All Replies on Smarter than a 3rd. grader?

Nice! That one goes in the favorite box.

-- Dan I.G.N.

The agnostic, dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night wondering if there really is a DOG…??

-- Drink twice... and don't bother to cut... @ larrysworkshop.wordpress.com For lovers of all things timber...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

How flawless~!!
I love it.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

lol atheist bashing! the joke could be turned around and still work, though the end could be a little more dramatic, knowing what happened the last time a plane was filled with pissed off believers!

Therefore, God exists…??? I realize that theists have always had inherent difficulties in making their case, but I didn’t realize it had gotten this bad. Was there an argument, or even a point, somewhere in that quip? I certainly laughed out loud.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s not about making sense. It’s about saying things that people like to hear. I’ll never learn.

Really guys? We have stooped to this new low? The race is on to see who will now be the first to post a black person joke. Why can’t people just leave other peoples beliefs alone.
-AG

ah come on a little joke with no harm in at all ….....not even by the writer of them
...............and someone is .....
whats the matter with the world to day

not to start a fight here …........just to say let us take it for what it is a harmless joke
to give some smiles on our faces :-)

best thoughts …. and have a great weekend with your beloved ones

Dennis

I have no problem with anybody’s belief, it is their right and privilege. All I have to do is plane a piece of wood, add a little varnish and take a long look at the wonderous beauty and ask myself how anyone can disprove how this was created – can’t be by accident !!!

-- David in Damascus, MD

I don’t think the little girls comments were to question the wisdom of being an athiest but more of an illustration of why should she waste her time debating with someone whom had not thought out their own position. We are inundated with instant ‘experts’ in the media all the time but I suspect they’d not pass the little girls test either.

I laughed out loud when I read this also!

-- "Checking for square? what madness is this! The cabinet is square because I will it to be so!" Jeremy Greiner LJ Topic#20953 2011 Feb 2

funny

-- Mike, Marietta,ny

No soap radio. I get it!

This joke is a classic example of informal logical fallacy, a logical error in the argument’s content. In other words the little girl incorrectly assumes that if A has no valid opinion on subject matter X, then A can not have valid opinion on subject matter Y, X not being a prerequisite or related to Y.
…
Albert Einstein: “How about theory of relativity” as he smiled smugly.
Little girl: “This could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
Albert Einstein: “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
Little girl: “Do you really feel qualified to discuss theory of relativity, when you don’t know shit?”
…
This chain of argumentation for a third grader is understandable.

Yep.. gotta love that they brought back a non-woodworking forum… coming from an Atheist that does knows his “shit” ... why a cow makes patties and a deer makes pellets and a horse clumps … and why this forum gets this “shit” as well … yay… sigh… I wish there was a way to only get notices of people projects not posts from this forum… instead since I don’t want this “shit”.. I gotta let people go from the buddy list… sigh.

-- ~ Eric P Jorgenson: Jorgenson Design

That little girl does not know much about animals. For example, deer eat very little grass. Anyone in deer territory with a lawn and a garden knows this all too well. According to this article, “grasses comprise only a very small part of the overall diet of the white-tailed deer, usually less than 10%.”

-- "Too much hurry ruins the body. I'll sit easy … fan the spark" - I. Anderson

My only suggestion is that the next time someone wants to interject what they believe to be a cleaver jab at a particular demographic, at least adjust the fallacy to accommodate the target audience. For example:

An atheist was seated next to Righteous Rachel at the Lie-Nielsen workshop on plane sharpening and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? These workshops go much quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow hand-tool enthusiast.”

And then she went back to reading her favorite Cato Institute hack.

For those defending the atheist, I think you miss the point: atheist, theist, or deist, they all assert a position upon the state of the person after death that they in no way can have knowledge on. It’s more about asserting your beliefs (or nonbeliefs) without any real knowledge. We just like to assert that we know and we’re correct. The little girl is just putting him in his place. the only reason it’s really funny is because it’s a 5 year old doing it.

I beg your pardon, all. Any atheist worth his/her salt will tell you straight up that we do NOT know what happens after we die. That is all. People making up claims otherwise are all suspect. “Smug”? Please, this only displays projection on the part of the person putting the little girl in as the final smug answer, the punch lie.

BobTheFish, the theist is one who ALSO doesn’t know (but believes), but the little girl is pushing the theist position of salvation…who here can prove that to me?

To all: which is it going to be? The Egyptian, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Norse mythologies of salvation? To name a few? Not even all of these claim salvation!

BobTheFish, I agree with you that “atheist” in the story makes argument from ignorance (another logical fallacy, see my previous post) asserting that the statement is true (there is no God) because it cannot be proven false, thus shifting the burden of proof to others.

However, AtomJack is absolutely correct in the definition of atheist and the suspect claim. Adult character in the story is in fact a believer in nonexistence of God rather then atheist. This indicates that the story itself was written by a believer making projections.
In the broadest sense atheism is the ABSENCE of belief that a deity exists (although believers in nonexistence of God often casually included). Hence an atheist would not (or at least should not) fall victim to false dichotomy in which a third option is excluded (1. God exists, 2. God does not exist, 3. Unknown / can’t be proven either way).
In science and jurisprudence the burden of proof lies upon a person making the claim, while argumentation from ignorance is indicative of religion. This gives away the narrator of the story.

Leaving aside the existential aspect, I personally think that the anecdote is shallow. It is essentially an elaborate form of juvenile “poop joke”. Characters are introduced and the arguments exchanged. Listeners anticipate a closing statement that delivers the point. Instead, the narrative is interrupted by an irrelevant argument containing the word “poop” and everyone is laughing.
BTW, I do honestly laugh at “poop jokes”. Coming from a child they are cute, age appropriate, and sincere.

Fire insurance, yes or no? Do you feel lucky, punk ? Do ya ? Would you like to add the poop rider to that policy today ?

-- If you're going to stir the pot, think BIG spoon or SMALL boat paddle. David Grimes, Georgia

where’s the woodworking in this thread?

-- Shameless - Winner of two Stumpy Nubs Awards

This is the Non-Shop Talk section, so be nice and don’t tell anybody to burn in hell or nothing like that or they’ll take it away again. ;=)

-- If you're going to stir the pot, think BIG spoon or SMALL boat paddle. David Grimes, Georgia

Definately forwarding this one along. That is some funny stuff.

Those who are getting offended: Its not about the religion perse its about people feeling over qualified to talk about matters we know nothing about. Besides its a joke.

-- "Ah, So your not really a newbie, but a I betterbie."

Sorry…missed that in the header.

-- Shameless - Winner of two Stumpy Nubs Awards

Viktor, Jack, an agnostic claims no knowledge of life after death, etc. an atheist asserts that there is no god.

Emo Phillips is a believer:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I’d try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, “Don’t jump!” and he turns… You’ve heard of the elephant man. He was kind of like that, he had a, well, you could say he had the head of a horse. And my heart went out to him. I said, “Why the long face?”
He said, ”’Cause all my life people have called me mean names like horses-head or Flicka or chess-piece or Trigger…”
I said, “Well, don’t worry about it, Ed. It can’t be that bad.”
He said, “My girlfriend’s suing me!”
I said, “For palomino?”
He said, “Why was I put on this Earth?”
I said, “My friend, anywhere else you wouldn’t stand a chance.”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you, you silly ninny.”
He said, “How do you know there’s a God?”
I said, “Of course there’s a God. Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?”
He said, “I do believe in God.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me too. Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! What franchise?”
He says, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over!

-- "Too much hurry ruins the body. I'll sit easy … fan the spark" - I. Anderson

Some people can’t take a joke. Thats all it was. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Complaining about it won’t do anything but cause an argument and possibly make some enemys. Learn to laught at yourselves and don take stuff so personally.

-- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein

Not quite Bob- the agnostic claims he can’t tell whether there is a god. The atheistic doesn’t believe there is a god. That’s not the same as asserting there isn’t one. This is a common error.

Wow.. I checked back on this topic because I had a feeling there was going to be a debate going on about using the four-letter word for excrement. I never dreamed that the joke would be perceived as belittling atheists.

The point of the joke, people, is the little girl’s precociousness, and her ability to wisely render an adult speechless. It’s the same joke when Viktor substituted Einstein for the atheist. I first heard it a long time ago, and don’t even remember what the adult wanted to talk about in that version.

Now I have a question for Viktor:

You said : “In the broadest sense atheism is the ABSENCE of belief that a deity exists (although believers in nonexistence of God often casually included). Hence an atheist would not (or at least should not) fall victim to false dichotomy in which a third option is excluded (1. God exists, 2. God does not exist, 3. Unknown / can’t be proven either way).”

I’ve always thought the absence of belief was agnosticism, and that atheism was belief in non-existence. If an atheist can just have an absence of belief, then what is an agnostic?

Oh, and for the record, I’m in the “just don’t know” category.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

Mmmmm… but jack, most atheists I have met have been straight up asserting the lack of god as fact. And typically they only target the ultra conservative fundamentalist branch of christianity… And if they feel like shooting fish out of THAT bucket a bit too challenging, they go for the young earthers. Personally, I don’t know what’s out there, but whatever’s after this life, be it heaven, hell, a repeat experience on earth or the grand nothingness, I’m not too keen on it. But in my day to day life, I don’t mind that Jesus guy, and feel he’s got a lot right (but watch out for those Peter and Paul guys that are always latched on to him), and happily would devote his momentary prayers to Nemesis, the greek goddess of humility (actually she’s the black winged balancer of fate, who brings down those whom think themselves like gods, or the overly favored by Fortune), because I think the world could probably use a bit more of her presence.

Last time I heard this, the butt of the joke was a politician. It was funny then, and this one is funny now.

Jeez folks, get over it already. And you wonder why Martin shut this forum down last time.

-- Backer boards, stop blocks, build oversized, and never buy a hand plane--

If we are unable to laugh at our differences, we are sadly doomed.

-- "Too much hurry ruins the body. I'll sit easy … fan the spark" - I. Anderson

Charlie, to answer your question, think of it this way. Do you believe in winged, purple, elephants that dispense pixie dust every morning in order for the sun to rise?

I’m guessing you don’t believe in such creatures. So why do you hold onto this belief in the non-existence of winged, purple, elephants dispensing pixie dust?

Agnostics will entertain the possibility of a deity but not commit one way or another because they have no way of knowing one way or the other. Atheists take the approach that there’s nothing there to even entertain the possibility, not because they know there’s nothing there but because there’s no evidence or reason to consider the possibility in the first place. It’s the same reason why you don’t reserve judgement on the possibility that the above creature I described may exist but you just don’t know. I’m assuming you’re not an agnostic with regard to these creatures. At least I hope not because I just made them up 5 minutes ago.

And the mere mention of these creatures or that 90% of the population may believe they exist does not in any way require the non-believer to consider the possibility. The burden of proof is always on those making the claim, not those denying the claim. So prove to me that winged, purple, elephants dispensing pixie dust do not exist.

Borrowing from Don Hirschberg, calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair color.

Am I the only one with a mother that gave the religion and politics discussion, you know when your mother tells you those are the two things you should not talk about with people because no one can agree and everyone leaves the conversation frustrated and offended.

Regarding the joke defense. I really think you guys would be better off taking the atheist-jab route. Good jokes, even average jokes, make some sense. This one makes none. Viktor’s counter example demonstrated that very well. IMHO it’s LOL factor was due to its raw stupidity not it’s humor. But to each his own, I guess…

Pierce, I agree with your definitions of atheistic and agnostic 100%, but that is NOT the same as what Viktor was saying.

But I have to disagree with you about the joke making no sense. To me, it’s funny with the atheist, and even more funny with Einstein.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

Pierce,
The question is, can your winged, purple, elephants coexist in a universe with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is definitely known to exist?

-- "Too much hurry ruins the body. I'll sit easy … fan the spark" - I. Anderson

^ the question is, can my winged, purple elephants defeat your most holy noodliness? Oh, I think so. They have wings… and they’re purple.

I find bentlyj’s jokes funny because they make sense – there’s irony there. But then I find Monty Python hilarious and many do not…

Edit: just noticed Chuck’s Emo Phillips joke – classic!

You are probably right – purple is hard to beat.

-- "Too much hurry ruins the body. I'll sit easy … fan the spark" - I. Anderson

It’s all friggin religion.

Science is the religion of the new era.
But science is only so good. It provides us with answers that go only so far and no further.
We gain incremental motion here and there but the big questions remain unanswerable.

There are scads of people who have damn near no clue, but they preach the religion of science as if somehow anything that comes draped in the robes of academia or science is absolute gospel and inviolate.

They do it in pretty much exactly the same way literalists of any religion insist that the precise words of their holy texts are absolutely true and inviolate. Neither camp has a friggin clue, but that doesn’t stop them because they both have faith in the same quantum.

A few hundred years ago our science taught us that the world was flat.
Now, we think it’s round. But no one can prove it.
To any real practitioner gravity is still just a theory. Maybe the best one we have for why things plummet down when we let ‘em go, but it’s still just a theory.

Observational science is every bit as dependent on the means and methods by which observations are made as it is upon the predispositions and cultural and psychological filters that the humans doing the observations hold.
Maybe in a thousand years the observational sciences will inform us that the earth is not on fact round, but triangular.
Who knows? Humans are still struggling with the pitiful tools and preconceptions of the present.

When I’m confronted with a true believer in the Religion of Science wonder ifg they think it is incongruous that they one the one hand are insisting that it’s all gospel while on the other they know that they are going to die because their god science can’t conquer death. Or if they puzzle their sleepless nights away wondering why not one scientist anywhere on earth has a single tiny hint of an explanation for where the first stuff came from.

Are we like dogs? We simply don’t ask? Are we so stricken with religious zeal that because our God science has not seen fit to tell us where it all came from we just don’t worry about it? All will be revealed in the fullness of time? Is that it?

Well then, why do we have to die? I don’t want to, but science seems incapable of solving for death. Oh woe is me my god has abandoned me

I would love to believe, I really would.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

And to think that our devotion to this religion of science is so solid that only 40% of Americans believe in one of the most seminal scientific discoveries of our time – evolution. Of course, this is not at all surprising given that scientific literacy in this country is in the gutter and has been for some time.

cr1, you throw around the word “theory” as if you know what it means – you don’t. You say, “gravity is still just a theory.” Okay, which one? Which theory of gravity are you referring to? Are you even aware that the theoretical nature of gravity is still a relative unknown in science? In fact, our scientific understanding of the evolutionary process is far more robust than our understanding of gravity. Now which of the two do you think most people are more likely to take as scientifically unproblematic?

FYI – theory does NOT mean:

1. hypothesis
2. conjecture
3. speculation
4. uncorroborated facts
5. guessing
6. or any number of the myriad of misconceptions spewed forth by the Religious Right in this country.

Very simply put: a theory consists of a set of concepts expressed as propositions that provide a logical explanation of a particular phenomenon by means of proposing hypotheses that can be tested. These testable hypotheses are not identical with the theoretical propositions but are derived from the them and are either supported or unsupported through observational statements, i.e., the evidence brought to bear on the phenomenon in question.

Theories are essentially abstract models of the world around us that give us a way of organizing information and observations so we can understand phenomena beyond any particular instance of such phenomenal events. For example, I drop my pencil and it travels to the floor. A theory of pencil falling simply tries to explain why releasing a pencil from your fingers results in it falling to the floor. It also tries to account for those cases when the pencil doesn’t fall to the floor.

Just a theory? Everything you do in daily life is theory dependent whether you recognize it or not. It’s called predictive differentiation – look it up…

I now need to ask a real question about lever caps in the “Handplanes of your dreams” thread. Cheers!

”cr1, you throw around the word “theory” as if you know what it means – you don’t. ”

Oh but I do. Did you intend to be so condescending?

Take this: ”FYI – theory does NOT mean:”
That and what followed was pretty rude.

And this: ”look it up…”
Just Screams I KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO COZ I USE BIG WOIDS
And of course, maybe you do and maybe you don’t, but rudeness is not a good way to make the point. I can appreciate it that you have an opinion of yourself as a smart educated fellow. I really can. But, rudeness says something altogether different about a person.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

Bently and Rance – I knew there was a reason I liked you guys!!!

-- " I'll try to be nicer, if you'll try to be smarter" gfadvm

cr1, I can only respond to what is stated and what you stated is simply ill-informed. I’m sorry. I could sugar coat it and dance around the issue but I find that approach to be condescending.

I’m ill-informed on all sorts of things – woodworking being one of the chief things that I know very little about. But that’s why I’m here – to learn. As a result, I ask questions and rely on the expertise of those who have done the years of hard work, gaining the requisite experience and knowledge and are qualified to give advice. I’m not qualified in this arena, so I listen and learn.

The nature of these type of “non-shop talk” discussions are quite a bit different, however, in that everyone thinks they’re an expert on the subject du jour and a lot of nonsense is bandied about simply because everyone thinks that an opinion is an equal opportunity mitigator on whatever subject is under discussion. In other words, we think that simply having an opinion on something is enough for it to be unassailable, and to call someone out on their opinion is somehow rude as a result. So what we do is, in fact, dance around these issues and give the impression that we respect all opinions when in reality we don’t.

It’s actually quite apropos of this thread. We think of our opinions as religious beliefs, regardless of how informed or ill-informed they may be. They become sacred objects that are off limits because they consist of our personal beliefs, which apparently no one has a right to criticize – I strongly believe in X, Y, or Z and that’s enough to protect it from all critical review. Why?! If you present an opinion as an expert commentary, then you need to be prepared to deal with it as such. If it’s not intended in that way, then don’t present it as such. Put it in the form of a question rather than declarative statement.

The irony in all of this is that the opposing camps of the Left and the Right take the same refuge. Yes, cr1, it is all religious if your starting and ending point is located on either one of these extreme camps. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing sacred, nothing is out of bounds, and I grow weary of those (on the Left and the Right) who automatically jump into this sacred refuge as soon as their nonsense is exposed and challenged.

I’m fully aware that most people strongly connect their views of the world with who they are personally and when those views are strongly rebutted they take it as a personal attack. Well, that’s unfortunate, but it’s also far too convenient of a way to avoid critique – the Left actually does this far more than Right and has perfected this crap into a science (no pun intended). I know. I deal with it on a daily basis.

I’m sorry that you, and I’m sure many others here, find my approach condescending but I’m not forcing you or anyone else here to voice an opinion. But once you put it out there it’s fair game and not unassailable. If you want your views to be treated like sacred objects, then don’t reveal then in the public domain.

There’s nothing more satisfying for me than someone demonstrating that I’m wrong. It means that I’ve learned something and there’s nothing more valuable than that.

Never really thought of Left and Right as being defined by religious orientation. I thought that was the Liberal to Conservative scale in US politics, the Socialism (all government) to Anarchy (no government) scale universally.

I would suppose that the “religion scale” would be Right and Wrong (although impossible to empirically prove) ? lol Lets fight about it so the last man standing can be the Right for a few years (until he dies and finds out he may be Wrong).

It is true that the total understanding of gravity is still up for grabs. Something so strong, prevalent and right in our faces and still not understood. I won’t be surprised if when they do it “opens” lots of other avenues just from the “equal and opposite” reactions and their manipulations.

I’ve wondered / never seen info on how strong (or how much weaker) would gravity be if the world stopped spinning for the test ? IOW what % is centrifugal and how much is “raw mass gravity” (for want of a better term)?

-- If you're going to stir the pot, think BIG spoon or SMALL boat paddle. David Grimes, Georgia

Hey David? Wouldn’t centrifugal force tend to spin us off the planet? So if the earth stopped spinning, it seems like gravity would be stronger.

(I can’t wait for Pierce to jump in, because I have no friggin’ clue what I’m talking about here.) :-)

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

”Yes, cr1, it is all religious if your starting and ending point is located on either one of these extreme camps.”

Well it seems axiomatic to me that if a person is the sort to become all exercised about such things as the OP then that person is hopelessly mired in one of those extreme camps.
I did use the expression literalist, to describe ‘em.

As for the sugar coating. You just assumed that I was unaware of the things you spoke to in your post. I can’t imagine how you got there given the paucity of on point material in my post. So what you ended up doing, was to make assumptions about me and then to set about to give me a dressing down on the assumptions you made.

Why the dressing down? I can’t imagine. It was entirely in-apropos, as not one world I posted was directed at causing you any discomfort. It was rude.
Why the presumptions? I’m still unable to say for sure. The first logical guess might be
defensiveness? Did something I wrote in my post shake a sacred cow from a tree you hold particularly dear?

Science is the religion of the new era.
A huge demographic of modern culture invests it with the exact same level of blind faith that our ancestors put in the mystical religions and mysticism based sciences that were extent ages ago in old Europe and Mesopotamia. The best argument for science is that it has a better success rate than waving a dead cat over one’s head. But, a better success rate does not justify the level of unsupportable blind faith that so many people invest it with.

What I’d think of a a practitioner is not one of those people. A practitioner has seen too many closely held theories fall to pieces upon a more enlightened inspection when more information was made available. True believers don’t have that experience because they believe so firmly that no amount of contrary information will dissuade them from the notions they hold so dearly and understand so dimly – if at all.

And then there are pseudo scientists like David Suzuki whose degrees and honors are all genuine, but who have lost themselves to causes which have overwhelmed their ability to be impartial. They are true believers with Bona Fides. They will tell any falsehood to support their faith and cloak it in the trappings of academia and science.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

@Charlie. And CF would be greater at the equator.

Oh, and all those solid rocket tests that countries have done over the years. There’s a world committee to regulate which direction the rockets face so as to not disrupt the rotation of the earth.

-- Backer boards, stop blocks, build oversized, and never buy a hand plane--

Dayum, Charlie. That was at 2:00 am or something… j/k. I was thinking about how artificial gravity can be simulated in space by spinning whatever… so maybe not smarter than a 3rd grader. That’s my excuse and I’m gonna stick with it. ;=)

On the worry of the rocket thrusts ad hoc effect (not falling, but pushing force)... maybe because of the inverse of this:

According to Newton’s 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in comparison to the object’s. If the object doesn’t bounce after it has collided with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents further acceleration.

Just don’t pee in the chip separator while it’s on is all I really know !

-- If you're going to stir the pot, think BIG spoon or SMALL boat paddle. David Grimes, Georgia

David, regarding your advice about the chip separator, experiential knowledge is the best kind. :-)

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

cr1, I have nothing against you personally. I’m responding to your claims about science, which continue to demonstrate significant shortcomings in proportion to their scope. That’s a slightly nicer way of saying you don’t know what you’re talking about with this particular topic. You’re making such huge, grand, sweeping claims about “science” that they’re almost guaranteed to fail as a result.

The best argument for science is that it has a better success rate than waving a dead cat over one’s head. But, a better success rate does not justify the level of unsupportable blind faith that so many people invest it with.

Okay, do you see the semi-logical problem with this statement? Anything that has a better success rate is at least in one sense better supported than something that does not have a better success rate, correct? There’s a level of circularity here, but we should at least recognize that given two methods, the one that is more successful has some basis other than blind faith to support its better success rate than the other method.

For example, I have a better success rate using sharp planing irons than when I use dull planing irons. Success in this context is defined by efficiently doing the job for which the tool was designed. Now I invest trust in sharp tools because they consistently demonstrate their success in efficiently doing the job for which they were intended. I’m not investing “unsupportable blind faith” in sharp planing irons. Why? Because their superiority over their dull counterparts can be demonstrated over and over again – they have a better success rate. There’s no need for faith.

More importantly, I can find out why sharp tools work better than dull tools because there’s a theoretical basis that explains this success. This theory can be tested and the success can be demonstrated thus supporting the theoretical explanation. I’ll let you make the connection between this example and science. Suffice it to say, religious belief does not function in this way.

And then there are pseudo scientists like David Suzuki…

Really? So you’re going to claim that David Suzuki is a fake, despite his degrees, professional training, and over forty years of scholarship? And the basis for your assessment is that Suzuki has somehow “lost [himself] to causes which have overwhelmed [his] ability to be impartial.” To cut to the chase, I suspect your sweeping claim about Suzuki as a fraud is because you disagree with his positions on environmental issues, and therefore he must be a fake. And apparently you know his positions on environmental issues are NOT impartial because of your own impartial and expert understanding of these issues?

cr1, do you see the problem with your line of reasoning in any of this? It’s an honest question. You’ve made a sweeping claim about the legitimacy of someone’s credentials and then provided zero evidence to back up your claim. Can you provide us with any impartial evidence demonstrating that Suzuki is a “pseudo scientist” other than your disagreement with his environmental stances?

I so regret jumping into this, so I’ll stop now. My apologies to everyone. cr1, you get the last word.