Slashdot Mirror
Domain: stephenjaygould.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to stephenjaygould.org.
Comments · 108
-
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone?Great link, how about this one? Face it, Nazi Germany was a Christian society just like fascist Spain or Italy (strangely, fascism rose to power in predominantly Catholic countries).
Also, what's with the bullshit line about "my research"? Do you really think I care about this stuff any more than about any other random internet discussion? You make it sound like it was my job or something. And you're too busy? How come you're reading Slashdot at all then?
-
Re:Famous scientist believers [Re:Familiar pair...> > By most surveys, more than 90% of professional scientists don't believe in a personal god.
> Except for the best ones.
That's not true. This has been surveyed among the National Science Foundation members and the results can bee seen here.
I remember seeing an article in Scientific American, where these numbers were compared to the university professors in the States in general and among them the belief in god was much higher.
-
Re:I've always found those stats suspect
by pluvia on Friday May 14, @04:52PM
Is fossilization so frequent and ubiquitous and the extinction line so obvious around the Earth that this can be determined?
in a word: Yes.
Read some books by Stephen J. Gould. -
Re:The Score
"It doesn't help that scientists aren't always all that scientific when presented with observations thay cannot explain. Too often, important phrases like "this is just a guess, but" get replaced with "I'm absolutely certain that" whenever coincidence is about to be invoked. The correct pronouncement would be "I have no idea whatsoever", but scientists don't like to say that either."
This is absolutely not true and it seems like you've just made it up to suit your argument that scientists are 'mystical' and dogmatic.
I work around scientists all the time and I hear the phrase "I don't know" ALL THE TIME. Scientists as a whole have no problem admitting they do not fully understand a phenomenon, partly because the activity of scientufic inquiry is itself a humbling one.
"Add on top of that all of the 'scientific' pronouncements like 'eggs are bad for you', 'any wine is bad for you', 'oops, no, some wine is good for you, and so are eggs, but avoid fat at all costs', 'oops, people are getting fatter on low fat diets',....."
One caveat, dieticians are NOT scientists!
"I call it pseudoscience because collectively they have a habit of stating working theory (complete with conflicting evidence) as if it were fact and flatly denying the existance of plainly observable phenomena when the correct answer is clearly "We don't know"."
This is total strawman cunstructing nonsense. Please cite one instance where this has occured among experts in the hard sciences.
Scientists are the most non-superstitious and non-dogmatic group of people in society. -
Re:"under god"A rather tenuous chain of logic, I'd say. While many of the founders of the U.S. were certainly Christians, it was not universal (there were also some deists). The founders had experience with people not getting along together because of religious differences, and they acted to smooth things out. By keeping the government strictly neutral with respect to religion, a pleuralistic society can survive in peace.
If you look at the purpose and design of the US government, you will see that it is quite pragmatic, and can stand on its own virtues without needing Christian principles. A lot of countries around the world use similar forms of government complete with rights and all, and they're definitely not all Christian. Their arguments were aimed toward helping people live together in peace and prosperity without oppressing anybody. Sure, you can find arguments in the Bible that support America's principles, but you can also find a great many against, and the same holds true for other major religions. Could it be that America was founded on practicality?
-
Re:It supposed to be FACTs, not a story!The explanation of the data is theory. Newton did not create facts. What the Giants Newton referred to had discovered are not facts. They're theory. It matches the facts--the data--and that validates it. But it's theory. The reading on an oscilloscope is a fact. Why they are what they are is theory. Newton's gravity is theory. Newton's Laws are theory. All explanations are technically theory, the only facts are the data points. This is a source of much confusion, for instance when creationists complain that evolution is just a theory. Well duh. Any scientific explanation is a theory. For a further explanation of theory/fact, check out Asimov at the following very good links:
http://www.answersinscience.org/RelativityofWrong
. htmhttp://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/iacreat
i onism.htmlhttp://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creati
o nism.html -
Puntctuated Equilibrium
i would've thought that more important than explaining bombardier beetles' butts would be its relevance to the theories of stephen jay gould and richard c lewontin. sadly, mr gould is no longer among us.
if you want to read more about their theories start here. -
Puntctuated Equilibrium
i would've thought that more important than explaining bombardier beetles' butts would be its relevance to the theories of stephen jay gould and richard c lewontin. sadly, mr gould is no longer among us.
if you want to read more about their theories start here.