I wouldn't be supervised that people would volunteer for even that. A lot of people are driven to contribute to something that is greater than themselves.
As far as I know most or at least major parts of most of the the articles are licensed from other encyclopaedias, so they are not really free to just give them out.
The question was there to note that you don't have to follow the scientific method to get results. Its just a superior way of doing so. Likewise one can be religious (or accept any other doctrine unquestioningly) and still do science and get results. However you are not following the scientific method (ie real science).
You cannot separate science and religion as two different 'areas' of questioning. This is an oft spoken by silly notion. Both make contradicting claims and you sometimes just have to pick one or the other. e.g. as per the bible: prayer heals the sick plus other things vs science: prayer does nothing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer#Efficacy_of_prayer_healing). If a Christian scientists accepts the science, then they are contradicting the bible.
Thank-you for reading through the article. Naturally there will not be every step in the evolution recorded in the fossil record, but can you honestly say that the evidence displayed there is not enough to reasonably dismiss any claims of the 'impossibility of evolution'?
Naturally scientists are humans, and there are egos involved, however I have never seen this to turn into a major issue. What I have seen is a love of truth rather than theory - that is scientists are happier to have been corrected as they now know more rather than disappointed to have been incorrect!
I cannot say I agree with you on the issue of religion and science. I have not experienced religion to be a search for truth - to me it in an insular search bounded by doctrines which make the whole exercise pointless as a search for truth. I have never seen a discussion on religion that didn't involve notions of 'faith' or personal experience - these are cop-outs - why not demand anything less them empirically tested results to base your opinions on! Perhaps this is just my experience with religion and you may have an better appreciation of it. No doubt my particular area of work has coloured my opinion in this matter due to the disreputable behaviour of a minority of people.
Yes. Do you think nothing worthwhile was discovered before the scientific method? Having god as an 'unshakable fact' means you are going to be led astray when dealing with questions that involve god. As a good example of this here is his quote "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done". Is this science? Does this help or hinder his examination of the natural world?
Again school is not the place for this. I am all for teaching children the scientific method, and to question everything - but this is not where this is going.
As I have mentioned, Wikipedia already has all the answers in way better wording then I would ever come up with. In fact there is an entire article just dedicated to that question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.
Your third paragraph "magically decides that it needs to see when it has no concept of sight" seems to say that you don't understand how evolution works at all. There is no causal factor involved here. Perhaps you were just being dramatic. If you still feel confused after reading the article let me know - I work in this field (evo in general) and am happy to explain any of the details involved in evolution.
If the biblical account is confused as you say, why mention it at all. There are better sources to look to then the confused writings of people who lived a long time ago.
I know plenty of people who are Christians as well as scientists - however the great majority see it as some vague metaphor rather than a how to guide for understanding the universe.
Science is about trying to understand how things work. If you have already decided that god exists then you are not doing proper science.
I don't understand how any reasonably intelligent person (and I take it that you are if you work in physics) can buy the micro vs marco evolution nonsense (akin to saying that people can walk a kilometre but walking a 100 kilometres is impossible!) - but I have seen plenty of otherwise intelligence people believe all sorts of silly things. Even such a tertiary source as wikipedia has all the information one would need to make the right conclusion, let alone all the primary sources that you as an educated person should be able to follow.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in a theory - but with evolution everyone trots out quite bizarre arguments against it (as you yourself have done) which anyone with a bit of thinking should be able to reject. Any actual scientific debates would be about some of quite complex and in depth aspects of the theory which would not be taught at school level.
Probably from watching too many movies - many people assume that anything that has self-awareness will have emotions as well despite the fact that emotions are something that is separately encoded into our brains.
I would actually welcome some incorruptible unemotional machine being in charge of things - so many problems could be solved... ofcourse the question is what if it rightly judges that we are a blight on the planet etc. and moves to wipe us out or puts us in some kind of nature reserve?
There is no such thing as reverse racism, its either racism or its not. The reverse of racism is still racism (ie favouring a race vs denigration a race are both examples of racism). Plz discontinue usage k thnx.
I'm sure we solved a similar problem here on earth... if I could only think what it was... perhaps fixing it in place with one of hundreds of different products...
Note that most forms of anarchism favour a small local government (ie community based) rather than a central government - so neither really calls for complete lawlessness.
Optus in Australia has a peek dl limit and a larger off peak limit to encourage people to dl at night. I think that is prolly a good solution for all involved. Tho if the OP is feeling adventurous he might try giving the customers what they paid for.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
I wish you would apply your moral panic to causes that could actually help people.
If you follow the scientific method the best you can do is go where the evidence takes you. If you get caught up in the right/wrong nonsense then you pollute the process with emotion and ego.
Being an armchair scientist can be fun, but why in the world do you think that all the scientists have missed something so simple as the effect of the sun on global warming? Do you really think that almost every scientist is hopelessly corrupt? Can you imagine something similar in any other occupation?
The sig is about accepting the reality of the situation rather then pretending something is other than what it is. Nothing there that says the world *should* be chaotic. If anything the world needs more order.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we really discount the possibility of ice having stealth technology?
Yes, because we have lost the technology to build ports...
I wouldn't be supervised that people would volunteer for even that. A lot of people are driven to contribute to something that is greater than themselves.
As far as I know most or at least major parts of most of the the articles are licensed from other encyclopaedias, so they are not really free to just give them out.
While optimism is nice reality is what one has to deal with on a day to day basis.
The question was there to note that you don't have to follow the scientific method to get results. Its just a superior way of doing so. Likewise one can be religious (or accept any other doctrine unquestioningly) and still do science and get results. However you are not following the scientific method (ie real science).
You cannot separate science and religion as two different 'areas' of questioning. This is an oft spoken by silly notion. Both make contradicting claims and you sometimes just have to pick one or the other. e.g. as per the bible: prayer heals the sick plus other things vs science: prayer does nothing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer#Efficacy_of_prayer_healing). If a Christian scientists accepts the science, then they are contradicting the bible.
Thank-you for reading through the article. Naturally there will not be every step in the evolution recorded in the fossil record, but can you honestly say that the evidence displayed there is not enough to reasonably dismiss any claims of the 'impossibility of evolution'?
Naturally scientists are humans, and there are egos involved, however I have never seen this to turn into a major issue. What I have seen is a love of truth rather than theory - that is scientists are happier to have been corrected as they now know more rather than disappointed to have been incorrect!
I cannot say I agree with you on the issue of religion and science. I have not experienced religion to be a search for truth - to me it in an insular search bounded by doctrines which make the whole exercise pointless as a search for truth. I have never seen a discussion on religion that didn't involve notions of 'faith' or personal experience - these are cop-outs - why not demand anything less them empirically tested results to base your opinions on! Perhaps this is just my experience with religion and you may have an better appreciation of it. No doubt my particular area of work has coloured my opinion in this matter due to the disreputable behaviour of a minority of people.
Yes. Do you think nothing worthwhile was discovered before the scientific method? Having god as an 'unshakable fact' means you are going to be led astray when dealing with questions that involve god. As a good example of this here is his quote "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done". Is this science? Does this help or hinder his examination of the natural world?
Again school is not the place for this. I am all for teaching children the scientific method, and to question everything - but this is not where this is going.
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
As I have mentioned, Wikipedia already has all the answers in way better wording then I would ever come up with. In fact there is an entire article just dedicated to that question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.
Your third paragraph "magically decides that it needs to see when it has no concept of sight" seems to say that you don't understand how evolution works at all. There is no causal factor involved here. Perhaps you were just being dramatic. If you still feel confused after reading the article let me know - I work in this field (evo in general) and am happy to explain any of the details involved in evolution.
If the biblical account is confused as you say, why mention it at all. There are better sources to look to then the confused writings of people who lived a long time ago.
I know plenty of people who are Christians as well as scientists - however the great majority see it as some vague metaphor rather than a how to guide for understanding the universe.
Science is about trying to understand how things work. If you have already decided that god exists then you are not doing proper science.
I don't understand how any reasonably intelligent person (and I take it that you are if you work in physics) can buy the micro vs marco evolution nonsense (akin to saying that people can walk a kilometre but walking a 100 kilometres is impossible!) - but I have seen plenty of otherwise intelligence people believe all sorts of silly things. Even such a tertiary source as wikipedia has all the information one would need to make the right conclusion, let alone all the primary sources that you as an educated person should be able to follow.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in a theory - but with evolution everyone trots out quite bizarre arguments against it (as you yourself have done) which anyone with a bit of thinking should be able to reject. Any actual scientific debates would be about some of quite complex and in depth aspects of the theory which would not be taught at school level.
This is in the context of education not actual scientific discourse... school is not the place to establish what is the best science.
Judges are not supposed to know everything - they only need to know who to ask.
Probably from watching too many movies - many people assume that anything that has self-awareness will have emotions as well despite the fact that emotions are something that is separately encoded into our brains.
I would actually welcome some incorruptible unemotional machine being in charge of things - so many problems could be solved... ofcourse the question is what if it rightly judges that we are a blight on the planet etc. and moves to wipe us out or puts us in some kind of nature reserve?
There is no such thing as reverse racism, its either racism or its not. The reverse of racism is still racism (ie favouring a race vs denigration a race are both examples of racism). Plz discontinue usage k thnx.
I'm sure we solved a similar problem here on earth... if I could only think what it was... perhaps fixing it in place with one of hundreds of different products...
I take it you skipped a few lessons in maths... and common sense.
Note that most forms of anarchism favour a small local government (ie community based) rather than a central government - so neither really calls for complete lawlessness.
Optus in Australia has a peek dl limit and a larger off peak limit to encourage people to dl at night. I think that is prolly a good solution for all involved. Tho if the OP is feeling adventurous he might try giving the customers what they paid for.
The whole controversy over the "life beings at conception" is completely religious, and affects only the Abrahamic faiths. In Asia and other parts of the world it is a non-issue.
I wish you would apply your moral panic to causes that could actually help people.
Hah, I like how you have a faint glimpse of history but lack the intelligence to really grasp the magnitude of it.
Filter your candidates for luck, you don't want unlucky people working for your company. Dump half the applications at random. Success!
If you follow the scientific method the best you can do is go where the evidence takes you. If you get caught up in the right/wrong nonsense then you pollute the process with emotion and ego.
Being an armchair scientist can be fun, but why in the world do you think that all the scientists have missed something so simple as the effect of the sun on global warming? Do you really think that almost every scientist is hopelessly corrupt? Can you imagine something similar in any other occupation?
I would also encourage you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
I don't get this - If you haven't used a windows OS since 2000, how can you say it a "job poorly done".
For my 2c, XP is a very well rounded operating system - part of the reason MS is finding it so hard to move people from it.
What? Lay off the drugs man.
The sig is about accepting the reality of the situation rather then pretending something is other than what it is. Nothing there that says the world *should* be chaotic. If anything the world needs more order.