Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the thats-just-bizarre dept.
cbull writes "USA Today has an article about practice for the attempts to capture the Genesis capsule. Helicopter stunt pilots will have 5 chances to capture the 400-lb. capsule. Military pilots were unavailable, due to the 6-year commitment required."
Re:Starfleet's feelings on the matter here:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
+4 Insightful? This is why I love Slashdot.
Re:Bigger Parachute
by
wired_parrot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I understand their need to reduce shock, but I would think a properly designed system with parachutes and balloons to absorb the impact, proven technology that's been used in the mars lander missions, would work just as well with less risk.
Catching the capsule mid-air with a hollywood helicopter stunt-pilot definitely does not sound like playing it safe to me. It sounds to me more like NASA is trying to attract the publicity by going with a risky recovery scheme at the expense of the science involved.
Re:Why do they need to put this?
by
VanillaCoke420
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's amazing, isn't it? Science is science, and whether or not religion agrees with its findings have absolute zero relevance.
I agree completely that science is science. The light is either on or off, it really doesn't matter how you feel about it. Truth is that way.
However, frequently a straw man is drawn between science and matters of faith, where science is portrayed as unbiased - merely truth, and matters of faith are at best irrelevant, and at worst completely counter to reason itself.
People of faith bring a bias to a discussion. People of no faith bring a bias to a discussion, too. Because scientists are people, they bring a bias to their work. Specifically, scientists who deny God's existence have a bias that impacts their work, and not always in a positive way.
It's true that science and theology are separate disciplines, but to suggest that neither is relevant to the other is a bit naieve.
Respectfully, Anomaly
-- But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'd like to point out that...
by
mav[LAG]
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...this story has been mentioned before. It is my single accepted submission on/. and thus occupies a special place in my memory:)
The problem is
by
Sycraft-fu
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That many religious people seem to feel as though their faith should be given special weight, as though because it's written in the Bible or some other book claimed to be of divine origin, science should accept it as fact. They want scientists to find evidence that supports their views, and ignore evidence that doesn't. Well, that's not how it works. Science (when properly done) finds evidence and draws theories to explain it, regardless of if they like what it shows.
The other problem is that the claims of faith are generally unfalsifiable, which is REQUIRED to be a valid scientific theory. So anything that looks like it might support their claim, they point to and shout, anything that looks like it might detract from it, they claim doesn't apply. Since their claim isn't an empiricially valid, falsifiable claim, it doesn't really matter either way.
Remember: We do not prove things true in sciemce, with each test we show them to be not false under a certian set of circumstances. So the more something is tested and the more varied the conditions, the more sure we can be that it is the truth.
So when you take an empiricist viewpoint, which is what is needed to do good science, leaving god out of it is appropriate. There is NO valid empirical evidence to support the existance of god. That god exists ins't even a testable theory. Thus it needs to be treated like ESP or anything else that is claimed but not testable. That doesn't mean that god doesn't exist and we just can't test for it, but science is, and must be, only concerned with the testable.
So having faith is fine, but don't pretend the arguments should be given scientific creedence until you can come up with a falsifiable test. If you want scientists to deal with matters of god, design a test that is empirically valid and falsifiable. Then they'll be interested and test it (as well as probably winning you major recognition as a philsopher, whichever way it turns out).
Re:6 year commitment?
by
YrWrstNtmr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
None of those you listed are 6 year committments. And all are subject to "the needs of the military".
Is this a function that only a military pilot can do? No. Besides...many, many high end civilian pilots (rotary and fixed wing) came from the military.
Again you fail to understand science
by
Sycraft-fu
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
See Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" for complete information. The thing is, science is ONLY concerned with the testable, and to be scientifically testable a theory must be falsifiable. This is how science is done. If it's not testable, it's not science. Doesn't mean you aren't free to believe it but don't pretend like science should give it any weight. You hold a belief with no scientific proof, that's faith and that's fine, but don't then turn around and ask scientists to consdier your faith in science.
Of course scientists have bias, everything has bias. Even physics has bias as there are things that you cannot observe without changing the result. That does not, however, make religion any more scientific or any more worthy of scientific consdieration.
Look, whatever facts you think you have that support a cerator, none of them come even close to passing scientific muster. I've heard basically all of them, and they just don't hold up. You may choose to believe they are evidence of a creator, and that's fine, but they are SCIENTIFIC evidence and thus aren't of any intrest to scientists.
I'll cover a couple of the popular ones:
The cause of the universe. The believer says that everything must have a cause, including the universe. This cause is god. Sorry, but now you've got the same problem, now god is the prime cause, what caused god? It is a much simpler explination (and thus the working theory) that the universe IS the prime cause.
Healing by prayer. The believer points to cases where a person with an uncurable disease got better after they, or others, prayed for it. Problem is, the ignores counter evidence, the many cases where people prayed and the person still died. This was restated as a falsifible theory and tested, and falsified. They said that if prayer healing worked, then there would be a statistical difference in those that survived. So they had a group go and pray for some cases in a hospital, not others. There was no stastical difference.
So it goes for all the claims I've ever heard. A believe may see them as evidence and that's fine but they are NOT scientific evidence. Science has a very specific standard, strong inference (laid out in Popper's book) that must be met. Religion doens't get a free pass at that and get to be called science with less evidence.
Also you mistake the difference between not believing in something and saying it can't exist. I don't believe in god because there is insufficient evidence to do so. I do nto claim god can't exist, just that until I see some scientific proof, I'm not going to believe in it. Same for ESP, astral trips, and so on. There is not the evidence to convince me it is true so I don't believe it.
Really, you need to get some of the philsophy of science and Popper's book is the best place to start. You have a very common misconception of what science is. It's a process of knowing things about the world and testing things, the only reliable one we've found. It is not infalliable or complete but it is highly reliable and has advanced knolwedge more than anything else save writing. It isn't just some random process, it's a logical, robust process of testing things to find out the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Strong disagreement
I understand their need to reduce shock, but I would think a properly designed system with parachutes and balloons to absorb the impact, proven technology that's been used in the mars lander missions, would work just as well with less risk.
Catching the capsule mid-air with a hollywood helicopter stunt-pilot definitely does not sound like playing it safe to me. It sounds to me more like NASA is trying to attract the publicity by going with a risky recovery scheme at the expense of the science involved.
It's amazing, isn't it? Science is science, and whether or not religion agrees with its findings have absolute zero relevance.
I agree completely that science is science. The light is either on or off, it really doesn't matter how you feel about it. Truth is that way.
However, frequently a straw man is drawn between science and matters of faith, where science is portrayed as unbiased - merely truth, and matters of faith are at best irrelevant, and at worst completely counter to reason itself.
People of faith bring a bias to a discussion. People of no faith bring a bias to a discussion, too. Because scientists are people, they bring a bias to their work. Specifically, scientists who deny God's existence have a bias that impacts their work, and not always in a positive way.
It's true that science and theology are separate disciplines, but to suggest that neither is relevant to the other is a bit naieve.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
...this story has been mentioned before. It is my single accepted submission on /. and thus occupies a special place in my memory :)
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Ah, USA today, how I love you for your technical prowness...
Together, the charged atoms captured on the capsule's disks of gold, sapphire, diamond and silicone are no bigger than a few grains of salt
Atomic element or polymer, it's probably close enough. But Spaceflightnow say's it's the element Silicon. And they've got a cool picture of the spacecraft.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
That many religious people seem to feel as though their faith should be given special weight, as though because it's written in the Bible or some other book claimed to be of divine origin, science should accept it as fact. They want scientists to find evidence that supports their views, and ignore evidence that doesn't. Well, that's not how it works. Science (when properly done) finds evidence and draws theories to explain it, regardless of if they like what it shows.
The other problem is that the claims of faith are generally unfalsifiable, which is REQUIRED to be a valid scientific theory. So anything that looks like it might support their claim, they point to and shout, anything that looks like it might detract from it, they claim doesn't apply. Since their claim isn't an empiricially valid, falsifiable claim, it doesn't really matter either way.
Remember: We do not prove things true in sciemce, with each test we show them to be not false under a certian set of circumstances. So the more something is tested and the more varied the conditions, the more sure we can be that it is the truth.
So when you take an empiricist viewpoint, which is what is needed to do good science, leaving god out of it is appropriate. There is NO valid empirical evidence to support the existance of god. That god exists ins't even a testable theory. Thus it needs to be treated like ESP or anything else that is claimed but not testable. That doesn't mean that god doesn't exist and we just can't test for it, but science is, and must be, only concerned with the testable.
So having faith is fine, but don't pretend the arguments should be given scientific creedence until you can come up with a falsifiable test. If you want scientists to deal with matters of god, design a test that is empirically valid and falsifiable. Then they'll be interested and test it (as well as probably winning you major recognition as a philsopher, whichever way it turns out).
Is this a function that only a military pilot can do? No. Besides...many, many high end civilian pilots (rotary and fixed wing) came from the military.
See Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" for complete information. The thing is, science is ONLY concerned with the testable, and to be scientifically testable a theory must be falsifiable. This is how science is done. If it's not testable, it's not science. Doesn't mean you aren't free to believe it but don't pretend like science should give it any weight. You hold a belief with no scientific proof, that's faith and that's fine, but don't then turn around and ask scientists to consdier your faith in science.
Of course scientists have bias, everything has bias. Even physics has bias as there are things that you cannot observe without changing the result. That does not, however, make religion any more scientific or any more worthy of scientific consdieration.
Look, whatever facts you think you have that support a cerator, none of them come even close to passing scientific muster. I've heard basically all of them, and they just don't hold up. You may choose to believe they are evidence of a creator, and that's fine, but they are SCIENTIFIC evidence and thus aren't of any intrest to scientists.
I'll cover a couple of the popular ones:
The cause of the universe. The believer says that everything must have a cause, including the universe. This cause is god. Sorry, but now you've got the same problem, now god is the prime cause, what caused god? It is a much simpler explination (and thus the working theory) that the universe IS the prime cause.
Healing by prayer. The believer points to cases where a person with an uncurable disease got better after they, or others, prayed for it. Problem is, the ignores counter evidence, the many cases where people prayed and the person still died. This was restated as a falsifible theory and tested, and falsified. They said that if prayer healing worked, then there would be a statistical difference in those that survived. So they had a group go and pray for some cases in a hospital, not others. There was no stastical difference.
So it goes for all the claims I've ever heard. A believe may see them as evidence and that's fine but they are NOT scientific evidence. Science has a very specific standard, strong inference (laid out in Popper's book) that must be met. Religion doens't get a free pass at that and get to be called science with less evidence.
Also you mistake the difference between not believing in something and saying it can't exist. I don't believe in god because there is insufficient evidence to do so. I do nto claim god can't exist, just that until I see some scientific proof, I'm not going to believe in it. Same for ESP, astral trips, and so on. There is not the evidence to convince me it is true so I don't believe it.
Really, you need to get some of the philsophy of science and Popper's book is the best place to start. You have a very common misconception of what science is. It's a process of knowing things about the world and testing things, the only reliable one we've found. It is not infalliable or complete but it is highly reliable and has advanced knolwedge more than anything else save writing. It isn't just some random process, it's a logical, robust process of testing things to find out the truth.