In todays news...

[Cousin Jack]

I certainly don't believe there is enough discussion around it. It's a worry for many Muslims that they may lose their young men to radicalisation and of course the resulting threat and outcome to the wider population.

But the solution is in their own hands. Senior (ie older) Muslims appoint the Mullahs in their mosques. If they appoint firebrands they get their youngsters radicalised. Imagine the outcry if the CofE kept appointing right-wing racist vicars who extolled the virtues of the BNP.

[irie]

There is no single interpretation of 'Islamic law' and and it evolves constantly. Conflicts only arise with some of the scholarly interpretations (of which there are many). For most it is simply a will to live a 'correct' life in the same way as Christians, Hindus and Jews etc may wish to. Therefore the 'conflict' is not irreconcilable and for the most part doesn't arise. It only needs to be addressed where it does and not in some blanket approach based on a misunderstanding.

'We should note at this point that there is no single ‘lawbook’ for Islamic law that a judge can refer to. Fiqh is a vast collection of different, often competing interpretations of the basic sources, and since the work of interpreting God’s will for humanity is ongoing, there is always new fiqh to be derived. This means it is not at all as rigid and frozen as Islamic law is stereotypically imagined as being'. (Simon Perfect for 'Theos').

Are you saying that this statement is either (a) correct or (b) incorrect?

I'm saying neither other than the statement is irrelevant without an understanding of what you mean by 'religious law'. If those laws or the interpretation of the texts that create them is such as to accept subsidiarity, which it frequently is in many countries, to secular law then it is not an issue or conflict either.

If anyone actually wants to discuss radicalisation, it's as well to start knowing where and why it might occur rather than implying that it's inevitable (which it isn't) due to 'irreconcilable conflict with the central foundation of our democracy'. Islam is a hugely varied religion that has many different 'teachings' and interpreters. eg the Talbeeghi Jamaat evangelical arm of the Deobandi movement is not the same as Sufism and the Barelwis.

Similarly with radicalisation it's worth considering the opinions of actual Muslims who have concerns about the agitation from young refugees from zones like Syria, Libya, Yemen and Palestine where violence has been common-place.

And that is absolutely all I have to add to any discussion on radicalisation.

As the Dragons say - 'I'm out'.

Neatly avoiding having to deal with this:

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Unsurprisingly you do not want to deal with issues such as Sharia law, misogyny, the Hadiths, etc.

[Yorick]

This is a general light hearted news thread.

Please start a new one to argue shite.

[irie]

This is a general light hearted news thread.

Please start a new one to argue shite.

Have a fizzy beer and settle back to watch the volcano, Graham.

[Screwdriver]

Another one just went off in Japan...

Pretty decent volcano in Iceland too, I'm surprised the global warming doomsayers aren't all over it. It looks deeply suspicious but is in fact, well within statistical norms.

Biggest disappointment for me is all the videos seem to cut away just as the lava is about to knock over a house or dive into a swimming pool.

[irie]

Another one just went off in Japan...

Pretty decent volcano in Iceland too, I'm surprised the global warming doomsayers aren't all over it. It looks deeply suspicious but is in fact, well within statistical norms.

Biggest disappointment for me is all the videos seem to cut away just as the lava is about to knock over a house or dive into a swimming pool.

Don't worry, this lot will be along soon ...

https://www.politico.eu/article/frieder ... -droughts/

... to attribute these volcanic eruptions to climate warming.

[slowsider]

Another one just went off in Japan...

Pretty decent volcano in Iceland too, I'm surprised the global warming doomsayers aren't all over it. It looks deeply suspicious but is in fact, well within statistical norms.

I guess they know the difference between atmosphere and geosphere.

[Screwdriver]

Don't worry, this lot will be along soon ...

https://www.politico.eu/article/frieder ... -droughts/

... to attribute these volcanic eruptions to climate warming.

Oh my god. A computer driven automatic climate change blaming machine.

Bit like asking: does this sentence make you think of elephants. No doubt the system can be configured to give you any answer you want. The most telling quote from this activist:

She credits her second doctorate in philosophy with her rejection of the purist view of science as solely the pursuit of knowledge. Philosophers, she said, “take a step back, and then take another step back, and then take another step back and see, OK, what is it actually that we are trying to do?”

Bah. Who needs the truth when there's a mission to accomplish here...

[irie]

Yep, absolutely shocking.

[Horse]

OK, what is it actually that we are trying to do?”

Whether it's scientist, philosopher or layman, that's usually a fairly good question.

[Screwdriver]

OK, what is it actually that we are trying to do?”

Whether it's scientist, philosopher or layman, that's usually a fairly good question.

Not in this context it ain't.

[Yambo]

Oh my god. A computer driven automatic climate change blaming machine.

A 21st century Occam's* Razor.

Old version: it's too difficult so it must be god.

New improved version: it's very complicated so it must be man made climate change.

*I've often wondered if Occam had a beard . . .

[slowsider]

Oh my god. A computer driven automatic climate change blaming machine.

A 21st century Occam's* Razor.

Old version: it's too difficult so it must be god.

New improved version: it's very complicated so it must be man made climate change.

*I've often wondered if Occam had a beard . . .

Heuristics aren't always wrong. Hypotheses exist to be disproved.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, shouldn't we initially assume it's a duck, if not doing so renders the planet uninhabitable?

[slowsider]

OK, what is it actually that we are trying to do?”

Whether it's scientist, philosopher or layman, that's usually a fairly good question.

Not in this context it ain't.

If your house is on fire, would you write a report about it and have that peer-reviewed before you call the fire brigade, or having seen other houses burning, adopt a heuristic, call the fire brigade, and argue afterwards about the merits of the assumption?

[Yambo]

Heuristics aren't always wrong.

It's good that you recognise that they are not always right either.

It's very good that you realise that they are wrong more times than they are right.

[Saga Lout]

Getting this thread back on track:

Minor Celebrity Manages to Avoid Stepping in a Puddle:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... riend.html

No, I've never heard of her either, but if The Mail thinks it's newsworthy, who am I to argue?


Yeah, yeah, old news. But you might have missed it at the time.

[Screwdriver]

If your house is on fire, would you write a report about it and have that peer-reviewed before you call the fire brigade, or having seen other houses burning, adopt a heuristic, call the fire brigade, and argue afterwards about the merits of the assumption?

Let me first state I am firmly of the opinion that man made climate change is very real and responsible for what we are seeing now in regards to global warming, ice caps melting, extreme weather events etc. I trust the science.

I am responding to what this person is saying with "her rejection of the purist view of science as solely the pursuit of knowledge" i.e. that "science" in her view is a flexible tool you can use as a psychological instrument to implement change.

It is not "knowledge" she is seeking in the pursuit of "science" it is to wield science as a club to engender change. So ignore the science and "look back at what it is we are trying to do" is a reference in this case to stopping AGW and try to prevent climate change from ruining the environment.

If we develop your "if your house is on fire" analogy above then yes, I would want to take a scientific approach and use say, a foam fire extinguisher and not water on a burning chip pan.

What she is suggesting is that we tear down all the houses now, just in case they catch on fire. Can't argue that such a philosophy will indeed stop houses from burning down. Meanwhile the scientists are saying "oh, right but we can make your house fireproof"....

[slowsider]

If we develop your "if your house is on fire" analogy above then yes, I would want to take a scientific approach and use say, a foam fire extinguisher and not water on a burning chip pan.

You can do that because the fire is the same type as one that has already been studied... you don't need to peer-review a study on your particular chip-pan.

"The solution developed by Otto and her team circumvents the slow-by-necessity peer review system; if a weather event is the same type as one they have already studied and had reviewed, they don't wait for independent scientists to scrutinize the findings"

Philosophy only interprets the world, the point is to change it.

[Screwdriver]

"The solution developed by Otto and her team circumvents the slow-by-necessity peer review system; if a weather event is the same type as one they have already studied and had reviewed, they don't wait for independent scientists to scrutinize the findings"

Yeah, ok, I may have jumped the gun a bit. I still don't like that soundbite regards "rejecting the purist view of science" but as it happens, I am happy with a probabilistic interpretation of data.

Not entirely sure how helpful it is to state some weather event was due to climate change with 40% certainty. Guess it depends what that interpretation of events is used for (and by whom).

[irie]

"The solution developed by Otto and her team circumvents the slow-by-necessity peer review system; if a weather event is the same type as one they have already studied and had reviewed, they don't wait for independent scientists to scrutinize the findings"

Yeah, ok, I may have jumped the gun a bit. I still don't like that soundbite regards "rejecting the purist view of science" but as it happens, I am happy with a probabilistic interpretation of data.

Not entirely sure how helpful it is to state some weather event was due to climate change with 40% certainty. Guess it depends what that interpretation of events is used for (and by whom).

For the obvious reason that science has to date failed to produce a workable and reliable model of the relationship between human activity, natural changes in global climate, and weather events, percentage attributions can only be pure guesses. For all we know, some (which?) changes currently being made to human activity might actually be making long term global climate changes worse. We don't know, hence the rise of the attributionists ... because they provide 'answers'.