No, I'm not confusing them. Rather, I think you are assuming that everything scientists do is science. They're (usually) human beings too, and have lives to live. When they look for evidence in support of their theories it's aberrant behaviour as far as science is concerned (though perfectly normal as far as their humanity is concerned). Looking for support for one's pet theories is not the mutation side of Popper's scientific evolution analogy, the refinement of existing theories is. Maybe "to begin with a conviction and then to use one's intellectual prowess to establish support for that conviction has worked for scientists", but it's not science.
I don't necessarily "disagree with the mixture of science and marketing that characterizes research over the past decade at least", but I think it's essential to science to recognize that it is a mix of science and marketing and to know which bit is which.
I teach falsifiability. But what happens in practice is that people go looking for tests to accrue additional evidence for their position.
Then what happens in practice isn't really science (although it can be a useful precursor to science, as there's not much point in putting effort into falsifying something that was never particularly plausible in the first place).
Surely you know how rarely null-hypothesis results get published.
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Then that's not science, it's marketing. Surely you know of the many meta-study techniques that are applied to identify whether the number of null-hypothesis results is statistically plausible, especially whether deviations correlate credibly with the population sample sizes used in the experiments.
Final line FTA: "They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science." Um, actually, that's pretty damn close to the actual definition of science (hypothesis, followed by experimental design).
No, it's the direct opposite of science. In science you start with an established position and try to figure out ways to refute it, not support it. Starting with a hypothesis and looking for support for the hypothesis is what all the pseudoscientists, snake-oil merchants and quack healers do. And they never have to "admit when the results contradict [their] starting position", because if they're not looking for evidence that contradicts their position then they'll never find it, the most that will happen is that they won't find evidence in favour, and then they can just cite "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Ever heard of falsifiability?
I know somebody who was successfully prosecuted (in the UK, ymmv) for doing 32mph in a 30 limit. The court took the view that the equipment was accurate enough to determine that they really were doing over 30, and over the limit is over the limit. I don't see you've got any grounds to complain about being caught at 48 in a 40 limit.
Certain behaviour is self regulating up to a certain point. If people can get a service they consider important for a price they deem reasonable they will pay for it, not doing so will make the service disappear and in the case of basic needs like food etc that would be a problem, the majority of the people still gets that basic idea.
You have a charmingly innocent view of human nature. Yes, the majority will get the idea, but if they see everybody else helping themselves then they'll take what they want too: "If I don't clear the store out then somebody else will."
If a company has to defend itself against *millions* of criminals, then common logic holds that whatever these millions of people are doing it is not, or should not be, a crime.
Interesting rationale. So if a major supermarket chain has to defend itself against millions of people who would shoplift if they thought they would get away with it, you think they should just abandon security and give everything away?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're talking about teaching *critical thinking*, where history is a means to that end.
No, I'm not. Critical thinking is important, but you need something to think critically about. "This was tried before, and failed" isn't the result of critical thinking, it's a fact that can be useful to know. Sure, critical thinking can then be used to analysed why it failed last time and whether something can be changed to prevent it failing this time, but critical thinking needs a starting point. The other thing I mentioned was sources, and I was thinking in particular about the difference between primary and secondary sources, and possible sources of bias and inaccuracy. Critical thinking can help you deal with them when you've identified them, but practical experience in working with sources beats any amount of theoretical thinking about them. Unfortunately this is something that wasn't taught in school history when I was doing it (I don't know about now), which I feel was (is?) a serious omission.
I think critical thinking - the ability not to be fooled - is the most important thing of all.
But that still can't justify violating an individuals freedom. It would still come down to "*I* think this is *so* important, *you* ARE going to do it."
Oh, please. Adults make decisions on behalf of children all the time. "*I* think it's *so* important for you not to run out into that busy road, so *you* ARE going to stay on the sidewalk." Trying to turn this into a violation of liberties is plain silly. Leave the kids to their own devices and most of them wouldn't turn up at school at all.
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII? why -do- they have no choice?
If you mean "why do we force kids to memorise pages of names and dates", I agree: it's pretty pointless. But teaching history would be teaching how to assess and use evidence and reconcile conflicting accounts and teaching what worked and didn't work in the past (and why) so people don't make the same mistakes (on a small or large scale) again. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
1984 and Animal Farm would most likely not become mandatory, simply because they might teach people to be wary of what's going on so that the government can't screw them up bit by bit
I don't think the government would be worried. After all, they're read in schools in the West, and most folks here don't notice. Why would it be different anywhere else? Until they start teaching them logical thinking, of course...
If your job involves numbers at some point you are far more likely to need arithmetic than algebra. As far as I can see, most people can't do algebra and don't need to do algebra. Slashdot is not representative of the population as a whole.
Well, getting onto the tarmac has been the only times I've looked directly down the business end of a loaded rifle, something the passengers didn't face. Maybe we take these things more seriously in the UK (and I admit that wasn't at all airports.
If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective.
I work a lot at airports, and the security for staff can be tougher than the security for passengers (although the lines tend to be shorter). It's a real pain in the backside when you really do have to take tools through.
I think that the intertwined ones are the sort that you find mounted on little plaques and such. I seem to remember seeing something like it. It's purely symbolic.
Unlike the other sort of wedding ring. Oh, wait...
Slashdot Mirror
So that's basically "not much" -- only a bit more than just not charging them for the period of the outage.
No, I'm not confusing them. Rather, I think you are assuming that everything scientists do is science. They're (usually) human beings too, and have lives to live. When they look for evidence in support of their theories it's aberrant behaviour as far as science is concerned (though perfectly normal as far as their humanity is concerned). Looking for support for one's pet theories is not the mutation side of Popper's scientific evolution analogy, the refinement of existing theories is. Maybe "to begin with a conviction and then to use one's intellectual prowess to establish support for that conviction has worked for scientists", but it's not science.
I don't necessarily "disagree with the mixture of science and marketing that characterizes research over the past decade at least", but I think it's essential to science to recognize that it is a mix of science and marketing and to know which bit is which.
I teach falsifiability. But what happens in practice is that people go looking for tests to accrue additional evidence for their position.
Then what happens in practice isn't really science (although it can be a useful precursor to science, as there's not much point in putting effort into falsifying something that was never particularly plausible in the first place).
Surely you know how rarely null-hypothesis results get published.
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Then that's not science, it's marketing. Surely you know of the many meta-study techniques that are applied to identify whether the number of null-hypothesis results is statistically plausible, especially whether deviations correlate credibly with the population sample sizes used in the experiments.
Final line FTA: "They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science." Um, actually, that's pretty damn close to the actual definition of science (hypothesis, followed by experimental design).
No, it's the direct opposite of science. In science you start with an established position and try to figure out ways to refute it, not support it. Starting with a hypothesis and looking for support for the hypothesis is what all the pseudoscientists, snake-oil merchants and quack healers do. And they never have to "admit when the results contradict [their] starting position", because if they're not looking for evidence that contradicts their position then they'll never find it, the most that will happen is that they won't find evidence in favour, and then they can just cite "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". Ever heard of falsifiability?
fuck religious people in general
Can I start with the cute ones, please?
I know somebody who was successfully prosecuted (in the UK, ymmv) for doing 32mph in a 30 limit. The court took the view that the equipment was accurate enough to determine that they really were doing over 30, and over the limit is over the limit. I don't see you've got any grounds to complain about being caught at 48 in a 40 limit.
Certain behaviour is self regulating up to a certain point. If people can get a service they consider important for a price they deem reasonable they will pay for it, not doing so will make the service disappear and in the case of basic needs like food etc that would be a problem, the majority of the people still gets that basic idea.
You have a charmingly innocent view of human nature. Yes, the majority will get the idea, but if they see everybody else helping themselves then they'll take what they want too: "If I don't clear the store out then somebody else will."
If a company has to defend itself against *millions* of criminals, then common logic holds that whatever these millions of people are doing it is not, or should not be, a crime.
Interesting rationale. So if a major supermarket chain has to defend itself against millions of people who would shoplift if they thought they would get away with it, you think they should just abandon security and give everything away?
In short it is a strictly voluntary program of obtaining authentication credentials which only YOU and identity thieves say what you share with each.
FTFY.
Dropbox has to keep a copy somewhere. The file remains available even when the originating machine is turned off.
The first companion I remember was Susan Foreman. Now, get off my lawn!
Doesn't seem to be any such section here.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're talking about teaching *critical thinking*, where history is a means to that end.
No, I'm not. Critical thinking is important, but you need something to think critically about. "This was tried before, and failed" isn't the result of critical thinking, it's a fact that can be useful to know. Sure, critical thinking can then be used to analysed why it failed last time and whether something can be changed to prevent it failing this time, but critical thinking needs a starting point. The other thing I mentioned was sources, and I was thinking in particular about the difference between primary and secondary sources, and possible sources of bias and inaccuracy. Critical thinking can help you deal with them when you've identified them, but practical experience in working with sources beats any amount of theoretical thinking about them. Unfortunately this is something that wasn't taught in school history when I was doing it (I don't know about now), which I feel was (is?) a serious omission.
I think critical thinking - the ability not to be fooled - is the most important thing of all.
But that still can't justify violating an individuals freedom. It would still come down to "*I* think this is *so* important, *you* ARE going to do it."
Oh, please. Adults make decisions on behalf of children all the time. "*I* think it's *so* important for you not to run out into that busy road, so *you* ARE going to stay on the sidewalk." Trying to turn this into a violation of liberties is plain silly. Leave the kids to their own devices and most of them wouldn't turn up at school at all.
I think the individual freedom argument applies fully to schooling. Why -are- we teaching every single 13 year old the history of Henry VII? why -do- they have no choice?
If you mean "why do we force kids to memorise pages of names and dates", I agree: it's pretty pointless. But teaching history would be teaching how to assess and use evidence and reconcile conflicting accounts and teaching what worked and didn't work in the past (and why) so people don't make the same mistakes (on a small or large scale) again. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
1984 and Animal Farm would most likely not become mandatory, simply because they might teach people to be wary of what's going on so that the government can't screw them up bit by bit
I don't think the government would be worried. After all, they're read in schools in the West, and most folks here don't notice. Why would it be different anywhere else? Until they start teaching them logical thinking, of course...
If your job involves numbers at some point you are far more likely to need arithmetic than algebra. As far as I can see, most people can't do algebra and don't need to do algebra. Slashdot is not representative of the population as a whole.
If only...
Word-by-word it's fine. It's only when you put the words together in order that there's a problem.
Well, getting onto the tarmac has been the only times I've looked directly down the business end of a loaded rifle, something the passengers didn't face. Maybe we take these things more seriously in the UK (and I admit that wasn't at all airports.
Really. I've been personnel, and it's never been easy getting airside.
If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective.
I work a lot at airports, and the security for staff can be tougher than the security for passengers (although the lines tend to be shorter). It's a real pain in the backside when you really do have to take tools through.
"Great. Just the size for you to use as a cock ring!"
I think that the intertwined ones are the sort that you find mounted on little plaques and such. I seem to remember seeing something like it. It's purely symbolic.
Unlike the other sort of wedding ring. Oh, wait...
The DNA is cutting out its meat-puppet go-betweens and is reproducing directly, perhaps?