruction. We saw how that worked out, WWI was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.

Peregrinus · 06-02-2017 2:39am

Calibos wrote: »

I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.

. . . until it doesn't, of course.

sbsquarepants · 06-02-2017 10:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . until it doesn't, of course.

As Blackadder said when explaining to Baldrick about the arms race prior to WW2 and how the plan was bigger armies and more weapons made war less likely "there was only one thing wrong with the plan....it was bollox":D

Mark Hamill · 06-02-2017 11:19am

recedite wrote: »

If you don't agree with other people's viewpoint, or find it offensive, then you can always ignore them.
If the offending nazis start interfering with other peoples freedoms, then that is another matter.
In a nutshell then, "punching a nazi" is not acceptable unless that nazi is actively engaged in nazi activities which affect others in a tangible and negative way.

I am not and have not at any time said anything about punching a nazi being acceptable or even useful way to engage or deal with them. I am asking what should be done when ignoring them and responding to them with logic/facts doesn't work.

robindch · 06-02-2017 1:27pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am asking what should be done when ignoring them and responding to them with logic/facts doesn't work.

Plus, what to do if the police, judiciary, legislature and executive become immune to facts, restrict rights and begin dismantling the apparatus of state - and peaceful protests are ineffective.

recedite · 06-02-2017 6:16pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This argument didn't work out well in the 19th century, 'balance of powers' where each side feared the other but still thought they could risk war without their own destruction. We saw how that worked out..

Indeed, Japan started a war with the US thinking the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, but that was before nukes were invented.

Interesting that the MAD balance has in recent years been upset. The US has added anti-ballistic missile bases around certain of the Baltic states and eastern Europe to the pre-existing ones in Alaska. On the face of it these are purely defensive, but if a missile shield is placed over Russia which lets missiles in, but not out, then Russia's effective nuclear deterrent is confined to its submarines. Which can be tracked by attack submarines.

Consequently, countries that house these defensive bases became the prime targets, so that the main Russian nuclear arsenal can become effective again. Nothing personal, its just the way it is.
I'll let Vlad explain...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo&

Of course, many will choose not to believe anything Vlad says. But The Great Game is relentlessly impersonal, and tends to disregard personal beliefs.

robindch · 06-02-2017 6:48pm

Calibos wrote: »

I for one am glad we live in a world with Nuclear weapons. The MAD doctrine prevents a conventional WW3 never mind a Nuclear one.

That was my view as well until quite recently - theoretically, MAD is predictable. In practice though, it's less so.

In the days when US presidents appointed people with relevant experience to positions of power, William Perry - soldier, PhD-level mathematician, researcher, professor of engineering, business man, banker and much else besides - was Secretary of Defense.

The BBC caught up with him recently to discuss nuclear weapons and his point of view must be one of the world's most well-informed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rfyb8

recedite · 06-02-2017 9:45pm

robindch wrote: »

The BBC caught up with him recently to discuss nuclear weapons and his point of view must be one of the world's most well-informed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rfyb8

Its a good interview. Despite some leading questions from the BBC guy regarding Trump, William J Perry does identify a terrorist attack as "probably the most likely" way a nuclear catastrophe would happen. The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.

oscarBravo · 06-02-2017 10:28pm

recedite wrote: »

The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.

I guess we finally know what "extreme vetting" means: "would you mind opening the suitcase, sir?"

Peregrinus · 07-02-2017 2:50am

recedite wrote: »

Its a good interview. Despite some leading questions from the BBC guy regarding Trump, William J Perry does identify a terrorist attack as "probably the most likely" way a nuclear catastrophe would happen. The old "bomb in a suitcase" scenario is very hard to defend against, especially when inconvenient severe vetting procedures are rejected as an option.

I think what you meant to say what that the old bomb in a suitcase scenario is very hard to defend against if you image that Trump's severe vetting procedures are any kind of a defence.

looksee · 07-02-2017 2:56pm

I can't help seeing a connection between the people in this video and the decision to go Atheist...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180626/Fascinating-film-captures-reactions-diving-board.html#v-8284470162306809370

yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, still worth watching.

recedite · 07-02-2017 7:26pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think what you meant to say what that the old bomb in a suitcase scenario is very hard to defend against if you image that Trump's severe vetting procedures are any kind of a defence.

What I mean is, there is no real defence against the suitcase. It could arrive in on a shipping container, or be carried by an American who thinks they are being paid to smuggle marijuana.

What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.

Interesting Stuff Thread

Comments