Who chooses the book?

Post #133,847 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 11:26:56 AM Reply	Who chooses the book? I'm serious. I've been burned by shit like this before, and I want the details nailed down. Pick a good bookstore and it is trivial to find books that disagree with each other on all sorts of details. Furthermore in a decade I expect that science will have a clearer picture, and so there will be details that differ. For instance the exact timescale that the Colorado has been in its present course, wearing down the Grand Canyon, is one which is unsettled (as is, so I understand, the previous course of the Colorado. On the other hand let me offer my version, see if you think that it is acceptable. I predict that in 10 years the following will still be accepted within the scientific community (yes, I'm deliberately not accepting the ICR's claims) about the Grand Canyon: It was created by erosion, including obviously that from the Colorado River. It was created in the last 10 million years, and more than 100,000 years ago. I'm putting wide error bars because I'm trying to sandwich current estimates of 1-6 million years. (Getting an exact time is hard because the river now flows in solid rock that is very hard to erode. The nature of erosion is that as it goes on, it wears away the record of when stuff was taken away before. Therefore it is hard to determine when the canyon got started.) The major layers described in, say, [link\|http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/BeroN/Bero.htm\|Grand Canyon Rock Layers] will still exist, still be thought to have been formed the same way, and their estimated ages will still be within 15% of what we currently estimate them at. Is this a bet that you can accept? If so, then I'll gladly accept $50 from you in 2014. On scientific facts, I've always been precise about what I use that phrase for. In return I must say that I've appreciated how little I've talked to you in the last few years, and I'm somewhat disappointed that my lucky streak is broken. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,899 by danreck 1/6/04 3:39:59 PM 1/6/04 3:43:19 PM Reply	Re: Who chooses the book? Ben, I wouldn't burn you. To be fair, we should pick the same book by the same author with the same publisher with a 2003/2004 copyright and compare it to one in 2013/2014. Of course, its only fair that you would want to hedge a sucker bet. The book 2013/2014 book cannot in any factual way contradict the 2003/2004 book. Period. Even if they find out that maybe the meteor strike in the (current) Gulf of Mexico was responsible for accelerating it's formation, if it's not in the book, it can't be ten years hence. But neither of us will bite on this bet, will we. The reason why I'm not biting is because any books that are currently selling (today on the shelf) regarding the creation of the Grand Canyon must be 100% factually complete or else they too should be banned. You know, we wouldn't want our national parks selling BS to poor, impressionable minds. In that regard, Paul Bunyon should be taken out as well. We shouldn't sell any books there as they all most probably are fiction with a grain of incomplete truth. But back to reality. I am operating under the assumption that you take offense at the park service selling a Creation based book because it may be innaccurate (more precisely because you and many like you believe it to be innaccurate). I posted the the 1'st, reiterated this point twice (in separate posts) and still you choose to not address it. Why? Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places? I don't see it that way. This is not akin to putting the Ten Commandments over the door to the bookstore. I would have a problem with that. Is it that the religion of consumerism outweighs the Christian religion? Let me pose this question to you one more time in exactly the same way I posed it four sentences ago, "Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places?" This is what is at the heart of this whole thread. Just as I'm very vocal about not wanting the Ten C's on my dime, I'm more vocal about banning books. In case you missed it, "Do you feel that this is one of those slippery slope things, allowing books to be sold in public places?" Just a few of the same question for three damned posts, Danno Edited by danreck Jan. 6, 2004, 03:43:19 PM EST Expand All History
Post #133,922 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 5:25:32 PM Reply	And that is a sucker bet The book 2013/2014 book cannot in any factual way contradict the 2003/2004 book. Period. Science is a process, not an end. The things that we think we know, we have different degrees of uncertainty about. Very few popular books try very hard to address this, and no author, no matter how they try, is able to both quote lots of detail and also constantly qualify each detail with information on how certain we are about the item quoted. Furthermore in any book, there are bound to be honest mistakes. If we take 2 books and compare them, any mistake in either and you have your sucker bet. Heck, no need to wait 10 years. Buy 2 books about the Grand Canyon right now and the odds are very good that, if you read closely, they contradict each other right now in some way! Heck, take two editions of the same book by the same publisher, look at the errata, and there you go! So I offered a version of the bet which listed conclusions that I believe we are pretty confident about. Therefore those conclusions shouldn't change within 10 years. More detailed current theories will change (that is the scientific process at work), but the ones that I offered won't. Of course you won't take that bet because you know that I'd win it easily. So we don't have a bet. Not because anyone here lacks confidence in science, but because I refuse to bet against human error and the scientific process, while you refuse to bet against the outcome of the scientific process. On the topic of selling creationist literature, there is a simple reason that I didn't respond to that question. I never spoke out against that, and so didn't see any point in defending what I never said. My position is that if they want to devote a section of the bookstore to Creationist literature, go ahead. Just don't put it in the science section, and let people know that it doesn't belong there. Don't believe me? Take a look at [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133412\|this post] to see me raise the issue. Take a look at the whole damned thread with Wade in religion to see me repeatedly saying that Creationism shouldn't be presented as science. I never once said that Creationism should never be presented. I said that it shouldn't be presented as science. Please read the whole thread again (in all 3 forums) to verify that. Once you have verified that you were flaming me for something that I never said, I'd appreciate it if you would get back to me with an apology. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,929 by hnick 1/6/04 5:49:28 PM Reply	An apology from the FLAME FORUM? Urm... Ben... You're out of your fucking mind. It is contrary to the system. If you want a real dialog, take it out of here to a sane (for limited definitions of sane) forum. There's RULES here, ya see...
Post #134,064 by danreck 1/7/04 9:48:12 AM Reply	Fair enough... I have reread and stand corrected. I apologize for trying to put words in your mouth. Not a totally meaningless discourse on my end, however. In the spirit of this particular forum heading (and because of the jeers about "get a hotel room, etc." sure to follow :-0 ), I still feel compelled to at least call you a butthead. Ben, you are butthead. Just a few thoughts, Danno

Welcome to IWETHEY!