Art Bell

[FightTheFuture]

I don't want to believe, I want to know, I want to prove, I want evidence.

Belief is for those willing to accept things without real evidence.


Art

[SredniVashtar]

If any of the lawyers throw a spammer in the works, we can always have Jazmunda call them...that'll hex them.

But really, you're almost there, Art...we are in the home stretch, the finishing line in sight.

It would surely be unethical to deluge Art's inbox with junk mail. Even lawyers wouldn't stoop so low.

[DesertFox]

It would surely be unethical to deluge Art's inbox with junk mail. Even lawyers wouldn't stoop so low.

Only in the metaphorical sense!

[YNOT]

Thank you, I hope we get the Contract and all is well, my concern is only that each step has taken so long. It's true I am not patient, this is a project that I want to get on with, there is so much to do.

I have no reason now to think there is a problem, it is just sooo slow.

Art

I get it.

I'm the same way. Once I start a project and I get geared up for it i hate having to stop and wait.
It sounds like your mentally preparing for the worst in the contract. It's Better than  being naively optimistic.
Hopefully any final details will smoothed out without too much trouble. As always, thanks for taking us on this ride.

[chinaclipper]

While allowing that there is still magic in the world...

well of course, with the exception of magic!

[Falkie2013]

Do you live in Noory's basement, or are you his bastard son? Does he call you regularly? Why?
You don't appear to me like a spokesperson anyone of sound mind would chose.

Hey, I'm not soliciting this stuff. He sends me things out of the blue.
And unlike you and an occupant of the White House, I have a certified ( actually 2 ) birth certificate.

[Marc.Knight]

I don't want to believe, I want to know, I want to prove, I want evidence.

Belief is for those willing to accept things without real evidence.


Art

But, we have evidence of an alien.  He sits behind a microphone and mumbles through index cards on C2C. 

[bateman]

Today's fun radio tidbit. Billing numbers!

1. KIIS(FM)....Los Angeles....Top 40....iHeart....$65.9 million
2. WTOP(FM)....Washington....All-News....Hubbard....$63.5 million
3. WHTZ(FM)....New York....Top 40....iHeart....$51 million
4. WCBS(AM)....New York....All-News....CBS....$49.2 million
5. KBIG(FM)....Los Angeles....Hot AC....iHeart....$42.9 million
6. WLTW(FM)....New York....Adult Contemporary....iHeart....$41.5 million
7. WFAN-AM-FM....New York....Sports....CBS....$41 million
Tie. WINS(AM)....New York....All-News....CBS....$41 million
9. KROQ(FM)....Los Angeles....Alternative....CBS....$40.2 million
10. WBBM(AM)/WCFS(FM)....Chicago....All-News....CBS....$39.2 million

Interesting to note that Cumulus has 505 stations nationwide, yet not one in the top 10 here. iHeart has 4 out of the 10, but that $$$ won't put a dent in their $20 billion debt load.

[Eddie Coyle]

Perhaps Lucy Liu is available to play the lead?

   Charlie's Angels Fight The Weather Maker At Fukushima is her current project. But Ghostbuster Gals II could happen.

[Cwn Annwn]

I don't want to believe, I want to know, I want to prove, I want evidence.

Belief is for those willing to accept things without real evidence.


Art

Hey, Art. On this topic, have you considered (or have you ever done) an interview with somebody who specializes in philosophy of science or epistemology? I think it would make for a heck of a good show to discuss the nature of evidence, and whether there is any reason to favor evidence over simple, primitive belief, or faith. (For instance, the thought "belief should follow evidence" is itself a belief, and therefore should be submitted to the tribunal of evidence! [and other such paradoxes])
Too bad Richard Rorty is no longer with us. That would have been one phenomenal show!

[Sumthins Goin On]

Proof: Professional Wrestling is real.

It's just the players are full of shit.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Seconding what Cwn Annwn posted, philosophy is a subject not often covered on Coast even though it has obvious connections to most of the things discussed on the program, and I'm sure there would be legit PhD's in the field willing to do an interview who have way more credibility than most of the current "experts" that are interviewed on the show. 

[Marc.Knight]

Hey, Art. On this topic, have you considered (or have you ever done) an interview with somebody who specializes in philosophy of science or epistemology? I think it would make for a heck of a good show to discuss the nature of evidence, and whether there is any reason to favor evidence over simple, primitive belief, or faith. (For instance, the thought "belief should follow evidence" is itself a belief, and therefore should be submitted to the tribunal of evidence! [and other such paradoxes])
Too bad Richard Rorty is no longer with us. That would have been one phenomenal show!

Excellent suggestion - and would make a wonderful show.  In my opinion "belief should follow evidence" is a principle that can be based on conjecture or experience.  In effect, the principle is stating that belief should be based on evidence, and with an absence of evidence there should be no belief.  Another way of looking at this is to say that there can be deductive theories based on conjecture (that beg to be proven or disproven) and inductive theories derived from evidence that beg to be reproduced.  Belief itself can hold meaning in the realm of conjecture, or not based on sense-derived knowledge.  "I believe that I had a thought" is nearly impossible to prove by evidence other than my own subjective awareness that I did, indeed, experience a thought.  "I believe that I own a Jeep" is beyond conjecture and is provable by providing various types of applicable evidence.  Therefore, context is important, such that "belief" as a concept may be detached from what we conceive as "the world" or, deeply derived from it.  One's "precept" attributed to the contextualization of belief will determine the level of sensible, conceptual evidence required, and whether "belief should follow evidence" in this instance.

[Art Bell]

My goodness there are some truly smart people on here, very well written. Perhaps you should be doing a Talk Show.

Art

[YNOT]

Excellent suggestion - and would make a wonderful show.  In my opinion "belief should follow evidence" is a principle that can be based on conjecture or experience.  In effect, the principle is stating that belief should be based on evidence, and with an absence of evidence there should be no belief.  Another way of looking at this is to say that there can be deductive theories based on conjecture (that beg to be proven or disproven) and inductive theories derived from evidence that beg to be reproduced.  Belief itself can hold meaning in the realm of conjecture, or not based on sense-derived knowledge.  "I believe that I had a thought" is nearly impossible to prove by evidence other than my own subjective awareness that I did, indeed, experience a thought.  "I believe that I own a Jeep" is beyond conjecture and is provable by providing various types of applicable evidence.  Therefore, context is important, such that "belief" as a concept may be detached from what we conceive as "the world" or, deeply derived from it.  One's "precept" attributed to the contextualization of belief will determine the level of sensible, conceptual evidence required, and whether "belief should follow evidence" in this instance.

That hurt my brain...

I believe I'll have another drink.

[rzr1911]

That hurt my brain...

I believe I'll have another drink.

right. I don't know wtf people are talking about here. There's 2 kinds of smart people. One needs to write a whole dissertation to explain something, giving the reader a headache, the other can explain the same thing in a casual chat that is interesting & fun for everybody.

[Cwn Annwn]

right. I don't know wtf people are talking about here. There's 2 kinds of smart people. One needs to write a whole dissertation to explain something, giving the reader a headache, the other can explain the same thing in a casual chat that is interesting & fun for everybody.

And yet a third who cannot explain without unwarranted derision.

[Danger!UFO]

Hey, Art. On this topic, have you considered (or have you ever done) an interview with somebody who specializes in philosophy of science or epistemology? I think it would make for a heck of a good show to discuss the nature of evidence, and whether there is any reason to favor evidence over simple, primitive belief, or faith. (For instance, the thought "belief should follow evidence" is itself a belief, and therefore should be submitted to the tribunal of evidence! [and other such paradoxes])
Too bad Richard Rorty is no longer with us. That would have been one phenomenal show!

Excellent suggestion - and would make a wonderful show.  In my opinion "belief should follow evidence" is a principle that can be based on conjecture or experience.  In effect, the principle is stating that belief should be based on evidence, and with an absence of evidence there should be no belief.  Another way of looking at this is to say that there can be deductive theories based on conjecture (that beg to be proven or disproven) and inductive theories derived from evidence that beg to be reproduced.  Belief itself can hold meaning in the realm of conjecture, or not based on sense-derived knowledge.  "I believe that I had a thought" is nearly impossible to prove by evidence other than my own subjective awareness that I did, indeed, experience a thought.  "I believe that I own a Jeep" is beyond conjecture and is provable by providing various types of applicable evidence.  Therefore, context is important, such that "belief" as a concept may be detached from what we conceive as "the world" or, deeply derived from it.  One's "precept" attributed to the contextualization of belief will determine the level of sensible, conceptual evidence required, and whether "belief should follow evidence" in this instance.

Michio? Is that you? 

[rzr1911]

And yet a third who cannot explain without unwarranted derision.

wtf are you talking about? I don't even know that word.

[transistorundermypillow]

There's 2 kinds of smart people. One needs to write a whole dissertation to explain something, giving the reader a headache, the other can explain the same thing in a casual chat that is interesting & fun for everybody.

This would apply to lawyers also.

Thanks for the update Art.  Let your lawyers work out the details as instructed. Good things take time. They'll get it right but probably not without some back and forth first. As you said, it's to be expected. 
If you're this close to making a deal in such a short time (in the legal realm) then consider it warp speed - for the lawyers, not us. (I have a magnet on my refrigerator with "Lord, give me patience and hurry it up.")

Fingers crossed.

Sue

[Marc.Knight]

right. I don't know wtf people are talking about here. There's 2 kinds of smart people. One needs to write a whole dissertation to explain something, giving the reader a headache, the other can explain the same thing in a casual chat that is interesting & fun for everybody.

It depends who is participating in the "casual chat".

[Zenman]

I don't want to believe, I want to know, I want to prove, I want evidence.

Belief is for those willing to accept things without real evidence.


Art

The only thing I have faith in is the ability of lawyers to find problems where there should be none.

Tiz the way of things, Art. It's what they do. It's realistic to resign yourself to it. They'll get it worked out, but never as soon as you'd like.

[Marc.Knight]

My goodness there are some truly smart people on here, very well written. Perhaps you should be doing a Talk Show.

Art

Thanks Art - I'd rather be a guest on a talk show.  I'll leave hosting to masters such as yourself.

[lonevoice]

And yet a third who cannot explain without unwarranted derision.

wtf are you talking about? I don't even know that word.

Thus warranting the premodifier "unwarranted".

[Marc.Knight]

Michio? Is that you? 

No, but we share the same academic title.

[Zenman]

Excellent suggestion - and would make a wonderful show.  In my opinion "belief should follow evidence" is a principle that can be based on conjecture or experience.  In effect, the principle is stating that belief should be based on evidence, and with an absence of evidence there should be no belief.  Another way of looking at this is to say that there can be deductive theories based on conjecture (that beg to be proven or disproven) and inductive theories derived from evidence that beg to be reproduced.  Belief itself can hold meaning in the realm of conjecture, or not based on sense-derived knowledge.  "I believe that I had a thought" is nearly impossible to prove by evidence other than my own subjective awareness that I did, indeed, experience a thought.  "I believe that I own a Jeep" is beyond conjecture and is provable by providing various types of applicable evidence.  Therefore, context is important, such that "belief" as a concept may be detached from what we conceive as "the world" or, deeply derived from it.  One's "precept" attributed to the contextualization of belief will determine the level of sensible, conceptual evidence required, and whether "belief should follow evidence" in this instance.

My intuition tells me that belief should require evidence.

[coaster]

Hey, I'm not soliciting this stuff. He sends me things out of the blue.
And unlike you and an occupant of the White House, I have a certified ( actually 2 ) birth certificate.

I would be so fucking exhausted if I were you. Just reading your bullshit is exhausting. You are a special breed of stupid.

[BattyBrooke]

I agree art needs to be more patient. It sucks and I get that. But it's alright if the show doesn't get started until September or October.

I wouldn't be mad if it started on Halloween. He could come out the gate swinging with *insert Halloween-show-name-chosen-to -eplace-Ghost to Ghost here*. That'd be *all* kinds of awesome.

[heater]

Excellent suggestion - and would make a wonderful show.  In my opinion "belief should follow evidence" is a principle that can be based on conjecture or experience.  In effect, the principle is stating that belief should be based on evidence, and with an absence of evidence there should be no belief.  Another way of looking at this is to say that there can be deductive theories based on conjecture (that beg to be proven or disproven) and inductive theories derived from evidence that beg to be reproduced.  Belief itself can hold meaning in the realm of conjecture, or not based on sense-derived knowledge.  "I believe that I had a thought" is nearly impossible to prove by evidence other than my own subjective awareness that I did, indeed, experience a thought.  "I believe that I own a Jeep" is beyond conjecture and is provable by providing various types of applicable evidence.  Therefore, context is important, such that "belief" as a concept may be detached from what we conceive as "the world" or, deeply derived from it.  One's "precept" attributed to the contextualization of belief will determine the level of sensible, conceptual evidence required, and whether "belief should follow evidence" in this instance.

amazing, and totally beyond beleef.

[Pale Horse]

right. I don't know wtf people are talking about here. There's 2 kinds of smart people. One needs to write a whole dissertation to explain something, giving the reader a headache, the other can explain the same thing in a casual chat that is interesting & fun for everybody.

I'm starting to get this... somehow, less is more... now if you people can just weave your truths into well-placed dick jokes...