Experiments are done so one can *make observations* of their results. Sometimes, you can't build experiments. For example, you can't build a Sun, so as to make observations to do solar-seismology (a perfectly good science i assure you). Even better, try making earth quakes so you can do seismology.
Point : you collect evidence by making observations. Sometimes you need to build experiments, sometimes you don't (or can't).
I agree that ID is a "weak" theory/conjecture, but it is as "scientific" as other speculative hard-to-test concepts considered scientific ideas such as String Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), time travel, etc. The latter are often considered "scientific ideas", and ID should be included in these.
Uh. No?
Those who work in those 3 physics ideas that you listed (and I am one of them) will tell you that (a) yes they are speculative (b) nope, we don't know if they can be falsifiable, but that's why we work on them (c) and by gods, no, we don't want any of those in current science curriculum!
And ID is potentially true-ifiable and false-ifiable. for example, it could be boosted by finding hidden messages in ancient DNA such as "Kilroy was here", and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers. And there may be ways that we have not thought of yet. I agree that a truly supernatural creator is a much more difficult problem, but ID does not insist the creator(s) is supernatural, at least not the most testable versions.
Sure. So far, there is none for ID, while there are plenty of evidence for evolutionary behaviour of living beings. So, you want to teach both together, to kids?
I think ID should be placed in science books dispite being weak because books should anticipate common questions. Then describe ID as the flimsey concept it is. It is science, just weak science.
This BS is basically the spew of the ID-ers. The poverty of this argument can be summed in 3 letters : F.S.M.
And the attitude of promoters should not be a factor. The laws of the universe don't count the number of supporters or sample their other opinions before they decide whether to activate themselves.
Sure. But you want to teach the so-called "laws of the universe" to your kids, not just-maybe-this-is-true-but-we-don't-have-evidence crap to them.
One can always tell that it is an ID-er when he/she starts to use the words theory in bold, and say that it is "just a theory".
An ID thesis has the following components :
(a) A slipshod definition of what the word "Theory" actually means to them.
(b) A promotion of ID into a Theory by assertion.
(c) With this promotion, directly compare ID to Evolution, with the hope that the reader will think that ID actually has as much evidence behind it as evolutionary Theory.
(d) Finally, a series of anecdotal evidence, usually presented in bullet form and almost always wrong/falsified, of ID.
Boy, putting those Bold tags is hard work. How do they get through life?
Then the plan is destined to blow up in their face.
An assertion that is still remained to be proven:).
The parents of Kansas have already shown their disdain for a science curriculum by teaching ID in the first place.
Uh, the KBSE decide what is the curriculum, not the parents of Kansas. They vote the KBSE in, sure. But, when they are threatened with pariah-dom, perhaps they might think twice next time.
If nothin else, all this will do is confirm the ID camp's statements that there's a conspiracy in the scientific establishment against them.
Excellent. That's right. The scientific establishment do have an agenda against the ID-ers! For good reason too!
It is to raise the profile of the KBSE : gain some much needed media-time to point some fingers. And threaten the whole state of Kansas with the stigma of pariah-dom with the rest of the US.
Sure, Kansas can still teach what their KBSE call "Science". But without the endorsement of these two bodies, they will have a harder time convincing the rest of the world that they are teaching "science". This has nothing to do with scientific process, it has everything to do with playing politics. Okay, scientists suck at politics, but well, they don't always have to be. Think Huxley.
Do you think the parents of Kansas will allow their children to go to schools who do not have the materials to teach science? The idea is to make a ruckus, raise the profile of the idiocy of the Kansas Board of Education, who are basically quietly destroying science education as Dorothy knows it in Kansas.
Now, if Kansas parents collectively shrug their shoulders and say,"Well, no science is Ok.", then they deserve to have their children shut out of every known college/university/whatever-you-name-it in the world (not just the US). Of course, in this case, the children become the victims. But, chances are the KBE will be voted out post-haste before they have a chance to reach this level of idiocy.
ah! an easy troll for a looong day!
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I feel a bit tired today, so I decided to pick on an easy troll to squash, for my personal amusement.
PhDs are granted for NOVEL research, dude/dudette. Someone with a PhD basically means he/she has knowledge in some (however esoteric) field that nobody else has.
Ah! That feels better. Now back to the salt mines./has a PhD.//is a H1B.///long day.
Actually, it's the BEST type of troll. If the parent wanted to be malicious, he/she could have used some fake names. Instead, he dropped enough clues for a sharp eye like yourself to call on him/her.
(a) Eliot Spitze : Heh Heh Heh. Man, I look like a hero, even though I don't give a damn to those kids who parents should know better.
(b) New York State Parents : Rah rah rah! Our children are safe from sexual predators!
(c) Yahoo! : Heh Heh Heh. As though as we can even try to stop childen from U18 from getting in.
(d) Under 18 Kids: Doh, everyone know you have to pretend to be over 18 to hit on anybody anyway.
(e) Over 18 Perverts : Doh, now I have to *really* try to believe those U18 kids online are simply pretending to be Over 18.
(f) Everyone else : Groan.
Because they are BAD ads? I'll watch good ones.
on
Why Do You Block Ads?
·
· Score: 1
If an ad IS interersting, I won't want to block it.
unfortunately, with the plethora of bad ads out there, pop ups will have to die. And that include those ads that may be even be good to watch.
Point : Internet Ads are BAD. That's why people block them. If they are interesting, people will watch them. Example : Superbowl ads are often more memorable than the game itself.
The criticism is valid. The proposal made an error : their distribution of mass does not satisfy even their own equations of motion, as pointed out the criticism. Basically, their distribution has a singular disk, which is unphysical, though the original article did not realize it.
By the way, I didn't check the equations. But the criticism is very specific in pointing out *which* equation one can compute to prove its validity, and also pointed out exactly where the original authors went wrong : assumption of analyticity of \sqrt{G} when it is not.
So yeah, this is pretty much as *specifically* damning as one can get in a criticism.
The rejection may be on shaky grounds, but the letter was hardly vitriolic. It is firm, and laid out the causes for rejection in a clear manner (caveat : IANAL).
Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know:).
They launched the 6kg SNAP a few years back, I was one of the early designers of that little guy. They actually put 3 momentum wheels for tri-axis attitude control on it eventually.
http://sstl.co.uk///me worked there about 10 years back when they were beginning to bloom.....
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
Maybe I should elaborate.
Experiments are done so one can *make observations* of their results. Sometimes, you can't build experiments. For example, you can't build a Sun, so as to make observations to do solar-seismology (a perfectly good science i assure you). Even better, try making earth quakes so you can do seismology.
Point : you collect evidence by making observations. Sometimes you need to build experiments, sometimes you don't (or can't).
which, thanks to his distinct style and rarity (thus increasing the value of a forgery passing itself as genuine), invites mucho imitations.
I agree that ID is a "weak" theory/conjecture, but it is as "scientific" as other speculative hard-to-test concepts considered scientific ideas such as String Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), time travel, etc. The latter are often considered "scientific ideas", and ID should be included in these.
e crap to them.
Uh. No?
Those who work in those 3 physics ideas that you listed (and I am one of them) will tell you that
(a) yes they are speculative
(b) nope, we don't know if they can be falsifiable, but that's why we work on them
(c) and by gods, no, we don't want any of those in current science curriculum!
And ID is potentially true-ifiable and false-ifiable. for example, it could be boosted by finding hidden messages in ancient DNA such as "Kilroy was here", and it could drop in rank by showing an observable example of natural selection turning something simple into something complex before the eyes and cameras of many observers. And there may be ways that we have not thought of yet. I agree that a truly supernatural creator is a much more difficult problem, but ID does not insist the creator(s) is supernatural, at least not the most testable versions.
Sure. So far, there is none for ID, while there are plenty of evidence for evolutionary behaviour of living beings. So, you want to teach both together, to kids?
I think ID should be placed in science books dispite being weak because books should anticipate common questions. Then describe ID as the flimsey concept it is. It is science, just weak science.
This BS is basically the spew of the ID-ers. The poverty of this argument can be summed in 3 letters : F.S.M.
And the attitude of promoters should not be a factor. The laws of the universe don't count the number of supporters or sample their other opinions before they decide whether to activate themselves.
Sure. But you want to teach the so-called "laws of the universe" to your kids, not just-maybe-this-is-true-but-we-don't-have-evidenc
One can always tell that it is an ID-er when he/she starts to use the words theory in bold, and say that it is "just a theory".
An ID thesis has the following components :
(a) A slipshod definition of what the word "Theory" actually means to them.
(b) A promotion of ID into a Theory by assertion.
(c) With this promotion, directly compare ID to Evolution, with the hope that the reader will think that ID actually has as much evidence behind it as evolutionary Theory.
(d) Finally, a series of anecdotal evidence, usually presented in bullet form and almost always wrong/falsified, of ID.
Boy, putting those Bold tags is hard work. How do they get through life?
Then the plan is destined to blow up in their face.
:).
An assertion that is still remained to be proven
The parents of Kansas have already shown their disdain for a science curriculum by teaching ID in the first place.
Uh, the KBSE decide what is the curriculum, not the parents of Kansas. They vote the KBSE in, sure. But, when they are threatened with pariah-dom, perhaps they might think twice next time.
If nothin else, all this will do is confirm the ID camp's statements that there's a conspiracy in the scientific establishment against them.
Excellent. That's right. The scientific establishment do have an agenda against the ID-ers! For good reason too!
You assume it will stop with Kansas?
Where in my post did I say that?
You miss the point.
It is to raise the profile of the KBSE : gain some much needed media-time to point some fingers. And threaten the whole state of Kansas with the stigma of pariah-dom with the rest of the US.
Sure, Kansas can still teach what their KBSE call "Science". But without the endorsement of these two bodies, they will have a harder time convincing the rest of the world that they are teaching "science". This has nothing to do with scientific process, it has everything to do with playing politics. Okay, scientists suck at politics, but well, they don't always have to be. Think Huxley.
Heh. Good point :P.
(I think we can endless debate this. But let's call the whole thing a nice example of "irony" and be on our merry ways, shall with?)
YOU CAN'T DO EXPERIMENTS only make observations.
;).
I can't even begin to disentangle the non-existent dichotomy that this statement implies
This is not religion. This is politics. Only fools think that this is an issue with religion.
They are making a point.
Do you think the parents of Kansas will allow their children to go to schools who do not have the materials to teach science? The idea is to make a ruckus, raise the profile of the idiocy of the Kansas Board of Education, who are basically quietly destroying science education as Dorothy knows it in Kansas.
Now, if Kansas parents collectively shrug their shoulders and say,"Well, no science is Ok.", then they deserve to have their children shut out of every known college/university/whatever-you-name-it in the world (not just the US). Of course, in this case, the children become the victims. But, chances are the KBE will be voted out post-haste before they have a chance to reach this level of idiocy.
I feel a bit tired today, so I decided to pick on an easy troll to squash, for my personal amusement.
PhDs are granted for NOVEL research, dude/dudette. Someone with a PhD basically means he/she has knowledge in some (however esoteric) field that nobody else has.
Ah! That feels better. Now back to the salt mines.
But Compaq doesn't!
Actually, it's the BEST type of troll. If the parent wanted to be malicious, he/she could have used some fake names. Instead, he dropped enough clues for a sharp eye like yourself to call on him/her.
I thought the troll was hilarious.
(a) Eliot Spitze : Heh Heh Heh. Man, I look like a hero, even though I don't give a damn to those kids who parents should know better.
(b) New York State Parents : Rah rah rah! Our children are safe from sexual predators!
(c) Yahoo! : Heh Heh Heh. As though as we can even try to stop childen from U18 from getting in.
(d) Under 18 Kids: Doh, everyone know you have to pretend to be over 18 to hit on anybody anyway.
(e) Over 18 Perverts : Doh, now I have to *really* try to believe those U18 kids online are simply pretending to be Over 18.
(f) Everyone else : Groan.
If an ad IS interersting, I won't want to block it.
unfortunately, with the plethora of bad ads out there, pop ups will have to die. And that include those ads that may be even be good to watch.
Point : Internet Ads are BAD. That's why people block them. If they are interesting, people will watch them. Example : Superbowl ads are often more memorable than the game itself.
Ads are also the money maker that gives Google the capital so they can bring you more Cool Stuff(tm).
The criticism is valid. The proposal made an error : their distribution of mass does not satisfy even their own equations of motion, as pointed out the criticism. Basically, their distribution has a singular disk, which is unphysical, though the original article did not realize it.
By the way, I didn't check the equations. But the criticism is very specific in pointing out *which* equation one can compute to prove its validity, and also pointed out exactly where the original authors went wrong : assumption of analyticity of \sqrt{G} when it is not.
So yeah, this is pretty much as *specifically* damning as one can get in a criticism.
I don't know about you.
But. Writing sentences like these.
Makes reading the review. Like.
Riding a really, really bumpy vehicle. You know, car.
It's so sad.
I have a caveat. I thought Ender's Game is boring.
I mean, really boring. The ending was so blatantly obvious.
I knew what was going to happen half way through the book.
Chill dude. Go see the moview anyway.
The rejection may be on shaky grounds, but the letter was hardly vitriolic. It is firm, and laid out the causes for rejection in a clear manner (caveat : IANAL).
Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know
Not bad if you are a layman, but often filled with too much sensation reporting.
And I am speaking as a scientist of course
I will get interested if they come up with "A New Kind of Sex".
Now, that's something I'll pay to read/watch/partake....
unless of course we have Wolfram himself as main actor.
When, to the self-professed geeks of
is this your alias in
Yeap.
/me worked there about 10 years back when they were beginning to bloom.....
They launched the 6kg SNAP a few years back, I was one of the early designers of that little guy. They actually put 3 momentum wheels for tri-axis attitude control on it eventually.
http://sstl.co.uk//
Oh noes!
He is already building missiles to destroy his opponents as he move inexorably towards world domination!!