http://theskinner.blogspot.com/2009/01/hansen-is-at-it-again.html

Great guy.

I pointed out the risk of hubris, I did not assign the label.

You make a solid observation with your comment that "there are none so blind as those who will not see”, but I suggest some introspection.

Certitude in the "correctness" of one's beliefs closes one off to other possibilities. If there can only be one answer, and all others must be wrong; what is the point of investigation and research? All must already be known.

Do you think that I am convinced of the absolute correctness of my world view? If I was, would I be reading and enjoying Dan's blog? Or anything not written by me?

I don't need to agree with your worldview to appreciate your intellect, wit and perspective on things. To me this is a function of humility, a trait that seems a bit undervalued today, and one which I try to cultivate in myself.

Having hijacked Dan's comment thread into some sort of idiological discourse; I shall now offer my apologies to Dan for being an ass and shuffle off into the data stream.

(which is why i didn't like his Across Realtime stories - they were OK-ish but had way too much libertarian propaganda embedded in them. IMO, libertarianism has a superficial appeal, if you don't think too deeply about it, but is so simplistic as to be utterly absurd).

[Tim Kreider referred to part of this problem as "AK-47s for everybody". That is indeed what the American, at least, interpretation of libertarianism inexorably leads to. And it's not really a problem, as long as you're not bothered about the inexorable conclusion that a near-100% rate of armament can only lead to a homicide death rate even worse than that of the USA right now. The USA is, I think, clearly the First World country that's currently closest to the libertarian weapons-ownership ideal, and it has a homicide rate that's just hilariously higher than that of the rest of the First World. And that homicide rate is definitely not all due to gun violence - something like 40% of US homicides are committed with weapons other than firearms. You Americans just seem to love killing each other. I shudder to think what'd happen if everyone was walking around with a gun strapped across his back every day. You're already an armed society, but you're pretty damn far from being a polite society, and I see no reason to suppose that adding more weapons will create more peace. -long-winded Dan]

if you can stomach the ultracapitalist propaganda in his works (which isn't that bad in AFutD or ADitS) then read his stuff. highly recommended.

and one final reply to your comment about "calling names": yes. but take a good hard look in the mirror - remember it was you who descended to ad-hominem attacks with your implied accusation of arrogance/hubris. looks like you have no problem with throwing the first stone, even when you are not without "sin" yourself.

That's a rather sweeping assumption isn't it?

The link you give there to http://www.well.com/~neal/ is actually for the website of another author: Neal Stephenson (who I highly recommend BTW :)

I spoke of Humanists, not scientists.

You make the linkage there without thinking it through. Many scientists are believers in the various religious traditions. Belief in deity is not contradictory to scientific enterprise.

The only real difference is that the question being researched is not “What hath chaos wrought?”, but “What hath God wrought?” You don’t have to agree on the agency of creation to study it and figure out the mechanisms. Biblical literalists however, are incapable of doing this. The same is true of committed atheists. When you completely discount a possibility because there is no proof yet, you will never see the proof should you come across it.

Too many people discount the beliefs of others out of prejudice. “This is my worldview, and any who disagree are (Insert derogatory description here).” This is not tolerance, nor is it consistent with the espoused principals of either the religious or humanistic communities. It is just the way imperfect humans conduct themselves when they aren’t called on it and are too lazy to think.

Which brings me to the problem I have with Humanists: I once was one, but found it wouldn’t stand against the realities of human nature.

The fault with Humanism, as with other “utopian” philosophies, is the belief that humans can be perfected: That they can be led to act in the interests of the greater collective rather than in their own self interests through “enlightenment”.

Self interest is the engine of progress if harnessed by a social construct which rewards the individual for their efforts and creates relationships and interdependence between individuals which benefit all. Capitalism, leavened with Judeo-Christian sensibilities has been very successful at this. The Japanese have done well with their own cultural take on it. Socialism/Communism, in its many flavors, has not.

Having wandered a bit off topic, I will close with this: If you find yourself calling names when you disagree with another, you have stopped thinking and are only emoting. Which also means you are being lazy and are probably making an ass of yourself.

But given his lack of compelling female characterization, his propensity for one-dimensional bad guys, and the fact that the unkillable, emotionless Agent Cormac seems an awful lot like he's meant to serve as the author's own avatar ...

Dan, check out "A Fire Upon the Deep" by Vernor Vinge if you get a chance. It's great idea-driven space opera, but without the authoritarian overtones of Asher's stuff. It's got probably the best space chase sequence I've ever read (stretched over a third of the book).

religious types like to claim that science is just another form of faith but that's because they don't understand either the nature of faith or the nature of science.

a scientific belief is one that is arrived at by reasoning, after examining the evidence. if new evidence turns up that disproves the belief then the old belief (theory) can and should (must!) be discarded.

by contrast, faith is believing in something without recourse to reason and regardless of the evidence...in fact, despite the evidence. if evidence exists or turns up that contradicts the belief then it is the evidence that gets discarded, and the faith retained.

a scientific "belief" or theory is not permanent, nor fixed in stone, nor handed down on stone tables from on high. it is just a current working theory that fits all the currently available evidence.

faith, on the other hand, is inviolable and unalterable, regardless of the evidence. it is immune to reason.

you really do need to read that book.

btw, religious types love to accuse scientists of arrogance and/or hubris....in fact, it's the religious types that are arrogant: they are the ones saying "i know the truth. it is undisputable, and beyond any doubt or question". scientists have a more humble approach: "this is what i currently think, based on the evidence currently available to me".

faith is what makes people believe they'll go to heaven if they strap a bomb to themselves and murder innocent strangers.