Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

[mistermack]

apophenia, I can see where you're coming from, but I still can't agree that science sits on top of philosophy. Because that's implying that it sits on top of the accumulation of the work of philosophers, and I would disagree with that.

There is such a thing as common sense, which may be a crude form of philosophy, but it's all the philosophy you need to be a good scientist, or even a genius.

Most scientists accept that the work they do doesn't produce absolutes, and can only advance current knowledge a bit, and that it could be overturned later by something new. You don't need to study a word of philosophy to work that one out.

Maths is maths. Statistics is statistics. Tagging it all as a branch of philosophy is trying to steal some of it's thunder to give to a much more fuzzy discipline.
So no, I don't think that science sits on top of philosophy. It sits on top of common sense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

ETA: From the introduction, by Virginia Heinlein:

This book was so different from what was being sold to the general public, or to the science fiction reading public in 1961 when it was published, that the editors required some cutting and removal of a few scenes that might then have been offensive to public taste.
...
In the context of 1960, Stranger In A Strange Land was a book that his publishers feared-- it was too far off the beaten path. So, in order to minimize possible losses, Robert was asked to cut the manuscript down to 150,000 words-- a loss of about 70,000 words. Other changes were also required, before the editor was willing to take a chance on publication.

But they didn't put the 70k words back into the re-release.

[Geoff]

ETA: From the introduction, by Virginia Heinlein:

This book was so different from what was being sold to the general public, or to the science fiction reading public in 1961 when it was published, that the editors required some cutting and removal of a few scenes that might then have been offensive to public taste.
...
In the context of 1960, Stranger In A Strange Land was a book that his publishers feared-- it was too far off the beaten path. So, in order to minimize possible losses, Robert was asked to cut the manuscript down to 150,000 words-- a loss of about 70,000 words. Other changes were also required, before the editor was willing to take a chance on publication.

But they didn't put the 70k words back into the re-release.

They did in the early 90's edition (and subsequent ones). I have both versions, and the longer one is definitely better, IMO.

Edit: "Podkayne" suffered similar editing problems, too, and that was later restored to it's original version also.

[Schneibster]

ISBN 0-441-78838-6. Copyright 1961 RAH, renewed 1989 by VH, new copyright 1991 VH, Ace hardcover February 1991, Ace trade edition (large format paperback, the one I own) October 1991. It has the complete 220,000 word version RAH wrote in 1961 before the cuts required by the original publisher.

If you haven't seen this, you're in for a treat. I envy you in that case.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

ISBN 0-441-78838-6. Copyright 1961 RAH, renewed 1989 by VH, new copyright 1991 VH, Ace hardcover February 1991, Ace trade edition (large format paperback, the one I own) October 1991. It has the complete 220,000 word version RAH wrote in 1961 before the cuts required by the original publisher.

If you haven't seen this, you're in for a treat. I envy you in that case.

I'll have to look at the copy I have. BRB.

[Ronja]

ETA: From the introduction, by Virginia Heinlein:

This book was so different from what was being sold to the general public, or to the science fiction reading public in 1961 when it was published, that the editors required some cutting and removal of a few scenes that might then have been offensive to public taste.
...
In the context of 1960, Stranger In A Strange Land was a book that his publishers feared-- it was too far off the beaten path. So, in order to minimize possible losses, Robert was asked to cut the manuscript down to 150,000 words-- a loss of about 70,000 words. Other changes were also required, before the editor was willing to take a chance on publication.

But they didn't put the 70k words back into the re-release.

Sure as hell they did, for the 1991 30th anniversary version: http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Strange- ... ap_title_0

I still have not managed to get a hold of that version.

[Pappa]

If God Made the cosmos Why is almost every bit of it instantly Deadly to life ?

Because he is an evil bastard?

[Chinaski]

Maybe she thinks of some exceedingly strident atheists who never lose an occasion to violently, and often deliberately offensively, rail against the evils of all religion, superstition, and other forms of woo...
My friend Randy Ping from the defunct RDF comes to mind when that kind of atheist is evoked.

just so.

Geoff (Ratz) and I argue, discuss and poke fun at each other all the time. He is an athiest, I am a Christian. He believes there is no god, i believe in a creator and personal God. Never yet have we fought, gone red in the face, pounded on tables, said nasty words to each other or, otherwise insulted each others views. What a person believes in is just that. A belief. No need to fight over it.

I still think you're an eejit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If God Made the cosmos Why is almost every bit of it instantly Deadly to life ?

Because he is an evil bastard?

~99.9999% of the Universe is hard vacuum.
~99.9999% of what's left is flaming nuclear fireballs.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is cold interstellar gas.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barren, airless balls of rock or gas giants, neither of which can sustain life.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barely habitable planets like Mars.
Then we come to Earth.

[Seth]

If God Made the cosmos Why is almost every bit of it instantly Deadly to life ?

Because he is an evil bastard?
~99.9999% of the Universe is hard vacuum.
~99.9999% of what's left is flaming nuclear fireballs.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is cold interstellar gas.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barren, airless balls of rock or gas giants, neither of which can sustain life.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barely habitable planets like Mars.
Then we come to Earth.

And your scientific evidence pointing to any of the above is....??

The best you can do is to make some generalized claims based on what scientists have seen and inferred from what they have seen through the dim glass of our best observational devices that actually tell us very little about the composition of the universe outside our field of view.

There is actually no evidence at all that life cannot be sustained on "airless balls of rock or gas giants" or that "almost every bit of it is instantly Deadly to life" (sic). You're suffering from an anthropocentric confirmation bias.

And if God is an evil bastard, all the more reason to do what he commands, don't you think? Unless you choose to suffer eternal torment as a part of holding up your atheistic ideals. Sounds like a remarkably bad plan to me.

[Schneibster]

~99.9999% of the Universe is hard vacuum.
~99.9999% of what's left is flaming nuclear fireballs.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is cold interstellar gas.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barren, airless balls of rock or gas giants, neither of which can sustain life.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barely habitable planets like Mars.
Then we come to Earth.

And your scientific evidence pointing to any of the above is....??

Umm, have you ever been outside the house at night?

The best you can do is to make some generalized claims based on what scientists have seen and inferred from what they have seen through the dim glass of our best observational devices that actually tell us very little about the composition of the universe outside our field of view.

You mean, other than spectroscopy, right? Because, you know, spectroscopy allows us to determine, like, the composition of objects, and stuff.

They worked that trick out in the nineteenth century.

Maybe you forgot.

There is actually no evidence at all that life cannot be sustained on "airless balls of rock or gas giants" or that "almost every bit of it is instantly Deadly to life" (sic). You're suffering from an anthropocentric confirmation bias.

Name one place in the Solar System where human life can exist more than briefly (minutes) without extensive technical support structure, other than the troposphere of Earth.

We can see it all.

Unless you think it just all disappears when the Sun comes up.

[Geoff]

Name one place in the Solar System where human life can exist more than briefly (minutes) without extensive technical support structure, other than the troposphere of Earth.

We can see it all.

Unless you think it just all disappears when the Sun comes up.

Now you've done it...he'll be starting on his "life, but not as we know it" phase now...

[Schneibster]

Name one place in the Solar System where human life can exist more than briefly (minutes) without extensive technical support structure, other than the troposphere of Earth.

We can see it all.

Unless you think it just all disappears when the Sun comes up.

Now you've done it...he'll be starting on his "life, but not as we know it" phase now...

Nuke the ubiquitous Libertardian space aliens for jebus?

Oh, but wait, they might like nukes, if they like the center of the sun.

[Seth]

~99.9999% of the Universe is hard vacuum.
~99.9999% of what's left is flaming nuclear fireballs.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is cold interstellar gas.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barren, airless balls of rock or gas giants, neither of which can sustain life.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barely habitable planets like Mars.
Then we come to Earth.

And your scientific evidence pointing to any of the above is....??

Umm, have you ever been outside the house at night?

Yes, I have. And everything I've seen in the night sky is an awfully long way away, which makes it difficult to even quantify how much stuff there is out there, not to mention the details of that composition and how it may or may not support life.

The best you can do is to make some generalized claims based on what scientists have seen and inferred from what they have seen through the dim glass of our best observational devices that actually tell us very little about the composition of the universe outside our field of view.

You mean, other than spectroscopy, right? Because, you know, spectroscopy allows us to determine, like, the composition of objects, and stuff.

They worked that trick out in the nineteenth century.

Maybe you forgot.

All spectroscopy tells us is that certain elements exist in certain places. It tells us almost nothing about how they may combine to host or comprise life.

There is actually no evidence at all that life cannot be sustained on "airless balls of rock or gas giants" or that "almost every bit of it is instantly Deadly to life" (sic). You're suffering from an anthropocentric confirmation bias.

Name one place in the Solar System where human life can exist more than briefly (minutes) without extensive technical support structure, other than the troposphere of Earth.

We can see it all.

Unless you think it just all disappears when the Sun comes up.

You need to learn to differentiate "human life" from "life." They are two very different things.

[Schneibster]

~99.9999% of the Universe is hard vacuum.
~99.9999% of what's left is flaming nuclear fireballs.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is cold interstellar gas.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barren, airless balls of rock or gas giants, neither of which can sustain life.
~99.9999% of what's left from that is barely habitable planets like Mars.
Then we come to Earth.

And your scientific evidence pointing to any of the above is....??

Umm, have you ever been outside the house at night?

Yes, I have. And everything I've seen in the night sky is an awfully long way away, which makes it difficult to even quantify how much stuff there is out there, not to mention the details of that composition and how it may or may not support life.

Ummm, it's dark. Maybe you forgot.

That's because there's not an awful lot of stuff out there.

That would substantiate Gawdzilla's first claim, obviating your argument.