About a week ago a Mayan was interviewed (I do not recall which news service) and said basicly what Jamiet said. Plus they are getting tired of all the BS and questions about 2012.

That was my point Jamie. Are you actually reading what I wrote? I said I didn't believe in the 2012 doomsday scenario. I said it represented the end of a time not the end of the world. What's with you people? Everyone keeps saying I support this notion, I started the thread and everything when I've stated the same thing several times. I agree it's not armageddon. How many times have I got to say that. It's like people just read that you say something positive about the calendar itself and immediately there's a small group of people just looking for an argument and pounce without reading what was actually said. That's why I posted the articles. Geez. Next thing you know someone will say I started this appocalyptic nonsense.

The calendar is interesting not the myths. I don't believe in aliens, astrology, gods, angels, ghosts or anything else. So please stop acting like I said I do. Can't there be a normal discussion without it being reduced to cheap arguments filled with foul language? I've yet to hear one person make a serious comment that they bellieve this scenario have you? So why are some of you going nuts about it. It's a topic for a discussion not a debate.

as far as my limited understanding of Mayan society goes, I thought they didn't have an extra digit to represent any longer than the 5,125 (which is obviously 41^1 * 5^3, assuming base 5 for their numbers system that would make some sense... but what unit made up their year is also interesting...)

It is dissapointing that society in general is not better educated about psuedo science, though some confusion must come from the relationship between astroloy and astronomy, (similar to the relationship between alchemy and chemistry)

The fact that newspapers are allowed to publish predictions based on people's star signs is a disgrace. (or a testament to fredom of speech - still i'd rather they were banned)

It's going to be a sweet-ass party. I can't wait.

Hahah Chrispminis YEA gonna get high?

orathaic, yes there is a lot of pseudo science but there is also a lot of pseudo debunking too. According to Occam's razor we should accept the simplest explanation as a working hypotheses but this only means that the alternative points of view are not worth considering atm. It does not disprove them.
The fact that that there is no compelling evidence for aliens means that I don't waste my time waiting on starry hillsides but until we've done a systematic search of the universe I'm not prepared to rule out the possibility that they exist. Likewise, I don't read my horoscope because I consider it a waste of time but I would vehemently oppose banning astrology not just because of the freedom of speech issue but also because I've never seen a systematic study of personality types correlated with astrological data.
Many people choose to ignore science and fall into insane beliefs but also many rational people forget that science is about working assumptions and has nothing to do with belief.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point of view here. The end of the Mayan calendar is probably only interesting from the aspect of exactly what in their culture caused them to limit it but to completely rule out any greater significance is a mistake.

Oh yeah, and pardy hardy!!! :)

Ockham's Razor is not a constitutive principle, yeah.

i'm not sure whether i've seen a systematic study debunking astrology, but i'm sure one exists, i just can't find it right now...

Perhaps any such ban would be based on the idea that the newspapers are scamming their audience (if it can be shown that their claims are untrue/misleading, which i will wager is possible - other untrue things can't be published in newspapers if they can be shown to harm individuals/their public image)

Science is working on the belief that it's assumption are useful and accurate, and though this has proven again and again to be true, there is no evidence that it will continue to be th case. (that is just something we believe, but it's not something which is hard to believe, that tomorrow the sun will rise again - barring nuclear war or humans doing some other stupid thing)

just to point out some serious scientists do study horoscopes: http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1975-05364-001

I haven't read this paper, but from the abstract it is just trying to explain why people believe in horoscopes... assuming they are untrue, but i can't find any experiments testing the idea (probably because it is a rather poor theory)

I'm all for freedom of speech, but i am against harmful superstition, and i would prefer if scientists managed to better educate the public in general, and the media specifically. I guess there are books out there examining superstitions, i know i've seen one recently called 'trick or treatment' by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst - though it only deals with alternative medicines and i don't know what calibre their science is...

Ockham's Razor doesn't tell you what the right answer is, it just allows you to choose between two competing theories when you don't have any experiment to test them.

So for horoscopes either they are specific enough to be tested, or the aren't specific enough and we can apply Ockham's Razor...

Horoscopes are just silly little writings next to the comics. I think a government which thinks it has to protect its people from kooky information is much more damaging than a couple of horoscopes telling people that they will face challenges this week.

bulls eye invictus!

i didn't say the government should step in, i think it oculd be for the courts to decide how to apply their libel laws, and whether it can be shown to a court's satisfaction that horoscopes are a matter of fraud.

Again i'm more against the general misunderstanding of science than horoscopes specifically, I'd rather find another way to educate people, or change their preception of science/psuedo science.

the government shouldn't step in

the courts should step in

:IRONCLADLOGIC:

oh, and in Ireland judges (while appointed by the government) are usually fairly secure in their position and not used as political tools, they don't have to worry about being re-appointed, or doing what the government wants (the gov can simply change the law to fix issues with a judges interpretation of the law as it stands...)

judges aren't part of the government in Ireland?

LOL?!

I didn't say step in, i say judge whether horoscopes violate the law. It still requires an individual or group to bring the case before the courts, but it is the job of the courts to 'decide' - i understand that the american judicial system is considerably more political than the Irish one, so maybe America is broken... but i don't know how to build a system where the judicial system is entirely independant.

Yeah anti-American bias will make you think all sorts of things

maybe we should ban you from speaking this dangerous superstition <_<

so let me make sure I understand this correctly...judges in Ireland are private? Not government officials?

Federal judges judges aren't reappointed. They serve for life. Many state judges are elected, but that isn't where politics comes in. It's more that interest groups are very litigious and some judges believe that it's OK to bring in their own beliefs rather than just decide on the case at hand.

They serve during good behavior, Invictus :teach: And technically, that applies only to Article III judges; Article I judges often have terms of office.

There are codes of judicial conduct that prevent them from being overtly political, and, of course, appellate review and other means are always available for checking judicial excursions into crass politics.

People should probably have some idea about the American judiciary before they comment.

Good behavior is not taking bribes. Federal judges also have to be impeached by Congress to be removed. That happens very rarely.

What's an Article I judge? Article I is about Congress. You're talking out of your ass.

People should probably know what they're talking about before making fools of themselves by talking nonsense.

"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

No life term in there!

"Article I tribunals consist of certain federal courts and other forms of adjudicative bodies. These tribunals, as created by Congress, are of various forms, and have differing levels of independence from the executive and legislative branches. They can be Article I Courts (also called legislative courts) set up by Congress to review agency decisions, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies. Article I judges are not subject to the Article III protections.

For example, these judges do not enjoy life tenure, and their salaries may be reduced by Congress. The existence of Article I tribunals has been controversial, and their power has been challenged before the United States Supreme Court, which has determined that Article I tribunals may exist, but that their power must be circumscribed and, when a potential deprivation of life, liberty, property, or property interest is involved, their decisions are subject to ultimate review in an Article III court."

Courtesy of wikipedia!

Happy to help.

btw you got served

Your first quote says exactly that they serve during good behavior, AKA unless they retire or are removed. Life term. Owned.

Your second quote refers to ad hoc courts set up to keep agencies honest, like the court which gives warrants for domestic wiretaps. These aren't in the normal federal court system, I can't bring a case to one of these courts. They're pretty much just inside baseball so I didn't consider them. Since Congress creates these courts through its Necessary and Proper Clause power then I guess they can decide how the judges serve themselves.

The hilarious part is that your second quote even says that normal federal judges enjoy life terms. You contradict your previous statement with your followup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Patent_Appeals_and_Interferences

Geez, how many times are we going to do this? WINDMILL SLAM of a serve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_tax_court

Look! Another one that isn't ad hoc!

It's almost like I am an expert in this. <_<

What are you trying to say there?

Ad hoc: For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other