The driverless car project is bloody brilliant. I absolutely love the videos that have come out from people that got to sit in the passenger seat while it drove itself!
If you're describing Dawkins as fundamentalist, then you either a) don't know much about him, and what he stands for, or b) have a grave understanding of what fundamentalism means.
It bothers me that Dawkins gets that accusation that often, when it's clearly false.
According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy.
My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science.
As you concede, Professor Dawkins' views are backed (and, in fact, a product of) science. This means that to the extent that anyone can be right or wrong about anything, Richard Dawkins is correct in his arguments. Maybe he isn't civil in the way he confronts people who disagree. Maybe he's ineffective in convincing them. Those are things that are important to you personally, but you're letting that distract you from the fact that what he's saying is true, which ought to be the only thing that matters.
In a way, I think this is a major way you and people who share your attitude towards Richard Dawkins miss what is perhaps the most poignant part of his message. His crassness is actually a rebellion against the passivity and political correctness that he feels constrains non-believers socially and politically. The crux of his message is a call to arms to those people, encouraging them to deny religion the automatic respect it has enjoyed for centuries. To say that he isn't meek enough in delivering this message is undercutting it's core.
He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.
My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have some respect. If his message is to automatically _deny_ respect to others simply because of a belief they hold, then he's more like a religious fundamentalist than I thought.
Yes, I understood your position to be that from your previous comment. I'll repeat that I think you're missing the point.
The offensive part about religious fundamentalism isn't stubbornness or denial of respect. These are corollaries to dogmatic thinking, but not its defining features. Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist. Lack of respect for differences of opinion is indeed a shared trait between Richard Dawkins' views and those of fundamentalists, but that's a rather trivial similarity. At their core, they are philosophical and moral opposites.
Consider as an analogy what would happen if I had a difference of opinion with my doctor about what my illness is that was completely counter to the best information available through examinations and tests. My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.
The specifics of their views are irrelevant, at their core they are identical. They both believe they know best, and they both believe that it is in everyones best interest that they push their view onto others. The fact that Dawkins is 'right' or that a religious fundamentalist's view is dogmatic is irrelevant to my point. (and to clarify again, Dawkins is in my mind, absolutely right)
The doctor analogy is interesting, because my health has been _seriously_ compromised by western medicine. They gave me advice that was based on 'the best information available through examinations and tests' and I'll forever pay the consequences. If they had respected others opinions then I would have never suffered the way I have.
I'm not saying science will tomorrow find evidence of a creator god that made the world in six days, not at all. I'm just saying that we don't always know what is best for others, and should never presume to do so. For some people, living a religious life is the best possible outcome. They have a moral and ethical system they can look towards when they aren't sure how to proceed. They have hope when everything else is falling apart, etc etc.
To you and I, and indeed to Dawkins the idea that some bearded guy in the clouds created the world and the universe, will help you through life and grant you seven virgins when you die is delusional and utterly disproved by science. But if this world view is helping someone respect others and live a happy and fulfilled life, then why does it matter what he or she believes? And more to the point, who does Dawkins think he is going around telling people like this that they are idiots?
Make the information available. Tell people about it, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about your ideas. Just don't be a dick about it.
> Positions rooted in science are by definition not dogmatic and therefore cannot be fundamentalist.
Alas, when humans enter the picture, it can get difficult. Human nature can be inherently very dogmatic, just due to political reasons alone.
> My doctor wouldn't be stubborn or dogmatic for considering me an idiot in that instance. My opinion has no value and therefore is owed no respect.
Have you had no experience or seen no experience of your friends where the doctor was wrong? Humans make mistakes, but they should be aware of that possibility. Doctors who consider their patients idiots are not sympathetic to listen to their patients' claims.
My dad's friend once went skiing and broke a leg. The doctor said there was nothing wrong because the x-ray showed no fractures. The guy was in pain. My dad convinced the doctor and technician to do more x-rays at different angles. They found the fracture. Had the doctor simply thought my dad's friend was playing games because the data said everything was OK, he would have been venturing on malpractice. There are many stories like this where malpractice actually was the result. People who think that understanding the data better gives them the right to consider others idiots run the risk of being the biggest idiots of all.
On the topic of medicine, perhaps the best known story of scientific dogma was the medical community's understanding of ulcers and how to treat them. Science can be dogmatic too, but it's not the fault of science, it's the fault of people who can be dogmatic by nature.
Here's the nationwide average http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Scien... .The average pay for a senior software engineer is 77-101k. Hardly the 80k norm for fresh grads that the OP is suggesting. It might be the case at Stanford(although I'd need to see statistics before I concede that) but the op's explanation for the trend mentioned in the article was a broad indictment non-cs majors rather than it being specific to the culture at stanford. Google Pays $8000 a month interns? They hire co-op students out of my school $14,000 for the entire 4 month term which comes out to about 3500 a month.
Where are the 80k$-120k$ offers coming from, geographically? The reason I ask is that 80k in S.F. is roughly... 50k in Austin, TX. 120k in S.F. is roughly equivalent to 70k in Austin. (Based on Salary.com's cost of living calculator.) 50-70k is probably a nice starting salary in Austin, but not exactly mind-blowing, imho.
Google, for example, pays $8,000 a month - just for interns!
Do you have a source for this? That seems exceedingly high. And even higher on an annual basis that the entry level salary you're mentioning.
Though I could see how paying a few extra thousands could help convince a college grad to take an internship there. Google then has their foot in the door… (but still, it would be odd to then get an offer for less than what you were making as an intern)
Also, these salary threads from the past couple of days make me feel underpaid.
I'm graduating from Stanford with a BS in CS this year and I'm interning at Google this summer, and I'm being paid less than $8000/month. I've also been told that I'm being paid a "master's intern" rate, so presumably interns who haven't completed their bachelor's are being paid less. That said, Google's intern salaries are extremely generous (just not $8000/month generous).
Also, the Stanford CS department conducts a salary survey of graduates every year, and for 2009-2010 the average salary offer for CS/EE undergrads was $79,333 and the median was $80,0000.
I do have a source for this, I saw the offer myself. I was also told that this is given to all interns, no matter what department. That being said, maybe this applied only to grad interns - maybe undergraduates get less.
Yeah, everyone keeps trying to make this into a technical or business decision, when it's clearly not. Partnering with an also-ran doesn't make sense except in the context of Elop coming from Microsoft and bringing along a team of softies.
Only a Microsoft fanatic would look at the mobile landscape right now and think, "I know, I'll team my struggling company up with those guys. They really know what they're doing."
I'd like to question the implication that your life is not affected by work as a normal employee of a big company. Sure, it's most probably not going to be as intense as for a start-up, but that's less because of start-up vs big company, but much more about how committed you are to your work in general. I know lots of people working at big companies who have crazy work-hours and whose social life definitely gets affected by that.
Let's face it, if you want to be successful - start-up or not - you'll have to work your butt off.
I would go one further: Aiming for the top of the corporate ladder can have a bigger impact on your personal life than doing a startup. For example (from my own experience) I work more hours in my startup but the fact that I get to do it when and where I want it (in the middle of the night sometimes) makes it much less demanding than being away from your family because you're out of town.
Of course, it depends on the type of startup versus the type of business and your ambition level inside the business, but in my case the startup "feels" more relaxed than any business I've been in.
There are different different values of "successful."
Not everyone thinks that being successful means becoming an executive. Many people equate success to being able to pay their bills and have fun away from work. And in most cases, that doesn't mean working your butt off.
The personal essay is the part where applicants stand out the most? I sure don't hope so...I am tired of reading all these I-almost-cured-cancer-as-a-kid type essays that people in the US seem to submit for the undergraduate application. Give me a break, seriously.
The single most important part of the Oxbridge application process is the interview. That's where you get to sit down with two professors that take you through challenging math problems (in case of Computer Science) and you are supposed to take them through your thinking process. Now, _that_ is where you can stand out. That's more like it.
Somebody read about an experiment with surprising results, found out that it would be possible to turn the experiment into a website and did just that. I think that’s great.
I am talking about the original experiment. I am wondering whether people actually give ESP a serious possibility.
I am all for running experiments and finding out new things, and if this really happens to be a ground-breaking new discovery, great! That being said, what's more likely? That someone just _revolutionized_ physics and completely changed our concept of time, OOOOOR that there is something wrong with the experimental methodology? I don't know about you, but my 23 years on Earth make me think that the latter is quite a bit more probable...
I think it’s rather unlikely that ESP is real. It’s a reality of statistics that scientists will from time to time get wrong results; that and possible methodological problems leave all scientific results (except maybe the most obvious ones) up in the air until they have been confirmed again and again and again. (Psychology could also pick a smaller alpha value like maybe physicists and avoid being wrong more often but it’s questionable how practical such a change would be.)
Still, this is a neat DIY experiment. There is quite a bit you can criticize about the methodology but that discussion was pretty fun. Oh, and this experiment doesn’t even seem to confirm ESP. (I think. I didn’t break out the calculator.)
Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if it is actually an experiment in the extent to which the scientific community will accept or at least consider ludicrous claims because they come from an authority figure.
EDIT: And I'm not saying that these claims shouldn't be tested. But it would be interesting to see the way people react. Hesitation, for example.
That seems to be a plausible explanation. I am still puzzled how the work ended up being published, though. Surely, the reviewers must have thought the same?
It should be something in between.
I have done my undergrad at Cambridge and I am now at Stanford, and the curricula differ a lot. Cambridge is very theoretical, and teaches a lot about core computer science - they love functional programming, discrete mathematics, denotational semantics etc. Stanford, on the other hand, is much more hands-on. It's more project-based, where you have to actually implement something. At the same time, I feel that students here learn less about the theory.
Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I feel lucky to have the theoretical background as an undergrad and now be able to apply that knowledge as a grad at Stanford. I think there has to be something in between, and computer science as a major should not be on either ends of the extremes (theory/application).
I do not want to see a CS major who has no clue about programming any more than I want to see a CS guy who lacks the theoretical understanding of his subject.
