I agree to some extent with your position, but don't you think it's just a tad short-sighted? All the anti-technology-in-education people seem to be under the impression that we already know everything there is to know about learning and technology. This is pretty obviously a false statement. The use of computers as learning aids is still in its infancy. I'll agree with anyone that complains about the rather horrible use of computers in education *today*, but is that because computers and education just don't mix? Or is it because we haven't figured out how to properly integrate them into education?
When most teachers barely know how to use computers to begin with, how can you possibly expect them to be able to utilize them effectively in the classroom? And what about all that crappy educational software out there? Who writes that stuff? Who designs the interfaces? Educators? I don't think so. At best, an educator might be brought in as a consultant, but they probably aren't all that involved in the day to day development. I can assure you from personal experience that the hackers that write the software and design the interfaces are clueless when it comes to good educational design...
At any rate, I would say that the jury is still out on this issue. It's safe to say that what we're doing right now is pretty bad, but I'm not convinced that it will remain that way.
Well, I see your point, and I agree with it to a certain extent, but I have couple of quibbles.
I think there is some precendent with regard to
commercial liability. Most courts would be hard pressed to find the 16 year old (or the 24 year old grad student) commercially liable for GPL code they released on the net, especially considering the fact that they would have virtually no control over who downloads and uses the code, they get no financial gain from releasing the code, etc, etc.
I would say that RedHat and other linux distros would have some protection here, since you are not
in control of every piece of software you distribute, that doesn't mean you're quite in the same boat as the hobbyist developer, but you should be accorded some "slack" simply because you
don't own the IP rights for much of what you sell, and as such, you are not ultimately responsible for fixing every bug in every package you ship, you are only obligated by the GPL to distribute the source. So, IMHO, RedHat et al, would be less liable to a certain extent, although gross negligence would still be there, but if you've got a gross negligence suite aimed at you, you've probably got other problems as well.
Microsoft is in a yet a different catagory, not only do they sell their software commercially, they also own all IP rights too and are in ultimate control of it. In my mind, that makes them a *lot* more responsible for their products than either RedHat or the hobbyist. If I were to buy a CD containing software from Microsoft though, I would expect a certain level of quality assurance. That what I spent my cash on actually worked, or if it didn't work correctly, that Microsoft would be obligated to promptly address the issue or refund my money, at the very least. The way things stand right now, we pay for the CD's, if there's trouble, we pay for the support call, we pay for the upgrade that fixes the software that should've worked right the first time, and so on.
I agree with you that defining the limits of liability can be difficult, but I do think it's worth trying to figure it out, there's just too much BS going on, especially with respect to commercial software, for this crap to go on indefinitely.
Your first problem is calling anyone an evolutionist. There is no such creature. There are many biologists who study evolution and the various mechanisms that may drive it, but that does not make them people with sort of conspiratorial agenda that you seem to want them to have. If you're looking for that and want to see false assumptions, outright lies, and a whole slew
of "evidence" that directly contradicts well established physical laws (not just evolutionary tenets) then I suggest you dig up the institute for creation research website. Now that's a group that most definitely has an agenda.
All of them have been shown to readily ignore pieces evidence that directly contradict their arguments, or worse, their arguments are based on false assumptions (see some of the other threads going on about Behe already).
PS, reread some of the other refutations, they make the point better than I did. But more importantly, where did I say that such a thing was common? And just because something is improbable doesn't mean it can't happen... In fact, I can point out all kinds of wildly improbable things that still happen every day. That's one of the problems of looking at evolution in a purely probalistic sense, sometimes the sheer numbers involved can easily overwhelm what
would at first seem extremely unlikely.
Alright, consider this: In Behe's example, he makes a pretty bad assumption: That the chemistry itself
is a constant, when in fact, at the bio-molecular level, you can have evolution as well, in fact, this kind of stuff really cuts to the core of "pre-cellular life" (to coin a term). Mutations in DNA can and do change the chemistry and the molecular structure the of proteins that are produced. What at first
may have been a very simple protein exchange evolved into something more complex, but which ultimately improved our ability to see and detect light. After repeated mutations, you wind up with a sequence of interdependent reactions that would appear to require each of them to be in place at the same time, when in fact they replace a simpler set of reactions that used different ion/protein triggers...
Now granted, we don't know the chain of mutations that may have led to this, but that's not the point, it's only to show that this isn't implausable, which is what Behe is trying to argue. He makes some interesting points, but I don't think he makes his case.
You need to know the size of a resolution element to determine "clarity," which is normally set by the "seeing," the amount of twinkling in the atmosphere, unless you're using sophisticated adaptive optics, or you're using the Hubble. The number of pixels in an image or even the bit depth tells you nothing about the minimum resolvable
details in an image. In fact, it's quite likely that the images that get released are resampled and reprocessed to the point that the image dimensions are nothing like what they are in the raw ccd image.
The artice is a little fuzzy about the details so it's rather difficult to say if it is, in fact better than the Hubble shot, it does look better to my eye, but sometimes your eyes can decieve you.
On the other hand, if you're only talking about which image makes a better desktop background....
Assuming there were planets orbiting around the pre-blackhole star would they survive the super-nova explosion that also creates the black hole? I suspect that most planets would very nearly be ablated away or vaporized or both...
Except that the radius of the event horizon, even for super-massive blackholes is pretty small. Even if we could "see" the event horizon, I'm not sure there would be phenomenon happening there that would identify it as such. The event horizon is basically a theoretical construct, and isn't something that you would necessarily be able to see with a telescope, the physics gets really weird at blackhole event horizons, strange enough that nobody's really sure what it would look like, although some people have attempted to model it...
The only way to determine blackhole masses is using stellar kinematics. Either by looking at galactic stellar rotation curves (for the case of super massive blackholes at galactic centers), or looking at binary systems where the companion to the blackhole is visible, and analyzing the affect of the blackhole on the visible partner. There is no reliable way to directly measure the Schwarzchild radius.
If the stars are fusing hydrogen, they are giving
off a blackbody spectrum, not hydrogen recombination lines. In fact, if the stars are pure hydrogen, it's likely that the spectrum is going to show a pretty deep absorption feature at the H-alpha wavelength, not an emission feature, although it depends on the surface temp of the star. I would guess that these stars are probably hot enough, that all the hydrogen has been ionized, and probably stays ionized, such that you probably wouldn't even see the absorption feature.
It's probably the case that these are very hot stars with peak emission at blue or uv wavelengths. The reason for the red color is probably almost entirely due to the red shift of the objects, and possibly a small amount of interstellar dust (depending on how much intervening dust there is).
More often you see H-alpha emission from the
gas clouds surrounding newly formed stars in star forming regions and such, it's somewhat rare (although not unheard of) to see strong hydrogen emission in a stellar atmosphere.
No, science doesn't disprove religion, but, each of the examples you give are not really all that far-fetched for science to explain. There are
certainly a number of blanks in our understanding, and I'm not saying that we've figured it all out.
But, we have working hypotheses for many of the blank spots, and think as our understanding improves, the number blanks will continue to drop.
But here's my question to you: You seem to be implying that God has to "step in" at various points
along the line to "kick start" things, because current science doesn't adequately explain things for you. Why can't God simply use the very processes that scientists study everyday to achieve His ends? It makes a huge number of things a lot more understandable to us mere mortals, and it really gives us all a great insight in to how well God planned out the universe to become what it is. You speak of the Hand of God, being at point X, but really isn't the Hand of God everywhere? Why does the miracle occur only at the creation of the first replicating cell, and at the appearance of the first furyy critter? Wasn't it probably there all along, if it was there at all?
This isn't anything new. There has always been competition in science, even as far back as 400 years ago when Newton and Leibniz independently discovered calculus. Now competition is a lot stiffer today than it was then, but it was still there.
Many have argued that many discoveries are made simply because "their time has come," and I wouldn't disagree with that point, when the knowledge base (and the technology needed to probe a new realm) is built up to a certain point new discoveries will be made, and with more people doing research, progress is faster.
What irritated me about your original post was your statement about uniqueness, and the implication that "anybody" can walk in and make big discoveries. The implication being that all scientists can just stop whatever they are doing because someone off the street will be the guy who discovers the next fundamental particle. That's just not true, there would be far fewer cranks and wackos on sci.physics if you were correct.
You seem to have a strange way of looking at the scientific process. Most things that scientists do are unique on at least some level. The fact that there may be other people capable of doing the same work doesn't change that. Only small parts of science are really iterative, and in many of those cases, the work is still important for the purposes of gathering data, and each of those data points is unique. Not only that, you seem to be under the impression that science has become, in some sense, predictable. There are a great many discoveries waiting to be made and problems to be solved that no-one has ever even concieved of, yet you seem to think that it's only a matter of time before they are made?? If what scientists were doing isn't unique, who else is doing it? Who else but scientists are doing experiments in molecular biology, and also have the qualifications to do so? Who else but scientists continue to probe the fabric of space-time and have the qualifications to do so? etc, etc, the list goes on. The first time an amazing new theory of physics is discovered by some bloak using the google search engine, I'll accept your statements...until then, you either don't seem to know what you're talking about or haven't adequately explained your position.
No, the speed of light stays constant, but the photon still loses energy. The wavelength of the
radiation increases by precisely the amount required to get out of the gravity well. This is known as a gravitational redshift. You could almost think of it as the light wave getting stretched out (although that's not quite what's going on) as it climbes out of the gravitational field.
You've got the first bit right, it's generally accepted that
the difference between quasars, active galactic nuclei (less powerful quasars), and "normal" galaxies has to do with the amount of material falling into the galactic core, in quiet galaxies all the available material near the supermassive black hole has been sucked in and there's nothing
left to cause a ruckus, whereas in quasars and AGN there's still stuff falling in.
As for Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way... Sigh. This is only hypothetical at best. Andromeda does have a negative radial velocity, but we do not know what the tangential velocity is. Before we can say, definitively, that Andromeda will collide with us, we MUST know the tangential velocity...we do not know what it is, and there isn't any easy way to measure it.
Anyone modeling Milky Way-Andromeda collisions are just satisfying their own intellectual curiosity. There's nothing wrong with that and I fully support it, but it's disengenuous to say that these models predict with any accuracy what will happen in the future.
Galactic dynamics is a very interesting subject. One of the first things you discover are orbital
resonances. Currently there are several theories
that attempt to explain the propogation of the spiral structure in terms of resonances with the orbit of the aspherical central bulge.... And in the case of barred spirals, there has even been some success in modeling this (the bar structure is easier to model). None of the current theories ascribe the spiral structure to simple orbital decay (in fact, galaxies would look a lot different from spirals if significant orbital decay were present).
Well, these days the competition can stop you from
getting funded. I've seen it happen a couple of
times where somebody's competitor winds up being
on the committee reviewing their latest grant proposal, and they don't get funded as a result.
That, of course, would be one of the downsides
to competition in science.
Well you're basically correct here, but you make
it sound so incredibly depressing.:) I think it's
amazing that we're able to model and understand
the universe to the extant that we do, and yet
there are still more discoveries to be made everytime you make a leap in detection/observational ability.
But, on a more positive note, string theory (if correct) looks like it really goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the stranger questions. Like why the physical constants are what they are, why electrons, protons, neutrons have the masses that they do, etc.
Well, I'll more or less agree with you on 2, and 4. 3 really goes beyond the scope science and into metaphysics (and I'm not about to open that can of worms at 2 am!:). I'll just say that I think 3 is a slippery slope that can potentially lead to a number of unintelligable (or circular) conclusions. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that you have to be careful. And I don't think it will ever be possible to conclusively prove either of the propositions in 3. I still take issue with 1, however.
Theory building may be a rational process, but it doesn't take place in a vacuum. Newton's theory of gravity really wasn't based on any previous theory (yes, there was Copernicus, but epicycles really wasn't going to lead one to GMM/r^2 imho). Newton based his theory mostly on the astronomical observations and data of Tycho Brahe, from which he derived a theory that fit the data. Which I would call a rational process. Basically another way of stating my point is that theory building is a self-reinforcing rational process. Meaning that the theory is derived from some data, which allows you to begin to predict a new data set, which reinforces or refines theory, which... on down the line. Now granted, sometimes a theory can require you to posit the existence of an unknown parameter or principle, but here again, the data will be the ultimate arbiter, and tell you whether or not you're on the right track. What you miss in 1), is the data input process.
General Relativity was built on top of Newtonian gravity, not because it felt right, but because
(amoung other reasons) Mercury's orbit was found not to be fully explainable by Newtonian gravity. Experiments and data provide the rational feedback loop that negates the need to pull theories out of thin air.
Actually science is based on assumptions that are
at arrived via rational process. The problem that
a lot of people get hung up on, is that those very assumptions are so trivially obvious that even the best scientists often over-look them.
Science is an inherently self-supporting process. Why do I believe in science? Not because it's self-consistant. There are inumerable self-consistant bodies of thought. What makes science different, is that it consistantly works.
The scientific method (though not perfect, and often very ineficient) simply works. And it really is that simple. What more rational basis can there possibly be than, "it works?" That kind of basis does not require any faith, or really any assumptions, except one: The world we observe with our senses is real and not some ethereal construction. From my experience, a large majority of people believe that.
Science is not technology, they are seperate things, although I will admit that there are many fields of science and technology that would not exist today without either, but that does not make them equivalent.
And Fundamentalism==idea worship? Well, I guess that statement shouldn't surprise me too much, since most people's conception of faith is so royally screwed up that few people can really explain faith....which should not be construed as an attack on faith (or religion), only an attack on the idea that you can substitute fuzzy logic for faith.
Still wrong. The article you linked to (while biased) does not ban all prayer in schools, only organized prayer (where any student of another faith might feel they are being forced to participate) that still leaves room for private individual prayer. Even small groups are more than welcome to get together privately, but once you enter the public sphere you must be respectful of other's beliefs, and forcing someone to participate in a prayer from a faith other than their own does cross that line, regardless of the good intentions.
And what's more, we have the old morality-must-be-laid-down-by-a -higher-power-because-we're-too-stupid-to-figure-i t-out
argument. Actually, I have read a few books about the foundation of morality from various authors, and you know what? The best ones are always the ones that give cogent reasons for it, and not merely a biblical analysis. Believe it or not, there are very sound logical reasons for behaving one way and not another, for trying to treat people well, rather than trying to hurt them for your own gain. Now, for some reason (totally unfathomable to me) certain people seem to see the existence of such arguments as a threat to their faith and do everything they can to sweep such things under the rug. Now if Mom could be taught by her faith, not just that "God said so," but that there are good reasons why God might've said so, Mom could (in theory) pass that on to her children, and the kids would grow up knowing not just right from wrong, but also have an understanding of why it makes sense that something is right or wrong.
Civil behavior doesn't start at home? Then tell me this: Where do kids spend more of their time? Who's behavior is a child most likely to emulate first? Without parental reinforcement, it's going to be a lot harder to teach, though not impossible.
And what's this garbage about without something bigger, then it's all just somebody else's opinion? I've heard that one before, and it's a non-sequiter if I've ever heard one. You're right to imply that opinions are a dime a dozen, but not everything is an opinion. Not to mention the fact, that there are often sound reasons for holding certain opinions, and that is not a bad thing. Just because God doesn't explicitly sanction an idea doesn't make it wrong. This kind of reasoning is the stuff that concerns me quite a bit, this is the same slippery slope that I think the fundamentalist movement has fallen down, resulting in biblical literalism, and forcing just about every decision, every belief, every action into some sort of perverted test of faith.
And all because anything you might read, hear, or see, that does not come straight from the horse's mouth, is just an opinion and totally unreliable without first passing it through some sort of religious filter.
First, where exactly is the strawman? My claim is that morality does not flow only from Christian teaching (it actually comes from something much more subtle, but I won't go into that now). The original poster was insinuating that if more people had a good dose of Christian morality teachings in their lives, that they would be better people, and that may be true on some level. But, it is not necessarily the only way you can learn that.... There are many religions in the world (and a good deal of agnostic/athiest philosophy on the subject) that all teach basically the same thing (at least with respect to basic morality and civility), and sometimes with much better reasoning. So why is posting the 10 Commandments on the wall, somehow better than something else?
Christianity not about being perfect: that is impossible.
I never said Christianity was about being perfect. It is about trying to be the best person you can though, and that's the rub. There aren't that many Christians that really take the "trying" to heart. It seems to get lost along the way.
...forgiveness of the sins of others, something you perhaps could work a little harder at...
If I'm guilty of a strawman, then you're guilty of an ad-hominem. You don't know me, and you have no evidence one way or the other concerning my ability to forgive anyone. How the heck can you make that claim? But since we're on the subject. IIRC, forgiveness is not unconditional, it is always predicated on an attempt to do better. I have no problem forgiving people of their mistakes, as long as they realize their problem and try to do better. But at the same time, I will not allow someone to walk all over me repeatedly.
1. Prayer was never outlawed in schools, institutionally lead prayer was, and it should be. Our society has become too diverse for any single faith to be able to claim it has the right to force others to participate in its rites. That's what that minute of silence was all about.
2. Religion does not have a cornerstone on civility or morality. From my personal experience, most people of faith are just as likely to be morally corrupt as someone who has never stepped in a church in their life. I've seen far too many unscrupulous "Christians" taking advantage of anyone that will give them a chance. It doesn't take too long for people to realize that God (in whatever incarnation you happen to believe in) isn't quite the big boogeyman in the sky that a lot of religions try to cultivate. If religions want to take the moral high ground, they need to do a much better job of explaining the basis of morality. "God said so" isn't good enough.
3. I agree with you that we should be doing a much better job instilling moral/ethical behavior in people. But merely exposing people to scripture isn't going to cut it. All that really does is allow the bible thumpers to be sloppy, and say that they've done their part. You've got to do much better than quoting some 2000 year old scripture.
You want to know my take on it? Civil behavior starts at home. If kids are not taught it from their parents, it is extremely unlikely that they will pick it up anywhere else, especially without any reinforcement from parents.
I would also argue that the internet is a different beast. The ability to be virtually anonymous as well as the lack of any knowledge of the people you communicate with means that you can get away with a lot more with little or no repercussions.
In Milton-speak, the social contract online is different from the one in the big blue room.
No, people who think Communism is popular amoung open sourcers are being intellectually sloppy and haven't taken a long enough look at the movement to understand what it's really about and where it really came from, or they are just making a slur. I might add that there are many opensource advocates that don't seem to have thought long enough about it either... (I am not accusing you of either since you merely seem to be repeating something you heard elsewhere).
In certain segments of our society, information hording is one of the highest crimes you can commit, and can ruin your reputation. The reason it is such a high crime has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, the reason is that it impedes progress. Can you guess in what segment that might exist? (I'll give you a hint, scientists) There are also segments of society where it's perfectly legitimate to horde (or at least control distribution of) information, and I have no problem with that (at least on a limited basis).
The opensource movement isn't about capitalism vs.socialism, it's about a collision occuring between two different segments of society. In one segment, information sharing has been part and parcel of everyday life for centuries while in the other, some form of compensation has historically been required for distribution or access.
Well, I could go on, but basically what I believe it boils down to is that (especially in the case of software) we are seeing a bluring of the line between what is science and what is art. And Microsoft, in particular, has become a master of exploiting that ambiguity. Whether or not this is ethical is an open question.
The problem with comments linking communism and opensource is that they completely and totally miss the point of the true conflict. There are too many people who are too wound up in arguments about capitalism==good and communism==bad to realize that not every conflict is about a polito-economic(if that's even a word) theory. But sometimes it's all too easy to allow arguments to degenerate to that because it automatically sets up that good vs. evil mentality in people, and will stir up more of a ruckus.
Slashdot Mirror
When most teachers barely know how to use computers to begin with, how can you possibly expect them to be able to utilize them effectively in the classroom? And what about all that crappy educational software out there? Who writes that stuff? Who designs the interfaces? Educators? I don't think so. At best, an educator might be brought in as a consultant, but they probably aren't all that involved in the day to day development. I can assure you from personal experience that the hackers that write the software and design the interfaces are clueless when it comes to good educational design...
At any rate, I would say that the jury is still out on this issue. It's safe to say that what we're doing right now is pretty bad, but I'm not convinced that it will remain that way.
I think there is some precendent with regard to commercial liability. Most courts would be hard pressed to find the 16 year old (or the 24 year old grad student) commercially liable for GPL code they released on the net, especially considering the fact that they would have virtually no control over who downloads and uses the code, they get no financial gain from releasing the code, etc, etc.
I would say that RedHat and other linux distros would have some protection here, since you are not in control of every piece of software you distribute, that doesn't mean you're quite in the same boat as the hobbyist developer, but you should be accorded some "slack" simply because you don't own the IP rights for much of what you sell, and as such, you are not ultimately responsible for fixing every bug in every package you ship, you are only obligated by the GPL to distribute the source. So, IMHO, RedHat et al, would be less liable to a certain extent, although gross negligence would still be there, but if you've got a gross negligence suite aimed at you, you've probably got other problems as well.
Microsoft is in a yet a different catagory, not only do they sell their software commercially, they also own all IP rights too and are in ultimate control of it. In my mind, that makes them a *lot* more responsible for their products than either RedHat or the hobbyist. If I were to buy a CD containing software from Microsoft though, I would expect a certain level of quality assurance. That what I spent my cash on actually worked, or if it didn't work correctly, that Microsoft would be obligated to promptly address the issue or refund my money, at the very least. The way things stand right now, we pay for the CD's, if there's trouble, we pay for the support call, we pay for the upgrade that fixes the software that should've worked right the first time, and so on.
I agree with you that defining the limits of liability can be difficult, but I do think it's worth trying to figure it out, there's just too much BS going on, especially with respect to commercial software, for this crap to go on indefinitely.
Your first problem is calling anyone an evolutionist. There is no such creature. There are many biologists who study evolution and the various mechanisms that may drive it, but that does not make them people with sort of conspiratorial agenda that you seem to want them to have. If you're looking for that and want to see false assumptions, outright lies, and a whole slew of "evidence" that directly contradicts well established physical laws (not just evolutionary tenets) then I suggest you dig up the institute for creation research website. Now that's a group that most definitely has an agenda.
All of them have been shown to readily ignore pieces evidence that directly contradict their arguments, or worse, their arguments are based on false assumptions (see some of the other threads going on about Behe already).
PS, reread some of the other refutations, they make the point better than I did. But more importantly, where did I say that such a thing was common? And just because something is improbable doesn't mean it can't happen... In fact, I can point out all kinds of wildly improbable things that still happen every day. That's one of the problems of looking at evolution in a purely probalistic sense, sometimes the sheer numbers involved can easily overwhelm what would at first seem extremely unlikely.
Now granted, we don't know the chain of mutations that may have led to this, but that's not the point, it's only to show that this isn't implausable, which is what Behe is trying to argue. He makes some interesting points, but I don't think he makes his case.
The artice is a little fuzzy about the details so it's rather difficult to say if it is, in fact better than the Hubble shot, it does look better to my eye, but sometimes your eyes can decieve you.
On the other hand, if you're only talking about which image makes a better desktop background....
Assuming there were planets orbiting around the pre-blackhole star would they survive the super-nova explosion that also creates the black hole? I suspect that most planets would very nearly be ablated away or vaporized or both...
Except that the radius of the event horizon, even for super-massive blackholes is pretty small. Even if we could "see" the event horizon, I'm not sure there would be phenomenon happening there that would identify it as such. The event horizon is basically a theoretical construct, and isn't something that you would necessarily be able to see with a telescope, the physics gets really weird at blackhole event horizons, strange enough that nobody's really sure what it would look like, although some people have attempted to model it...
The only way to determine blackhole masses is using stellar kinematics. Either by looking at galactic stellar rotation curves (for the case of super massive blackholes at galactic centers), or looking at binary systems where the companion to the blackhole is visible, and analyzing the affect of the blackhole on the visible partner. There is no reliable way to directly measure the Schwarzchild radius.
It's probably the case that these are very hot stars with peak emission at blue or uv wavelengths. The reason for the red color is probably almost entirely due to the red shift of the objects, and possibly a small amount of interstellar dust (depending on how much intervening dust there is).
More often you see H-alpha emission from the gas clouds surrounding newly formed stars in star forming regions and such, it's somewhat rare (although not unheard of) to see strong hydrogen emission in a stellar atmosphere.
But here's my question to you: You seem to be implying that God has to "step in" at various points along the line to "kick start" things, because current science doesn't adequately explain things for you. Why can't God simply use the very processes that scientists study everyday to achieve His ends? It makes a huge number of things a lot more understandable to us mere mortals, and it really gives us all a great insight in to how well God planned out the universe to become what it is. You speak of the Hand of God, being at point X, but really isn't the Hand of God everywhere? Why does the miracle occur only at the creation of the first replicating cell, and at the appearance of the first furyy critter? Wasn't it probably there all along, if it was there at all?
Dust preferentially absorbs blue light, and allows red light to pass more easily. I occaisionally get it mixed up too! :)
Many have argued that many discoveries are made simply because "their time has come," and I wouldn't disagree with that point, when the knowledge base (and the technology needed to probe a new realm) is built up to a certain point new discoveries will be made, and with more people doing research, progress is faster.
What irritated me about your original post was your statement about uniqueness, and the implication that "anybody" can walk in and make big discoveries. The implication being that all scientists can just stop whatever they are doing because someone off the street will be the guy who discovers the next fundamental particle. That's just not true, there would be far fewer cranks and wackos on sci.physics if you were correct.
You seem to have a strange way of looking at the scientific process. Most things that scientists do are unique on at least some level. The fact that there may be other people capable of doing the same work doesn't change that. Only small parts of science are really iterative, and in many of those cases, the work is still important for the purposes of gathering data, and each of those data points is unique. Not only that, you seem to be under the impression that science has become, in some sense, predictable. There are a great many discoveries waiting to be made and problems to be solved that no-one has ever even concieved of, yet you seem to think that it's only a matter of time before they are made?? If what scientists were doing isn't unique, who else is doing it? Who else but scientists are doing experiments in molecular biology, and also have the qualifications to do so? Who else but scientists continue to probe the fabric of space-time and have the qualifications to do so? etc, etc, the list goes on. The first time an amazing new theory of physics is discovered by some bloak using the google search engine, I'll accept your statements...until then, you either don't seem to know what you're talking about or haven't adequately explained your position.
No, the speed of light stays constant, but the photon still loses energy. The wavelength of the
radiation increases by precisely the amount required to get out of the gravity well. This is known as a gravitational redshift. You could almost think of it as the light wave getting stretched out (although that's not quite what's going on) as it climbes out of the gravitational field.
As for Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way... Sigh. This is only hypothetical at best. Andromeda does have a negative radial velocity, but we do not know what the tangential velocity is. Before we can say, definitively, that Andromeda will collide with us, we MUST know the tangential velocity...we do not know what it is, and there isn't any easy way to measure it.
Anyone modeling Milky Way-Andromeda collisions are just satisfying their own intellectual curiosity. There's nothing wrong with that and I fully support it, but it's disengenuous to say that these models predict with any accuracy what will happen in the future.
Galactic dynamics is a very interesting subject. One of the first things you discover are orbital resonances. Currently there are several theories that attempt to explain the propogation of the spiral structure in terms of resonances with the orbit of the aspherical central bulge.... And in the case of barred spirals, there has even been some success in modeling this (the bar structure is easier to model). None of the current theories ascribe the spiral structure to simple orbital decay (in fact, galaxies would look a lot different from spirals if significant orbital decay were present).
Well, these days the competition can stop you from getting funded. I've seen it happen a couple of times where somebody's competitor winds up being on the committee reviewing their latest grant proposal, and they don't get funded as a result.
That, of course, would be one of the downsides to competition in science.
But, on a more positive note, string theory (if correct) looks like it really goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the stranger questions. Like why the physical constants are what they are, why electrons, protons, neutrons have the masses that they do, etc.
Theory building may be a rational process, but it doesn't take place in a vacuum. Newton's theory of gravity really wasn't based on any previous theory (yes, there was Copernicus, but epicycles really wasn't going to lead one to GMM/r^2 imho). Newton based his theory mostly on the astronomical observations and data of Tycho Brahe, from which he derived a theory that fit the data. Which I would call a rational process. Basically another way of stating my point is that theory building is a self-reinforcing rational process. Meaning that the theory is derived from some data, which allows you to begin to predict a new data set, which reinforces or refines theory, which... on down the line. Now granted, sometimes a theory can require you to posit the existence of an unknown parameter or principle, but here again, the data will be the ultimate arbiter, and tell you whether or not you're on the right track. What you miss in 1), is the data input process. General Relativity was built on top of Newtonian gravity, not because it felt right, but because (amoung other reasons) Mercury's orbit was found not to be fully explainable by Newtonian gravity. Experiments and data provide the rational feedback loop that negates the need to pull theories out of thin air.
Science is an inherently self-supporting process. Why do I believe in science? Not because it's self-consistant. There are inumerable self-consistant bodies of thought. What makes science different, is that it consistantly works. The scientific method (though not perfect, and often very ineficient) simply works. And it really is that simple. What more rational basis can there possibly be than, "it works?" That kind of basis does not require any faith, or really any assumptions, except one: The world we observe with our senses is real and not some ethereal construction. From my experience, a large majority of people believe that.
Science is not technology, they are seperate things, although I will admit that there are many fields of science and technology that would not exist today without either, but that does not make them equivalent.
And Fundamentalism==idea worship? Well, I guess that statement shouldn't surprise me too much, since most people's conception of faith is so royally screwed up that few people can really explain faith....which should not be construed as an attack on faith (or religion), only an attack on the idea that you can substitute fuzzy logic for faith.
Still wrong. The article you linked to (while biased) does not ban all prayer in schools, only organized prayer (where any student of another faith might feel they are being forced to participate) that still leaves room for private individual prayer. Even small groups are more than welcome to get together privately, but once you enter the public sphere you must be respectful of other's beliefs, and forcing someone to participate in a prayer from a faith other than their own does cross that line, regardless of the good intentions.
And what's more, we have the old morality-must-be-laid-down-by-a -higher-power-because-we're-too-stupid-to-figure-i t-out
argument. Actually, I have read a few books about the foundation of morality from various authors, and you know what? The best ones are always the ones that give cogent reasons for it, and not merely a biblical analysis. Believe it or not, there are very sound logical reasons for behaving one way and not another, for trying to treat people well, rather than trying to hurt them for your own gain. Now, for some reason (totally unfathomable to me) certain people seem to see the existence of such arguments as a threat to their faith and do everything they can to sweep such things under the rug. Now if Mom could be taught by her faith, not just that "God said so," but that there are good reasons why God might've said so, Mom could (in theory) pass that on to her children, and the kids would grow up knowing not just right from wrong, but also have an understanding of why it makes sense that something is right or wrong.
Civil behavior doesn't start at home? Then tell me this: Where do kids spend more of their time? Who's behavior is a child most likely to emulate first? Without parental reinforcement, it's going to be a lot harder to teach, though not impossible.
And what's this garbage about without something bigger, then it's all just somebody else's opinion? I've heard that one before, and it's a non-sequiter if I've ever heard one. You're right to imply that opinions are a dime a dozen, but not everything is an opinion. Not to mention the fact, that there are often sound reasons for holding certain opinions, and that is not a bad thing. Just because God doesn't explicitly sanction an idea doesn't make it wrong. This kind of reasoning is the stuff that concerns me quite a bit, this is the same slippery slope that I think the fundamentalist movement has fallen down, resulting in biblical literalism, and forcing just about every decision, every belief, every action into some sort of perverted test of faith. And all because anything you might read, hear, or see, that does not come straight from the horse's mouth, is just an opinion and totally unreliable without first passing it through some sort of religious filter.
First, where exactly is the strawman? My claim is that morality does not flow only from Christian teaching (it actually comes from something much more subtle, but I won't go into that now). The original poster was insinuating that if more people had a good dose of Christian morality teachings in their lives, that they would be better people, and that may be true on some level. But, it is not necessarily the only way you can learn that.... There are many religions in the world (and a good deal of agnostic/athiest philosophy on the subject) that all teach basically the same thing (at least with respect to basic morality and civility), and sometimes with much better reasoning. So why is posting the 10 Commandments on the wall, somehow better than something else?
Christianity not about being perfect: that is impossible.
I never said Christianity was about being perfect. It is about trying to be the best person you can though, and that's the rub. There aren't that many Christians that really take the "trying" to heart. It seems to get lost along the way.
If I'm guilty of a strawman, then you're guilty of an ad-hominem. You don't know me, and you have no evidence one way or the other concerning my ability to forgive anyone. How the heck can you make that claim? But since we're on the subject. IIRC, forgiveness is not unconditional, it is always predicated on an attempt to do better. I have no problem forgiving people of their mistakes, as long as they realize their problem and try to do better. But at the same time, I will not allow someone to walk all over me repeatedly.
1. Prayer was never outlawed in schools, institutionally lead prayer was, and it should be. Our society has become too diverse for any single faith to be able to claim it has the right to force others to participate in its rites. That's what that minute of silence was all about.
2. Religion does not have a cornerstone on civility or morality. From my personal experience, most people of faith are just as likely to be morally corrupt as someone who has never stepped in a church in their life. I've seen far too many unscrupulous "Christians" taking advantage of anyone that will give them a chance. It doesn't take too long for people to realize that God (in whatever incarnation you happen to believe in) isn't quite the big boogeyman in the sky that a lot of religions try to cultivate. If religions want to take the moral high ground, they need to do a much better job of explaining the basis of morality. "God said so" isn't good enough.
3. I agree with you that we should be doing a much better job instilling moral/ethical behavior in people. But merely exposing people to scripture isn't going to cut it. All that really does is allow the bible thumpers to be sloppy, and say that they've done their part. You've got to do much better than quoting some 2000 year old scripture.
You want to know my take on it? Civil behavior starts at home. If kids are not taught it from their parents, it is extremely unlikely that they will pick it up anywhere else, especially without any reinforcement from parents.
I would also argue that the internet is a different beast. The ability to be virtually anonymous as well as the lack of any knowledge of the people you communicate with means that you can get away with a lot more with little or no repercussions. In Milton-speak, the social contract online is different from the one in the big blue room.
No, people who think Communism is popular amoung open sourcers are being intellectually sloppy and haven't taken a long enough look at the movement to understand what it's really about and where it really came from, or they are just making a slur. I might add that there are many opensource advocates that don't seem to have thought long enough about it either... (I am not accusing you of either since you merely seem to be repeating something you heard elsewhere).
In certain segments of our society, information hording is one of the highest crimes you can commit, and can ruin your reputation. The reason it is such a high crime has nothing to do with capitalism or communism, the reason is that it impedes progress. Can you guess in what segment that might exist? (I'll give you a hint, scientists) There are also segments of society where it's perfectly legitimate to horde (or at least control distribution of) information, and I have no problem with that (at least on a limited basis).
The opensource movement isn't about capitalism vs.socialism, it's about a collision occuring between two different segments of society. In one segment, information sharing has been part and parcel of everyday life for centuries while in the other, some form of compensation has historically been required for distribution or access.
Well, I could go on, but basically what I believe it boils down to is that (especially in the case of software) we are seeing a bluring of the line between what is science and what is art. And Microsoft, in particular, has become a master of exploiting that ambiguity. Whether or not this is ethical is an open question.
The problem with comments linking communism and opensource is that they completely and totally miss the point of the true conflict. There are too many people who are too wound up in arguments about capitalism==good and communism==bad to realize that not every conflict is about a polito-economic(if that's even a word) theory. But sometimes it's all too easy to allow arguments to degenerate to that because it automatically sets up that good vs. evil mentality in people, and will stir up more of a ruckus.