Slashdot Mirror
Science a Mystery to U.S. Citizens
maddugan writes "CNN and probably others are posting their synopses of the National Science Foundation's biennial report on the state of science understanding in the US. Sixty percent of those surveyed believe in ESP, psychic power, and alien abduction."
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
God, don't scientists ever learn?
-Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
I don't know how the questions were phrased, but if someone asked me "do you think it's possible psychic powers, alien abductions or esp exists?" I'd say yes. To say no discounts far too much evidence. Sure, it's all circumstational and mostly unsubstantiated, but there's _so freaking much of it_. However, if the question had been "do psychic powers etc exist" then to answer yes would have just been naiveity.
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
I think the quote is "any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" or something along those lines. While most instances of things like ESP are most likely hoaxes, there's always the possiblity that there are brainwave analyzers implanted into people's heads. People from the future...
Love,
Jay and Silent Bob
I like your Subject lines, Klerck. They are always ontopic and interestingly amusing. No wonder no one mods you down. I would post logged in but I'm fucking banned right now. I look forward to your future widens. And yes, I am egging you on.
in god?
Talk about wide-spread ignorance!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Seriously? How many of them are aware that the show Star Trek: Voyager is one of the most glorious pieces of fucking shitto ever grace the small screen?
What? Don't like borg and time travel episodes? Too bad! you get a dyke captain and a drunk indian first officer with a gambling problem. All in the name of providing the retard audience its daily dose of pseudo-intellectual moralizing, with a sprinkling of cliches and technobabble. who needs Dr. Phil on Oprah, when we can just watch an episode of Voyager to find out the solutions to our moral dilemmas?
You'll soon find out that the answer to all humanity's woes is as simple as restabilizing the dynotherm couplings and initializing the reverse-chrono-equalizer.
i have esp, so i knew that this article was going to be posted three days ago.
They interview a bunch of CowboyNeals
Yes i have psychic powers
yes i perform abductions
yes i like to eat people
if you dont like it to bad!
None of those things can be disproven by science anyway... Belief and science are not completely contrary to each other.
Just because a bunch of crackpots and morons think ESP exitst, psychic hotlines work and aliens abduct people and shove things up their butts doesn't mean it isn't true.
More than 60% of Americans believe in this "God" person, and they believe he created us. Isn't that enough evidence that people don't understand science? :)
Now I finally understand how those psychic friends network type phone scams succeed...scary.
On another slant, this means my skills as a systems tech may be viewed as "magical" in a few decades. Maybe I'll finally be able to get a raise...or that pinhead manger is getting a hex put on him (get it...hex).
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Belive it or not, the slashdot population does not represent the US general population, and quite probably will score much higher on these polls. So please don't reply with the fact that you got them all right, so did everyone else reading these commments.
What signature defines me as a person?
You're my fucking hero, Klerck. Maybe you could widen the fucking ears of Paramount executives so I could ram my cock in them and poke out the part of their brain that insists upon keeping Voyager on every night at 10/9 central.
Only 50% of people surveyed knew that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year. I am absolutley gob smacked. Is this really a cross section of American society!?
What do Americans teach their kids at school, if not that the Earth goes around the Sun once a year?
As a graduate student in physics, it has long been obvious to me that the general public has NO idea of what is going on in science. There are a variety of reasons for the scientific ignorance of the general public.
1. The common "Who cares" attitude about science. This is rampant in society -- try talking to a non-scientist about some scientific issue and watch the eyes of most people glaze over.
2. The media dramatizes and reduces complicated scientific issues into 2-second sound bites. This is why, for example, so many people misunderstand what Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity actually state.
In some sense, this is a dangerous development for society. The US Founding Fathers supported the creation of public libraries because they realized that having an informed public is important for good government. This does not mean that everyone should be an expert at say diagonalzing a Hamiltonian, but at least actually know what the heck Quantum Mechanics is about (and no it will not help you lose weight). Scientific progress is creating technology that will revolutionalize human society and even what it means to be human. These are things that the public, as a democracy, should understand because it affects everyone.
Quick summary: People are interested in science, but don't understand it.
What I want to know is what can I, as a professional scientist, do to help?
[TMB]
ESP - extra sensory perception. Lets take it the other way, do you only believe that human's have seeing, hearing, smell, touch and taste? Is it really that hard to believe that there might be some other input device on a person?
Psychic power - well, it's rathe vague, but brainwaves can be measured up to several metres away. In practice most psychics may be fake, but we're talking about a theory of biological ability here which is independant from how many people may have it.
Alien Abduction - well, I think the jury is still out on that one, and that's not a science.
(Quite frankly though I think that Aliens look at us as we do lab rats. It's not good or evil - it's clinical)
...that the son of an all powerful omnipotent (yet invisible) being was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago but was resurected, came back for a long weekend but hasn't been really seen from since.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Religion cannot be tested by science. After that little dustup with Copernicus, most religions are carefully designed to be untestable. ESP, psychic powers, and the such (i.e. superstition), CAN be tested by science, and routinely are tested and disproven by scienc. That people believe in them is a matter of grave concern.
Since I'm reading ./, that implies I have an interest in, and know something about, science and technology. I'd guess I know more about science than the average Joe on the street, though not as much as some of the rocket scientists here.
:-)
But I do believe in ESP, 'cause I've experienced it. Certainly not commonly, and definitely not in any controllable fashion, but it's happened.
Does that mean I think Miss Cleo can tell all about me over the phone, or that Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind? No.
But I'd guess that the majority of people have experienced something psychic at some point in their lives... well, 60% of us anyway...
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
And cut off as many cable signals as you can.
With the sci-fi channel and its charlattan
John Edward, and with TLC&Discovery doing
their share reporting credulously on
fringe science, cable is a part of the problem.
(Talk show hosts and their habit of coddling
"psychics" don't exactly help either, but if
you're going to jam TV radio signals, you'll
have a hard time looking sweet and innocent
with the FCC.)
Just last week, I read an article in Mother Jones magazine about Robert Moses, a 60's civil rights leader who now is strongly advocating better math education for minorities, both through his own actions teaching in a Mississippi school (he commutes weekly from his Massachusetts home, bless those dedicated liberals), and in his book, Radical Literacy . (I just ordered the book, ISBN 080703127, but haven't got it yet.)
I absolutely agree that math and science education should be a stronger emphasis in schools (math is probably more important than science, but they each fuel the other). And clearly, inner-city schools, and other poor schools, provide lousy education, especially in math and science. And as the survey cited here demonstrates, that lousy education shows.
Here in Pleasanton, California, a wealthy suburb, my Rotary Club awards prizes each month to a "student of the month." I'm amazed each month that these kids all take multiple AP classes (sometimes five or six) and have GPAs of 4.15 or 4.25. When I went to school, even taking AP Calculus, it was mathematically impossible to have a GPA greater than 4.0 -- speaking of "math literacy". But what about the many inner-city students who never graduate from high school, and lack even the basic math skills required to work at a cash register? (Ask your local McDonald's manager how they work around the lack of functional literacy and math skills.)
Another book plug: I just finished the book And Still We Rise , a reporter's account of a year in an AP English classroom in South Central Los Angeles. It's a remarkable book that left me feeling hopeful (unlike most books in this genre, which leave me frightened and numb). But alas, that book focuses only on just a few dozen surviving geniuses, and not thousands of their peers whose best efforts could not overcome the cruel challenges of the inner-city school environment.
Finally, I read an article in yesterday's newspaper (the Valley Herald), recounting a new bill by my local state legislator, who wants to exempt more new teachers from needing teaching credentials. The bill's stated intent is to allow more skilled professionals to teach, but I suspect the real goal is to circumvent teaching standards and put more lower-cost teachers into classrooms without adequate training.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
Sure, there were no CowboyNeal option.
It is typical of left-brain geekdom and sadly inaccurate to suggest that belief in the possibility of ESP, psychic powers, alien abduction et al demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of science -- particularly when reputable scientific research explores some of these possibilities quite directly.
Princeton Engineering Anomolies Research (PEAR) is an excellent place for subscribers of the Sceptical Enquirer to visit to learn a smidgen of open mindedness:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
Also, I would also suggest the Complete Works of Charles Fort. Fort was an American empiricist and philosopher of science.
... I mean, look at how Star Wars portrays 'laser blasts' and the speed of light!
"Derp de derp."
Well, I saw that coming. The aliens told me about this announcement weeks ago.
Well, when you are a cog in a corporate machine, what use do you have for science? Just do your job, and you will get paid.
I think most people find it easier to fall into line than to push their boundaries. As for those who believe in Aliens, ESP, and Astrology, they want to believe that life is more exciting than it really is, and these outlets are both entertaining, with an element of believability.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
Haven't you heard? 70% of statistics are made up on the spot! :-)
Sixty percent of those surveyed believe in ESP, psychic power, and alien abduction
Believing in one of these things doesn't necessarily mean that you have a poor understanding of science.
Indeed, since none of these things can be proven or disproven, a true scientist would be open to the possibility that these things could actually exist (or not exist).
Now, if you said that humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time, or that antibiotics kill viruses; THEN you have a poor understanding of science. The former has been proven to the best of our ability, the later has been proven outright.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
So is Geography.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...believe everything they read on /.
Organized religion must be thrown out. It's clear that throughout history, religion has been at the root of so much death and destruction, from the Crusades in the Middle Ages to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
It coulds minds with ridiculous myths, untruths, fosters intolerance, and narrow-mindedness that have no place in today's 21st century technological, multifaceted society.
Ban organized religion, not only US, but worldwide -- it's what's holding back progress in places like Africa, the Middle East, India, and so much more.
Just like forced slavery and child labor, religion is an antiquated relic of the past that must be eradicated in the world, a scourge that hobbles the progress of the human race, like a ball and shackle.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Personally, I find it more disturbing that 40% of those surveyed believe that astrology is based on scientific fact.
Topics like alien abduction are open for speculation, since surely, scientists aren't prepared to prove they don't exist.
Astrology, on the other hand, simply has no science behind any of it. The idea that stars and planets being in certain alignments controls one's destiny flies in the face of common sense and reason!
The beliefs cited in the CNN article fall in line with the tripe flooding tv. People belief in global warming (good science) and psychics (bad science). But both sciences are talked about on TV, hence people belief it.
The problems outlined here run deeper than just science education.
Etc, etc, ad nauseam, and so on and so forth.
i just called and asked Miss Cleo if U.S Citizens are gaining a better knowledge of science.
And she told me that "not even tha cards can answer that one", but she did tell me that i would be rich very soon!
In the summer of 2000 CNN ran repeated studies and found that about 7% of the US adult population claims firsthand experience with alien abduction.
Clearly, too many of us are munching grandma's Paxil without permission.
[i]or that antibiotics kill viruses[/i]
ARGH. Just today my dad tells me his cool theory. He has some sort of virus, and he went to the doctor to get medicine. He told me that "They had to give me some sort of new 'antiviral' medicine because they're saving up all of the regular antibiotics since September 11."
Urge to kill... rising...
-- Fester
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
With all this "feel-good" methodology used in schools, it's no wonder people are getting dumber. 2+2=5? Sure, Timmy, if that makes you feel good. Central America is Kansas? Sure, that's right for you. Everyone's a winner!
I for one am sick of it. Where is the intellectual discipline? Our society will get dumber and dumber until the government no longer functions, because democracy is built upon a supposition that the populace is smart enough to know what to vote for.
--- witty signature
The universe began with a huge explosion. (True, according to the "Big Bang" theory widely accepted by scientists, but dismissed by some religious leaders.) 33 percent. Can this truely be considered ignorance? Wouldn't it rather be a matter of theology?
For the vast majority of people, science is just another religion: taken on faith or rejected as heresy. It's sad, but true. The reason a lot of people probably get disillusioned with science is because science doesn't have all the answers, and isn't always right, and it makes no bones about it (at least the good scientists don't, anyway). I find that one quote I love is the one from a movie called Dangerous Beauty, "The people want answers. They don't care if they're wrong answers, they want them just the same." When someone comes across something not currently explained by science, and science cannot explain it immediately, they automatically assign a supernatural explanation to it.
Are people just so arrogant as to not be able to admit, or perhaps even afraid to admit, that there are just some things that have not been explained yet? Things that are just beyond our current grasp, but not necessarily beyond our potential grasp?
*sigh*
BlackGriffen
Either:
b) Americans think they know everything
c) All of the above
This report makes the spurious assumption that the belief in "ESP" "psychic power" or "alien abduction" automatically means the believer is at odds with the understanding of science. Belief and scientific understanding are quite seperate ideas, and shouldn't be seen as two polar opposites.
Just because one "believes" in paranormal activity or "believes in astrological predicitions" does not mean the person is incapable or ignorant of rational scientific thought. For example, although I am a daily reader of my horoscope, because I find the idea of fortunes fun and intriguing, I'm not incapable of understanding how I and my collegues as scientists are capable of scientifically testing hypotheses.
Likewise although I do believe that extraterrestrial life has abducted people for whatever reason, I am not saying that I can scientifically prove that it has occured.
The report should be more critical of the publics understanding of science, and not its acceptance of paranormal activity as real. Science can be a wonderful provider of truth, but it's not the end all to truth. Something still may be true even though it has not yet been proven scientifically, eg. the graviton, the tachyon. The term is a hypothesis. Most scientist believe their hypotheses are true, and science is their proof. However, if they didn't have their belief that is was true, they wouldn't even have a will to want to prove it.
Science is a process that provides proof to ideas. The public's understanding of that idea should be what the survey is testing. And not saying hogwash such as X% of the respondance believe astrology is a science.
This is typical for a country that believe in ... .... ....
God created the Universe
The Kyoto protocoll is not science
&c
guran
No, there is a simpler explanation for why Science has proven so unpopular, and that is: who cares? Seriously, since the Industrial Revolution there has not been a single example of a scientific discovery that affected human life more than superficially. Science is little more than a hobby. Far more important is R&D (which is unknown, not because it is arcane, but because it is kept a secret).
Yes, boo-hoo go the Scientists. Well, I have news for you. There are garbage men too, and no one finds their jobs so enchanting. Same goes for janitors and programmers. In fact, the vast majority of people have occupations that no one gives a shit about. Any Scientists who have a problem with this should sign up for the fucking NFL. Free clue: you are not entitled to a job that gets you laid; you are not entitled to a job that requires you to give autographs; you are not entitled to a life. If you are disillusioned by Science, time to switch careers, sucker.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
60% of the population believes in that pseudoscience crap. Remember, this is the same population that keep voting Democrats into office, year after year. Just shows how they'll buy any old bullshit story.
Just a conspiracy - just see this page :-)
The press is largely to blame for the misunderstanding most people have about the scientific method and how scientific institutions work, which this white paper confirms yet again. Science's daily routine is something like this: dog bites man, dog bites man, dog bites man hard, dog bites man in painful place, dog growls while biting man, dog bites man over disputed frisbee, man bites dog, dog bites man's shoes, dog bites woman.. The press homes in on man bites dog because that's how the press works, because men biting dogs can solve our energy woes, cure cancer, and reverse aging, and because the man who bit the dog is photogenic.
A week later, science finds out that man doesn't really bite dog, and the press reports on that dutifully, giving the public a distorted impression of science. And that's a major reason for the other findings, like people's belief in astrology (Pons & Fleischmann, Virgo bites dog, 1995).
Please see our website: http://www.widener.edu
Regards,
Admissions Officer, Department of Page Widening
I've seen a bunch of these over the years. "Americans are the stupidest bunch on the planet" etc. "Americans can't do math, oh my God, look at all the Indian engineers." This is an appeal by Americans to Americans, based on nationalism. "We can't fall behind other nations in math." Piffle.
Let's try this on for size: another study a few years ago (can't cite, it, sorry) revealed that even the Americans we consider "smart" (i.e., knowledgeable in math) have a surprising tendency not to believe that evolution is real (something like 30% of engineers). What's up with that? I wonder how many "foreigners", while being able to solve a partial differential equation at the drop of a hat, still believe in other goofy theories, like the usefulness of some totally bunk folk remedies. I personally know someone who might possibly be able to out-math me, but who believes that people of her ethnicity have such different biologies that Western medicine simply doesn't apply. What is up with that??
On the other hand, my son's school (here in America) has had at least one series of classes on critical thinking (e.g., seeing through propaganda and stereotyping). Not mathematical, but, in my opinion, way more useful than memorizing a bunch of antiderivatives (although, I admit, those are more immediately useful in a career).
So, as an American citizen, I'm slightly offended and embarrassed that the NSF is using nationalism to argue for more spending (essentially) on science-related fields. I certainly wish Americans (and the rest of world; are you listening to me, you people who voted for Milosevic?) were smarter, but I'm not a fan of using scare tactics and misleading arguments to accomplish this.
</rant>
John.
There was a study done a while back by one of the Skeptic groups that basically showed that the X-Files (which is extremely popular) has help popularize stuff such as UFO's, alien abduction and ESP.
Since the X-Files has come on the air belief in these psuedo science ideas has increased dramatetically.
Thats not to say its the only thing which has made this worse. Another event was the comming of the Millenium, people are highly afraid of change and the idea of the Millenium represented a huge change to a lot of people (even though it wasnt).
A lot of this is discussed in Carl Sagan's 'A Demon Haunted World' which I highly recommend reading.
I'm certain that a majority of Americans also believe in life after death... that the world will end a la the new testament book of revelation... that there are angels...that satan and hell are real...that if they hold certain beliefs they will be spared eternal torture after they die...that the bible contains the unerring words of the one and only omnicient god of the universe...
Why doesn't anyone write an article about how ridiculous that is?
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Very few people are comfortable with the idea that what you see in meatspace is all there is. Everyone wants to believe there's an afterlife; that there's more to reality than what we know. Accepting life for pure physical reality is an extremely difficult concept to swallow (and one I've been struggling with myself for a long time). People want to believe in things like ESP, astrology and alien abduction because there is evidence for it (no matter how shaky) and because it's easier to convince yourself there might be even more than that. While my views towards them are more agnostic, I don't see how belief in any of these things is exclusive to an understanding of common, solid science. As a person who is interested in parapsychology and ufology purely from a curiousity point of view, I've read a lot of the material on the subject matters, and they do utilize a lot of sound ideas when coming up with more miraculous conclusions. Just because you believe UFOs are from outer space doesn't mean you don't believe in the theory of relativity or that the earth revolves around the sun. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Besides, people have believed in ghosts and goblins and the boogyman for almost as long as mankind has lived. It's called fear of the unknown and wishful thinking. As far as I know, most people don't think the earth is flat any more. I can't see any backwards-moving trend here, just the same beliefs in the unknown and supernatural that we've always had (as a whole.) The only thing different here is that things like ESP and aliens are more compatible with the general ideas of science we have at this point in time. Some of them are a bit silly, yes... but not so silly that they're totally implausible.
Remember, there are people like doctors, lawyers and even real scientists that believe in things like aliens (or claim to have been abducted.) I personally think it's a psychological phenomena, but that's besides the point. Obviously not everyone who claims to have been abducted (or believe in it) is some kind of moron.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
that we should not dismiss the "possibility" .
Enough!
Just because something is possible, it does not
mean that we should consider that possibity. It
is also possible that tomorrow I will die in
a car crash, after all, we have lots of accidents
on the road every day. When the possibility
is remote, and not probable, we are best serve
not considering them at all. There is no end when we
start on the path of endless possibilities.
I swear that less then 60% of the people out there voted for Bush.
I couldn't find any data about what their confidence level is.
The sample data they used couldn't have provided them too high of a confidence level.
Only who believes in this article believes in psychich powers.
With some exceptions, this article creates stereotypes.
Just last week, I read an article in Mother Jones magazine about Robert Moses
I first read his name as Robot Moses (took me about three re-readings of that sentence to realize it wasn't). I thought he was an invention, not a person. Now there's an application of science and technology!
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Okay, I'm sorry, but learn to read. I simply couldn't believe this statistic, so I read the article several times looking for this statistic, and even did searches on 60. Guess what, it's not in there. In fact, the article says:
30 percent of NSF survey respondents agreed that "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations"
30 != 60. And this is just belief in alien craft, not abduction.
I could see some 60 percent believing in ESP, for instance, like the article states, but not 60 percent believing in both alien abduction and ESP.
I'd like to see a similar study done on reading comprehension, starting with slashdot headline contributors.
Anal/sicko link.
And alot of antivirals (Not vaccines, but the medicine they give you after you've been infected) sounds pretty hefty.
Apparently it's hard to damage the virus without damaging cells in your body as well.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
From the article: ...in response to the 2001 NSF survey, a sizable minority (41 percent) of the public said that astrology was at least somewhat scientific...
The words "at least somewhat" indicate that it was one of those questions where you rank a statement from 1 to 5, where 1 is "not at all", and 5 is "absolutely".
That would probably mean that anyone selecting 2 or above is considered a person who believes that astrology is "at least somewhat scientific". Unfortunately, someone who you might consider a "fence sitter", who answered 3, gets counted as a full believer.
"How do you know when a scientist is lying? She's quoting statistics!" - me
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Watch out with the sun worshipping. Most (all?) of the fucked up religions of the world evolved from sun/son worship. Suffice to say, when Uhura said "It's not the sun in the sky, it's the son of God" she was about as wrong as wrong can be. It's the sun in the sky.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
exactly what does ESP, psychic power, and alien abduction, have to do with science.
Who did they pole? john edward gallery members?
%70 of all people know that these studies and polls re just made up %45 of the time
;)
i mean.. Everyone knows that.
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
'nuff said.
In the end, most of us end up trusting "learned scholars" for most scientific issues. How many science-minded people have the skills to verify the validity of Steven Hawkings equations? How many of you have actaually calculated the speed of light? Or understand how DNA really works? Even most PHD's only have a very good understanding of a very small part of the big picture.
Not to say that science if fake, but chances are that 95% of the science you believe in is based on the fact that you trust someone elses conclusions and intelligence and integrity.
Don't forget how many smart people were taken in by cold fusion. Or when Stephen Hawkings calculated that the universe shrinking would actually cause time to go backwards just like watching a videotape in reverse.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
With the deplorable state of education in this country, it comes as no surprise to me the public's understanding of science is what it is today.
As our federal and state governments have shown us through their actions and inactions, they simple do not care about the education of the populace. This also makes sense, as it is in line with the thinking of their coroporate owners. The dumber the populace, the easier it is to manipulate them, the more children they have, the more consumers they produce.
Science doesn't prove anything. Science proposes that under certian conditions something is true most of the time. Science doesn't discount ANYTHING - a true scientist would have to admit that anything is possible - perhaps unlikely, but almost never impossible. If we say "something doesn't exist because science hasn't proven it does yet" (e.g. alien abduction, ESP, psychic powers) then we are backing ourselves into a "science" based dogmatic society. Don't fear crackpots, or the unknown - because they are often times the ones who are hailed as genius hundreds of years after they die.
"Believing in" is a lot different from "believing are possible." A true scientist doesn't believe IN things until they have good evidence to support that theory. They keep an open mind about everything else, but an open mind != provisional belief IN every possibility suggested to you.
It's true, a majority are "true believers" in their religion of choice. And that's not just the soft sciences either, but areas like cosmology, physics and chemistry (which owes it's existence to early alchemy). A lot of technology people are hard-core Pagans and accept all kinds of trippy stuff (including ESP and spiritism, to a degree).
I long ago gave up wondering at this, though when younger I thought those people were stupid. Now I'm a pagan warlock biologist web developer, and never think twice about how odd that must look to others.
I think that so long as people are allowed to think they will ask interesting questions. And when some of the questions have no ready answer they will search. And when they search in freedom there is no way to know what they will come up with on their own, or how they will view the world afterward. And the path they take will, in the end, have made perfect sense to them and totally justify where they arrive. It's hard to look at the results and understand the journey, but really it is the journey that matters. Cliché, I know, but I've been there.
Blessed Be.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
In other news, 90% of people living in India are illiterate.
On the whole, Americans aren't really that dumb folks...we have our quirks like every other culture/society.
Our 14 year old daughter had weeks of homework to catch up on. Everything we tried failed to motivate. Finally we decided to replace the things she cares most about with the things we care most about. No homework? No blow-dryer. Still no homework? No more makeup. Still no more homework? We buy clothes from a thrift store for her to wear to school and take away her designer jeans, et al.
She's now getting straight A's, including math, science, etc. It's a start...
The point of all this: Kids are not taught to care about grades. TV/Media teaches them to care about everything but being smart. Parents, apparently, are the only hold out; All others are sell-outs. (sigh)
If you're using a computer to post the message... then you're seeing particles tunnel. Many junctions that form the gates in the chips in your computer work by tunneling electrons.
:-D
Proof enough for me. Also, in my experience, the predictions of Lloyd Schumner Sr. Retired Machinist and A.A.P.B.-Certified Astrologer have been as accurate for me as any horoscope in the paper.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
ESP, psychic power, and alien abduction
These things don't look any more superstitious to me than time travel, wormholes, black holes, parallel universes, quantum computing and the like. If scientists can openly believe in a bunch of crap without fear of being labeled crackpots, why can't the general public?
If a scientist has a theory for a natural phenomenon and yet cannot explain it in simple language that the average lay-person can understand, there is a 90% probability that it's crap. Furthermore, if the scientist claims that one needs math to understand the theory, then there is a 100% probability that he or she is as clueless about the phenomenon as everyone else.
"Why? Galileo claimed the Earth revolves around the Sun, which at the time was quite controversial and extraordinary. However, simply observing the planetary motions proved him right. Nothing extraordinary there"
It was indeed extraordinary. Observing the motions of the "wandering lights" with Galileo's "magic glass" was very extraordinary. Actually seeing the moons of jupiter revolve about the planet was a world shaking event for those that saw it and understood the Ptolemeic worldview that was official church dogma. It just *couldn't* be so. but you lool in the glass, and it *is* so.
Extraordinary.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
I'm really not sure what your point is. But if it's to suggest that belief in the big bang theory is "a matter of theology," or rather "faith," then I'd say you're dead wrong.
The neatly forgotten fact about science is that it's ideas require actual evidence to be taken seriously. The more evidence, the more seriously they are taken. Got a different idea? Also got evidence? Then we'll pit the two competing ideas together and find out which one has the more convincing evidence.
The big bang theory has actual evidence- publicly observable and verifiable evidence- that supports it. Whatever it is that "some religeous leaders" believe, I can assure you it can't stand up to that kind of inquiry.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
For a population that mostly hasn't caught on that FreeBSD is technically superior to *linux, what do you expect?
A turbo laser is a laser in which the power cycling takes twice as long so that when a beam is finally emitted it is twice as powerful. Now, I might not be using the right scientific terms, and my units may be a little off, but that sounds about right.
>>Few characters on prime time television shows are scientists. According to a recent study, the percentage of scientists was typically less than 2 percent in the mid-1990s.
1) Professor Frink
2) Ross Geller, Anthropologist
3) ???
Who else? I can't think of anyone else
Some of the questions are certainly a matter of grave concern. In particular, those which revolved around actual science.
Some of the others, however, such as the belief in pseudoscience, I'm not sure are as alarming. Is this really a disbelief in science, or simply a turning away from something I call "scientific exclusivism"?
Allow me to explain. Science, logic, empiricism, and the like are very good at explaining stuff. In fact, you can explain a whole lot of things with these. But you cannot explain everything with them; there are holes. And there are holes in every school of thought out there; the universe is just plain not simple enough to allow for a single set of principles to explain all things. So to fill in those gaps, something else is needed. And whatever this "something else" is, it has its own holes, ones filled in by science. They complement each other, rather than conflict.
Also interesting to note is the conflicts you see in any exclusivist system. A religious fundamentalist will blithely ignore what he sees every day, in an attempt to justify his own beliefs. But a militant atheist will weave together a maze of logic which, in the end, contradicts itself, usually by an assumption that lack of proof positive equals proof negative. And then there's Objectivism, but going into the exclusivist errors in that one will take more time than I currently have. In the end, though, it all goes back to Goedel's theorem that no system of methematics can be both consistent and complete at the same time. It's true for schools of thought as well; if you want to be truly consistent in your beliefs, then it is impossible to stick with only one.
There has been a growing trend among academia for scientific exclusivism lately, that is, the idea that science can explain all things and anything else is ridiculous superstition. This bothers me; in its own way, it is as bad as any religion, and breeds the same sorts of intolerance (albeit with different targets). If this test shows a trend away from exclusivism -be it scientific, religious, philosophical, or whatever- then someone is doing something right for a change.
'I don't think it's any accident that the educational system in America has been brought to its current state. Because only a totally uneducated mass of people will be baffled by balloons. And yellow ribbons and little flags and buzz words and guys saying "new world order" and shit like that, I mean, only a person who has been dissuaded from any kind of critical thinking and doesn't know geography, doesn't know the English language - I mean if you can't speak English, then this stuff works on you. One of the things that was taken out of the curriculum was civics. Civics was a class that used to be required before you could graduate from high school. You were taught what was in the U.S. Constitution. And after all the student rebellions in the '60s, civics was banished from the student curriculum and was replaced by something called social studies. Here we live in a country that has a fabulous constitution and all these guarantees, a contract between the citizens and the government - nobody knows what's in it. It's one of the best kept secrets. And so, if you don't know what your rights are, how can you stand up for them? And furthermore, if you don't know what is in that document, how can you care if someone is shredding it?'
'The school system that is costing so much is not delivering the goods. I think some of the reasons it doesn't deliver the goods is that it's ideologically more appealing to the right-wing elements in this country to create a nation of stupid people who are dumb enough to swallow their rhetoric so those right-wing elements can run an election campaign which is not based on facts and figures, but on bunting and sound bites that don't really tell you anything. You need a docile, stupid electorate in order for a person to be elected. And how do you keep them that way? You starve the educational system so that it doesn't really work. You control the content of the school books which are used in the educational system. You rewrite history to suit your ideology.'
'I tend to view the whole thing as a conspiracy. It is no accident that the public schools in the United States are pure shit. It is no accident that masses of drugs are available and openly used at all levels of society. In a way, the real business of government is the business of controlling the labor force. Social pressure is placed on people to become a certain type of individual, and then rewards are heaped on people who conform to that stereotype. Take the pop music business, for example. Look at the stereotypes held up by the media as great accomplishment. You see guys who are making millions of dollars and selling millions of units. And because they are making and selling millions they are stamped with the seal of approval, and it is the millions which make their work quality. Yet anyone can look at what is being done and say, "Jesus, I can do that!" You celebrate mediocrity, you get mediocrity. People who could have achieved more won't, because they know that all they have to do is be "that" and they too can sell millions and make millions and have people love them because they're merely mediocre. Few people who do anything excellent are ever heard of. You know why? Because excellence, pure excellence, terrifies the fuck out of Americans because they have been bred to appreciate the success of the mediocre. People don't like to be reminded that lurking somewhere there are people who can do some shit that you can't do. They can think a way you can't think, they can dance a way you can't dance. They are excellent. You aren't excellent. Most Americans aren't excellent, they're only OK. And so to keep them happy as a labor force, you say, "OK, let's take this mediocre chump," and we say, "He is terrific!" All the other mediocre chumps say, "Yeah, that's right and that gives me hope, because one day as mediocre and chumpish as I am I can..." It's smart labor relations.'
-- FZ
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Take a look at the second page.
Who really believes that our Commander in Thief understands enough science to find the basic scientific illiteracy of the voting public worrisome?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A Demon Haunted World
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
... can't reason their way out of a paper bag.
... ) but in no way what they are doing is scientific. The one thing that psuedo-science does not have that really sets them appart is they have NO peer revier of their findings.
One of the major problems with psuedo-science is..
Unexplained != Inexplicable
Just because we don't know why some things happed does not mean there is some supernatural reason behind it.
ESP has never been proven to be anything but statistical number games or fraud. Cold reading is a well documented skill that has been used for centuries.
Psuedo-science != Relegion
Religion takes things on faith. People believe in religion for many reasons. Psuedo-science attempts to prove something is true by using scientific ( language, tools,
To summerize what alot of people have said already...
"But too many people believe it not to be true"
This is a classic appeal to populatity. Common knoledge is often simplified or all together wrong.
"You cannot prove that it's NOT ESP"
I don't have to. That is an appeal to ignorance. By that reasoning I can prove and disprove anything I want. Basic critical reasoning says that I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove to me that you are RIGHT.
"ESP is a faith just like any other science"
Nope, see above. Science has the feature of being peer reviewed and have reproducable results. ESP has never been proven in any controled environment.
As most of the slashdot public has proven this article is quite right.
Everyone 'knows' that gravity exists. we know how it works. But the truth of the matter is that we only see the effects of gravity second hand. When a person's parachute doesn't open when he jumps an airplane, we dont blame the impact on gravity. we blame the malfuntion of the parachute that caused him to become a ball of fire and crater 10 feet into the earth's crust. Why? because we can disect the parachute and figure out what went wrong.
Where is the gravity that caused this? everywhere and no where. can you put it in a box and label it? no. all we see is the secondary effects of gravity, and no one can point to gravity and say "this is gravity".
it is that same belief of someone who believes in God. so how different is the belief in science from that of religion?
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Let's look at these things.
While they are rebuffed by scientists - does that make these things "fake" or non-science?
Part of the Great Witch Hunt was physicians, along side of their Church counterparts, who killed off any "medicine men" or faith healers. Kind of ironic considering they [hunters] were advocates of prayer for healing and both sides treated illness with their limited knowledge of the human body.
We look back and assume that the medicine men were crazy shamans - but they were in fact scientists in every sense of the word. Be very careful not to get on either side of this debate because in the past the debate was based on politics and not based on science what so ever. [look into the real history of the American Medical Association]
"Science" is a mystery. We can only study what is before us.
I don't believe in these things - most of all the UFO portion. But look here for more. I do, however, think that there is too much that we don't know or don't understand about our own minds to say these ideas are all "fake".
Get your Unix fortune now!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is anyone surprised at this? Try not to be so myopic, and realize that the school system of the entire country is in a massive crisis.
BTW, when was the last time you read a real book [non-O'Reilly], I'm sure that the National Reading Council (?) would probably return the same findings about literacy.
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
The US really has to improve their school education.
We have probably the best university education in the world, and one of the worst public education systems in the industrialized world.
It is a side of the great inequality ruling american society - just as we have a huge disparity between rich and poor, we have a great disparity between people with good and bad education.
I dont know if people realize how problematic this is. Having large numbers of badly educated people is just asking for civil unrest. And we can really do better in the richest and most powerful nation on earth.
Of course there are communities in the states that will strongly resist education. But that pressure will be getting very weak because the internet erode the power of local authority centers.
I came to read these comments because of the respect I have for my fellow slashdot readers, and to read the sarcastic posts about how ignorant Americans are. Instead, I found just the opposite - even slashdot readers defending a belief in UFOs, ESP, etc. I'm frightened. I don't think I would want my kids to go to school in this country.
Please, technically-literate slashdot readers, speak up for science! Mod down the pseudo-scientists!
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
My point was the story had to be accepted on Faith, despite its ridiculous content, not the age per se. I find the people that committed suicide here a few years ago to meet their maker on the Hale Bob comet silly as well.
And no we should not throw away the ancient Greek attempt of rationality. They didn't claim to have found the Truth (it was only later that the church anointed Aristotle) they were indeed struggeling to formulate an approcah to reason. It was lacking, but they were among the first that ever contemplated that kind of meta questions.
You point about Roman Government has nothing to do with this debate, as it covers different subject matter.
Help fight continental drift.
I have a great story about this.
I was TA for a NATSCI course at my university (science for arts students). It was based on the history of science.
I was teaching about Zodiac signs, and thought I could lead them in with horoscopes and the Zodiac signs are the constellations crossed by the Sun, and so on...
I thought this would be a great opportunity to show the kids (first year) that belief has changed because of philosophy. So I mentioned that "back then, lots of people believed horoscopes led their lives, and ruled their actions. Now that we're more scientifically advanced, and have learned more about the nature of the universe, we don't subscribe to this anymore. For example, how many of you here believe astrology controls our lives?"
Three-quarters of the kids raised their hands.
Idiots.
I think that the state of US science education is more than just an embarassment or sad situation -- it is actually an insult to the rest of the world.
For here you have the world's "greatest" and most affluent country, whose citizens have more resources than any other country in the world, and they choose not to open their minds to science and rational thought. Yes, they choose not to. Because it's not as if there isn't access to education. It's because they choose to believe in what is easy and pleasurable instead of what is logical and reasonable.
And all the while other children in poorer countries feel lucky when they receive a pencil just to write with! How can we claim to be a civilized society and squander our resources this way? We should be ashamed.
Hmmmm... how surprising that an NSF survey showed overwhelming support for the continued existence of the NSF. I'm shocked. Yup. Shocked.
" Sixty percent of those surveyed believe in ESP, psychic power, and alien abduction."
If that scares you, wait until you realize that an equal number of Americans believe that an invisible man who lives in the sky sent watches over every one of us, all the time, and will torture us for all eternity if we refuse to believe that he sent his son to earth, had the guy killed, and then brought him back from the dead!
Most people are idiots, especially when it comes to science or the supernatural, especially if rationalizing a difference between the two is involved. It doesn't help any that the work of theoretical scientists sometimes gets treated and taught as fact with no proof, and is then later discredited in the press. A good example is black holes, which have long been treated as fact with no real proof, and just recently the news was full of stories stating that black holes might/do not exist. This only confuses the public, most of whom have almost no chance of ever (Conciousley.) interacting with a black hole, and makes it hard for people to know who to trust when science is concerned.
definition of things faith for example, used to mean a feeling you get from something that hasn't been correlated to the five senses (Hebrews 11:1, which has been translated into English since King James time, so that should be old enough) Now it means 'gullible belief'. That's the problem with testing 'spiritual powers' and the like. Everything conceptually has been redefined and otherwise attacked out of realization, so if it does exist, no one can build up enough spirit. Watch 'Key: the Metal Idol'. I think it illustrates the problem neatly.
I'm of the opinion that what most people call "ESP" or "psychic powers" probably has some basis in fact. Just because we don't have a strong scientific theory for it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The fact that scientists are more or less obliged to be materialist in order to garner any respect from their peers probably doesn't help. The safest attitude to take towards anything "psychic" is to ignore it as unworthy of study. The second safest attitude is to "debunk" it. Try to do any serious research on it, and you'll be branded a crank, I think.
And what's with this implied attitude that "you really shouldn't believe in that sort of thing, since we haven't proved it." Why is science the One True Epistemic Gatekeeper? Science is a useful tool, of course, but is it the best way of determining the truth of every possible question?
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
For instance, there are plenty of scientists who claim to be Christians (as opposed to Christian Scientists). Should those scientists be stripped of their professional accreditation because they believe in the eventual return to Earth of a 2,000-year-old dead Jewish guy?
If you think so, then be prepared to lose the benefits to society of a number of otherwise-intelligent, thoughtful people.
If you don't think so -- if you believe that one's religion should not disqualify one from being considered a "scientist" -- then what's the difference between a scientist who is a Christian and one who believes in other unprovable, irrational propositions such as clairvoyance or astrology?
A great many people, including some of history's most successful scientists, have their pet irrational beliefs. It probably doesn't make sense to use someone's New Age-y beliefs as the chief yardstick of their scientific literacy.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Of course I beleive in Alien abduction! I was taken up into a ship myself!
They talked to me via ESP and also levitated me using their psychic powers.
What they forgot to mention is that 84.124225% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
The problem with science is that there is always doubt, and most people don't want doubt, they want certainties.
For example: from where I sit, I cannot see into my garage - in fact, I cannot see my garage at all. Therefor, if I am to be absolutely precise, I cannot state that my car is in the garage. It could have been stolen, it could have disappeared in a puff of smoke, it could have been abducted by aliens. Each of those is a hypothesis, just like the hypothesis that the car is setting there. If I am to be precise, I cannot state for fact that my car is there or not.
However, since my garage is locked, my car is locked, and had the doors opened I probably would have heard them, the hypothesis that it was stolen is unlikely. Given the body of evidence supporting conservation of matter, the hypothesis that it went poof is unlikely. And any aliens that could reach Earth would have little use for my car, so even if the Drake equation is bunk it would seem unlikely aliens would have stolen it. The most likely hypothesis is that my car is right where I left it (relative to the Earth's surface).
However, that sort of thinking doesn't make sense to the average person. "How can you *not* know your car is out there?" And when a scientist says "I cannot conclusively disprove it", they think that means that is must be true.
Most so-called "science" teachers just teach that water is H20, that natural gas burns in oxygen, etc. In short, they teach facts, rather than teaching the tools to THINK, and to CHECK what you think. It's easy to test if a student can regurgitate the facts you've crammed down their throat - testing if a student can actually THINK when confronted with a new situation is hard, and subject to opinion (read: "If I flunk this kid, can his parents cast doubt upon my grade?").
Until we actually start teaching kids to THINK, to constantly question what they know, and to take nothing for granted, we will have this sort of nonsense running around. And since the Industrial Revolution the purpose of public schools has been to turn out organic labor units, not thinking individuals.
And before you pat yourself on the back, smug in your superiority - when was the last time YOU actually stopped to think about your opinions, and to ask "Now, what are the underlying axioms of this belief? What truths must I hold self-evident to get to this belief? How can I test if those beliefs are true?"
www.eFax.com are spammers
In other news, 95% of 4-year-olds believe in santa clause
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
...richie - It is a good day to code.
...in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I know of no religion that has killed people faster, let me tell you. You can thank science for the atomic bomb 100% of the way. Einstein wasn't exactly a model of Judaism by any stretch.
Besides, you're bringing in factors that have nothing to do with science itself. Don't use this issue to grandstand against religion. It can be possible if you're open.
You point about Roman Government has nothing to do with this debate, as it covers different subject matter.
LOL, I know people like you. How highly you must think of yourself, in this..."debate". No doubt you'll answer this post with what you consider rapier wit and superior intellect.
You make the point that something I bring up is not relevant, yet you failed to specify what your point was in your initial post. If I were like you, I'd scorn you for including a date, because it has nothing to do with your "argument". But, I'm not.
Tim Leary suggested that telepathy and other such "paranormal" powers are really part of a genetic design for later stages of human evolution. They work sometimes and somewhat unreliably now, but as humans continue to evolve and move beyond earth, we may yet come to a "scientific" understanding of these things.
"..Everything I need to know I learned from Miss Cleo, everything I need to know I learned from Miss Cleo.."
That'll be $4.95, thanks!
Actually Galileo wasn't the first to discover that earth moves around the sun. This discovery and the planetary motion was made by Nicolaus Copernicus around 100 years before Galileo.
Which I am sure to do anyways but think about it. What are the chances of UFO's and life on other planets? Scientists in recent years have been searching our galaxy alone and still have not come up with one planet that could sustain life. Whether they be too hot or too cold, too many toxic gases or to undeveloped. The closest they have come is Mars, and after finding out life does not exist on Mars period, it was shot down. Not that Mars is really habitable anyways.. eg. hot, cold, etc.
Even SETI, have been scouring? the blackened abyss for just artificial radio waves, which could be signs of life existing else where, and what? Last time I checked, they found 19 possiblities that were so far decayed they were labeled... you guessed it... Possibilities.
ESP? Depends how you mean it. The ability to sense and talk with the dead? Or the ability to pick up on others thoughts? Or read minds, etc.... Why not in all honesty? I mean for those of you who are strict Darwinists or Evolususts or whatever the hell you are called. (Atheist?) Could human minds evolve to another level? To actually pick up on other human brain waves. Fuck the idea of talking to the dead. Bullshit... but the real ability to actually one day communicate through ones thoughts. I believe it. I wouldn't callit esp, nore like a psyonic-network. More like a wireless lan. So long as you are in range you can communicate. (that would be damn cool)
Now for the God topic.
How can people be called ignorant when there are facts that a man, created by God, came down and preached to thousands upon thousands. Documented proof of the existance of a man who could cure the blind. Raise the dead. Heal a cripple, etc. The most popular book ever sold is the bible. Granted its translation is inaccurate to some degree but it isn't just Cathloics and Mormons and Lutherans believing in one God. It is Muslims and buddhists? and countless other religions believing in just one entity that created us. We are talking billions of people here.
I mean documented alien existence. None. I eman real documentation. Eye witnesses. Real pictures, not that 70's forged crap. Video. Wide Spread encounter among a mass of people. If aliens really wanted to meet us they would make it well known. Not abductions. If they are "susposedly" intelligent creatures who travel light years to take a few humans for experimentation then they would have over thousands of years created a psychology for themselves. Being intelligent and all. Hence they would have some idea of how to say hi, how are you without creating wide spread panic.
You can't call someone ignorant for believing in God. Doing that would be the same as someone believing Linux will become a desktop standard in the next 100 years. You can't call them ignorant. What if they are right and Linux actually becomes Mom and Dad user friendly. Plug and Pray. Produced for the masses and found on cheap PC's. Part of every highschool computer lab. Part of every college dormatory. They aren't ignorant. Neither is someone who believes in God. Especially with all that happens to prove his existence. The Wounds of Christ. The documented destruction and rebuilding of a city. How scientists had to actually calculate into their equations for the original Apollo moon flights the fact that Earth stood still for an entire day. Real things that happened.
I am neither forcing my faith or opinions on anyone. I am merely saying don't call someone ignorant for believing in somthing that makes them happy.
Besides... here are two more interesting arguements that cause science to fail.
1. Why is it that when scientists calculate the movement of the Big Bang they can calculate it down to like 0.0^63 1 of a second but after that all functions of Quantum Physics and the math they use break down and don't work in the calculations and they are still trying to find a way to calculate it further? Seems kinda funny to me. (Saw that on UWTV)
2. Say they do calculate it down to ground zero. Here is another questions for you. What happened that formed the mass of energy that would become the big bang?
oh and here is a kicker.
If there is no God. And we are all evolved from ameoba and what not. In all honesty, if science is right and blah blah blah, when we die. Like a computer our mind will just turn to blackness. Nothing. A void. Not thought processes, nothing. Seems to me, that would suck. then again it couldn't realy suck because I wouldn't know it.
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
I was dating a this girl once "way up here" in Canada, and during our relationship the question of "which is bigger, the Sun or the Earth" came up. She was 18 years old at the time and thought the EARTH was bigger!!!!
;-) Next time you want "gauge" the intellect of a member of the opposite sex, ask some of the following questions (if you don't want to appear TOTALLY like a pompous ass, pretend that you want to know the answer to settle a bet with a friend):
;-)
That's not even the worst part, I mentioned this to a friend or two (eventually more), and a *large* percentage of them thought she was right!!! I realize not knowing the answer to this question isn't a matter of life and death to anyone, but I find it very disheartening to know that many people can grow up not ever having been curious enough to learn (and remember) BASIC properties about the world around them.
I have a bit of a "system" for geeks to decide which girls (or boys) they should try and date, and although this is a really pompous and arrogant thing to do, try it anyway
1.) Which is biggest: The Sun, the Earth or the Moon?
2.) What's 6 times 7?
3.) What's faster in a vacuum, light or sound? (the point being they probably won't know there's no sound in a vacuum, and try to answer the question!!!)
You will not BELIEVE how many people can't answer these basic questions!!! Anyway, if you're an arrogant prick like me, you can use these questions as a kind of "litmus" test to see if you should pursue a possible date further (and the best part is you can tell yourself you're not going to date them because they couldn't answer your questions, not because they would have said 'no' anyway
"ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do,"
If the entire survey was composed of questions like these, then the survey cannot be trusted. The question is ambiguos. Change one small word, and the question's meaning changes. A fair number of people may have read: "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes that genetically modified tomatoes do,".
Most people in the US are only nominally literate. They do not always read what is actually written on the page. I work with lots of differnt people daily. A very small percantage of them are capable of reading a sentence correctly the first time. You'd be shocked and amazed how many people just scrape by, literacy-wise. It's really important to be carefull of that sort of thing when making a survey.
I also noticed a number of evlolution vs. creation sort of questions. As that little prob is a hot spot, with scientists in many fields divided on the topic, I personally would leave that to the 'personal optionion' section of the survey. Same thing with life on other planets. The hypothesis is untestable.
The scientific method requires testing the hypotheseis; if you cannot test it, it's philosophy, not science.
He said if you cannot explain your idea to an intelligent freshman, then you don't really understand it yourself; an even better test might be to explain your idea to an intelligent twelve-year-old.
is actually part of the problem, and what gets children turned off learning in the first place. Kids should be taught to care about the information. When grades are emphasized, the information becomes pointless. Think about it. Aren't you trying to teach your kid that grades are important?
How did alien abduction slip in there. I'm not saying that I believe in alien abduction, but it's not something that is impossible or improbable. If the science world is going to back up Carl Sagan's claims the universe brimming over with life, then they have to be willing to accept that one day we will interact with that life. Possibly right now.
I believe that these are the same people that believe that there is "no need for a Department of Defense because there should peace on earth"... shocking really..
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"
Ask a bushman in Botswana how Quantum Mechanics helps him feed his family... Ask anybody on the subway ride in to work tomorrow morning if knowing Coulomb's Laws will change their plans for the weekend.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Dude, antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses.
We're collaberatively having a discussion (in this thread) on religion. As such, a variety of important quotes and points of view are perfectly normal to interpose in the conversation.
George Carlin makes a statement that furthers one point.. I'd call it fair use.. It is perfectly reasonable to use another authors words (if attributed) in a debate. Hell.. This is one of the purposes of fair use.
I find science interesting and enjoy studying it, but I don't find that it necessarily discounts the possibilities of eastern philosophy, alien abductions, ESP, etc...
As far as I'm concerned, at this moment, science can only explain a very tiny subset of reality through the use of models. These models may well prove to be incorrect (e.g. Newtonian Mechanics). Science is an interesting field, and definitely worth pursuing, but not at the exclusion of all other lines of thinking.
I'm a huge believer in eastern philosophy (I'm a Taoist, and I regularly practice Kundalini Yoga). The experiental evidence that I've experienced in favour of these is overwhelming. Of course, I never discount the possibility that these experiences could well be psychological, but even if they are, because an experience happens simply in my mind does not discount the accuracy of it.
I guess to me, the important thing is to keep an open mind to all of the possibilities.
Haven't seen them posted with all the Flaming going on, so I called up a summary then from their spreadsheet (this is the all adults row from the detailed spreasheet at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/append/c7/at07- 10.xls)
True or False
------------
A = The center of the Earth is very hot - 80% Correct
B = All radioactivity is man-made - 76% Correct
C = The oxygen we breathe comes from plants - 87% Correct
D = It is the father's gene which decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl - 65% Correct
E = Lasers work by focusing sound waves - 45% Correct
F = Electrons are smaller than atoms - 48% Correct
G = Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria - 51% Correct
H = The universe began with a huge explosion - 33% Correct
I = The continents on which we live have been moving their location for millions of years and will continue to move in the future - 79% Correct
J = Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals - 53% Correct
K = Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer - 94% Correct
L = The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs - 48% Correct
M = Radioactive milk can be made safe by boiling it - 65% Correct
Short Answer
-------------
N = Which travels faster: light or sound? 76% Correct
O = Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? - 75% Correct
P = How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun: one day, one month, or one year? - 54% Correct
Q = Please tell me in your own words, what is DNA? - 45% Correct
R = Please tell me in your own words, what is a molecule? - 22% Correct
Good job stating the obvious. A more interesting question would be - what do the majority of U.S. citizens know?
-bugg
Given the high number of bible-thumpers, it's no surprise that science is a big DUH? to many yankees!!!
I don't think he claims that these are not scientific theories. He's looking for an experiment that would disprove evolution (since falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific theory).
It should be possible to breed two populations of some species in different, isolated environments. There should be some adaptive pressure we can apply that will force the two populations to diverge into different species.
--
E_NOSIG
I disagree with the implication of this statement - as if one's belief in ESP, psychic powers, and alien abductions means that one is obviously a science illiterate.
If one believes blindly, without considering the large volume of oppposing evidence, then I would say you are ignorant of science. But as far as I know there is no *unquestionably conclusive* evidence that disproves any of these things (we may have debunked every report of alien abduction, but that does not mean all future reports will be false also). So it would be equally unscientific to dismiss all claims of paranormal phenomena as ridiculous... (even stranger things than ESP have turned out to be true, despite overwhelming disbelief by scientists - consider quantum mechanics in its early days!)
Science is fundamentally about asking questions of the world, forming explanations, gathering evidence to test one's theories, and accepting the results - whether supportive or contrary. A scientifically-minded person always keeps a skeptical, though responsibly informed, view on the world.
Oh really? And do the majority of accountants accept the theory of evolution? And what about the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Because their opinions are just as fucking relevant as those of religious leaders.
CNN and other media sources have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the loud rantings of an incredibly small but rabid minority of religious demagogues, who have decided that a 4000 year-old myth trumps 100 years of indirect and direct testing and a mountain of supporting evidence. So now, well established and supported theories, like evolution, need an apologetic footnote. WTF.
American society has been hustled into believing the opinions of religious leaders matter to science. They don't. Let them tell us what scientific findings mean for our soul or our humanity. But I'm sorry Father/Reverend/Rabbi, if you are using words like "kinds", "flood", or "dust" instead of "mitochondrial DNA", "punctuated equilibrium", or "vestigial" then you need to be left out of the debate.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Someone once said that the psychic friends network was a sign that people sought the supernatural, and I thought that if they truly did seek out the supernatural, it would be obvious that the psychic friends network was fake. The main reason those psychic friends network succeeds centers around the fact that it lets people have the illusion that their problems are not their fault.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know this wasn't written by the poster. Yes, I know this was satire. Yes, believe it or not, I did find it marginally amusing.
But, I'm still going to pick apart a couple of points.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being.
[...]
The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice.
According to a friend who is studying university-level theology, the Roman Catholic view is currently that there isn't a "divine plan", as that would contravene free will. The idea is that God would love to see us all happy, offers guidance etc. if we ask for it, but we are still free to screw ourselves over. This results in all of the wonderful ills that plague our civilization.
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more.
Unfortunately, the temporal institutions that are the earthly manifestations of religion do not have access to God's bank account (must have slipped his mind). Therefore, they are bound by the same need to raise money to pay people with (administrators and the people who go out and do good works) as any other earthly organization. As they have a pretty unlimited mandate (make sure everyone on the planet is fed/clothed/etc, preferably while worshipping God), they are an unlimited sink for funds. As people are stingy bastards, they generally barely have enough money coming in to cover their infrastructure costs.
So I'm not surprised that most religious organizations say they desperately need more money. They may even be telling the truth.
THE PERENNIAL FRINGE, by Isaac Asimov
I doubt that any of us really expects to wipe out pseudoscientific beliefs. How can we when those beliefs warm and comfort human beings?
Do you enjoy the thought of dying, or of having someone you love die? Can you blame anyone for convincing himself that there is such a thing as life-everlasting and that he will see all those he loves in a state of perpetual bliss?
Do you feel comfortable with the daily uncertainties of life; with never knowing what the next moment will bring? Can you blame anyone for convincing himself he can forewarn and forearm himself against these uncertainties by seeing the future clearly through the configuration of planetary positions, or the fall of cards, or the pattern of tea leaves, or the events in dreams?
Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!
For those of us who live in a rational world, there is certain strength in understanding; a glory and comfort in the effort to understand where the understanding does not yet exist; a beauty even in the most stubborn unknown when it is at least recognized as an honorable foe of the thinking mechanism that goes on in three pounds of human brain, one that will gracefully yield to keen observation and subtle analysis, once the observation is keen enough and the analysis subtle enough.
Yet there is an odd paradox in all this that amuses me in a rather sardonic way.
We, the rationalists, would seem to be wedded to uncertainty. We know that the conclusions we come to, based, as they must be, on rational evidence, can never be more than tentative. The coming of new evidence, or of the recognition of a hidden fallacy in the old evidence, may quite suddenly overthrow a long-held conclusion. Out it must go, however attached to it one may be.
That is because we have one certainty, and that rests not with any conclusion, however fundamental it may seem, but in the process whereby such conclusions are reached and, when necessary, changed. It is the scientific process that is certain, the rational view that is sure.
The fringes, however, cling to conclusions with bone-crushing strength. They have no evidence worthy of the name to support those conclusions, and no rational system for forming or changing them. The closest thing they have to a process of reaching conclusions is the acceptance of statements they consider authoritative. Therefore, having come to a belief, particularly a security-building belief, they have no other recourse but to retain it, come what may.
When we change a conclusion it is because we have built a better conclusion in its place, and we do so gladly - or possibly with resignation, if we are emotionally attached to the earlier view.
When the fringers are faced with the prospect of abandoning a belief, they see that they have no way of fashioning a successor and, therefore, have nothing but a vacuum to replace it with. Consequently, it is all but impossible for them to abandon that belief. If you try to point out that their belief goes against logic and reason, they refuse to listen and are quite likely to demand that you be silenced.
Failing any serviceable process of achieving useful conclusions, they turn to others in their perennial search for authoritative statements that alone can make them (temporarily) comfortable.
I am quite commonly asked a question like this: "Dr. Asimov, you are a scientist. Tell me what do you think of the transmigration of souls?" Or of life after death, or of UFOs, or of astrology - anything you wish. What they want is for me to tell them that scientists have worked out a rationale for the belief and now know, and perhaps have always known, that there is some truth to it.
The temptation is great to say that, as a scientist, I am of the belief that what they are asking is a crock of unmitigated nonsense - but that is just a matter of supplying them with another kind of authoritative statement, and one they won't under any circumstances accept. They will just grow hostile.
Instead, I invariably say, "I'm afraid that I don't know of a single scrap of scientific evidence that supports the notion of transmigration of souls" - or whatever variety of fringe they are trying to sell.
This doesn't make them happy, but unless they can supply me with a piece of credible scientific evidence - which they never can - there is nothing more to do. And who knows, my remark might cause a little germ of doubt to grow in their minds, and there is nothing so dangerous to fringe belief as a bit of honest doubt.
Perhaps that is why the more "certain" a fringer is, the more angry he seems to get at any expression of an opposing view. The most deliriously certain fringers are, of course, the creationists, who presumably get the word straight from God by way of the Bible that creationism is correct. You can't get a more authoritative statement than that, can you?
I get furious letters from creationists, occasionally, letter that are filled with opprobrious adjectives and violent accusations. The temptation is great to respond with something like this: "Surely my friend, you know that you are right and I am wrong, because God has told you so. Surely, you also know that you are going to heaven and I am going to hell, because God has told you that, too. Since I am going to hell, where I will suffer unimaginable torments through all of eternity, isn't it silly for you to call me bad names? How much can your fury add to the infinite punishment that is awaiting me? Or is it that you are just a little uncertain and think that God may be lying to you and you would feel better to apply a little torment of your own (just in case he is lying) by burning me at the stake, as you could have in the good old days when creationists controlled society?"
However, I never send such a letter. I merely grin and tear up the one I got.
But, then, is there nothing to fight? Do we simply shrug and say that the fringers will always be with us and we might as well ignore them and simply go about our business?
No, of course not. There is always the new generation coming up. Every child, every new brain, is a possible field in which rationality can be made to grow. We must therefore present the view of reason, not out of a hope of reconstructing the deserts or ruined minds that have rusted shut, which is all but impossible - but to educate and train new and fertile minds.
Furthermore, we must fight any attempt on the part of the fringers and irrationalists to call to their side the force of the state. We cannot be defeated by reason, and the fringers don't know how to use that weapon anyway; but we can be defeated (temporarily, at any rate) by the thumbscrew and the rack, or whatever the modern equivalents are.
That we must fight to the death.
©1986
Well, as it's been said before, those numbers mean next to nothing. But, as someone who just graduated highschool in a medium-rural area, i can tell you that the kids AND adults around here are largely science-dumb. not that these are stupid people, but they dont NEED that knowlege, so they don't bother remembering it.
Kinda like the way i forgot all of the stuff i learned last semster in calculus, but i DID need it (for this sem, calc2)
It's not that it isn't being taught, it's just not being retained. what do you expect when your schools teach towards a multiple choice exam for the better part of your public schooling?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
How is believing in ESP or psychic powers any different than believing in most religions? I'm much more for the former than the later myself.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
A child can care a world for science and math but that doesn't help if the curriculum at his or her school is oriented more toward anti-smoking assemblies and bland indoctrination than science.
When I was in schol years ago, I was seriously disgusted with the lack of science in school. In fact, our highschool's Sophomore science book was "Earth Sciences" by McMillan. It was the same book *the same issued year - same title - same color - same content* as the science book we had used in sixth grade four years prior.
I think that was the year I just gave up altogether.
Sure, I suppose the reviewers for a journal could conspire to knowlingly let a fraudulent paper through, or suppress a valid one with interesting results that go against the accepted theories. In the first case, the bad science would inevitably be noticed by the journal's readers (other professional scientists, after all), and the editors would be disgraced. In the second case, some other journal's editors would accept and publish the paper, "scooping" journal #1 and claiming the glory of publishing the groundbreaking new research.
Like all self-policing systems, it has flaws, but by and large it works fantastically well, uncovering charlatans and incompetents, and allowing the dissemination of well-validated new information to the scientific world. It's not physically possible to verify everything in life yourself, which is why you sometimes have to trust others to properly verify things for you. But that trust cannot be blind, nor based on "faith". This holds as true for your doctor or auto mechanic as for the editors of a journal.
Freedom: "I won't!"
The real question is "is it ethical!"
You know, I spent much of this evening wondering to myself if its just me, or has everyone around me more or less just become more stupid as the years have gone on...After overhearing this conversation at a local PetsMart:
Dumb Lady: Oh my God! Oh my god, this fish is dying!
Clerk: Hm? The goldfish?
Dumb Lady: Whats wrong with your fish?
Clerk: Oh..That one. They're supposed to look like that.
Dumb Lady: With...with its head like that?
Clerk: Yeah.
Dumb Lady: What about those eyes? Thats not supposed to be like that..
Clerk: Yeah. Those goldfish are supposed...supposed to be like that. They're....genetically...not supposed to be like that, originally.
Dumb Lady: Huh?
Clerk: Thats the way they make em. Genetically...altered.
Dumb Lady: ARE YOU SERIOUS?!!?? (gasp)
Clerk: Yeah.
Dumb Lady: These fish are GENETICALLY ALTERED?????
Clerk: Well..they're not.....they're..just come like that.
Dumb Lady: Oh my god. Radiation. Oh..my god..thats...I guess that means they wont live very long. Like the sheep.
Clerk: Well, no, its just they're not as hearty as...the other goldfish.
Dumb Lady: I see.. wow. Look honey, they can do that now..to fish!
The "fish" the 40-something mother-of-two woman was referring to was one of those big googly-eyed goldfish that you can see in any pet store..Just normal goldfish that are bred to be decorative fishes. I would have said something, but it was already obvious this woman had absolutely no concept of something as simplistic as breeding animals... That,and I felt bad for the clerk who had to endure this woman's sub-roomtemp IQ. I just walked off and felt sorry for civilization.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
I get a little bit peeved when the possibility of psychic phenomena is automatically dismissed as impossible. There are a lot of people out there, like me, who have genuine psychic ability, but they don't talk about it for fear of being labeled as kooks or frauds.
So? Slashdot is probably more scientifically informed that the raw masses, and I bet 70% here believe the same :)
Slashdot, the site notorious around the world for its brutality toward the written word and any semblence of journalism, is making a big deal out of people not knowing much about science? This is almost as much fun as watching the slashbrats lecture each other and the world about how free markets and large-scale software development work.
As a graduate student, my dissertation research focused on the beliefs young children hold about the permanence/vulnerability of objects. That is, what do kids understand about the vulnerability of objects to undergoing destructive transformations? It turns out that the larger the object and the younger the child, the more likely they are to endorse the notion that the object will exist unchanged forever. (The cookie I am holding won't exist forever, but the sun or a mountain or my house can never be destroyed.)
This is not really a surprise since young kids are very concrete in their thinking and most haven't witnessed/experienced the destruction of large-scale objects.
However, as a kind of control I also studied University undergraduates (3rd year students) and asked them similar questions. I was surprised to find that about a quarter of these students endorsed the notion that large objects like the moon, the sun and the stars would exist unchanged forever. I also asked the University students about their spiritual beliefs. For example, did they believe in God? What surprised me was how often students would reject traditional spiritual notions, but then go on to offer up spontaneously some really weird ideas. E.g., 'I don't believe in God or organized religion, but I think my soul astral-projected through the Bermuda triangle before I was born.' (The indestructibility of large objects and the weird spiritual notions were almost never expressed by students who were science majors.)
Even in a major University it seems, ignorance and strong irrational trends were not being engaged by the educational process. Not good, if one accepts the notion that a healthy democracy requires a reasonably well-educated electorate.
IMESHO, the right question should be `Are scientists perfectly correct, unbiassed and 100% trustworthy?'
The survey answer, however stuffed and rounded, answered `no' and for a change got the answer right (-: still IMESHO
Scientists are as human as the rest of us and have pressures like job security, tenure, avoidance of boat-rocking and peer pressure driving them.
So... if you turn up something embarrassing, unless you're a rare individual (find `Missoula'), you either don't publish it, or waffle around the consequences in the hope of getting credit for the work and not damnation for where it leads.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
but I emplore you to keep an open yet critical mind
Keeping an open mind is good, but be careful it isn't so open that your brain falls out.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
Stop trolling, really, it's pathetic (though more so if you actually believe the "arguments" you put forward).
-Devon
(Who is too lazy to login)
No one knows FOR SURE that smoking causes cancer. It his highly correlated, but there are who-knows-how-many other factors that aren't accounted for. Yeah, it's probable that cancer is caused by smoking and anyone reasonable can see that, but what the scientist you're referring to is most likely talking about is the lack of certainty in claiming things like that. PEACE I'M OUTTA HERE
I had the chance to learn in school. However, it wasn't tough for people to slide through and learn very little. Your kid is failing? Just call the school, that can be changed. It really all comes back to the parents. Not entirely how they raise the kids, but how they've raised the school system. Any moran can graduate HS, as long as their parents complain. Its only a hop, skip and a jump to where the teachers just pass everyone because they know what would happen if they didn't. Try telling a teacher to fail your child if they don't actually pass. I dare you. Sorry, if parents weren't whiney little punks, teachers might have the balls to do their job. Right now, if they actually do it, they'll get fired.
I am a social, not physical, scientist, and I often read Discover magazine for science news (my wife subscribes). Scientists may not be as credulous and speculation-prone as the average American, but Discover sure makes them seem that way. Almost every discovery is sensationalized beyond all reason: this tiny microbe found in Alaska points the way to human colonization of the planets, this psychological trigger found in the brain could end suffering and pave the way to utopia, this environmental snafu will melt the ice caps and drown us all. No wonder people think the paranormal is normal--scientists and their paparazzi groupies are selling outlandish visions of the future in the name of science. Hold them accountable, forcefully.
We can reduce ideas to bits and people to genes, but "can" does not imply "should".
Impossible, no.
Improbable? Well, let's analyze this. The requirements as I see them (feel free to add to these, if you can come up with any) are...
#1 Intelligent aliens, when SETI has analyzed a large portion of the sky, and not came up with anything.
#2 Intelligent aliens that somehow have managed to invent a form of travel several orders of magnitude faster than light. Sure, 80% light speed might be fast enough to go to another star... but it's a given that there are no such aliens within a few light years (see #1 for explanation).
#3 Aliens that have managed to become as technologically sophisticated as all this implies, and yet so ethically/morally challenged as to come here to commit what I would think of as a universally criminal act.
#4 Aliens that find some reason, any reason to shove bizarre probes up our asses.
#5 Aliens that have no moral trouble committing kidnapping, sexual assult, torture... but fail to kill the experimental "animal" once the experiment is finished, as many scientists do with lab animals.
#6 Aliens, that having shoved probes up our asses for as long as 3 decades, that still don't have enough data about anal sphincters and need to conduct more such probings.
#7 That considering all this, we still don't have the necessary technology to at least notice that something weird really is going on. Sure, I can easily believe that we can't look at the computer, and have the sensor logs report "Klingons have entered a tight polar orbit around earth".... but damn. No exotic radition or matter samples? No alien DNA/skin scrapings underneath abductee fingernails? No photographs? (Conclusive photographs, bozos... photography was sufficiently advanced by the 1930's to show us stuff that strangely, only starts showing up after computer graphics is sophisticated enough to fake it).
#8 Aliens so cold hearted, that they can't be bothered to donate anti-"BSD IS DYING" troll technology to slashdot. OK, so this one is a little far-fetched...
Let the conspiracy nuts have fun with this list.
As a "fan" of UFO studies, I have to say that many of the skeptics in the field are idiots. They are as much hellbent extremist as many of the so called "ufo nuts". Their "daytime mass saucer hallucination" theories are utterly ridiculous.
I is not hard to understand why much of the public dismisses them.
If they would simply say, "I don't have an answer to that one", INSTEAD OF create ridiculous freudian media-induced hallucination trigger pet theories, they might carry more credibility in the public eye.
Table-ized A.I.
Personally, I feel that the questions themselves represent very limited thinking and bad science.
Example #1: The question about the big bang.
While the big bang has gained a lot of credibility over the last couple of decades, it is in no way a fact yet. It is nothing more than a best-guess based on very scant evidence. It's not unlikely that a better theory will be put out in the future as more evidence builds (one that changes the nature of how we percieve the big bang or one the discounts it entirely.) I believe at this time that the cosmological community does not completely agree that the big ban happened or what it means. (note: I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that it's not even close to being conclusive, unlike Evolution.)
2) The questions about ESP, Alien Abduction, and Astrology were very closed minded. The truth is that we still do not know enough about the world we live in to throw this stuff out as pure fantasy, especially ESP (although not reproducible, there is substantial proof that something occurs that we do not understand... perhaps very rarely or commonly) It is very, very bad science to assume that something does not exist or can not occur... that's the same thinking that has held up most great scientific discoveries.
3) Asking yes or no questions treats them as simple facts, when they are not. It misses the point to putting out an hypothesis and developing it into a theory. Theories general get worked over for quite awhile before they are either discounted to evolve into more or less a fact. Once you can "build a car" out of it, then it truly has a tangible result (Evolution vs. Big Bang.) Each question has a different degree of truth. The fact is, the universe does revolve around the Earth (Einstien pointed out in the Theory of Relativity that it was just as true as saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth.)
4) Slashdot's reaction (especially those in Tech) has been it's usually self-centered "we know better" type of reaction. Slashdotters do not. In fact, I doubt if most of you can critically evaluate the survey based on social mythology, grammar/connotation, and scientific method (which never disproves anything, but does find "better" answers that can be built on.)
Many of the reactions mirror the standard Engineering reactions to anything that isn't already a well-used formula. In my experience, Engineers are very often the most closed minded and least likely to discover something new types.
5) Here's the ultimate example of why the survey doesn't work. Do you believe in ghost? Yes/No? Is yes/no a relevant answer to a phenonenom (excuse the spelling) that we can't properly place yet. Fact: We do not know if a ghost is a physical, psychological, or other type of occurance. It could all be in someone's head. It could be a strange particle effect related to the electrical signature of a previously living person and the way it interacts with the phsycial world on a quantum level, or it could be nothing at all. That wasn't exactly a Yes/No approach was it? Yet, it was a totally valid way to view the question.
Thanks,
James
Ebonics caused such a big flap because most Americans without any linguistic training don't understand what it was about. The whole point of it was acknowledging that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is a substantially different dialect than Standard American English (SAE) which follows many different grammatical and syntactic rules and has a different vocabulary. As an aid to students in areas where AAVE is the primary dialect they wanted to have teachers use it in primary education to help the kids learn and be more successful in school. The idea is along the same lines as bilingual (Spanish and English) primary school education in states like California and Texas.
I won't get into evolutionary eugenics, but the U.S. is on top for a reason and will stay there. Period.
We have a public school system monopoly which is ineffective.
For whatever reason we defend it.
We need to get rid of it.
My twelve year old son is terrible bored with his non-challenging schoolwork.
How many people believe this is a 6th grade honors homework assignment:
Underline the words that are not capitalized.
Well it was.
Our school system are producing inferior products. The school system have produced every excuse available. Overcrowding, Low Funds, Hard to keep and maintain good people, etc. Then I read my children's assignments/textbooks and know it is the system. People on slashdot are against monopolies, we need to get the school voucher program passed so there would be open competition. I want to see my son challenged as much as he can take.
Get a free ipod.
Ya know, all those "normal" people that I'm sure everyone on slashdot is bashing, just keep something in mind. That silent majority of Americans that get up every morning, work hard, pay their taxes, etc., don't take much from society (probably didn't get Federal aid to go to college, aren't milking the system for grant money, etc.) support most of your life styles.
While all the IT workers that put in 60 hrs weeks (with 20 hrs of work, 40 hrs of playing Quake and laughing at the "rest of the world") "struggle" with their jobs being underappreciated (only getting paid 1.5x-2.0x the median income for a family of 4) because the masses don't worship them, these people that you're mocking are the reasons that their is a demand for your services.
Especially the students enjoying the free/subsidized education, realize that these people you are mocking for being stupid are paying for your education. I guess that doesn't matter, because THEY paid for YOUR education, so you're better then them.
Perhaps everyone here that lives in the "blue" parts of the map should read this thread over and wonder why the "red" parts of the map hates you guys.
Carl Sagan talks at length about exactly this issue in "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". Specifically, he talks about the rise of pseudoscience, and the roles of education and ignorance in people's beliefs.
:(
This book, tied with studies like the one referred to in this article, make my stomach turn. We should all make an effort to get in front of our respective scholastic representatives and volunteer to help in any way we can. After all, we are probably one of the largest groups of pro-science/education people around.
Unfortunately, we also seem to be one of the most apathetic.
to Animism in one fell swoop. That must be some kind of world record!
New slashdot poll:
I believe:
- I've been abducted by aliens
- Elvis is alive
- Telekinesis is real
- Psychic perception is real
- Scientology has the answers
- CowboyNeal is real
CowboyNeil isn't real?
Looks up at strange man as when someone tells a small child that there isn't a Santa, sniff, sniff, sobs
tibbon
Yeah, those crazy scientists, you can never trust 'em to tell you the straight truth. What a bunch of crazy jokers, always out to put one over on us. Not nearly as trustworthy as people like you, for instance.
Say, this is sort of like that tree falling in the woods theory. If something happens in the world that's more complicated than you can understand, does it exist?
You really kill me. I bet you don't understand how the web browser, network protocols, operating system or CPU you're using right now works. I guess that means I'm not really reading what you're posting.
There I go, talking to myself again. (sigh)
-David
We're on the road to Tycho.
"When one turns to the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what thousands of disinterested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations; what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar; how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness - then how besotted and contemptible seems every little sentimentalist who comes blowing his voluntary smoke wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream!"
-William James, The Will to Believe
We're on the road to Tycho.
I'd go off here on a tangent about how we should have a Constitutional amendment requiring prospective voters to demonstrate at least third-grade science and literacy skills before you get to vote, and maybe, I dunno, maybe an eighth-grade science education before you can run for elected office.
Actually, that's kind of what is being proposed here in Washington State: Initiative 780 would require legislators to take the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning, a test which high-schoolers are required to pass in order to graduate) and post their scores publicly. The teachers are all for it and the legislators are against it, of course...
I won't go into the games we play to make this universe more interesting.
I will say that if think psychic phenomena are real, prove it. James Randi has a wonderful $1 million prize to the person who can PROVE the existence of paranormal phenomena.
No one has won it, and no one will. Why? Because psychic phenomena, et al., are bunk. It would be really neat to live in a world where you could read other people's thoughts and effect change in the world simply with your mind. But that's not the universe we have.
If you think otherwise, prove it. Don't post about how your uncle can dowse water, or how you saw your friend after he died, etc. Sit down and prove it; prove that there are phenomena that are attributable to paranormal forces.
I'm not trying to troll, it just pisses me off when normally rational people behave in subrational ways.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
Is 'new math' the only attempt you can think of? If so, then you are practically proving my point. New Math was a top down thing, and I'm not sure it was designed with making kids like it in mind.
u lum.html
Links of Interest:
http://www.christianparents.com/edgov01.htm
Why must slashdot insert spaces where there were none? http://mathforum.org/~sarah/topics/history.curric
I'm not attacking you personally, but I have found that anyone who is 'comfortable' with their beliefs has simply stopped examining those beliefs. Being comfortable with your beliefs is like being comfortable with syphilis. Belief is a sort of disease that comes from the ego's need to protect itself from reality.
Am I trying to prove God doesn't exist? No. Am I trying to prove that he does exist? No. I'm just asking: why do we need to prove anything about God?
When you lay aside everything you think you know and think about it at that basic level, it really is quite mystifying.
There is truth in the religious experience, it didn't come from thin air. I have felt this much. But just how much of what we're told is authentic and how much is contrived to meet current political/power needs?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
theoretical math majors always seem to have the best insight into philisophical matters...
right?
Photos.
That's what I said:
... antibiotics kill viruses; THEN you have a poor understanding of science."
"If you said that
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Source, please? How was "wealth" measured - and by whom - to get that number? Also, was that one percent of the people as individuals or one percent of the "households" where different households hold different numbers of people?
I hope you are not suggesting that it is unfair to have that one percent of the population pay 40% of the taxes.
Note also that income taxes are a tax on getting rich not a tax on being rich. So even if we granted your ridiculous claim as to the current wealth distribution, a graduated income tax would make it harder, not easier, for your mythical 99% poor to catch up to the 1% rich.
I play Nerd-Folk!
So are you saying *linux is dying?
It's called IGNORANCE.
We've been reading for decades now about our lagging public educational institutions. They were sub-standard in the 80's, and now they're to that point past crisis where as a parent in all but the most affluent suburbs (and even there) I would have a serious problem sending my child to them. In New York City the high school dropout rate remains over 50%, and the facilities are so poor that classes are taught in closets, and falling masonry is literally killing students. We pay teachers here less than garbagemen; it's not just an urban problem, either, as primary school educators generally can expect to earn a fraction of what other graduate degree holders make (think attorneys, engineers, or doctors). The system's funding has been at best maintained year after year despite a burgeoning, malthusian population explosion. By now we've entered a death spiral of "reforms" and "reorganizations"; vouchers and charters (catholic school subsidy and union busting, respectively) are a perfect example, and as the conservative-liberal polemic has adopted education as one of its battlegrounds, you can't talk to anyone about it without hearing one ignorant catechism or another.
Only your teachers know the real story, which is that there aren't nearly enough of them, and getting more is tough, since as it stands right now only martyrs and discipline enthusiasts want the job.
These things have consequences.
All that separates the 1st world from the 3rd world is the schools. Without education, there's no such thing as democracy.
We're on the road to Tycho.
Who was the idiot who said, "Science vs. Religion, to the death!"
I've read the bible, and it doesn't say there is anyone up in the sky saying anything. Perhaps throughout history much of what it has said has been obscured by interpretation, but in light of this recent survey, please tell me what hasn't been obscured by interpretation (pseudoscience is roughly the same thing as science, by the majority of those surveyed).
Sun-worshiper, that is really cute.
How you denounce people's beliefs while not understanding what the are is beyond my tolerance, and so I flame you.
The first sentence in Genesis clearly states what God is: "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (the beginning and the end). Where you take that to be a man in the sky is misinterpretation of one of the oldest living histories of mankind. God is everything and all things, all knowing and all seeing, that is not His resume, that, my friend is the definition of the word "God". It doesn't matter what you call it, everything taken together has been given a moniker, and that is "God". Some people assume the bible as the word of God, and some assume it as the words of man, to me, the bible is a history of mankind, scribed by Moses, and raped by everyone who thinks they know everything.
Before the written word, there was the spoken tradition. Examples abound of oral traditions spanning many generations explaining complex philosophical problems, and providing life lessons on what is best for all. When I first read the Bible, I asked myself, what is this grocery list of names provided in Genesis, and ages of unreasonable length? Imagine, if you will, that this is part of a history, and that these ages represent clans, or philosophies, or who knows what now that time has forgotten their true origin? To me, the Old Testament seems to parallel the parables of oral traditions the world over, and to invalidate it with your pith is obsene and offensive to those who believe something moral exists in the universe, that randomness does not dictate the world we live in, and that actions carry consequences. To the end, that there is a difference between Good and Evil.
Now, I am not a spokesperson of any church. I don't care what your name for God is, if you have any belief at all above "The Universe Is Entirely Random", than you are in my camp. Perhaps your jokes aren't meant to discount a higher being, and I can accept that too, as I see hypocrisy in formal churches myself, but to say that such beliefs in a higher power are not valid is spoken without careful thought. Why the pain, why the torture, you ask? There are no answers that can be given to this question that will satisfy the pain you feel. Life is full of pain, and the fact that this design does not please you and I is irrelevant. If you don't believe God is good, than that may be your argument, but that argument does not provide evidence that God does not exist (and admittedly, my tricky definition belies this assertion, as provided by the Bible)
I've studied philosophy too, my friend, and I know that I cannot prove to you that we are not all heads in a jar being controlled by evil demons (ala Matrix, classic philosophy thought of that idea first), but despite the fact that the argument by design has holes, the pragmatic agrument has holes, and all other purely logical arguments for the existence of God have holes, I cannot, nor will I ever accept that all of these things around you, as unlikely or likely that you believe they are, have come from pure randomness (because if there is no control, nor are there any rules to the universe, than my God cannot have power, and can therefore not exist).
Perhaps, my understanding of pure randomness is naive. But from all I have gathered, I cannot percieve how something with no patterns can give rise to something that exhibits clear patterns. If randomness should govern this universe, that how can science prove anything? Science is proved on logical conclusions from a set of observations, yet if randomness governs all around us, than how can cause and effect be reality?
Wait a second, you say, I didn't say everything was random. If there is anything that is not random, than that thing by definition has rules. If a thing has rules, than that thing has a design. If there is a design, than there is "God" by my broad and all encompassing definition of the word. But wait, isn't that cheating? No. Because I never claimed to have a definition of God you could hold in your mind; I know God to be all things. So, why does God allow this, and why does God do this? These are arguments against God in the lexical sense of the concept of God, but to me, they mean nothing. To me, God owes you no explanation, because God is everything, and the sum of all parts acts with a conciousness all its own (see my rants on nationalism, etc.). That which is all things encompasses all of your questions, and posing questions to the universe as a whole is your right, but there are no rules that say you deserve an answer. In fact, if an answer was given to you, than what would you do? The final answer will never come, and that is why scientists will always have more questions to ask.
What you see and what you can imagine are on different planes. I can see that you have decided not to accept the beliefs of millions, and the fact that those millions might not know what 2+2 means doesn't mean they don't know anything at all. Aside, another observation I have made is that science and religion do not ask the same questions, but for some reason, people seem comfortable comparing the two disciplines. Science asks of a situation, "How is this reality?", and looks to explain the mechanism behind an observed phenomena. Religion asks of a situation, "Why is this reality?", and draws from our inner feelings the answers we must rely upon without support of cause and effect.
Spirituality and Knowledge do not always go hand in hand. If you feel something is not right, than you have observed that you have not been taught the entire truth; in fact, none of us have.
I don't remember the name of the theorem, but I remember (from when I used to teach Alg. 1 & 2), that it was proven that there will always be theorems that cannot be proven or derived from any existing body of knowledge.
While scientists insist that something must be proven, this overlooks the fact that science is merely a tool to understand the Universe around us. Religion and spirituality is also a tool. It is a completely different type of tool.
There is NO PROOF that ESP and other such things do NOT exist. I, personally, know several people that work as professional full time psychics. What they can tell you about a person they have never met is astounding.
Just as fundamentalist Christians knock on doors and tell people "We are right, and if you disagree with us, you are wrong and will suffer for it," people on the other end of the spectrum often do the same thing -- claim full justification for their beliefs and state that their rules for understanding the world describe everything and that there is no other possible interpertation of their evidence.
I've worked with many people involved in science, spirituality, and religion. I've always worked at keeping an open mind. I've seen no difference between Christian fundamentalists and dogmatic athiestic scients, both of whom claim only their way is right and all others are wrong.
While there may be no proof of ESP and alien abductions, there are many things science has never disproven and there is strong evidence in remote viewing (as conducted in intelligence experiments) and other "psychic" events.
Science, like religion, does not have a monopoly on Truth and does not have all the answers. It's about time scientists became open minded enough to realize there are things they do not know.
"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophies..." (Hamlet, by William Shakespeare)
stupid ignorant morons are required for civilization to advance
otherwise the smart people can't take advantage of them and make them work for $2 an hour in their sweat shops
u can also take stupid people and tell them that if they work for you for free they'll go to heaven
(hey it worked for osama, and he got them to kill themselves!!)
...deja vu? If this is proof of at least a limited amount of ESP then I whole heartedly believe in ESP because I've experienced deja vu dozens of times throughout my life. As far as aliens go, I think my thoughts are best summed up by a quote from a movie: "If it's just us, then it sure seems like an awful waste of space."
But when you ask them concerning God, they say "pfft. The world was created by billions of particles interacting randomly". Umm, yeah, whatever.
Funny how people would believe all these stories about alien abductions and believe what their Grade 10 Science teacher told them about evolution. Yet when you ask them to look at our world and how on earth do billions of random particles over billions of years == one human race out of a billion species capable of very high level understanding(i.e. we can build skyscrapers but dogs can't even build a dog house). Or if we follow their logic, why create new technology, when all you need to do is throw some random elements in a jar and shake it for a million years. Out will come a missile, a jet, skyscraper, and probably even a brand new Pentium 5. Sound crazy? I thought so.
i know i'll get modded down for bringing this up, but i wonder how the surveyed would respond to questions regarding the efficacy of alex chiu's rings. it is very possible that, were the questions presented validly, people may have answered "illogically" based on personal experiences, and the placebo effect. if you take a look at the immortality ring message board, there are several who have abnormally high faith in this deviant technology. i, myself, have been wearing the neos for a few months with no effect :). the general gullibility of the public, mixed with its lack of knowledge or even care for the field of science leads to abnormal degrees of trust for unsubstantiated claims, as long as they are presented impressively and from a supposed authority. it's interesting how all of this affects the public.
The truth is out there.
One of the CNN pollees registers on slashdot.
..to have faith without belief (and therefore without religion). Belief is something your mind expresses. Faith, to me, is just something you've experienced; something ineffable.
And beyond that, words don't really matter at all.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Ah, oops, sorry. Obviously I need to work on my reading skills...
In explaining the scientific illiteracy of the US population, the author of this article talks about the number of Americans who believe in psychic powers, UFOs and astrology. The author then writes:
This is terribly misleading writing. Unlike the previous three issues, the vast majority of scientific evidence supports the belief that the global temperatures are currently rising, and will continue to do so. While scientists may disagree about how high the temperature is going to rise to, or what factors are most to blame, the fact of global warming accepted by the vast majority of scientists. As written, the article could be read to imply that global warming, like psychic powers, UFOs and astrology, is pseudo-science.
Just had to get that cleared up. Carry on....
2.) What's 6 times 7?
Alternate questions include:
What's yellow and dangerous?
How many roads must a man walk down?
Seriously, there's a big difference between ignorance and stupidity, but I'm sure you're just kidding anyway...
c-hack.com |
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke
- passion
Psychics are like martial artists. Everywhere you go, you're going to get people that say "I know kung fu!", "I studied Ninjutsu!", or something similar. Most of them are guys who took a year of classes and can punch through a couple of pine boards. But every once in a while, someone really does know an Art.
I'm not discounting things we can't measure just because there are armies of liars, carnies, and me-toos out there claiming this, that, and the other thing. I just don't trust anyone's smugness.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I suspect that the people that use tarot cards or fall for the latest snake-oil cure (or tell you about their past lives - no one was ever middle class in a former life, they were either slave-girl to the emperor or the empress) would be doing it with or without the X files.
The great thing about the X files is that if anyone talks about almost any kind of psudo-spiritual-scientific bullshit you can stop them by saying - "Yeah, I saw that on the X-files too".
"Invincible ignorance" is certainly a problem. Well educated people are not trusted as messengers. Elmo is.
The Greg Egan short story "Silver Fire" is another good comment on an ignorant modern society.i fail to see how beleiving in UFOs can keep you from knowing science. maybe from believing accepted science yes. but i know what science says yet i admit there's a possibility of UFO's. i'm a cynical bastard, not a moron . . .
The Aura doesn't exist... but wait they have just proved that the human body has an electro-magnetic force surrounding it.... mmmh, how many other things exist that we don't yet have the tools to measure them. ESP, and other energy work, is only missing an accurate means to measure it. As soon as that is found, people will think you silly for not believing in it.
ROTFL!
"Competitive admissions"
Average SAT score: 995
They shuv OOP down our throats without first getting objective evidence, or even side-by-side comparisons, that it is globally superior.
They have gotten carried away before with Expert Systems and heavy-top-down (hierarchical structured decomposition). Thus, they have been wrong before.
Just admit that it is a black art and stop pretending like it is "science". Bertrand Meyer is an Alchemist. (And he mis-uses his own "single choice principle.")
(This concludes another anti-OO rant.)
Table-ized A.I.
As recently as the 80's the US Government spent much money researching "remote viewing" which relied upon ESP.
Regardless of the existence of ESP, the fact that they spent money investigating it proves that the possibility isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Well, drugs are frequently linked to inducing OOBEs, like in the case you mentioned, which are currently being studied at several major universities. Incidentally, OOBEs are well-recognized phenomena and are generally accepted as valid (apparently, most of us experience a few of them every night). So, in this case, if NDEs are linked to massive DMT production, OOBEs are definitely not surprising.
- Do you know Henderson's Law of the stockmarket movements?
- Do you know what waxes are good for a violin string?
- What is a fourier series?
- How many ways do you know to hold a paintbrush?
- How long is kangaroo steak best grilled for?
- What should your diet be like 8 months into pregnancy?
- How do you compile a computer program?
- What does it smell like in the Sistine Chapel? (from a great speech in Good Will Hunting)
All the questions above are important in their own ways, but only to certain people. To most others, issues like the origin of species and the power of the gene are simply outside the scope of their lives. Fine, let them be.I just hope the scientists don't try to "rectify" the situation through "raising awareness" by putting lab coats on bimbos hosting edutainment shows...
Evidence suggests that there must be many undiscovered modes and ranges and domains of perception. The human brain is fundamentally unable to conceive of certain profound dimensions of mathematical relationships, as the human eye is fundamentally unable to perceive light beyond a specific range of wavelength. Although, even the slightest glance of what is possible is enough to make someone be called a "visionary" (pun)
The obvious criterion to consider first is energy. All of human perception (and exceptions thereof) depend on the transference of some form of energy: light, heat, vibration, chemical energy. The next logical question is to ask is: is it possible to create a sensory mode that does not depend upon the emission, transmission, or reflection of energy? The obvious center point to this Is that one would need some medium by which to transmit information, but this is not true if one finds a way to detect information that is already present.
Consider: mass distorts space. If one can find a way to detect the logical distortion of a distant object, thereby making it possible to sense an object indirectly. Therefore, the true question is, is there an efficient by which one can detect gravity waves?
Enough rambling for now, i'm tired.CNN reports people are stupid. Film at 11.
Does this really suprise anyone? Think of the last 10 strangers you met or interacted with. At least 5 of them were morons. I don't think the guy working the drive through window or the lady manning the register at the gas station would understand 10 second synopsis of quantum mechanics, let alone any extensive study of it. They're still stuck on the word "synopsis." Hell, most of them can't figure out how much change to give you from a $20 if the register doesn't do the math for them. Throw in the people who haven't figured out that, despite the fact that many handheld mobile devices are available, you still need at least one free hand and at least a smidgen of attention to drive a car. Add at least half, if not all, of your company's marketing department. Even if you live in a rich neighborhood, a couple of your neighbors are morons. Look at Home Shopping Network, WB or the E! channel. Who do you think their audience is? I actually saw a few minutes of a game show who's actual name I didn't catch, but for all intents and purposes was "Who's the biggest dumbass?" And people volunteered to be on it.
They probably don't even know what atoms are, and explaining that what happens to little invisible things that make up everything they see is governed by probability would get you a nice, glazed look and a big fat "So what?" Magic powers of mind reading is far more tangible to them than the "magic" world of quantum mechanics.
(To the anal: yes, I've oversimplified QM, so shut up.)
This sentence no verb.
Belief is not a disease. In the world, the person who quests a lifetime is as likely to figure it all out as the person who sits and accepts everything he was ever taught from birth. If accepting a certain view of the world as truth helps you get through the day and be a happy person then what is wrong with that?
A disease deblitates and damages. A religion or belief can do this (the history books are filled with this), but some of the happiest people I've ever met were "comfortable" with their beliefs. They were comfortable and thus didn't feel they had to convince me they were right. They didn't feel a need to judge others for their different beliefs. They are not anymore right than anybody else is but they are happy and what is wrong with thaat?
A certain amount of questioning is healthy, but too much questioning can be just as destructive as too much belief. What should I do with my life? Why should I do it? All these questions become very difficult to answer when you strip away all your beliefs.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Most of the things they talk about have *NOTHING* to do with science, and thus nothing to do with understanding science. In fact, they are mostly maters of religion, to which science is irrelavent.
If they want to know about people's understanding of science they need to look at thier understanding of the scientific method and scientific thought, perhaps philosophy of science, not this stuff.
Perhaps asking if psychic powers are scientifically varified, etc., would provide an iderrect clue to a limitted understanding of science (and a direct sign of ignorance of current theories and data) -- but asking if they believe in them in general is irrelavent. In fact, it make me wonder if the people who designed this "research" really understood science themselves.
Sorry, but there's no other way to describe it. Scientists take no more on faith than the religious do. The only thing that they take on faith is that what their senses tell them is basically accurate, and that other individuals besides themselves exist who have their own senses that work.
Your example on repeatability is easily disproven with one counterexample: quantum mechanics. Everything is probabilistic by nature, and never exactly repeatable in principle.
Science does not use the mind for anything but best guesses on where to look for new phenomena. Mathematics is the field where a precise language is defined, a priori, and then used by science to describe what they observe. True, scientists generally assume that things observed over and over again don't change, but if they did then science is still no in trouble because that only means that the theory was wrong and needs to be changed. Perhaps there was some special circumstance not considered before (just like when magnets rotated to align with the Earth's field), perhaps the process is governed by probability, etc.
For some great info on what science actually is, go to www.wikipedia.com and check out their article on the scientific method and the associated discussion page. They do a much more thorough and complete job than I.
BlackGriffen
That's a great quote.
BG
that happened between now and then called "The Enlightenment." Just read up on Francis Bacon and Galileo to see what has fundamentally changed from the Greeks like Aristotle sitting on their duffs and saying, "This sounds reasonable."
BlackGriffen
That's a very nice phrase, but enough of a correlation *does* allow you to deduce a causative relationship. Parroting it in situations like this just reveals your own foolishness, in the same way that saying that evolution isn't "proven" because it's "just" a theory does.
Anyway, the pathway from "smoke particles in lungs" to "hideous tumors consuming your living flesh" is well-documented at every step, and has been for decades.
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
How can people possibly believe that a being that created the universe and everything in it could still give a crap about one species on one planet that isn't much evolved past being a instinct driven animal? (Don't believe me? Watch how most people behave and think pack animal. Not everyone, just most)
If there is a being that created the universe and can control everything that happens in it (from the smallest sub-atomic interaction to galaxies forming and even the Hurd project) do you honestly believe that a human could could even begin to comprehend It? (Yes It. If yuo are the supreme being then what sex You are also kind of irrelevant). And do you honestly believe that it wants you as an individual to bow down to It? Even if It was interested in making the universe a better place by imposing rules on what you are supposed to do, do you really think It would give a crap if you called it Allah, Jahova, God or any other name(s)? (This being a major part of pretty much all religions, don't bow down to false idols)
When it comes to the crunch humans are insignificant in the scheme of things. Have a think about religion in that context and tell me it isn't atleast a bit perverted.
Also, I don't think that the messanger of the supreme being is going to be a guy on cable tv with a bad hair style asking for your money. If the supreme being exists, it is going to have serious style.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I'm with you on #2-8 however...
SETI is not a conclusive method for disproving the existence of intelligent life in the scanned areas. If SETI doesn't find anything, all that really means is that nobody is sending out radio signals into space.
And on another note (probably should be a separate post, but this discussion is so damned long already...) The same brand of faulty logic is used in the article. Here's my question for these pollsters:
How is belief in the supernatural contrary to belief in the sciences?
Most of these things, like ESP or alien abduction have not been conclusively disproven. and as for the big bang- religious leaders aren't the only ones to reject this idea- many legit scientists don't believe it either!
What do Americans teach their kids at school, if not that the Earth goes around the Sun once a year?
That the Earth revolves around America.
This is such an apt comment, I fully agree. It's incredibly concise too, but just to beat a dead horse I feel I need to elaborate:
Of two previously powerful Empires in history (make no mistake, the U.S. is more or less an Empire) The Roman Empire and The British empire suffered from what is basically Ethnocentrism.
That is, that American culture is in power, thus it's citizens view the world from their position of power and conclude that: "Since we are the most powerful and influential country in the world, why bother caring about the world outside my little realm? I live in the best country in the world, and I don't need to go elsewhere to know that."
Furthermore, this leads to inward looking, and a decline of the very social forces that put an Empire into power in the first place. It happend to the Romans and The British, and probably many more.
So, I find it interesting that this "apathy" on the part of a large percentage of the American population is just a symptom of a larger problem at work: Ethnocentrism. Make no mistake - the United States will continue to be the major power for some time, probably well after everyone who is reading this comment is dead and gone. However, this attitude will eventually lead to the erosion of the foundation that makes the United States as powerful as it is right now.
(No, this is not a troll, just an observation, look this stuff up yourself.)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Let's say you're a scientist. You can five of your prestigious scientist buddies go out on a camping trip and witness a strange flying object doing crazy aerobatics that defy the laws of physics. Who exactly do you tell?
The trouble with all this stuff is that somewhat fringe ideas that might be worthy of further study (what if there are really alien visitors?) are lumped together with complete idiocy.
I've got a strong engineering background, and enough college physics to understand the basics of relativity, but I question some beliefs of the scientific establishment. The sad fact is that there are likely a lot of scientists who really would like to take a serious, open-minded look at the UFO phenomenon, but the only way to examine it and keep the respect of one's peers is the weather-balloons-full-of-swamp-gas approach.
At the moment, modern science isn't capable of giving serious attention to things like the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors. Why should it be trusted to be the final word?
Here at the MPAA we believe that science, while somewhat useful, has simply got to go if we are to protect our property in the digital age. Literacy is bad enough, driving criminals to "public libraries" where they can read books as often as they want without paying anyone; teach these ethically challenged consumers how to program computers and crack codes, and we have a real crisis on our hands. Not to mention the fact that an educated, discerning public requires us to spend considerably more money and effort producing quality entertainment. We can't figure out exactly who's at fault there, but clearly some kind of theft is taking place.
A literate, educated public may be necessary for a democracy, but it is represents a severe threat to the entertainment industry. In this time of national crisis, we all need to chip in, for instance by spending 8 dollars or so to see a total piece of crap like "The Scorpion King." An "educated" person would probably stay at home reading Paradise Lost, without spending a dime to reimburse copyright holders. It's a shame that our government not only permits such acts, but tacitly encourages them by failing to enforce real, effective copyright controls (which, by the way, "science" claims to be impossible.)
Proponents of "scientific literacy" should ask themselves how they would feel if someone stole their wallets and then murdered them.
According to this study less than half of Americans know whether electrons or atoms are bigger. Doesn't this indicate a flaw in the study? My lucky nickel is smarter than that.
My bet is that the way the questions were worded affected the answers people gave.
Don't be too cocky, people. ;)
1) There are 'superstitions' which have been scientifically verified in their effect. For instance, aspects of Ayurvedic medicine are being vindicated in the recent past, mostly by bio-engineering companies that take data on particular 'medicinal' rices and use it to obtain patents. That doesn't mean that Astrology is an effective tool at predicting the future. It does, however, indicate that it is sometimes profitable not to ignore information obtained by some process other than the modern scientific method. (Another one I've heard about recently, but don't have as much knowledge of - the Chinese have been using Wormwood for many years to stop tumor growth and sometimes reduce it. I'm sure google can tell you more.)
2) There are scientific givens that have been proven false. Medicine and nutrition have good examples to examine; they are peer-reviewed like every other scientific field of endeavor, and yet it shocks me at times how quickly previous 'common knowledge' was mitigated by some sort of different finding, if not outright retracted.
In a longer time frame, our concepts of mechanics have been altered since their first inception... consider that quanta follow very very different rules. It doesn't prove Newton extremely wrong, but it sure as hell indicates that Newton would have been blowing smoke out his ass if he said, "This is it, it's all done now."
3) There are conditions under which modern scientific method fails to apply. Let's assume for a moment that some condition is extremely hard to reproduce. Maybe even mathematically provably hard. We'll say it's some quantum effect or other, and it only happens under very precise conditions, some of which we can't currently measure because we don't have appropriate instruments. A thing happens, and is empirically observed, but cannot be replicated at this time. Did it happen? Of course. To say that there can be no such event would be naive at best. We have had past instances of this.
4) There are conditions which cannot be measured and re-created by scientific method, because of some inherent quality of these conditions. The irony here is this - it's a statement of faith. This can't be backed up by scientific evidence. I happen to believe it. It can neither be proven true or false, except experientially. (Think 'anecdotally.')
Now, here's the kicker: To deny point #4 suggests faith in the converse - That all conditions can be measured and re-created by scientific method, regardless of the inherent qualities of these conditions. Not to say that science is a religion, but this hints at blind faith that the scientific method can provably describe all possible states that we experience. I say 'blind faith' - 'scientific' people denying their own experience are just as unwilling to see as people denying truly empirical data.
I personally believe that scientific methodology is a tool, and a great one. We can make computers and predict the movements of gases across the universe, and we can make statements about what we should eat and how we should live if we want to be healthy. It doesn't tell us much about how we should act or what we should value, and it doesn't tell us anything about things that cannot be predicted. So scientific knowledge is useful and grand, but there are more things in this world than are enumerated in your philosophy. ;)
And yes, I believe that people can know things without scientifically acceptable reasons.
Not terribly surprising results, really.
For those arguing science == pseudosciece == religion, I have two words for you:
Peer Review.
This is what separates true, hard science from the claims of cranks and weirdos, and even from religious authority.
Ideas in the realm of science must undergo INTENSE scrutiny and criticism from the scientific community before they will be accepted. This is part and parcel of the scientific method and one of the reasons science is so great at explaining the physical world. Every claim is held accountable and forced to prove it is a correct explanation.
The fact that so many people don't understand this, and that they consider scientific knowledge to be the same as any other kind of knowledge is appalling.
As for religious scientists, consider, just for a moment, the possibility that the two aren't mutually incompatible! Only when you subscribe to LITERAL interpretations of religion do they become incompatible. I would wager most (not all of course) religious scientists view their faith as something to answer questions science simply cannot answer. For instance, science tells us IF we can do something; religion answers the question SHOULD we do something. Liberal religious scholars are understanding that post Enlightment, religion has to step back and not try to answer questions about the physical world.
However, compare the 6,000,000 Southern Baptists to the few thousand Unitarians and you will see why there is such a clash. Many many people still accept religious explanations for the physical world over scientific ones, or at least try to hold them on equal footing when these are clearly not the same kind of truth. Blah, so much for the post Enlightment age of reason.
They forgot to mention Jeasus Christ?
What about other mythical figures like Noah, or Cain and Able?
Most people don't need to know shit about physica or electrical engineering. What they need to know is some business sense. They need to learn what advertising bullshit is. They need to know when they are being conned, by people they are supposed to trust like congress. The need to be taught that they to not need a loan at 25.99% interest to buy a new computer.
Science makes living confortable, business let's people afford it.
Well, yes, it does, because there is a huge body of evidence that says ESP does not work, that psychic powers do not exist, and that nobody has ever been abducted by aliens. Sorry, but there is such a thing as negative evidence; you need a large number of trials before you can be confident in it, but we have those.
There are even several demonstrated causes for people to claim that these things exist; "trying to steal money", "pandering for attention", and "claimant is delusional" are three of the more common ones.
If only the rate were as low as 60%
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
#1, along with the others are offered as evidence, not proof.
;-)
On that note, #1 is still valid... each day SETI makes it less likely that there are any intelligent aliens in this neighborhood of space. If life (and intelligence) are anything but ultra-rare, we should have heard something by now.
Though, who knows if radio technology is common. Maybe most species skip past it rather quickly. Maybe #1 is as weak as #8.
Sixty percent of Slashdotters argue that spelling and grammar are not important.
"It's just science; who cares?"
"It's just English; who cares? People know what I mean."
All meaningful knowledge should be important.
ChicagoFan, who almost certainly made a spelling or grammar mistake somewhere in this post
...regarding the 'evidence' (or lack thereof) for psi talents, the existence of UFOs, etc.
Would those who truly do have paranormal talents be more likely to publicize(sp?) -- and prove -- the existence of such? Or would they, not wanting to risk being turned into lab rats and tabloid celebrities for the rest of their days, tend to keep a very low profile? Perhaps even by the time-honored technique of hiding in plain sight?
If there really are extraterrestrials among us, as some claim, do you really think they'd advertise themselves as such?
My point is this: Can ANY of us say, with absolute 142% certainty, that psi talents are hogwash and trickery? That aliens don't exist? That things like parallel universes and traversable wormholes CANNOT exist?
Of course not. To do so is to invite the eventual tripping of a large 'Murphy switch' that will prove the sayer wrong. HOWEVER -- neither can any of us, as far as I know, say for certain that such things DO exist.
That's the beauty of all the mysteries in Life itself: We Just Don't Know! Even after we discover something new, it takes decades or even centuries to learn all the various things we can do with it (Example: Electricity).
Here's the real kicker. Our science can only DESCRIBE an object, event, or living thing, in terms defined and limited by our perceptions and comprehension of that which we call 'mathematics.' It cannot, in any way, DEFINE the total nature of that object, event, or living thing.
In other words: Calling a large creature that breathes air, and spends its life in the ocean a 'whale' simply applies a convenient label that we, as a race, comprehend amongst ourselves. It in NO WAY DEFINES the true nature of that whale. How can it? I don't think any of us are deities.
In summary: Take that survey however you want to. Personally, I think it's hilarious!
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Would that be Creationism or cretinism?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
No, it won't do any good to clench; it's already managed to steal a peanut. :(
There isn't an answer for everything. Maybe there never will be. "I don't know" is a valid answer sometimes. That doesn't mean I make something up to fill the gap, it means that we accept that we don't know how something works.
Calling on faith every time there isn't an answer from science is a cop out. Don't know why? God did it.
Modern religion has constructed themselves very intentionally to avoid making scientific predictions, that's why they're still around. How many people you know that worship Jove or think that that group of bright lights in the sky control the oceans?
Good thing that there are curious people (even quite religious people can be curious) that stive to know. They look for the answers.
Acutally, most religious leaders, worldwide, accept the truth of the theory of evolution. (The Pope does, for example, as does the Anglican hierarchy.) The United States is exceptional here, but even in the US a large number of religious leaders accept evolution. For some examples, see Voices for Evolution .
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
> Now, if you said that humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time,
> The former has been proven to the best of our ability,
When was it proven that 'humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time' ?
> or that antibiotics kill viruses;
> the later has been proven outright.
Or did you mean disproven ?
How many of you are actually practising scientists? No, computer science does not count. I mean real, actual physicists, biologists, chemists, etc. Not so many, i would gather. That would explain your crude, unreconstructed belief that science is an adogmatic search for the "truest truth" and not a very human, very social, very very money-driven pursuit. It may be difficult for a person to publish totally erroneous results for long in a peer-reviewed journal (but not too hard - I do see it happen, especially when powerful senior scientists do favours for journal editors) but it is not hard at all for an entire realm of possibility to be ignored as untestable or hokum.
People, I challenge you. The evidence is out there. Go find it. This world is not as simple as it looks. We are not almost about to unravel the universe's last mysteries. Paranormal phenomena have *not* been consistently disproven by really fair studies. Numerous so-called skeptics have been easily exposed to be little more than charlatans who do not understand the principles of the science they are supposed to be championing; using the most prejudiced and inaccurate analyses in an attempt to discredit good, solid evidence. I don't need to tell you where this evidence is - it is easy to find on the net.
What I have read so far has taught me two things: one, science is not even close to the perfect tool for acquiring and disseminating knowledge, and two, real, honest scientific studies have brought back statistically significant evidence of paranormal effects if the right setting is used. NB here: the right setting does not in any way violate any sort of blind or randomization process to skew the data.
Just go look. The Universe is more complicated than you think. If I can reach any one of you, this last ten minutes will not have been wasted.
No, science is not "just another religion", and I'm sick of hearing it slandered that way. It's true that a minimal number of things have to be assumed in science (e.g., the cosmological principle), but that does not make these assumptions tenets of "faith". If there was sufficient evidence that one of these assumptions was wrong, it would be (eventually) discarded. What religion can claim that?
Here's a simple phrase you can use to distinguish science from religion:
Religion searches for evidence to fit its convictions. Science searches for convictions to fit its evidence.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
This drives me crazy. Quantum phenomena are MICROSCOPIC (actually sub-nanoscopic) phenomena so you don't get those effects at the macroscopic (our) level. That's why quantum mechanics was developed AFTER classical physics (and relativity).Classical physics worked well enough at the macro level except for a few things. Those few things were covered by relativity, except a few things. Those things are being covered by quantum mechanics, except a few things, etc, etc...
Local and state governments are consistantly being pushed for more educational funding. Books are expensive and are not freely given by the companies that print them. They have to be paid for, each and every one, and the majority of the time the state does not have the money to do so. What ends up happening is the re-use of older books because teachers have a lack of available mediums with which to educate. They have to use what's available, even if what's available isn't the newest, most accurate tool.
-Whipsmartkitten, "Teacher in training."
We have a government that promotes fraud in all areas of business, politics, medicine, and religion, so it's not unexpected that the population should lack all skepticism or any sense of the value of science.
--Blair
- Why is the sky blue?
- What makes the colors in a rainbow?
Now let's see how many teachers can answer those two simple questions.It would be very intersting to see a slashdot 'vote' of the result by country.
Where exactly /are/ these "feel good" methods being used? As a college student working toward a degree in early childhood education, I tend to spend a lot of time in and around various schools. I keep hearing people talk about teachers not being able to fail students, or teaching them that "whatever feels right to you is the right answer", but I swear I've never seen it being actively practiced. I know, it must a secret they'll let me in on after I've actually gotten my degree. ;)
-Whipsmartkitten, "Teacher in training."
I'm sure that there are many more classes being taught now than when I was in high school. However there probably are classes that aren't offered at your local high school, or if you're a student, there's the case where there just isn't enough room, and they've cut you off based on GPA or some nonsense like that. That's why there aren't more students taking the APs.
Here's a little tip: you can take the AP test without taking the class. In fact, in some cases, it might be more beneficial for you to do that.
In my last year of high school, I took 6 AP tests, but I only took 2 AP classes. In addition to the community college classes I took, and AP tests I had taken earlier (streching back to 8th grade) this gave me some 40+ units of credits when I went to college, sparing me a year's worth of basic prerequiste classes, and saving me a year's worth of tuition. In the span of a quarter, I went from freshman to junior standing, and I could have graduated in 3 years if I had chosen to do so.
How do you do this? Easy. Have them order the test for you and proctor it, either as part of the class that is taking it or by yourself. Alternatively, you can contact another local school where the class is offered and have them include you on test day. I did that for the AP English Literature test (I got a 5.) The only cost to you is the test - they could care less if you're going to do the AP as long as you aren't actually in the class, taking up the teacher's time, and freaking out some yuppie parents who want their kids, and ONLY their kids to monopolize the teacher's time.
On that topic, I recommend the REA guides to the GRE exams when studying. For those who aren't familar, the GRE exams are the equivalent of standardized college exams for undergrads, and are necessary in most cases for admission to grad school. Since they cover the undergrad class curriculum, they are ideal for studying for the AP - especially the REA books, which have loads of sample problems to work through.
There's no need to drop out of High School if you're bored - make that time work for you instead. Do independent study with the dropouts, and while they repeat basic math, you can churn through stupid required courses like health, career choices, home econ, etc. on your own time. Once you're done with that you can read up on PHP, study for APs, or design a new hardware interface for 802.11b mesh systems.
Volunteer for a period of service with the library, and during the down time (how many students actually visit the library these days? Not many - that's a lot of spare time for you to read and do the super-easy homework that you've been blowing off.) Volunteer for a period of service with the college counselor's office to get first crack at the scholarships and contests that land in the office. Spend your time preparing for Science Bowl, Mock-Trials, Academic Decathalon, Junior Statesmen, Junior ROTC, etc. You get the idea. You don't need to waste your time on time-killing classes. Be proactive and hammer away at your counselor (I would visit during every spare period and between classes, waiting patiently in the office, until I got each and EVERY class that I wanted.)
Colleges will love the fact that you were motivated enough to do the APs by yourself, even if your regular course grades aren't all that good (cause the classes stink.) I had a horrible GPA without all the extra honors and AP points - if an A is a 4.0, and a B is a 3.0 I had something around a solid C... which gave me a slot on the school Academic Decathalon Team. However, when it came time to apply to college, the total package I presented to them with extra-curricular and test scores got me a fully-funded first year of school at UCLA (I originally got in to Johns Hopkins, but the bastards stiffed me on the financial aid.) Take all the breaks that people are willing to give you as a High School student, those free bonuses will get fewer and fewer as you get older.
33 percent said that this statement was true (according to the NSF, this was the correct answer).
However, this is complete nonsense.
The big bang is not an explosion at all. This is an unfortunate misnomer that cosmologists would like to correct. But the bad name has stuck.
The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each thinks they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center.
Run the story going back and time and the sheet was more and more unstretched and the people were closer together. When everybody is so close they are on top of one another, that is is the beginning of the big bang picture - the cosmic singularity. At that time, the universe has nearly infinite density and temperature.
Personally, it doesn't surprise me that most Americans don't understand science if even the simpletons at the NSF can't get it right.
As someone who is trying to put themselves through college to become an elementary school teacher, thank you for understanding.
-Whipsmartkitten, "Teacher in training."
I just had to point that out. It's interesting that every time I am thinking of a song, and I turn on the radio, that song is playing. Today, for instance, I was sitting at home and got this sudden urge to start singing "Hooked On A Feeling" by Blue Swede. I went to get groceries about 3 hours later. When I came out to the car and turned on the radio, for some reason, someone had set it to a classic rock station, and Hooked On A Feeling started playing immediately. I'm not saying it's undeniable evidence, but strange things do happen.
Albuquerque PC
Feh. It could just mean that 60% (or a portion of 60%) were wise-asses. In highschool I was asked to take part in an official poll on gambling. Being a wise-assed punk I of course answered falsely as if I had a real huge gambling problem, even though I never so much as bought a lottery ticket. I asked my friends later that day, and they all lied on the survey also.
Sure enough, about a year later I was watching the news and saw a "shocking report on teenage gambling problems."
_______
2B1ASK1
A-theism means "without belief in a god" and nothing more.
It is a negative, not a postitive, and as such it is not an argument at all. Atheism it not something that you prove. You do not prove negatives or non-things. As such it is ridiculous to say that atheism is a "religion". Atheism is a religion like the lack of belief that today is Monday is a religion. And ALL unborn children are atheists.
Anti-theism (against all gods), on the other hand, is probably what you mean when you say "atheism". All anti-theists are atheists, but all atheists are not anti-theists. In fact MOST atheists are not anti-theists.
Glad we cleared that up.
# By nature of being alone, atheists are smarter than everyone else. Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question. Further, atheists are not subject to the pedestrian difficulties of respecting the points of view of others in the course of discussion. This is called "free thought".
If you want to believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I respect your point of view. If you want to believe in the Christian God, I also respect your point of view. It really doesn't matter to me that I know both of these beliefs are necessarily false beliefs; that there are no invisible pink unicorns and no omnipotent dieties. Believe whatever you wish. This is called "free thought."
# Under their intrinsic immunity to the inverse application of their accusations, atheists are capable of making statements such as "Enforcing your beliefs in moral absolutes upon others is wrong." without being concerned with the paradox such statements represent.
It is impossible to enforce the belief of atheism because atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief, specifically, the lack of belief in a god. Like maybe aunicornism is the lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods.
Someone could enforce the beliefs of anti-theism, but to claim that all anti-theists want to enforce their beliefs on others is also absurd.
# Still further related to the "platform" explained above, atheists may make any convenient reference to the evils of world religion (whose proof is subject to the provisions outlined in point one), without applying this analysis to practiced atheism (such as that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot).
You are talking about enforced anti-theism, NOT enforced atheism. Repeat after me: All anti-theists are atheists, but all atheists are not anti-theists.
In summary, then, your argument is well supported by your beliefs. However, because my religion teaches common respect (Christianity), I cannot subscribe to your argument.
You are putting the cart before the horse. You should never support arguments with beliefs, you should support beliefs with arguments. Supporting arguments with beliefs the fundamental logical fallacy the most religions share.
human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals(true/false).
If this were a question "science" was willing to ask on an empirical level, then it might be worth putting in a pole. Till then, this pole seems to be saying 53% of Americans have had bad philosophy shoved down their throat and accepted it. Of course, 53% is pretty close to even odds on a true/false question.
Do scientists ever learn?
Not about some things...
Under the current circumstances, people feel unsafe. They might easily loose their jobs, their social security, their life.
When people feel unsafe, they usually look for relief in "higher truths" that are magically able to get them out of the bad situation. Like X files said, "I want to believe" (and also I need to believe). The presence of a mighty God gives hope to the people in trouble.
Under difficult circumstances, it is difficult for a person to admit that he is blind, and adopting science and the scientific principles means we are blind, because there are a lot of things that are not yet explained.
Most people fear to touch a computer, for Christ's sake! They feel that it is the instrument of Satan.
All this discussion about whether UFOs or ESP might actually exist despite the lack of scientific evidence, about whether the poll is biased and anti-religious, about whether the answers to the poll are indeed "right", misses the main point about science.
Observations in science must follow the scientific method. Hypotheses must be testable, and verifiable or falsifiable. Hypotheses like "there is an invisible, ethereal, undetectable dragon in my garage," or "ESP exists but is fundamentally undetectable in scientific experiments" are not even scientific hypotheses because they're not testable. So believe whatever you want about these things, but they don't belong in the realm of science. Science is not a set of beliefs, but is a method for resolving questions about observable, repeatable phenomena.
Debates about whether there are things that are "true" that can't be proven by science, or whether all things verified by science are "true", are more philosophical debates about the nature of "truth" than they are scientific debates. Science presumes that nature follows rules (even non-intuitive and probablistic rules in cases like quantum physics) and is therefore repeatable, and that these rules can be divined through experimentation and observation. If you don't believe this, it doesn't mean you are wrong (in the sense of philosophical truth) but it does mean that your beliefs are "unscientific."
It is not evident (to me, anyway) that theories about evolution and creation are really even scientific theories, because they're not directly testable, though they are based on scientific understanding of underlying physical processes which are separately testable.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
I wonder how Albert Estein would feel if he hears the news? =)
http://www.palmzone.net
Radio - see UWB. SETI may be able to find UWB transmissions out there, but what about the next stage in our EM transmission technology? At what point does SETI discover that they've been listening to the galaxy-wide-ultra-net all along? ;) And, even worse, what if it's not EM? What if we're using something quanta based in the next 50 years? That means that we'll have had radio transmissions coming from this planet for maybe 300 years before we start to change our tech. (I'm including the concept that we still use radio for many things for another century or so after we start mass-producing other less obtrusive technology.)
That leaves a resolution of 300 years out of (what is it this week?) 13 billion? I think one can see that 'skip past it rather quickly' is what we're doing. We can even claim we've only been "civilized" for a good 5000 years. Our species has only been around for something like 10000. If we're already finding alternatives to radio, what's the likelyhood that our highly advanced alien friends are still bothering to beam it at us? ;)
As for #2, our concepts in physics are changing quite rapidly at this time. Between teleportation of quanta and attempts at opening wormholes, I think it's pretty safe to say that if we're successful with these things we'll have some pretty fast travel available in the (technologically) near future. And we're not even bothering with the anal probing - usually. ;)
No, you really don't understand science. A real scientist says, 'Who cares?' if something 'can't be proven or disproven'. It's outside the realm of science, and has no impact in the world we live in.
If it had any impact, it could be tested, and would be provable. Simple, simple logic....
Unfortunately, those little sentimentalists to whom the quote refers are likely neither to understand it nor to believe that it refers to them.
You want my opinion? Three words: Education, Education, Education! The Irish Constitution, like the US Constitution, mandates freedom of religion, and I take that to mean that people are free to do without religion. So, why are schoolchildren taught to believe in unprovable assertions? From theistic religion to aliens and ESP is but a short step, if you do not have a grounding in scientific principles.
(this is not a
(I'm not going to post a link to one bookstore and thus give it more hits - your own favorite bookstore should have it.) Alternatively, if your attention span doesn't allow for the absorption of an entire book, at least go and rent "Contact". After all, if there weren't other civilizations out there, it would be an awful waste of space...
(this is not a
I believe aliens get abducted all the time, thats why we don't see many of them.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Just thought you all should know. I participated in the blackout, but to the point of not even /going/ to slashdot.org since last sunday. Today was my first day I visited slashdot, then clicked through to a story, and, guess what, I have moderator rights. Ha.
HEH!
It's the moron's problem, that they don't know anything and dislike science. Science is alive and well, among several millions of educated and smart enough people.
Am I arrogant? So what?
In a country where in some parts of it, it is forbiden to teach the evolution theory... what else is new?
Two nights ago I rented the American Pie 2 DVD. In one of the first scene, Oz is studying for an exam. The title of the paragraph he is reading is "finding the equation to a line" with as illlustration a straight line. This is no on the tenth page, this is about in the middle of the book.
Need i say more ?
My horoscope said that an unexpected event would occur today and I should be on the lookout for new possibilities.
My coffee at Starbucks took too long to prepare so I got a free coupon (unexpected event!). I noticed a cute looking girl in line and I offered her the coupon (possibility!). yadda yadda yadda. I got a hummer in the Starbucks restroom.
As for me and Mini-AC we believe...
Unfortuneately, that's not the USA we live in...
First of all, the `silly stories' in question include instruction to test things out for yourself, and only keep the bits that work.
Secondly, the archaeology in the silly stories is better than outside them, and has been for nigh on 2k years.
Thirdly, said silly stories happen to frequently predict the future (from the writers' POV) with pinpoint accuracy, and also record fulfilments of some earlier predictions.
Fourthly, physical copies of texts from before 2k years ago have been found, and despite claims of babelfishing, they're still accurate.
Fifthly, to believe in evolution, you have to lay aside critical thinking. Really! Ask Steve Gould and the other punkeekers to show you why Darwinian evolution doesn't work, and he will. Ask their Darwinian opponents to show you why punkeek doesn't work, and they will. End of story. No Creationism, `silly stories' or even Intelligent Design, required so far.
Now: get a life to replace your broken opinion! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Some people out there appear to think they "know" things not yet proven by science: The Onion. Scary!
And alien abduction is that really _so_ unlikely ?
It seems that you can find a Scientist to back any stance you can think of. This makes me wonder how much of "science" really is science. Is what we consider to be the scientific truth nothing more than a large group of scientist agreeing to a certain conclusion and using pieces of evidence to back their claims. Without our freedom of free speech and the ability to challenge any scientific theory by going to a local university and conducting the expirements ourselves in some cases it is easy to see how in countries that tightly control the press and its scientist how easily our reality could be so easily distorted, then again who is to say it isnt.
FP TO ALL AC TROLSS MUHTAFSCKER
o lo lololol!!!!!1lololololololol!!!!!1lololololololol! !!!!1
lololololololol!!!!!1lololololololol!!!!!1lolol
Amazing that nobody has seemed to even think of the fact it's not just Americans who read these CNN stories. The poll results are likely to have a large international bias, given the America-bashing subject matter of the story.
d) People from abroad visit CNN web surveys
We are on the Internet, you know...
Regards, an occasional reader from Scandinavia
Lets face it, most of the people in this world are not gifted with even a remote understanding of how it works, its easier to pin your understanding on something up there in the sky (be that an idea or an entity of some kind).
Mankind has been doing this since the dawn of time, its only in recent times that a few bright individuals have turned up saying "well actually thats a bit bollocks really, and heres why", sadly these types are normally burned at the stake (in one way or another).
Science has a process that it uses to prove/disprove theory, this is somewhat different from the et/psi/mole at the bottom of my garden theorists. Sure it might be flawed, or open to abuse, but at least it exists.
I dont think that any rational person can seriously believe that aliens have been somehow touching down on earth for the last 50 years, in america, without the whole world actually being aware of it (after all they are that interesting, or maybe the aliens have the same view of the world as americans, i.e. that they are the centre of it).
The government of the united states is probably in no hurry to dispell the rumours of a cover up as 1. There is nothing to cover up, and 2. Its far more fun to let people rabbit on about ET, so long as it covers up what you are really up to.
Anyone disagree? PROVE IT!
In the world of GIS(Geo-Information Systems, basically hardcore maptech), there exists such a thing as a Datum. Datums are constant values that are used to determine the precise latitude and longitude of a location. The most common datum was developed in the 1920's; it had to be revised sixty or seventy years later because advanced satellite technology had accuracy that surpassed what was possible with 1920's mapping methods. Datum error only introduces a few hundred meters of distortion, but GPS is good enough to tell you what side of the street you're on. More accuracy was required -- at the expense of breaking the previously absolute standard of Latitude and Longitude.
So, why would I bring up this incredibly boring piece of geek trivia, in a discussion bemoaning the lack of science knowledge among the general population? Simple:
When was the last time somebody threw themselves off a bridge because they couldn't get a datum?
--Dan
once upon a time (13 years ago and more) there were some agitation films telling our countries that "the others" are not so good as ours.
:) and i start to think that the movie was a good one. :) that's ok but which movie is better then?
i talk about the ex-Capitalist and the ex-socialist countries , so called West And East.
in one of those i saw 2 pictures of the world, one that is created by the memory of an American 10 year old boy on a blank paper , and the same created by a russion youngster the same age and again on blank paper.
well, the film was a russion one so the picture of the russion boy was much better, and very close to what you see when you open the map of the world,at least when i watched the film i thought so, but after reading this in cnn.com i am not so sure anymore
by the way i suppose that in the similar american films during this time would show some mirror pictures and the map of the american boy would brobably be the "much better one".
probably the answer is that when you are not hungry most of the time, you quickly stop thinking and learning, and prefer just having fun and watch the X-files.
have you ever heard about a hungry american?
one thing is for sure, it is not very clever to blame the X-powers for making your car move, or for analysing "OK" button after being pushed, and the americans should know that.
i would read similar study for russions with a great interest, what would you say about that?
Read the questions -- unbelievably vague and broad. Of course most people would answer as they did. The article cites widespread belief in "pseudoscience" -- a poorly defined term in itself, but one which is construed to include many things which are simply in their infancy scientifically-speaking. So if you ask me whether I believe that somewhere someone possesses some sort of mental ability which might be described as "psychic," I'd say yes, it's quite probable. Ms. Cleo is a different story.
My point here is that the story sensationalizes a poorly constructed study (a poll, really) which supports a view that many who are "scientists" hold. Much like other poorly constructed studies have produced gems like cold fusion. The irony is poignant and staggering.
Of the way the theories are presented and the kind of evidence used to support them. It all gets back Karl Popper's method of strong inference. Basically what it's about is that few things in science can be proven absoultley true like we can with mathematical proofs, they are just shown to be true with evidence. So we need a good system for testing this. Basically, to be a good scientific theory you need to meet the following criteria:
1) The theory must be falsiable. This means that you need to have conditions which would prove your theory false, and you need to test those. Alsong those lines you need to search for alternate explinations and test those too.
2) The theory must be empirically testable. You have to lay out, in clear detail, what you did to test this theory and it needs to be robust. Talking to a few people and getting anecdotal evidence is not robust, setting up a double blind experiment that carefully tests what you are studying under controlled conditions is.
3) It must be repeatable. You need to carefully document how you did what you did, and then another scientist needs to be able to replicate that work. It can't be something that only works sometimes, it has to be a completely repeatable process.
Now if you theory satisfies those conditions, it's a good scientific theory. If you then run the tests and find that the evidence supports your theory and not one of the alternates, does not falisfy it, you are then doing well. You might then test it again, or you might go an publish a paper. Then, other scientists will try and repeat your test. If they can, it lends creedence to your theory. If they can't you'll have to work on figuring out why not and perhaps revising it or throwing it out.
Basically what we have is a system for carefully testing theories to see if they are indeed good explinations of the world. Now this doesn't mean that everything not yet proven by science is wrong, scientists don't claim to know everything (there would be no research going on if they did), however it does provide conditions that need to be satasfied ebfore we acept something as scientific fact.
The reason for this is that if we take pseudo-science explinations, we start to have tons of unproven, and often wrong, things that are being taken to be fact. If you were to accept pseudo-science methods and say that anything which you heard a fair amount of anecdotal evidence about was true, you'd be trying to hold tons of differnt contradictory beliefs because some people are going to tell the opposite story of others. The rigor of the scientific method allows us with a great dea of certianty to claim something is true.
This is the problems with things like ESP claims and so on, they always fail when put to a well designed test. A good example which, unfortunately, I can't find a reference for right now was a test for people that claim to be able to feel your aura. A young girl designed a simple test for this at it's most basic level. What she did was have the aura readers place their hands through a partition, so they couldn't see to the other side. the girl would then hold her hand over one of their hands. They were then asked to record which had her had had been over. The result was no different than if they had been guessing randomly (50% correct).
So what exactly all americans do for the rest of the world?
- management of international corporations
- investment in the stock market and venture projects
- protecting interests of American nation in other countries, like Afganistan.
- restricting export of enrypting and other technologies
- boycotting the work of United Nations comissions
And what the rest of the world does for America? Feed it! By food, oil, shoes, furiture, clothes, and finally - BRAINS!That's the modern slavery model we see. Can you prove opposite?
Actually, you're completely wrong about the "humans and dinosaurs living at the same time". A growing and vocal group of scientists believe that birds (Aves) are part of the class Dinosauria. Read the book "Dinosaur Heresy's" for more information.
One short come, but not really, of science is that nothing is ever proven. A Hypothesis is put forth, and then either you find supporting evidence or you find contrary evidence which would therefore disprove your hypothesis. So, anyone who has written "Science has proven" obviously has a poor understanding of science.
I asked my science oracle if this were true. After a quick shake it said "Outlook not so good".
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
when you say Kids how old do you mean? ... ... then again I've also been told the schools in the US do little to no world history ...
I'm guessing you mean young teenage...
and I'm Not surprised
people in general dont talk about "such things"
I dont expect children to know about all the horrors of the world
the one that scared me was the 45% of Americans beleive the world was made some time in the last 10,000 years... that came up in SA a few months ago...
America, lacking traditions to govern the moral behavior of the people, has from the beginning depended on education to enlighten the people and let them figure out how to act by themselves. This was a good idea, but it's not working because our schools are simply not good at educating people.
If, as a student in America, you actually want to learn, then you have to do it on your own DESPITE the school system.
Belief in an Intelligent Designer may contradict YOUR narrow-minded definition of science, but that doesn't mean it's ignorance. I have studied all sides of the issue as much as my schedule will permit, and I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to explain life without God.
Perhaps you are justified, in one sense, in saying that belief in God is ignorance. It is trust; faith; believing even though you could choose not to believe. Is faith ignorance? No, I don't think so. I've looked at Evolution. I've looked at gnosticism. But those "theories" involve FAITH (trust) without any reason whatsoever to believe, while christianity offers a very feasable explanation.
Are we all ignorant?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There have been thousands of people who have taken photos of the poorly understood phenomena we call UFO's. I remember years ago picking up a magazine with a bubble track photo from a particle experiment which won a Nobel prize in physics on the cover. At the same time, I was reading a popular book with photos of other unknown phenomena-UFOs-in it, but you can damn sure bet there was no Nobel prize there. There is a ton of evidence out there (especially interesting is that from pre-1970 or so, when there was no movie house in the small Brazillian village, no satellite TV on the Pacific island, etc.) that very few people have had any interest in looking at closely because of all the genuine kooks and nuts involved in the area. The lunatic element is so prominent, that anyone working in the area is branded as nuts too, especially by folks like the Air Farce which cannot admit not being in control of everything.
There is some legitimate science in the area-there is a frenchman named Valee (who was the prototype for the frenchman in Close Encounters) who has looked at this from the perspective of "If I were an alien, why would I visit somewhere" and come up with some interesting theories. THere are a lot of people (sorry, it's been a while and I've forgotten the more reputable names) who have studied the patterns of the observations, and there is a lot of interest here too (but you'll read 20 trash books before you find one even vaguely respectable).
There is a lot of genuine science in fringe areas, but the fringe areas represent areas of truly unknown phenomenon. The X-files is entertainment, but many (perhaps most) of the wierd things that have been used in stories there have had some reasonably scientific investigation in amongst the loonies. I am a PhD practicing physicist, and I get a lot of loonie explanations of particle physics and relativity all the time-the fact that there are kooks in the field does not mean that particle physics and relativity are not "science". The difference is that the true unresolved mysteries in those fields are not accessible to amateurs and are generally beyond amateur experience (you don't have Joe Sixpack watching neutrino oscillations in his backyard-video at 6).
Another example is alchemy-for thousands of years alchemists were the gold refiners of the world. They just didn't have the atomic hypothesis at their beck and call, and so they spoke of changing base metal into gold, not about separating the gold out from the zinc like we would today. If you read their works sympathetically, translating into modern jargon as you go, you will find they used pretty much the same technology as we did up until well into the 20th century (which has more to do with working lower grade ore than anything else). They even probably made some fairly nasty things like fulminate of mercury to leave laying around to deal with anyone who tried to burglarize the gold smelter! They did a lot of roasting during final processing, and if you roast fulminate of mercury (trying to copy the alchemist you saw roasting some stuff which "turned into gold", and the alchemist tried to not leave a lot of finish processed specie lying about) you will learn not to mess with wizards!!!
But a teaching credential is different. Basically, a teaching credential means taking some classes on "how to teach," and on subjects like how to deal with the needs of minor students, and the legal obligations of teachers (e.g. reporting knowledge of molestation). The requirements for a teaching credential differ for the age group being taught, in a fairly logical way, at least in California. (See the links, below.)
I have a B.A. degree in journalism, plus a J.D. (law) degree, plus a number of years of respectable work experience. I'm confident that I could probably get a job teaching college classes if I wanted, and for a couple years I even taught a class in the local school district's "adult education" program. But I absolutely believe that I would need special training to be qualified to teach to children.
What is disturbing to me, is that school districts are permitted to hire uncertified teachers, who can continue employment for up to five years while making NO effort toward certification. Until recently, these 'teachers' could be dropped into classrooms without ANY training (some were even permitted to skip orientation sessions), and when they "timed out" in one school district they could simply start the clock again in another school district.
And where did this happen most often? In inner-city schools, where the obstacles are so plentiful that we need the very best-trained teachers.
What is involved in getting a teaching certification? Spend one summer at a local college's intense program, or night school for a couple nights per week for two semesters or three quarters. Read, do the homework, pass the exams.
Nobody pretends that it is difficult to get a teaching certification: the classes can be easy, the exams a breeze. It is only "difficult" for those who want to cut corners and try to teach kids without ever learning "how kids learn" and how to deal with situations that arise in the classroom setting.
I occasionally think that I'd like to teach, but I really don't think I have the energy or stamina. Start my first class at 8am? Teach five 50-minute classes per day, with an average of 35 students per class (175 students!). Deal with career teachers and petty bureaucracy? Survive the intense emotional needs of children? Grade papers and exams while watching TV every night? Maybe I could teach one or two classes per day, or better yet nine to twelve hours per week of classroom teaching time (like a college professor).
Teaching is a very difficult job, and we don't pay teachers very well, hardly even a living wage unless they "play the game" of seeking out a master's degree in education and survive many years in a school district to work up the pay ladder. Yeah, they get 8 to 10 weeks of summer vacation, and maybe they work fewer hours than some of us who've ridden the dot-com roller coaster, but they are doing something we all agree must be done -- and done well -- and it is a job I know that most people couldn't do very well.
Some links:
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
I was not saying that Science is not important. Obviously, many Scientists would disagree with that! What I'm saying is that it is not relevent to people who are not Scientists (those outside of academia).
For example, how many Americans know how to fix a car? Not many, I would guess. Why? Because there are people who do that, called Mechanics. This doesn't mean that Mechanics are not important, because cars do break down. But no one worships Mechanics and few people study car repair as a hobby, and that is okay.
So why is it that Scientists then for some reason get all upset that not everyone finds their chosen occupation interesting, or feels the need to study it? What ever happened to "live and let live"?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Maybe the reason so many people do not understand science is because they get their ideas from the mass media and most CNN reporters do not have a grasp of science.
- The Individualist Anarchist
satisfy the lameness filter, blah blah blah
How students perform in scientific literacym m m
x . tml
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/knowledge/summary/c.ht
How students perform in mathematical literacy
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/knowledge/summary/b.ht
How students perform in reading literacy
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/knowledge/summary/a.ht
source: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/
It shows clearly that US students are only _average_
Northern countries are the best with Japan and Korea.
Ultimate winner is Finland.
US must do something.
bloody hell we are really big country but we still have people that cant _READ_
Literacy definition: USA
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1979 est.
Literacy definition: JAPAN
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (1970 est.)
Literacy definition: Danmark
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 100%
Literacy definition: SWEDEN
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (1979 est.)
Literacy definition: FINLAND
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 100% (1980 est.)
Literacy definition: RUSSIA
age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98%
male: 100%
female: 97% (1989 est.)
source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/inde
Agreed that #1 is weak. Not totally groundless, but weak.
#2 is strong though. The exotic phsyics phenomena you speak of, if we can harness it, might be good for FTL communication (not something to be scoffed at itself). But travel for anything larger than a few particles? I don't buy it. #2 is much stronger than #1. Not that I think FTL travel is completely ruled out, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. What if it takes a few million years of development to even discover it? Or a few billion? Aliens, if there are any out there, are gonna call on the phone, before they drop by for a visit.
Anyone with a computer who reads CNN is probably somewhat schooled in science. Your average Mouth-Breathing-Neanderthal-Redneck-Hick, primarlily uses the internet to look at "Girlies what got no clothes on 'em" and the Latest WWF news.
M@
but it appears to me that the question about evolution was poorly constructed. From the article, they asked a true/false question with the assertion, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals". As a logical individual, I would have to answer false to this, since they didn't ask if I believed their assertion, but whether or not their assertion was true. (Remember that evolution and creationism are theories, not facts). Answering false isn't exactly correct either, since either hasn't been disproven, but answering false seems less incorrect than answering true. I would also answer false to "Were humans plopped down on earth exactly as-is". I can't prove either assertion, so I can't logically say either is true or false.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
A trailer park or an Elvis convention? Sheesh...
Murphy was an optimist.
Few things...
1) The belief in pseudoscience does not mean one does not understand science. As far as I'm concerned, the belief in God is just as out there as the belief in Astrology, but I dont think people that believe in God dont understand Science, they just believe in more than science.
I mean, from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, whats the difference in thinking if you do things in accordance with astrology you will have a better life and Praying to God? Both have no scientific basis.. but hey.. gotta pull every trick in the box huh?
2) For Alien abductions, there is some evidence (the fact that the real people in the movie Fire in the Sky all passed the Polygraph, which is very unlikely from a stat. point of view). Not enough for me to say yes it happens.. but enough for me to say, I dont know.. It be unscientific of me to exclude the possibility altho I cant say there is enough evidence to believe it.
No, like bronx science!
its really quite good
its just that there is a prevailing attitude that school isn't cool among parents and students that results in the associated problems
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
d) Only scientifically-inclined people respond to this sort of survey.
HA! Guess what, scientists are people too. So peer review is subject to a lot of other abuses besides the ones you mentioned. Such as supressing a competitor's work so that you can finish your own. Or keeping it out of the "best" journals for personal reasons. Or being politically savvy so that substandard work gets published in high profile journals. And it gets worse when considering peer review of grants, where there is actually money on the line.
Peer review may be the best system we have, and I have had both good and bad experiences with it. But like any other system, it is definitely subject to abuses and the "club" mentality.
To observe species for 200 million years and record changes wil be quite a Lab experiment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well with people like this why are people still surprised by education system in America. As the old George Carlin quote goes, "Imagine how stupid the average person
is. Then imagine that 50% are even stupider than that."
So some concerned psych professors now offer a class called "Systems of Belief," a seminar that looks at kinds of knowledge, and explains how to separate scientific claims from others. While neither viewpoint is superior, you can't argue across systems of belief; speaking specifically about science and religion, Gould called them "non-overlapping magisteria."
Anyway, a great guide to separating beliefs into scientifically valid and invalid - NOT right and wrong - is FiLCHeRS. It stands for Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Check out Lett's Field Guide to Critical Thinking for explanations of the terms and examples of how to employ them... http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.ht ml
And the fossils are fake.
And the immense distances between Galaxies are fake.
And Evolution happening under our noses (investigate about HIV strains or dog breeds if you are intellectualy honest) is also fake.
Your jar alegory is pathetic. Life happened just by chance, in many other places your "jar" was shaken and nothing happened (as far as we know so far). That you dismiss that is highly dishonest intellectualy speaking.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Show us the evidence, otherwise go troll somewhere else.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't think that science is perfect yet. We may find that some people do have psycic tendencies when we are able to better understand the human brain. I don't believe in any of that stuff right now but I think it is short sighted to mock everyone that does just because it hasn't been proven yet. Does anyone remember the middle ages? Everyone thought of science as magic SIMPLY because they didn't understand it yet. Let's not make the same mistake. I don't have a personal psycic and I don't trust anyone to tell me the future like that but I do believe in being cautious about making these kinds of judgement calls. I didn't read any of the other posts so I don't know if I just made a fool of myself re-stating something that 90 other people already ranted about or what. If so then
There is now other way to put it. By using the sentence "belief of scientific establishment" you reduced your argument to nothing. If you knew better you would know that science doesn't rely on "belief" but on reproducibbility and practical disproof/proof of theory. Only religion or pseudoscience rely on belief and faith , aka : knowing the absolute truth. At the moment UFO believer can only offer that : hearsay, belief, knowing the "truth", etc... This well known sentence from X file say it all "I want to BELIEVE".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Buddhists don't believe in one god, unless it's themselves. No wonder it's so popular with the rich elite.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
That place, or Stuyvesant... exceptions that prove the rule. There are millions of children here. Those "special" schools take a few thousand. Try getting your kids into them.
But I do agree with your point about parents.
I find it interesting that quite a few of the scientists writing for the public these days seem to be asssembling a dogma of what is "scientific" and what is not. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. The best they can say against these "pseudoscientific" disciplines is that they have not used scientific method to prove their claims, which may or may not be true. But this is only meaningful is you accept their hidden premise, that scientific method is the only reliable way to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Most scientists don't even seem to believe this one. While not part of the classic scientific method, statistical correlation and mathmatical proof both seem to get a lot of respect from the scientific crowd.
The phenonemon that the mainstream sceintists have labeled psuedoscience have generally neither been proven or disproven by science. Many of them probably cannot be addressed by traditional experimentation, such as astrology. Other have been "disproven" by case studies. If these twelve people who claim to have ESP can't be proven to in a lab, then no one must have it. Bad science, of course. Failure to repeat an experiment proving something does not equate to disproving it.
As far as strict science goes, these things must be unknowns. I find it amusing at times, how many scientists are willing to publicly state beliefs they can't prove. I guess that makes them like the rest of us.
you just have to know how to read it. Note that the last item on the line is "Needs Work" not "poor" or "horrible". The survey to me is quite clear -- there is only 3% of the people (those who choose "Needs Work") who have any clue about science. The rest have not had enough education in science to know that one's scientific understanding always "Needs Work".
You don't think that ignorance survives in your area of the world? Let's see a few examples:
After the school shooting in Germany, do you know what students there had to say?
Thomas Rethfeldt, 18, was in the school at the time of the shooting. "I never thought anything like this could ever happen in a place like Erfurt," he added in a quiet, shaken voice. "I thought this must be a bad film. I thought this kind of thing only happened in America."
Well, it sounds to me like your educational systems are simply pointing a finger at the United States and saying, "Don't worry kids. That kind of thing only happens in America. We've been without rape, murder, pillaging, and crime for thousands of years. Just sit back and cast stones at the Americans."
I just simply could not believe what I was reading. Let's forget that there have been school shootings in Bosnia and Britain and concentrate on what might seem like unrelated murder to you: Dueling.
Dueling was actually considered a sport, a way to gain merit and status, and a legal way to settle legal disputes all across Europe and the world, for that matter. Did even 40% of Europe think that this was a bad way to settle disputes at the time? Heck no. Not only was it accepted, it was a freaking spectacle to the public.
Now, how does this relate to school shootings? Duels were usually instigated by an action against one's family, status, and/or pride. Thus, duels were more likely than not fueled by vengeance and ambition. And what motives do you think drove this 19 year old kid to murder 12 teachers, 5 students, and have 500 more rounds that could have been used on others if he hadn't have been locked in a room? Vengeance for being expelled from school and temporarily barred from academic achievement, and Ambition to put his name in the record books by producing one of the most horrific school shootings ever perpetrated.
Wouldn't you say that history is just as important as science? If Europeans were being properly schooled in history do you think they would so seriously overlook the fact that murder has existed in every (including their freaking own) society in nearly every type of situation and place for thousands and thousands of years?
Now, I find it even more aggrivating that my colleagues in the computer science world can sit back and point at the rest of the world's ignorance when they've designed such awe-inspiring works of genius as:
'No keyboard detected. Press enter to continue.'
You cannot tell me that any of you know everything. I would like to see a proper sampling of your culture's 'scientific knowledge' or even history, mathmatics, or common rhetoric scores years after your official education has stopped. The reason for such scores is three-fold.
1. The human mind, although constantly learning new material, is quite incapable of retaining everything, and in fact, when people begin devoting their lives to the study or perfection of a single profession, their retained proportion is considerably lopsided toward their career choice. Thus, if someone wants to be a fantastic plumber, they will more than likely maintain a vast amount of excellent plumbing knowledge, while the rest of their knowledge base weakens. You don't think that plumbing is something worth dedicatign your intellect to? Then, go ahead and jiggle that handle for the rest of your life and blame the 'stupid', simple plumbing for not working.
2.) Society needs such specialized people to grow. Just as society needs those who study the heavens, program computers, and conduct mock nuclear explosions in simulators to further its progress, society needs plumbers, firemen, policemen, fishers, etc. Plumbers and fishers don't need to know that the Earth revolves around the sun. That's why society created people like you for. It certainly does not need people like you to sit back and critique how it operates, and how it needs to operate to create a harmonious society.
3) The test was more than likely ill-worded, and many people are horrible test takers. Let's take the example question for instance.
"Does the Earth revolve around the sun every 365 days?"
Such a question might seem trivial to you, but what about Leap Year? Last I checked the Earth most certainly does not revolve around the sun every 365 days. The Earth revolves around the sun at around 365 1/4 days.
A person could thus have been put in a situation where they thought, "Well, what if it's trying to trick me. I should put down 365 1/4 or 366, or should I say 366 counting Leap Year, or..."
Is it funny that some people don't know what you may feel is basic science? No. Is it necessary for those people to know basic science to perform their jobs? No. You don't have to know how gravity works to know that you can walk across the Earth without floating into the air. You don't have to know anything about the constants applied in trajectory algorithms to know how to throw a ball from your hand to the mitt of your friend. If these people did know about Thermodynamics, it might in some way affect their lives, but it is not necessary for them to live.
The point is that you are no better than anyone else because you know more about your field of science or even general science. You simply no more than that person in that field, period. Any attempts at making those persons feel bad for knowledge that they do not know or need is simply an attempt by you to boost your own ego and make someone else feel bad, when there is no need for it.
Thank you for your time,
this article even made it on /. Considering I have to turn my moniter on it's side to read anything on CNN.
Your sig here!
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
Today's science very much is a belief. Do you know how long it took for the idea that dinosaurs were warm blooded to be accepted? There was a lot of evidence around for it, it was even suggested by quite a few "crackpots" but it took a pop film for the idea to catch on.
The sad truth is that today's science very much rejects ideas that do not fit into the established mold of "this is how things are". The ideals of science are sound, but it's implemenation by society today is more like a religon.
The fact is, science (obviously) hasn't explained *everything* yet. So what it hasn't explained, people are free to believe whatever they want. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Americans are stoopid.
In a gaffe usually reserved for US presidents, slashdot editors accidently revoked the citizenship of their US readers. Repeated application of "Mystery Science Theater" recommended as a possible cure.
This survey, and the /. response is typical of the kind of chauvinism that many "ordinary" people reject. And rightly so. The survey is not reflective of any useful "truth", it was designed to make a point. Fund more science. A worthy goal, but these are unworthy scare tactics. And the response here smacks of technocratic elitism. Clearly, many do not understand that some of the respondents are in open rebellion against an orthodoxy that is being shoved down their throats. The orthodoxy of the technocrats (that's us). This orthodoxy is as pernicious and intolerant as any it replaced.
A good example of this orthodoxy is evolution. For many, the idea that we evolved from amoeba is no more fantastic than the idea we were created whole by a superior being. If you understand the time scales, and the mechanisms, evolution is self evident. But that level of understanding is utterly useless to most people, and so they don't bother to learn it. Even many well educated people who accept evolution. AND WHY SHOULD THEY? They file the conclusion and a few facts and forget the rest. What then are they left with? Try an interesting experiment. Take a devils advocate position and argue against evolution with some of your well-educated friends, preferably not engineers. When they run out of logical arguments, the fun starts. See how much faith underlies their "rational" beliefs, and how panicky they get when their faith is challenged.
So asking a question on an allegedly scientific survey like "do you believe in psychic powers?" is ridiculous. Its a dumb question. Can I prove psychic powers exist? No, not at all. But I believe my wife is faithful to me and I have no evidence for that either. (Readers insert witty comment here). Actually, based on my own experience, I have better evidence of psychic powers than I do of the big bang or relativity. You can do a scientifical experiment yerself. Can you tell if someone is looking at you? Many people can. They don't actually think about it, but if you look at someone intently, they will frequently snap their head around and look back. This is anecdotal, but consistent. Consistent enough that there should be an explanation. The technocratic explanation is that either A) the phenomenon does not exit, or B) there is a straightforward explanation, but I am ignorant of it. But the phenomenon does exist, and there is no known explanation for it (at least in physics). I am not A) delusional, or B) ignorant, so the orthodoxy and its minions (us) must be wrong. What else is it wrong about?
In the middle ages, they believed that bleeding poisons from the body would help people get over illness. In the early 1970s, the Cambodian Army used the modern weapons they received from the US to shoot at the dragon that was devouring the sun (a solar eclipse). And it worked! Ask yourself, what do we believe today that is so stupid our great grandchildren will laugh at our folly? Unless you have an answer to that, stop sneering at the "ignorant" 60% out there. They may understand the world better than you do.
I'm sure those numbers would be a lot higher if they could have reached those lost souls who have been abducted, but not returned. :)
Just some clarification:
The universe began with a huge explosion. (True, according to the "Big Bang" theory widely accepted by scientists, but dismissed by some religious leaders.) 33 percent.
*Uh, not true - as the "explanation" states this is mearly popular scientific theory and NOT a fact.
Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. (True, according to the theory of evolution, which is accepted by the majority of scientists, but not by many religious leaders.) 53 percent
*Uh, not true again - as the "explanation" states this is mearly popular scientific theory and NOT a fact.
Oh, well what do I know. I'm just a superstitious American who beleives God is the only one who has the real answers.
> You don't always have the luxury of setting up tests for your hypotheses. Sometimes all you get are observations of events that occur on their own. I for one am not willing to be hit by a bus just so someone can interview me for an NDE if I happen to survive. But that doesn't discount the evidence.
Very true. However, evidence gained in this way needs to be much more convincing to be as valid as a repeatable, controlled experiment because there are so many variables involved. Therefore, I'm willing to accept this sort of evidence, but there has to be more to it than to something "hard" (I put that in quotes because so few of us can agree what the term really means, but suffice it to say that I mean "gathered in a controlled, repeatable experiment").
> No, I don't expect to convince you or anyone with one event, but there are thousands like this. And they are coming more frequently from established healthcare professionals who have every reason to keep them hidden for fear of damage to their careers.
There are two points of contention here. First, from whom does the anecdote come? Unless it comes directly from the doctor himself, you're presenting a fourth-party anecdote (you said that author said that doctor said that blind woman said...) and frankly, that doesn't carry very much weight. Where's the doctor's report on the whole thing? Which brings me to my second point: why would this doctor think that relating this event could possibly jeopardize his career? He could easily relate the story without implying any belief in what she said, if he's worried about being labelled a mystic. So, all in all, this particular anecdote fails most of my "rule of thumb" tests:
1.) Does it violate any currently accepted physical laws? (Nope)
2.) Does it rely solely on someone's recount (is it completely hearsay)? (Yes)
3.) Is there some reason it's not repeatable? (Yes)
4.) Is is consistent with Occam's Razor? (Not Sure)
5.) Does it require fallacious assumptions or "belief" to be valid? (Not Really)
6.) Is it statistically significant? (No)
7.) Does it require that its participants do, say or believe extraordinary things? (Yes)
So, we're not doing very well in our count. Two misses is a symptom of failure in the scientific method, and we've got three (and a half, if number four is a "not Sure"). Of course, these are rules of thumb, and there are many ways in which something completely valid can fail this test, but it's a good first indicator of a problem. In case you're wondering, the not-obvious answers are:
3: Not repeatable isn't a show-stopper, but since it's a rule of thumb it's allowed.
4: A separate-from-body "soul" is not usually going to be the simplest possible answer, but there could be other forces at work, or perhaps there really are souls, so I say "Not Sure".
6: Notwithstanding your suggestion to "thousands of reports", this is one event, and without being presented with any others I must so judge.
7: This is actually because I find it confusing that doctors would think that reporting this sort of thing would be hazardous to their careers. As I said above, this doctor didn't have to profess believing this story to report it, and would IMHO be remiss in not reporting it, if only to assist a psychologist or psychiatrist if treatment was needed by this woman (nearly dying can be very disturbing and often people require counseling for it).
> I have an instinct to eat and avoid death. I do not have an instinct to read.
It could be argued (and often has) that humans are driven by instinct to "figure things out" (to learn) since learning has long been a very good survival mechanism. The fact that you had to learn to read doesn't make the desire to do it non-instinctual. It's just a more efficient way to learn (like language and other forms of communication) so you use it.
> No. My version of an open critical mind doesn't discount what it cannot explain simply because it seems far-fetched.
Again, true, but by your post your open critical mind assumes instead of discounting, which is better than ingoring but has its own pitfalls. To wit, here are your own words, from the same post, no less:In one, you say not to disbelieve the extraordinary, and in the next you disbelieve something as being too incredible! These statements directly contradict one another, and point out where the assumption bit you. You assume that consciousness is too complex to be grounded in elecrochemistry, simply because you cannot comprehend how it can happen. That's a logical fallacy that you need to avoid.
> I'm telling you to neither deny nor accept -- simply to consider.
You are obviously a very thoughtful person, and you put forward good points, so I say this without insult, and with the greatest respect: you should consider your own assumptions more closely. I have run afoul of such assumptions before, so I know they can be subtle sometimes, but with practice it's possible to discover that being critical of one's own argument is (ahem) critical to critical thinking.
Virg
You're confusing "science" with "current theory." The one assumption a scientist makes is that what his senses are telling him is "basically" accurate. That is: an external reality that matters exists. Science is the process of refining the current theory so that it matches observations and measurements better and better; as well as making predictions using the theory to give us an idea about which experiments will bear fruit.
The assumption you mention is current theory that happens to fit current observations. When/if observations start contradicting this assumption, the model will be changed. Consider relativity: for a long time it was assumed that time was constant among reference frames. Einstein used the postulate you mentioned to derive a system where time was observer dependent (special relativity). It just so happens that his predictions bore fruit and now match up with a mountain of experimental evidence.
BlackGriffen
This is funny. If you meant to do it, well done. If you didn't, you just made the best accidental joke of the day.
Virg
And here I thoughts my ol' smell-hound "Skeet" was dumb. Turns out it's us people who's dumber than a box of rocks.
I'm a-gonna go and sell my trailer and quit livin' this high life.
SKEET! I'M A-MOVIN' IN WITH YOU!
Kiss my bass.
I don't see what one thing has to do with the other, really. Why should belief in these things imply an ignorance of science? That's a hell of a conclusion to jump to. For someone who is mourning the ignorance of the populace, you sure are exemplifying it. Science is all about carefully reasoned arugments, and this sure isn't one of them.
Also, belief and knowledge don't necessarily go together. You're free to believe all you want, just as long as you don't mistake that belief for knowledge. A widely held belief (there's that word again) among philosophers is that knowledge is a "true justified belief" (TJB, for short). So knowledge may imply belief, but not the other way around.
Besides, if you wanted to gauge peoples' ignorance of science based on beliefs, then you don't really need to turn to things like alien abductions and psychic powers. Just look at the number of people who believe in God.
I mean...who else is going to rule the world? France? Norway Guatamala? We've got out problems in the good old US of A, but come on....a superior cell phone system, techno clubs, and multifunctional knives do not an uber-super-power make, Europe.
Most of these things, like ESP or alien abduction have not been conclusively disproven.
If I claim I have ESP, it's not your job to prove that I don't, it's my job to prove that I do. No one have ever been able to prove that they do. There's a million dollars waiting for the first person who can.
and as for the big bang- religious leaders aren't the only ones to reject this idea- many legit scientists don't believe it either!
However, at least there's hard evidence for it, which is more than we can say for ESP or alien abduction.
Let me add that I have seen surveys and studies like this as far back as I can remember. Americans can't find the US on a map, American's can't read, Americans can't add, American public schools are cespools of ignorance and incompetence. America is fucked and it is going down the drain.
That's why Americans have a substantially lower standard of living than they did in 1965. Why the US has never taken the lead in fields like Space exploration, computers, software, telecommunications, cultural exports, robotics, high tech manufacturing, military technology, aerospace, etc. Why the US economy has become the less dominant, and why the US dollar is no longer the de facto world currency. That's why countries with excellent and exacting education systems have done so well. Like Japan and Switzerland.
What these surveys measure are not "facts", they measure cultural norms. US culture has a streak of anti-intellectualism. American culture is more can-do than think-it-through. This is true even in movies about intellectuals, like "Good Will Hunting" and "A Beautiful Mind". This is neither good nor bad, it just is.
On an individual basis, Americans prize education and knowledge. They are generally happy to talk about intricate ideas. Put them in a group and all they will talk about is football. That is what these surveys show again and again.
I once worked for an education-based .com. As part of our product :-)
we had a news service. It was mandated that we include horoscopes
as part of it. I bristled arguing that we should set a standard of
excellence valuing what we put out for content, but those objections
were brushed aside. Why? Kids liked horoscopes and it would
drive page views. (A co-worker was bold enough to point out that
so would porn or gambling and suggested we pursue partnerships
in those areas so as to incorporate them into our business model
Turns out that several of the people in charge of this decision also
where into astrology. Hmmmmm.
A survey done at Harvard commencement a few years ago had roughly
one-half of graduating seniors equating astrology and astronomy.
The engineering department at my graduate school didn't require
calculus of their undergrads until *junior* year!
Can anyone help me find the data to support this stat I read a long
time ago: it is easier to build a new athletic facility than it is to
upgrade an existing library or science lab? Also, there's the fallacy
that monies large athletic departments take in fund academic departments.
I've never actually found one situation where this has been true.
I do know one researcher whose overhead on grants was so large that it
basically funded the entire English department.
We're racing towards a new Dark Ages. One interesting metric I read
for this is loss of language. Apparently the working vocabulary of people
in the US has dropped by some huge fraction (I don't remember what - more
than 25%) over the last 50 years... When I read that, I like, go to my friend,
"wow - like who did they ask?" and he goes "like that must be in the Middle Ages
or something." And then I'm like "Yeah, no one talks like in the Middle Ages anymore."
:-(
I'm immediately marked as wrong because of one single phrase.
If you knew better you would know that science doesn't rely on "belief" but on reproducibbility and practical disproof/proof of theory.
Perhaps you should take a better look at how scientists react when confronted with a large body of sworn testimony of hundreds of highly trained individuals--people who are quite capable of identifying airplanes, satellites, meteors, weather balloons, and lightning. Said evidence would stand up in any court of law. Don't you think it at least warrants some open-minded scientific investigation?
Science, like anything else, is affected by belief. When people *believe* something to be untrue, they sometimes ignore reasonably solid evidence.
I'm not saying we have been visited by extraterrestrials. I suspect that we have, but that means nothing--just like if I were to suspect we haven't.
Take a look at disclosureproject.org. There's a lot of stuff in that testimony that can't be explained with lightning, weather balloons, secret aircraft, meteors, or swamp gas. And those people deserve better than to be dismissed as kooks and liars. Even if there are no extraterrestrials, there's definitely something going on that we don't know about, and that alone is worth the effort of serious research.
P.S. If anyone has any solid, verifiable information discrediting the Disclosure Project, I'm all ears. It just seems like it'd be a pretty hard thing to fake.
> Until there is evidence of either, they don't exist. That's how science works.
That's not even close to correct. The scientific method is a way to try to determine the likelihood of a given event or phenomenon, not to prove or disprove to absolutes. Any scientist who thinks in absolutes is being a bad scientist. The correct way to describe it is this:
"If there is no hard evidence to be presented to support ESP or alien abductions, it is rational to assume they don't work as advertised."
That's as close to an absolute as you want to get, as a scientist. To say that ESP doesn't exist (and that people are never abducted by aliens) only puts you in a position to assume something that may not be accurate. Remember the watchphrase, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Virg
Heh...never thought of it that way. That would explain why the stereotype is that only "rednecks" and "hicks" and other "stupid/ignorant" stereotypes ever report being abducted - evidently, all the SMART ones who were abducted passed the tests and were kept.
Of course, the test thresholds may not be too high. After all, we're talking about a group of space aliens who supposedly have the technology to travel interstellar distances and fly around mostly-undetected by modern Earthly technology (except, of course, for the occasional space-alien crash in the middle of nowhere), but yet end up resorting to anal probes and hacking up cattle as their research methods...
You'd think a super-high-tech group of beings would have thought of dragging out the Computerized Tomography equipment or something instead....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
How would that make us special? We just are. It wasn't until Freud and Jung that people accepted on a mass scale that ailments could lie in the mind/psyche as well as the body. How long will it be before we learn that there is yet another layer beyond the mind?
... Mind ... Spirit ... ???
Body
The thing that amazes me is that people will absolutely insist there is only the body. Then, someone shows them the mind,
Who are these people who only believe in the body? If you're thinking historically, the general thought process was that a person is composed of a body and a spirit. Then we began to learn about the brain. We're still trying to phase out the 'spirit' concept. Most people hear the word mind and sort of mash both spirit and brain into the definition.
and they say, "Okay, I accept I was wrong about the body thing. There is a mind. But there's nothing beyond the mind. I'm positive!"
Spare us the dramatics. Skeptics don't typically wander around with a puffed-up chest, saying "There is only the body and the brain, and that is that!" We say "What is this 'spirit' you speak of and how can you show that it exists independently of the brain?" If the idea of a spirit has been set up so that it's impossible to disprove, it cannot stand on it's own merits. If there has been damage to the physical brain and it affects the spirit, how do you know that there's nothing other than the brain?
Any idea that can't get past the balony detection kit is probably balony.
At each step they admit they were wrong and revise their beliefs, yet they fall right back into insisting their new theories are correct
Yes. This is known as "science". When better evidence comes along we take up new ideas. Some people refer to it as progress.
Example: The idea of black holes is currently being challenged by that of gravastars. Both fit most of the data, but debate will continue over it perhaps indefinitely or until the evidence for and logic behind one has swayed over most if not every mind in the relevant fields.
beyond all doubt and that there is nothing else.
Beyond all doubt? Of course not. But there are an infinite number of fictional scenarios that have about the same amount of evidence behind them that can make this doubt grow to any rational size. If there is no evidence whatsoever for a phenomenon, it's my policy not to believe anything. We should accept what we can describe and verify. Anything else is beyond the bounds of science and not obligated to be subject to scrutiny -- they're someone else's beliefs, after all.
Here's a general rule to go by: Does it make you feel good to believe it? Is it what you want to believe? Then double up on your skepticism. If people are making large profits off of it, double it again. We need to be very careful. The people we fool the most easily are ourselves.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
As a molecular biologist I run into this level of scientific ignorance on a regular basis. Everyone I talk to about my work assumes I'm either cloning embryos for their organs, producing genetically-engineered food, sequencing the human genome, or trying to cure Ebola - whatever they've caught most recently on the nightly news. They talk about how unethical it is to do any one of the above, ignorant of anything more than the few catchphrases & soundbites they caught or how such research is done, and even more ignorant of the fact that the scientific community had spent the past 2 decades warning ethicists & politicians of their discoveries in order to get them to get in front of the issues & prepare people morally & politically for these things that seem now so sudden. The entire perception of science suffers from Mad Scientist Syndrome, perpetuating the belief that we have to clamp down on what these crazy scientists can & can't study, or else we'll end up in some world out of Gattaca.
The main problem is that mainstream science reporting is usually done by journalists with no scientific background who add hype to their stories to increase readership, dumb them down to a 5th-grade level (or lower) to make them "more accessible", or are themselves so intellectually ill-equipped to analyze their subject that their reporting makes no sense. Even old, august science & technology magazines like Scientific American are noticeably dumbing down their articles. Reading the LA or NY Times' "science" section just brings me to tears. It's become all tech gadget reviews and featherweight feature articles that, in their journalistic quest to "voice both sides" of an issue like if global warming, fail to convey the balance of scientific opinion on the subject, currently running at about 99% agreeing that it is occurring, in favor of "equal time". Either that, or fluff like profiles of brave cancer patients & shit. When there are so many real issues out there the public needs to be informed and educated on, this level of reporting is almost criminal.
A good portion of the blame rests as well on the silence of good scientists too, who often shun writing or speaking for public consumption for fear of risking their reputations or funding by creating a forum for disagreement. But I feel it's mostly scientific reporting in the media that's keeping people stupid, along with the Dick & Jane level of science education in schools. Then again, how can you teach kids about scientific thinking when they have trouble with math & english? It's all a great big fuckup that needs to be addressed.
For fuck's sake, pay good teachers WELL, and I'm talking at about above $50K to start - that way we'll get good people. Insure quality in schools, not with the current rampant test, test, test and test again bullshit & writing your congressmen, but with your own personal attention, time, work, and yes, even your money if you can at your kid's school. Pay close attention to your kid's studies. Complain about slack teachers who let kids skate through. Do it now. You can either wait 10 years for your kid to be done with school before the government gets around to fixing things, or you can be part of the solution yourself. You scientists, go to the schools, talk to the science teachers. They want your help. They want you to help them show kids what science is like. Same thing for you accountants with math, and you writers & journalists with english. It's your job too, and if your local school is failing kids you should bear part of the blame. Have a sense of pride and community dammit.
Argh. Sorry. Rant over.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
Democracy was never grounded upon efficiency or the desires of the elites. ( If you're reading slashdot, I submit that your're an elite in the US, in terms of education at the very least ).
It is well known that a dictatorship is the historically most efficient form of governance. The problem comes when the dictator is not so kind or needs to pass the reign onto another.
You attitudes, unfortunately, reflects the popular caricature of the amoral scientest. He couldn't care less about the rights and conditions of those around him so long as he has a morsel of security and a chance to serve SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.
By all means, move to Singapore, Malaysia, or even Australia. But if you think you can run away from humann nature....
d) People who browse CNN.com are more science-savvy than your average American e) Not just Americans browse CNN.com f) CowboyNeal
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
I need all the help I can get to get a 1600 on my SATs :)
That is an excellent, excellent link. I suggest handing it out to anyone you see who claims to possess psychic powers. If they're right, they won't fear to be tested (in fact, they should be running to get their million bucks). If they give you some crap excuse, you now have proof they're BS-ing you without even having to test them. Sheer genius. And if there are actually people with such powers, I can't think of a better way to find them.
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
Just from reading the comments on this topic, I would have to say that the survey is pretty accurate.
Looks like there are a lot of people out there (even among Slashdot readers) who take a lot of things on faith.
[javac] 100 errors
I can understand what you are saying unfortunately ignorance can have a lot of inertia. But i think teachers can still help alot. When you toutgh those kids about antibiotics they did not forget everything when their parents told them germs dont exist. I am sure they still kept those things in the backs of their minds.
So i definately think that teachers can help, even if the parents are resisting.
Ever notice how descriptions of alien abductions and sexual probings/experiments bear an uncanny resemblance to deeply suppressed childhood sexual molestations? Stories of vague human forms coming into people's rooms at night, forcing things into them that they cannot resist and possibly repeated visits.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"Though, who knows if radio technology is common. Maybe most species skip past it rather quickly."
There have been proposals that radio may not be the best, or at least the only, way to communicate and that alien civs may use bursts of laser light to transmit info to other potential civs. SETI work may be expanded to hunt for rapid bursts of laser energy.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
There is powerful prejudice against students who are sincere in learning in public schools, they basically get beaten down physically and/or mentally by their fellow students for showing interest. It is no wonder so few come out of the public school system with a love of learning.
Yeh, but my limited understanding of this is that it's only useful within a solar system. You could describe radio that way also, but radio still leaves alot of leftovers that we could detect. With lasers, if none happen to be pointed almost straight at us, we'll never see them. It's still a plausible explanation, I suppose, but one that is largely untestable.
Besides, if they want to communicate, radio is still the best way, and I'd hope that common sense is objective enough that both them and us would realize that. If they are out there, I want to talk to them, you know? Hopefully applying for citizenship is a simple affair in their government....
...South Korea, England, France, blah blah blah.
What do all these countries have in common? Americans protect their asses with American lives, money, and weapons! And owe us large sums of money for said services.
Now lets move on to who we give food too...THE WORLD. That's right. Americans feed ALL the starving people of the world...for free. That is what makes America numero uno! We have more food than anybody else. It's not because we are smart or right about certain political issues. We have food. People need food to live. That's puts you into a unique position of power by proxy.
It's also funny that the people who bitch about American influence/meddling are also the first to come running to us for help. France being the biggest example of this. We bailed them out of 2 wars and finacial collapse in the 50's, and all they can do is give us shit for it.
Give me an example of a country that can compaire to Americans Philantropy? Oh right, there are none!
Oh by the way...your welcome.
It's about time that the modern assumption that science is the savior of the world and the ultimate measure of truth dies. In an increasingly postmodern world, we're giving up on our ability to find truth using our heads. We just aren't capable of being sufficiently objective to discover real truth about our world. The notion that people are allowing for some supernatural ( = superscientific, post-scientific) answers is seen by me as a positive thing. Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, and many other great postmodern thinkers have been saying this is coming for years.
Human reason isn't the end all to be all. Maybe it's about time we started coming to terms with this.
----------
perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d616
I found the CNN write up to be interesting, but I'm wondering about the study methodology. How did they choose their sample? What sort of answers were allowed? Anyone know where I can get more indepth info?
For instance, CNN mentions that a substantial percentage of Americans read the local astrology column on a regular basis. Does this mean that those people belive in astrology? Or does this simply mean that a substantial percentage of folks read the astrology column for the same reason that I read the personals column of the local rag when I get a hold of the hardcopy version -- entertainment. I don't plan on calling anyone, heck, most of the papers I read on any sort of regular basis don't have anything resembling a 'poly-transmen seeking similar' section, and I know well enough that the vast majority of those in the 'seeking men' or 'seeking women' sections aren't going to react positively to, well, me. But I read it because it amuses me to see what other humans say about themselves, and I read the astrology column for the same reason, because it's a way to gather information on more 'normal' humans.
Or, another place where I'd like to see methology is the "ESP exists" question. I am well aware of the view of mainstream scientists' views this topic. I'm aware of quite a bit of research on it. I believe that for the most part they are correct. I also have a friend who has the most uncanny knack for showing up for homecooked dinners at my household, where both the time and content of dinner ought to be used for a rand function. How does he know to get on the road a good hour before we even realize that we're not going to order out or do leftovers or skip dinner altogther (very common)? Granted, this is nowhere near telepathy or spoon bending, and there may be a very logical explanation we have all overlooked (but some pretty intelligent geeks have been pondering this for seven years, you'd think we woulda figured it out by now). I don't *know* that is ESP. The most intellectually honest position I can come up with on that and a few other things that I am personally aware of is "I don't know." And that is my position.
Was "I don't know" an option?
This is the problem I see with the state of science in this country. Not only do people not have the first clue about the scientific process, but they also haven't got a clue about the difference between a fact and a theory. There's an argument that can be made that this starts out in school: how many of us remember hearing "It's a scientific fact that..."? But it's seen in media and in general conversation as well.
Science is made up of theories, some are more widely accepted as others, but all could be invalidated or significantly revised if data is found that contradicts them.
And those theories are only as good as the data they are based on. How many people noticed the glaring jump in logic on the astrology issue in the CNN writeup -- that since n% of people read the astrology column, that same n% must believe in astrology? How many people wondered if the same jump in logic was found in the study themselves?
The root of science is not found in being able to parrot the theory of relativity, or even being able to understand it at some level. The root of science is found in critical thinking, it all grow up from there.
If we *really* wanted to improve science knowledge in this country, we'd encourage everybody, esspecially children (it's far easier to learn this as a child) to learn to think critically. As a society we are rather unprepared to do this. Most americans don't know how to think critically, thus they cannot teach their children this skill. Even if we could do so, a critically thinking populous would undermine our government and our economy. While I think that both would probably be replaced by something better, since government and corporations have the most control over the resources in this country, and government has the most control over resources going to education, and those in power now have nothing to gain and everything to lose from changing the current government and economy, I doubt that this will change anytime soon.
As an individual I can learn to think critically, I can value intellectual honesty, and I can encourage my children and any other children and adults I come into contact with to do the same. And so I encourage everyone who reads this to do so. But that's all I can do. I don't know if this is ever going to be useful in a widespread manner, but perhaps it will be useful to others as individuals (and perhaps you'll find that it sucks. Often I do)
Believing in X or the possibility of X that does not yet have good scientific evidence for its existence does not make one inept at science or at understanding science and scientific findings. Only a view which is known as "scientism" asserts that only those things that can be studied and proved by science exist at all or have any validity could be behind the loose implications of the summary for this item. Scientism is not itself able to be validated by science. It is a philosophical theory in the area of epistemology. So what does that have to do with whether people appreciate and understand science? Nothing necessarily.
It is typical of left-brain geekdom and sadly inaccurate to suggest that belief in the possibility of ESP
Sure, "belief in the possibility of ESP". You put in a couple extra words by mistake: we're talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT animal: "believe in ESP". "the possibility of" makes a world of difference in meaning.
I beleiev ptolemy was a sceintist way before christianity. the churchs position on that is irrelevant. galileo just proved an old theory wrong.
though it appears that any new theory by "rogue" scientists that shatters old theories seem to be greeted by the same type of attacks by the "mainstream scientific" community(whoever they are.
wierd.
First court law accept "evidence" that would have no scientific ground (like witness). We know that witness lie, witness forget, we know also that what human brain forget he has a tendency to "build up" to make up the hole. He imagines. Witness are the worst kind of proof. Science DO NOT accept witness only proof as data. Alien were here ? Show me material proof. And sadly all photo presented until now to scientific did not hold a shilling of alien in it. Disclosureproject is one of those which don't hold on the ballooney detection kit, IIRC they even had photo which were known "fake". To know what I am speaking of read Carl SAgan a demon haunted world.
Science is a discipline where you can from data make a theory and then further disproof/proove it. Furthermore Science evolve. "When people *believe* something to be untrue, they sometimes ignore reasonably solid evidence." When people starts to believe they have no buisness in science. They are in politic or religion. Belief is the absolute truth. There is no absolute truth in science only temporair truth. Maybe there will be a proof alien visit us. Until now there is none such.
ALL pseudoscience including alien visitation NEVER bring solid proof. Most comes from the "I want to believe" kind. All also don't hold at the scepticism loop. Again I can only advise you to read Carl Sagan book, then restudy your own labelled "proof" and you will see it do not hold water long.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
youre probably like those people at the skeptical inquirer. too stupid to actually discover anything themselves.
lik youd fuckin understan anything stepehen hawking says. and you probably beleive him, since youre too stupid to understand the mathematics of the theory.
dude, you must rock!
according to superstring theory there might be 10 dimensions.
Im glad you can observe that.
last i look these two murdered more than anyone . I beleive they were atheists
if you guys are so damn educated how caome it is WE who keep invetning things.
U.S. Citizens a Mystery to Science, more like.
If you moderate me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
One point that I'd like to extend, although you're closer to right than I am with the reactions of others to our good doctor. You stated:Now, you are right to assume that some will think of one or the other, but there's a third, and the doctor's presentation could point people in that direction: (c) The doctor relates what the woman said, and does not make any comment on whether it was really an OBE or just her say-so.
Perhaps just a nit, but it needed picking in this case.
Be well.
Virg
Thank you, and I accept your handshake. One thing I'd like to note is that, in this application of Occam's Razor, the concept of a soul complicates that particular theory, but since OR only suggests percentages, we have to consider the theories as a whole; that is, the theories do not fit "A vs. A+Soul" and so that one thing alone may not be sufficient to decide which is simpler. In this case, based on the report only, I can't find any answer as to why she was able to describe the pen (discounting other theories like getting the pen picture from someone else's perception via telepathy, which is complex in a different way) other than "lucky guess" or "coincidental resemblance to a pen she saw when she had her vision" or possibly "doctor is fudging or outright lying", any of which add a good chunk of complexity to the equation themselves.
Food for thought, at least.
Virg
That's a completely different assumption than the one you mentioned (you mentioned E&M specifically, not all the laws of physics), and it isn't one that needs to be true. For instance, Newton's laws only hold for non-accelerating reference frames. Start considering linearly accelerating frames, or those god-awful rotating frames, and they have to be patched up. If the laws oh physics were completely different in different reference frames, then it would just be a matter of picking different frames, seeing how they differ, and try to figure out if there is some relationship between choice of frame and how the laws are varying. Note: Einsten actually set up any frame of reference as valid in general relativity; the laws of physics just need to be patched up a bit.
Without that assumption science does not become untenable. It simply means that physicists will have their work cut out for them as they try to figure out if there is a system behind the variance in the laws.
There is one thing I will grant you: scientists believe that their job isn't pointless (i.e. that there is some kind of order in this world). I think that the evidence in favor of this assumption is pretty good, wouldn't you? After all, if there wasn't any order, then it probably wouldn't be possible for us to even exist.
BlackGriffen
This is where you got me off on E&M:
"As Einstein famously postulated, 'The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of mechanics hold good.'"
BlackGriffen
I know this is off topic, but I'm really curious what this crowd thinks are the best countries in which to live and work.
Undoubtably. The vast majority of those would be starting from a philosophical position of materialism, which of course blinds them to a wide range of investigation.
It's worth noting that many materialist archaeologists still regard the Bible as an extremely accurate source of archaeological facts; their dissenting brothers are often in the position of allowing their philosophy to override any pragmatic judgement of the dataset.
Before starting in on the examples, it's also worth noting that NT texts have been found dated (by concrete and well-proven benchmarks like style, materials etc) to within less than a decade of the events they report.
There's a reasonably clear exploration of the issues at Apologetics Press. There are many others (Google is your friend), but most of them are either totally lightweight or get bogged down in blow-by-blow descriptions of whether certain pluralisations and word divisions in the Masoretic text agree more closely with the LXX or these scrolls.
No, on two counts.
First off, the `details' that they are arguing about are foundational and mutually exclusive. At most one of them can be right, and in that case evolution by the other method will not work. It is possible that they are both wrong; in fact, if you listen to their debate, it is certain that they are both wrong.
Second off, the place where they do agree is not `the fundamentals' but `the fundamentalism' - they both assert that materialism is the only arena for discussion. Because of this, neither of them will attack the other's fundamentalism in public. The same holds true between disciplines as between factions within a discipline. In less public circumstances the bankruptcy of that position becomes more obvious. It's akin to the idea of watching Popes declare each other to be antiChrist, in detail, during the Greast Schism(s).
Another thing to bear in mind is that this zone of evolutionary `detail' is just one of the many levels at which materialism, and evolution in particular, is demonstrably and completely infeasible.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing