I'm not stating that science should "accept" the unmeasurable and not deal with it, but be open to the idea that there may actually be something that cannot be measured...NOT that we shouldn't try to measure it, explain it, or search for theories about it.
Here's the problem - ID asked questions that evolution wouldn't - such ideas as Irreducible Complexity and concepts that are a bit "out of the box" for non-theists NEED to be asked.
Science education in this country is getting ridiculous. We go and try to teach scientific "facts" to kids before we actually teach critical thinking and scientific method. It's the NATURE of science that there are - or should be - no "sacred cows" - including evolution or ID or whatever. There is NO room for dogma in scientific thought, and we are seeing way too many people discount notions of the supernatural simply because it's supernatural. Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.
Like heck, it won't TOUCH NPR, no matter how many conservatives complain. It would pretty much ONLY affect a single intended group - conservative talk radio (and possibly Christian radio).
I mock 'em too. I'm in a financial field (interestingly enough, an analyst), and for some reason my big-picture methodology helps with what I do. I didn't go further in history partially because of burnout, partially because of desire, and partially because I didn't want to have to move every 2-3 years because I was hunting for tenure in a place I didn't want to live.
I got into/. because my wife is the computer geek, into coding and all that. I just happen to like sci-fi and politics.
Is it a clean toothbrush for every new artifact? Sorry, I did some archaeological technician work (aka Digging) for a few months, and the desire for the perfect 1mx1mx1m square hole was....interesting. WAY TOO INTERESTING.
Okay...I would ask WHY this is important, but someone is ponying up a million bucks for the solution. THAT tells me this is important. I'm not sure if I care why...
Heck, no. Do you KNOW how anal retentive anthropologists can get (particularly archaeologists?)? Ugh.
No, I get half the geek jokes and enjoy the political discussions here - the balance here on politics is a bit more educated than most other places. I like Star Wars, too. Han shot first and all that. Huzzah!
Ummm...I think that WAS layman's terms. For you math geeks, try being a history major and looking at all that. It just looks like a cat walked on the keyboard to me...
No thanks. Maybe somewhere in between, but I think this is a BAD idea - we'd get way too many people involved who would just see running for office as a free paycheck. Plus, there are plenty of business interests which would be shut out of the political process who should have genuine reason to be involved because they would be affected by taxation and regulation.
Public financing would also likely reduce much voting to the lowest common denominator and result in stupid people voting for stupid things. We need to re-work some of the way lobbying and influence peddling is done in politics, but we need to be careful we don't reduce everything to mob rule.
This Congress is probably the best reason we should throw EVERYONE who is an incumbent out the door, particularly those who have been in place more than 1-2 terms - from BOTH sides of the aisle. Republicans are holding to big-government ideals rather than conservative ones, and haven't been worth much since Gingrich left; and Dems haven't done much of anything but posture and "investigate" with committees that have done nothing but waste taxpayers time (suing OPEC? WTF?), and NO ONE is working together well. The ONE argument that Obama has going for him, in my mind (being a conservative) is that he's relatively inexperienced.
I think those studies have suicide skew their numbers. And there was a pretty comprehensive study done by John Lott titled "More guns, less crime" which debates your assertions. States with CC are typically less crime free than others such as DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the like where limitations on gun ownership have done little good.
Not to mention the latest anecdotal evidence in "gun-free" zones like schools where the law-abiding have been unable to defend themselves.
Actually, there aren't that many "illegal" weapons manufactured in the US. Just about all guns are manufactured and sold legally on their first sale. Many guns used in crimes were a) Stolen and b) used by someone who already had some sort of criminal record.
Honestly, Democrats who would come out against the hard-left and Democrat party leadership and be pro-gun, pro-life, and find some good support-the-middle-class rhetoric and maybe a little screw-the-rich would get elected in the South, and probably some other parts of the country right now, easily.
You're partly right, but I believe that study pretty much just included times guns were FIRED instead of simply "brandished." We can't get an accurate count on the number of times that guns have been used to protect without being discharged. Also, firing a gun is a pretty good incentive for a bad guy to leave, and quickly, even if not hit.
And, frankly, when you have an accident with your own gun, it's typically due lack of or mis-education on how to properly handle a firearm.
How about this - why don't we concentrate on criminals rather than weapons? The "illegal" weapons have pretty much been settled (you can only own a fully automatic after obtaining a federal license); and registration simply gives government information they have no reason to have.
And your point about idiots is almost right - educated, proper gun use rarely results in accidents or crime.
There's one more stat we need to know, and which is VERY hard to count - number of times a gun is used, but NOT FIRED, to prevent a crime or protect a person.
Gun education used to be the norm in America - just about every kid had a dad who owned one, knew how to use it, and knew not to touch it. Ignorance breeds fear and is particularly dangerous with guns. Growing up, I knew NOT to play with them, mess around with them, and that they had a handful of particular uses. The more kids that know that, the fewer accidents we have.
Of course, you don't consider those of us who consider the unborn should have a certain amount of individual rights. Like...life. To a point, you have one about homosexual union ("marriage" is a poor term, given its historical context).
Your equations aren't necessarily true. The VAST majority of guns in the US are NOT used in crimes, and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. States with conceal-carry laws have substantially reduced crime rates as well.
States can still regulate firearms, as long as they don't infringe upon the second amendment. Individual rights, in this case, trump state rights.
Except, of course, when it came to cutting taxes (adding a TON of people to the middle class), or speeding up the death of the Soviet Union, or reforming the tax system, or breaking the fed and dropping interest rates, or, well, I could go on, but if you're going to be all ideological...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not stating that science should "accept" the unmeasurable and not deal with it, but be open to the idea that there may actually be something that cannot be measured...NOT that we shouldn't try to measure it, explain it, or search for theories about it.
Here's the problem - ID asked questions that evolution wouldn't - such ideas as Irreducible Complexity and concepts that are a bit "out of the box" for non-theists NEED to be asked.
Science education in this country is getting ridiculous. We go and try to teach scientific "facts" to kids before we actually teach critical thinking and scientific method. It's the NATURE of science that there are - or should be - no "sacred cows" - including evolution or ID or whatever. There is NO room for dogma in scientific thought, and we are seeing way too many people discount notions of the supernatural simply because it's supernatural. Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.
Like heck, it won't TOUCH NPR, no matter how many conservatives complain. It would pretty much ONLY affect a single intended group - conservative talk radio (and possibly Christian radio).
I mock 'em too. I'm in a financial field (interestingly enough, an analyst), and for some reason my big-picture methodology helps with what I do. I didn't go further in history partially because of burnout, partially because of desire, and partially because I didn't want to have to move every 2-3 years because I was hunting for tenure in a place I didn't want to live.
/. because my wife is the computer geek, into coding and all that. I just happen to like sci-fi and politics.
I got into
Is it a clean toothbrush for every new artifact? Sorry, I did some archaeological technician work (aka Digging) for a few months, and the desire for the perfect 1mx1mx1m square hole was....interesting. WAY TOO INTERESTING.
MOD UP. You've answered what I was about to ask - why the near-indecipherable answer to a confusing problem was so stinking important.
Nope. Not happening.
Okay...I would ask WHY this is important, but someone is ponying up a million bucks for the solution. THAT tells me this is important. I'm not sure if I care why...
Heck, no. Do you KNOW how anal retentive anthropologists can get (particularly archaeologists?)? Ugh.
No, I get half the geek jokes and enjoy the political discussions here - the balance here on politics is a bit more educated than most other places. I like Star Wars, too. Han shot first and all that. Huzzah!
Ummm...I think that WAS layman's terms. For you math geeks, try being a history major and looking at all that. It just looks like a cat walked on the keyboard to me...
Me too...my 10-year-old ICQ # (8 digits) which I haven't used in 5 years...
No thanks. Maybe somewhere in between, but I think this is a BAD idea - we'd get way too many people involved who would just see running for office as a free paycheck. Plus, there are plenty of business interests which would be shut out of the political process who should have genuine reason to be involved because they would be affected by taxation and regulation.
Public financing would also likely reduce much voting to the lowest common denominator and result in stupid people voting for stupid things. We need to re-work some of the way lobbying and influence peddling is done in politics, but we need to be careful we don't reduce everything to mob rule.
This Congress is probably the best reason we should throw EVERYONE who is an incumbent out the door, particularly those who have been in place more than 1-2 terms - from BOTH sides of the aisle. Republicans are holding to big-government ideals rather than conservative ones, and haven't been worth much since Gingrich left; and Dems haven't done much of anything but posture and "investigate" with committees that have done nothing but waste taxpayers time (suing OPEC? WTF?), and NO ONE is working together well. The ONE argument that Obama has going for him, in my mind (being a conservative) is that he's relatively inexperienced.
I think those studies have suicide skew their numbers. And there was a pretty comprehensive study done by John Lott titled "More guns, less crime" which debates your assertions. States with CC are typically less crime free than others such as DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the like where limitations on gun ownership have done little good.
Not to mention the latest anecdotal evidence in "gun-free" zones like schools where the law-abiding have been unable to defend themselves.
Not necessarily - Texas, Georgia, and Florida all have high population centers and lower crime than DC and California, I believe.
Actually, there aren't that many "illegal" weapons manufactured in the US. Just about all guns are manufactured and sold legally on their first sale. Many guns used in crimes were a) Stolen and b) used by someone who already had some sort of criminal record.
Honestly, Democrats who would come out against the hard-left and Democrat party leadership and be pro-gun, pro-life, and find some good support-the-middle-class rhetoric and maybe a little screw-the-rich would get elected in the South, and probably some other parts of the country right now, easily.
You're partly right, but I believe that study pretty much just included times guns were FIRED instead of simply "brandished." We can't get an accurate count on the number of times that guns have been used to protect without being discharged. Also, firing a gun is a pretty good incentive for a bad guy to leave, and quickly, even if not hit.
And, frankly, when you have an accident with your own gun, it's typically due lack of or mis-education on how to properly handle a firearm.
How about this - why don't we concentrate on criminals rather than weapons? The "illegal" weapons have pretty much been settled (you can only own a fully automatic after obtaining a federal license); and registration simply gives government information they have no reason to have.
And your point about idiots is almost right - educated, proper gun use rarely results in accidents or crime.
There's one more stat we need to know, and which is VERY hard to count - number of times a gun is used, but NOT FIRED, to prevent a crime or protect a person.
Gun education used to be the norm in America - just about every kid had a dad who owned one, knew how to use it, and knew not to touch it. Ignorance breeds fear and is particularly dangerous with guns. Growing up, I knew NOT to play with them, mess around with them, and that they had a handful of particular uses. The more kids that know that, the fewer accidents we have.
Of course, you don't consider those of us who consider the unborn should have a certain amount of individual rights. Like...life. To a point, you have one about homosexual union ("marriage" is a poor term, given its historical context).
Your equations aren't necessarily true. The VAST majority of guns in the US are NOT used in crimes, and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. States with conceal-carry laws have substantially reduced crime rates as well.
States can still regulate firearms, as long as they don't infringe upon the second amendment. Individual rights, in this case, trump state rights.
Except, of course, when it came to cutting taxes (adding a TON of people to the middle class), or speeding up the death of the Soviet Union, or reforming the tax system, or breaking the fed and dropping interest rates, or, well, I could go on, but if you're going to be all ideological...