Slashdot Mirror
Bad Science Awards
KDan writes "The Bad Science Awards are out. These should put a smile on any science geek's face. Prize gems include: shrinking water molecules, anesthetic condoms, and a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I've just read a few of these out - the one that caused the most laughter was the 'shrinking water molecules' one. Looks like the Planck constant isn't, at least for hairdressers :-)
:-( Perhaps if science were more popular/emphasized more at school, the problem might alleviate, but there's no votes in improving the education system in 15 years time...
I'm sure the condom story will cause the most general hilarity though - shades of 'Riotous Assembly' by Tom Sharpe - which I heartily recommend if you want people to wonder why you suddenly burst out laughing...
The real issue of course is that the general public ("sheep") will believe anything a man in a white coat ("doctor") tells them. Scepticism is a vanishing but valuable trait
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class
You are mistaken. Psychology and sociology are both sciences.
"The fact that Al Quaeda hasn't attacked us again just proves that we are winning the war on terror, and that we are doing the right things to prevent it."
Oh, I'm sorry, that's not bad science, that's just really bad logic. . .
Since creationism is not scientific, it should not be called an alternative theory. They should not be put side-by-side, since they are not on the same footing.
Of course you can't see a logical reason to accept religion. That's not the point. I don't see a religious reason to accept logic. Your instinctive trust of logic is pretty much equivalently rooted to my instinctive trust of God.
The scientific method is powerful and is logical. I agree with it. I have never said that I don't believe that science works, or that it is incorrect. I have never said I believe, and in fact I don't believe, that God created the world at once so that evolutionism arose from a mass of confused scientists and evil conspirators. I am a scientist at heart, as much as I am a Christian.
Yet science is only valid within the realm of science. Your saying that logic precludes a deity is no more valid than my saying that the Bible precludes evolution.
I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God. Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopat hy.shtml/
As for "yes, I can tell when it is working and when it isn't.". This is prime example of why we have strict testing. No you can't. Damn. Sorry. This crap makes me angry. One step to faith healers in my opinion.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
> > Also compare with Psalms 90:4, and particularly the notation "A prayer of Moses" at the beginning of Psalms 90
> What exactly are you referring to here? I read the passage, and I don't see where it would contradict the view that a day in the Bible is 24 hours.
"A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." That's the same 'day' as in Genesis. And the author is explicitly given: Moses. The same author traditionally given for Genesis. (Although there is a good case to be made that Moses compiled, not authored Genesis.) Now try to justify the statement that "the Hebrew word for 'day' always refers to a 24 hour period."
Also compare the frequent phrase "the day of the LORD" - which clearly does not refer to a 24 hr day.
P.S. To get really nit picky, you'll also find a 48 hour day in Joshua (the sun stood still for 24 hours) and a 24 hr 20 min day in II Kings (the shadow on the sundial went backward 10 degrees - assuming 1 deg = 1 min).
Intelligent design gets to the heart of the real disagreement between origin of life theories. Was it purposeless and uncaused, or designed? We ask the same questions about murders, artifacts, turing tests, and radio signals from space. The same techniques can be used.
The Bible asserts that G-d created every living thing "after its kind". However, it was Aristotle, not the Bible, who declared that species (and the stars) were immutable and unchanging. The Church somehow became supporters of the scientific orthodoxy of the day (Aristotleanism) instead of sticking to the Bible and Apostolic Tradition - and has been tarred with that brush ever since.
The scientific orthodoxy began to unravel with the appearance of two visible supernovas in the 15 and 16 hundreds (spectacular evidence that no, the stars are not immutable). But many were burned at the stake for stating the obvious conclusion from what they saw. Galileo got off easy because of the support of the Pope (who saw the moons of Jupiter through Galileos telescope with his own eyes - an Aristotelean impossibility). Galileo was foolishly undiplomatic, and his house arrest was needed to appease the insulted Aristoteleans.
Detractors of Intelligent design often proceed by showing mathematically that there can be no algorithm capable of classifying signal sources as "intelligent" or "not-intelligent" (for some definition of intelligent). This begs the question. The premise of the Christian supernatural is that this universe is embedded in a larger reality. This does not mean parallel universes or higher dimensions. The traditional metaphor was book and author. Good books like "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" are worlds created by their author. The author resides in a larger reality. A better metaphor in the computer age is a simulation or virtual world. Just as the existence of the virtual worlds we create depends on the continued functioning of the computer systems that house them, so our universe depends for its existence on whatever it is in the "more real" world that sustains it as computers sustain our virtual worlds. In turn, that world may be embedded in an even higher reality. Like a story within a story - to use the traditional metaphor. Where does it all end (or start)? The source of all realities and all worlds is God - like in Douglas Hofstadter's "Push and Pop" dialog in "Godel, Escher, Bach".
The "intelligence" of Intelligent Design is presumed to have its source outside of our universe - in the higher reality. A better model of the kind of experiment ID proposes can be illustrated by an online game. Suppose you are playing your favorite online game - which contains many AI players as well as human players. The game provides no explict indication of which avatars are human and which are machine driven. You have no contact with any of the human players except through the game. Would you be able to tell which avatars were controlled by human players, and which were artificial, using only the features of the virtual world and without resorting to any outside communication?