This number depends on the media - if they report every time an American gets killed, but only when >100 Iraqis get killed them over time that is how the strategy will be shaped.
Ok, I take your point - no system will be perfect. The gripe I have with both socialism and free markets is that they make untested assumptions about human nature - with both ending in dire straits because of it.
Modern government systems have taken this into consideration in the way the power is divided amongst the executive, legislature and the judiciary. If any one branch got too powerful the other two would gang up against it. Course as well all know this isn't foolproof.
No such thing as a "free market", just like there is no such thing as "socialism".
Please please pay attention: We are humans, so design systems with that in mind. If the problem with your system is "human nature" then your system is shit and needs to be rethought. Bitching about how people have messed up your system is not ok.
Centralised vs Decentralised is an exploration vs exploitation problem - a strong centralised power limits variation and increases efficiency, whereas a decentralised power increases variation at the cost of efficiency. The point I wanted to make is that there is nothing inherently better between one solution and another, they are both good for different situations.
Australia followed much the same path as America (i.e. strong states over time turned into weak states) and although I cannot comment from experience on America, I can say it has been beneficial to Australia, and we probably wouldn't be anywhere near our current standing in the world if we had kept our original constitutional configuration.
I think how far we have come with science, and the exponential increase in scientific output makes my argument for me. As for Feyerabend all I needed to read was:
advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified
When he is sick, he can go to a shaman, or a priest (after all they are just equal ideologies). I will go to a doctor.
If you truly think that treating religion, mysticism and magic on the same level as science is a good idea then go to an Islamic country, or parts of Africa and see how life is there compared to here. We have got where we are because we have identified reason being better than faith and "mysticism".
I don't think there is much more to say. While you say I have an optimistic view of the process, I say you have a pessimistic view of the process.
How would you make it better?
Any system that you design will have to have some sort of positive weight being placed on ideas that are supported by other accepted ideas, and conversely negative weight on ideas that are contrary to accepted view. This is true of almost any system you can think of as it is the most efficient way of making progress. Yes there is a loss on occasion of some good ideas that are too radical for its time, but that is offset by the fact that incrementally it is reached in due time.
So in no way is the system broken, over time it has been finely tuned to get the best outcome.
Well I have to disagree, scientists and researchers who have tenure are free to do or say as they will. They don't have to subscribe to the consensus, and science in replete with stories of scientists who have been ignored or chose to research something that contradicts the mainstream, and emerging victorious after completing a persuasive study. They were right to be ignored at the start (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - comparable to inertia) and right to be recognised after that have compiled enough evidence.
As for peer reviewed papers, on 90% of journals the people who do peer review are those who were accepted the previous edition. There isn't a constant group of people that could act as some sort of cabal. The people who make policy decisions are usually not (unfortunately) scientists - they are politicians, businessmen or bureaucrats and their behaviour is governed by different rules.
I suspect that this whole questioning of the science world is a result of your disagreement with the consensus surrounding evolution. It angers me that you have such an ego that you would rather believe the whole world wrong than that you are misinformed.
You rightly criticise the science of abiogenesis as not having solid proof, but what proof do you have for your rival theory?
Do you hold it to the same standard of proof?
Why is god the default hypothesis?
As for the RNA question: RNA is like DNA in that it is physically (and chemically) shaped to form chemical bonds to the matching RNA molecule. It is not the only thing that does this, there are a number of other molecules that have this property. RNA has an additional property that it can also act as a protein, which makes it an attractive player in any abiogenesis story, as you have both the storage and function elements already together. This is certainly not the only theory, and for all we know it could emerge that there are multiple possible pathways to life. Wikipedia as always has the best information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
As you note, its more a matter of which deeply held views are contradicted by science that determines which side of politics is anti-science. I know that for evolution (and sociobiology in particular) was quite violently denounced by the left as being evil (as it challenged the notion that all people were created equal; that everyone started off with a blank slate). Now that the issues are religious and environmental its the right that is anti-science.
Ok - there is no scientific elite (I guess Nobel prize winners might be the "elite" but what they say is not taken as gospel), nor hierarchy - its a distributed system, that operates on consensus. There is no central system or "high scientists" that define what science is currently "accepted". What children get taught are not the cutting edge of science either - they are taught things that we have known for a long time, and have survived challenges. The places where you would start to encounter real scientific uncertainty would be at 2nd or 3rd year level at university. So until then there is no real need to talk about "alternative theories".
What teacher should do is to encourage students to challenge them for proof - my fondest memories of science class in high school was when the teacher would be asked to prove something, and he would make an experiment to prove it to us. This has both education value, and encourages evidence based thinking.
I am not sure how what I have said in post above made you think that it resembles the Chinese government!
I've never read Confucius or Lao Tzu, but the teachings of Jesus are not philosophy, as the philosophers would have know it, as it contains no reasoning. Its loosely metaphysics.. or perhaps a system of values.
Depends - often there is little point teaching alternatives if there are no good ones. Science is not a good place for this as all the low level stuff that children would be learning are solid - a subject like politics is more suitable for that, where there are different core philosophies.
Actually, religion (at least Christian theology) does have explanations for things like birth defects, but if I bring up the concept of original sin, that will be even harder for you to swallow at this point.
God hates you coz something your supposed ancestors did a long time ago (wanting to learn). The guy needs to learn how to let go...
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
You are right he wasn't impeached - but he resigned to avoid certain impeachment, and he would have ended up in jail if it wasn't for that sissy Ford.
Dunno about Washington, but Nixon tried that argument and it didn't go down very well with the courts.
I think this is the same politician to the one that panders to the high tax crowd....
That's exactly how landmines are designed. Horrifically wound a couple and frighten the rest.
This number depends on the media - if they report every time an American gets killed, but only when >100 Iraqis get killed them over time that is how the strategy will be shaped.
So... you watched the tape, then found out their names and cross checked them on the civilian casualty list?
Seems to me you are as full of shit as the guy above!
There was a paper in nature recently titled "Improve your jihad: nuclear weapons" as part of their weekly jihad improvement segment.
Ok, I take your point - no system will be perfect. The gripe I have with both socialism and free markets is that they make untested assumptions about human nature - with both ending in dire straits because of it.
Modern government systems have taken this into consideration in the way the power is divided amongst the executive, legislature and the judiciary. If any one branch got too powerful the other two would gang up against it. Course as well all know this isn't foolproof.
You know, that explains a lot - personally I've always thought someone told him the whole president thing was a movie he was acting in.
No such thing as a "free market", just like there is no such thing as "socialism".
Please please pay attention: We are humans, so design systems with that in mind. If the problem with your system is "human nature" then your system is shit and needs to be rethought. Bitching about how people have messed up your system is not ok.
Centralised vs Decentralised is an exploration vs exploitation problem - a strong centralised power limits variation and increases efficiency, whereas a decentralised power increases variation at the cost of efficiency. The point I wanted to make is that there is nothing inherently better between one solution and another, they are both good for different situations.
Australia followed much the same path as America (i.e. strong states over time turned into weak states) and although I cannot comment from experience on America, I can say it has been beneficial to Australia, and we probably wouldn't be anywhere near our current standing in the world if we had kept our original constitutional configuration.
Yes, because strong decentralised power has ever been the protector of human rights.
advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified
When he is sick, he can go to a shaman, or a priest (after all they are just equal ideologies). I will go to a doctor.
If you truly think that treating religion, mysticism and magic on the same level as science is a good idea then go to an Islamic country, or parts of Africa and see how life is there compared to here. We have got where we are because we have identified reason being better than faith and "mysticism".
I don't think there is much more to say. While you say I have an optimistic view of the process, I say you have a pessimistic view of the process.
How would you make it better?
Any system that you design will have to have some sort of positive weight being placed on ideas that are supported by other accepted ideas, and conversely negative weight on ideas that are contrary to accepted view. This is true of almost any system you can think of as it is the most efficient way of making progress. Yes there is a loss on occasion of some good ideas that are too radical for its time, but that is offset by the fact that incrementally it is reached in due time.
So in no way is the system broken, over time it has been finely tuned to get the best outcome.
Well I have to disagree, scientists and researchers who have tenure are free to do or say as they will. They don't have to subscribe to the consensus, and science in replete with stories of scientists who have been ignored or chose to research something that contradicts the mainstream, and emerging victorious after completing a persuasive study. They were right to be ignored at the start (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - comparable to inertia) and right to be recognised after that have compiled enough evidence.
As for peer reviewed papers, on 90% of journals the people who do peer review are those who were accepted the previous edition. There isn't a constant group of people that could act as some sort of cabal. The people who make policy decisions are usually not (unfortunately) scientists - they are politicians, businessmen or bureaucrats and their behaviour is governed by different rules.
I suspect that this whole questioning of the science world is a result of your disagreement with the consensus surrounding evolution. It angers me that you have such an ego that you would rather believe the whole world wrong than that you are misinformed.
You rightly criticise the science of abiogenesis as not having solid proof, but what proof do you have for your rival theory?
Do you hold it to the same standard of proof?
Why is god the default hypothesis?
As for the RNA question: RNA is like DNA in that it is physically (and chemically) shaped to form chemical bonds to the matching RNA molecule. It is not the only thing that does this, there are a number of other molecules that have this property. RNA has an additional property that it can also act as a protein, which makes it an attractive player in any abiogenesis story, as you have both the storage and function elements already together. This is certainly not the only theory, and for all we know it could emerge that there are multiple possible pathways to life. Wikipedia as always has the best information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
The science of self-organisation also shows great promise in understanding how complexity emerges out of simple starting conditions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisation
True enough. I stand corrected.
As you note, its more a matter of which deeply held views are contradicted by science that determines which side of politics is anti-science. I know that for evolution (and sociobiology in particular) was quite violently denounced by the left as being evil (as it challenged the notion that all people were created equal; that everyone started off with a blank slate). Now that the issues are religious and environmental its the right that is anti-science.
Ok - there is no scientific elite (I guess Nobel prize winners might be the "elite" but what they say is not taken as gospel), nor hierarchy - its a distributed system, that operates on consensus. There is no central system or "high scientists" that define what science is currently "accepted". What children get taught are not the cutting edge of science either - they are taught things that we have known for a long time, and have survived challenges. The places where you would start to encounter real scientific uncertainty would be at 2nd or 3rd year level at university. So until then there is no real need to talk about "alternative theories".
What teacher should do is to encourage students to challenge them for proof - my fondest memories of science class in high school was when the teacher would be asked to prove something, and he would make an experiment to prove it to us. This has both education value, and encourages evidence based thinking.
I am not sure how what I have said in post above made you think that it resembles the Chinese government!
In fact, some churches denounce god!
I can't really say I'm a physicist, but my degree in wikipedia says otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
mp3?
On a more serious note, what is information and why must it have been in the big bang?
I've never read Confucius or Lao Tzu, but the teachings of Jesus are not philosophy, as the philosophers would have know it, as it contains no reasoning. Its loosely metaphysics.. or perhaps a system of values.
Depends - often there is little point teaching alternatives if there are no good ones. Science is not a good place for this as all the low level stuff that children would be learning are solid - a subject like politics is more suitable for that, where there are different core philosophies.
Actually, religion (at least Christian theology) does have explanations for things like birth defects, but if I bring up the concept of original sin, that will be even harder for you to swallow at this point.
God hates you coz something your supposed ancestors did a long time ago (wanting to learn). The guy needs to learn how to let go...