Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 9
-
One last real man in the media
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann tells Bush and Cheney: "Resign."]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was refreshing to see and hear Keith's blistering speech shivving Bush and his criminal assholes. It was music to my ears. One of the few real man, with any cojones left, in the media. Prepared to speak truth to the most mentally menial and disgusting vermin every to occupy the White House.
What a contrast to that tweety tart Chris Matthews, and the other blow-dried bimbos.
As the residue of pro-Bush morons and scheit-mongers declines toward the single digits, it is encouraging that there may yet be a small chance to rescue this country's reputation.
Once we can remove all the Repub-reptile filth and finally clean house next year.
-
Differences?
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Given his immature, excessively vitriolic tone, I seriously doubt he contributes anything worthwhile to any community, scientific or academic.
He reminds me of my former brother in law, who lived off his wife's income while spending his days posting rants to websites (that is, when he wasn't looking at porn). Hey, maybe...
But how is this any different? You berate 'Ellis' for his "vitriolic tone", yet you display the same by comparing him to a relative (all predicated on pure, baseless assumption) that you hold in total contempt. Implying 'Ellis' is also a "parasite" and obsesses over "porn" like that person.
Why not, instead of comparing him to a loser relative, show by means of disciplined argument why the case he has made is deficient? (And he has made something of a case, minus any passing ad hominems).
Tones in comments' sections, whether here or in newspaper blogs, are not the result usually of one single person - but a degenerating chemistry to which numerous commentators contribute. If you wish to change that tone, do so by an objective argument rising above the level you perceive of your opponent.
Don't contribute to or reinforce it.
-
Knowing
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What seems exceedingly difficult for monkeys like us to admit is that we just don't know. Why is this so hard?
It depends. "Knowing" proceeds by degrees, including the degree of investigation brought to bear, whether self-consistent physical and workable models are feasible that afford useful predictions, and the nature of the knowledge sought.
For example, the "knowledge" of where Mars will be located on July 15, 2014 is trivial. From celestial mechanics this position can be computed to within a few fractions of an arc second (1/3600 of a degree).
It is also such precision that allows us to send probes to planets such as Mars or Venus. Hence, the knowledge works, and IS attainable.
The temperature of the cosmos 5 seconds after the Big Bang is also knowable to a degree. It is knowable because we can extrapolate backward (using thermodynamics and statistical mechanics) from the current isotropic background temperature (of 2.7 K) to the earlier one. (See the Appendix of Steven Weinberg's wonderful book: The First Three Minutes)
Meanwhile, Davies' claim for a specific outcome- say of collapse of a superposition of "histories" via observation - is inherently unknowable. Hence, one cannot extrapolate from it, the same way we we can extrapolate using celestial mechanics- to obtain Mars' future position in July, 2014. Or backward- using thermodynamics and statistical mechanics- to obtain the cosmos' temperature 5 secs after the Big Bang.
-
"Design" in the universe
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Deejoshy wrote:
One thing I have always had trouble with is the idea that there is a beautiful design in the universe
Exactly so, and there is no "design" that can be deduced.
We know from the recent Type II supernova data, that the cosmos at present is comprised of:
- 70% dark energy
- 23% dark matter
That is, 93% of the cosmos which cannot remotely be assessed for "order" or "design".
Of the remaining visible 7% most (6.5%) is hot plasma that exhibits no lasting order or design, nothing that can't be explained from basic thermodynamics and discrete principles (e.g. hydrostatic equilibrium in stars).
Thus, ascribing "design" to the cosmos remains a delusion. However, a peculiarly human delusion.
-
Bush-Cheney resigning
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann tells Bush and Cheney: "Resign."]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ChanRobt wrote:
There are no grounds for Bush and Cheney to resign.
Don't make me laugh! Of course, there are. These two fuckers committed T-R-E-A-S-O-N by outing a covert intelligence agent (Valerie Plame) who had actually been working on WMD.
It is well known Plame was covert, and ALSO that her entire network was compromised by what this duo of filth did. They not only placed Plame's life at risk by their reckless retribution antics, but many other agents' lives as well.
They do need to resign, and treason alone - even apart from their attacks on the Constitution - makes them criminals.
Anyone who supports them has immediately divested him or herself from credibility and being taken seriously. And if you think what they did was ok, it is obvious you have no problems with treason.
-
God-given codswallop
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]libdude wrote:
" Finally, I wonder if Mr. Davies has the stats to prove his claim that "most physicists regard the laws of physics as god-given?" Bet he doesn't.
"
Of course he doesn't. Because the last full tally of physicists in the American Physical society disclosed that more than 70% were atheists. Similar state apply to the British Royal Society. The only group of scientists with greater atheist proportions are the biologists.
Like a number of physicists - who somehow lose their grounding and direction in their elder years (like the late Fred Hoyle)- Davies has veered from physics into metaphysics. It is a pity, really, and what a tragic way to waste a fine mind.
Much of this change is understandable, because it does get more difficult to publish as one ages, and one is always looking for other avenues.
However, that doesn't justify his remark about physicists regarding "the laws of physics as god-given"