BTW, the so-called liberals (since there really are very few of us true liberals, so few that the Liberal party died) are actually more fiscally conservative than the so-called conservatives (since we have so few true conservatives that nearly everyone has forgotten the meaning, resistant to change as opposed to radical right wing and fiscally responsible as opposed to deliberately bankrupting the government).

The so-called liberals are actually more fiscally responsible for at least recognizing that the bills must be paid. To wage a $3 trillion war with no increase in taxes, no cuts in services, no cuts in corporate welfare, and not even paid for by patriotic Americans buying “victory bonds” but rather to mortgage the country to China is not exactly fiscally responsible.

Now we’ve got Romney saying he wants to keep all of the provisions of Obamacare except for the one that covers how the bills will be paid. Is that anyone’s idea of conservatism?

It ain’t mine.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

http://secular.org/blogs/david-niose/atheist-acceptability-rise-america-0

So, my question is whether it’s a coincidence that the numbers 46% (those who don’t believe in evolution) and 54% (those who would consider voting for an open atheist for president) just happen to add up to 100%?

Certainly, there are polling margins of error. So, it may not be exactly 100% when we sum the numbers. But, the fact that these two segments of the population just happen to add up to around 100% is pretty mind-boggling to me. Can it really be that everyone who believes in evolution, even if they believe one or more gods guided the process, would vote for an atheist and that no one who completely disbelieves evolution would vote for an atheist?

I bet it is that simple.

Regarding Mitt Romney vs. ObamaCare, have you seen the John Stewart take on the subject?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-28-2012/roberts–rules-of-order

One of your best responses in a long time. Fun to read how the language/precepts of the two disciplines interact/compliment/conflict with one another. I’ve been having visions of Venn Diagrams:

Two circles with an area of overlap. One is science, the other is math. Lots of overlap but still some separate areas for each. Surely, NO ONE would disagree with that?

So, by definition I’m back to thinking “all” the dictionaries that call math a science are wrong. Nothing represented by overlapping Venn Circles “is” one thing. By definition, they are two separate things with lots of overlap/commonalities. Close, but no cigar.

Isn’t “abstract science” but an oxymoronic joke? A lexicographers joke at the expense of the public? A god free of existence? I think so.

So, what we have is the tyranny of the misinformed, of the majority. How helpful is it to picture a Venn diagram of one circle labeled science with two main divisions of material science and abstract science? How is any such Venn Diagram not actually more accurately written as those two famous overlapping circles?

TV news show last night making fun (Chris Hayes) of Mitt Romney’s “use of Venn Diagrams” where the two circles appear but the overlap is the difference in tax burden between the ObamaCare and Not Obamacare. Hayes makes fun that the Venn Diagram is not showing the overlap but rather showing the difference: “something you can’t do with Venn Diagrams. Hmmmmmm…..I thought. Well–what you have there is a pictorial representation of the subjects as stated with two overlapping diagrams….but they (by definition) are not Venn Diagrams as they are not representational of the relationships between two sets. They are representational of something else.

Even someone as academically and skilled as Chris Hayes is transfixed by his lack of dictionary power. Power I tell you. POWER to rule the intellectual universe!!—or, mere building blocks.

Its all definitional.

In between your grammar and punctuation, you make some good points.

You’re probably correct that if math were an intelligent being, it would be offended at being called science. Only math can be shown to be Correct with a capital C by virtue of its rigorous standards for mathematical proofs.

It is likely also true that science, if ti were an intelligent being, would be in awe of the proof standards for math while still looking down its nose at the wide range of mathematics that tells us nothing about the actual universe in which we live. The empirical nature of science, while less definitive than a mathematical proof, keeps science firmly grounded, so to speak, in our actual observable universe. What sounds nice and plausible and even elegant is quickly thrown away the second it is proven not to apply in the cold hard universe.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can easily be shown to fly up its own asshole in the logical fallacy and endless recursion of attempting to explain the complexity of the universe by first postulating the preexisting complexity of some creator. The fact that its falsity does not cause people to drop it on its pointy little head shows that it is anything but science.

<aside>
Of course, some idiot may choose to point out the failed doctrine of “divine simplicity”, a kluge to the god hypothesis sometimes used to contradict that god is complex and therefore requires explanation. But, divine simplicity instantly renders any creator omniabsent, omnignorant, and omnimpotent simultaneously. What’s the point of postulating a god that is free of existence, i.e. does not exist? Read that divine simplicity link if you’re looking for a great laugh. My favorite line:

Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition.

This leaves me almost literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off every time I read it. It’s amazing what people will come up with to say that one can’t prove god doesn’t exist. Well, if you define your god as “free of existence”, I don’t need to. You did.
</aside>

Sorry for that aside, but not very sorry. I didn’t want to hope someone would randomly bring it up on my site again. It was just too funny not to re-share. I don’t remember the thread on which someone brought this up before.

That said, one commonality of science and math and NOT to ID is that the former two are falsifiable whereas the latter is not.

Recall–I said initially I also thought that math was not science as science deals with the natural world whereas math is abstract.

Amusingly, science looks for proof but definitionally can never establish it whereas math is the only discipline that proved “proof” as it is various defined. Everything is definitional.

You need more jello in your diet.

xxxxx I think “math” would disprove that math is science whereas science cannot do that. How mathematical is your thinking? “if = then”. Math is an abstraction, pure logic. Logic does not establish truth, only proof.

……. and all thats left is a smile.