The focus should always be on how to think rather than a list of facts. If you learn how to think critically you're set for life. If you learn a few facts, maybe you can regurgitate them on the next exam, but then what? A new generation of kids being able to think critically about the FUD and nonsense spouted at them by politicians must be really scary to politicians.
Yes, a long time ago that was true. That was when Islamic nations were the center of science and mathematics. That has changed now. Now science threatens religion by encouraging people to think critically about claims made about the universe at large. So long as it was all thought of as understanding the creator's work it was encouraged. At some point it changed to understanding in general and even began to ask the question of whether a creator was required.
So sure, way back when religion encouraged discovery. But it doesn't now. Especially not in the U.S.
It's not good to teach facts over method. If you've got limited time, then teaching kids how to think about problems is much more important than teaching them a bunch of things they can get for themselves from books and the internet. How to think critically and process the evidence behind claims that are presented to you is a lifelong skill. Facts are something you memorize for a test and then forget unless you need them again. This sort of law is based on people being afraid that kids will grow up and think critically about what the religious and political leaders want them to swallow.
Plus, it implies that things like evolution and anthropogenic climate change are merely "political" rather than well backed by scientific evidence. Just because there are people who have political reasons for not wanting kids to believe them doesn't mean the conclusions themselves are political.
I think both discussions should be had at the same time and with the same attention. People of both sexes need to hear the "don't be an idiot" speech and the "zero tolerance" speech. Getting offended at either of these is not going to fix anything. It seems someone shouts "don't blame the victim" whenever personal responsibility is mentioned and someone else yells "victimization" when people talk about predatory rapists. We should be careful because in the end we are the ones who will suffer if attacked. And rapists should be punished as the psychopathic predators that they are. Getting defensive on either side prevents real dialogue on how to solve the problem.
It is expensive to develop a new drug for lots of reasons. I used to work in chemistry and the equipment, chemicals, scientists and facilities are expensive. These days a lot of drugs get discovered based on natural compounds that have shown some bit of efficacy against whatever ailment. The active compound needs to be isolated, synthesized, tested, modified, tested, etc until they run out of ideas to make it as effective as possible. And that's just the start. Then you need to find a scalable way to produce enough of it to run clinical trials which are expensive too. And for your effort, you get zip in return if it turns out to work but is toxic or whatever.
And you can bet that any corners cut and any money saved in the process will be brought up in court as soon as someone has a bad reaction to the drug.
I don't love the idea of our health being a for profit endeavor, but unless everyone wants to abandon capitalism and cough it up as tax dollars, it's probably safe to assume that the process is about as good as it's going to get.
Pure research has led to quite a lot of "shit that works" alongside shit that went nowhere. If you choke off pure research in favor of things that short sighted politicians think will win them elections, you'll slow progress to a trickle. Most things in life: companies, inventions, experiments, marriages... are destined to fail. You still have to put the work in to get that one in a million success that changes the world.
Not accepting the theory of evolution because you have doubts about the rigor of the experiments or found some outlying data that was ignored but seems significant would indicate a person who could perform scientific work.
Not believing in evolution because a 2000 year old book says so would not. There are means to challenge a scientific theory; they are not infallible. But those means are science based and not faith based.
If you are inclined to let your religious bias overrule observed evidence then you should avoid scientific work on principle. Science isn't only right when it doesn't conflict with your views.
Perhaps it is confusing of the words faith and belief. You can believe something to be true because you've witnessed it. But faith implies believing without evidence.
A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is used in the vernacular. A scientific theory is already quite rigorously tested and while it may get revised and refined, it is unlikely to be entirely false. The closer equivalent to the way the public uses theory is a scientific hypothesis which is where the ideas start and get tested. Once a hypothesis goes through enough testing and scrutiny it might get promoted to a theory. A scientific law is something else again and states how things behave. A theory is not promoted to a law but rather might provide the explanation and testability for what the law declares.
I can believe that X knows very well what the HOLY_BOOK says without believing that it's true. I know the story in the Lord of the Rings pretty well, but I doubt you'd find many people to claim it was a real history. In the end, it's not about being an expert on the HOLY_BOOK but rather whether the book in question is factual. Even if the book is self consistent, it can still be wrong.
Netflix aren't paying for extra bandwidth. They are being extorted to pay more money in order to not be throttled down to the point where their customers give up and move on. Remember, Comcast competes with Netflix too. Cable internet providers have no interest in you spending $8 per month to watch everything on Netflix over their bandwidth rather than paying $100/mo to watch cable and movie channels. Comcast are abusing the monopoly they were given as a "utility" by telling their own customers they have unlimited downloads at a stated bandwidth and then telling Netflix they are strapped for throughput and Netflix better pay up to keep the bits flowing.
The trouble is that the ISPs want to promise high speed and unlimited usage but not deliver it. They want to put the blame on the streaming companies. ISPs have gotten away with false promises for years because the content wasn't demanding enough to prove them wrong. Now, rather than raise their own prices or put in caps and limit usage during prime time etc. they want to put the blame on Netflix etc. They make Netflix etc. pay them more money for the same bandwidth they are already charging customers for. Then when Netflix (or whoever) raises their prices to compensate, Netflix takes the blame instead of the ISP. The end user and Netflix (etc) have already paid for bandwidth. The ISP wants to get paid twice because their business model didn't allow for the user actually using the purchased bandwidth.
Being a millionaire in "our lifetime" probably won't mean much. With inflation and medical costs of growing old, you'll need a few million just to retire. Unless they think they'll earn that million in the next 5 years or so, it's not going to get them what they think.
Equality under the law is the key argument against your point. There are civil benefits to being married. These apply to childless heterosexual couples. They apply to infertile heterosexual couples. They apply to couples where one partner is a post-menopausal woman. So, the argument that it's solely about children doesn't fly. If a marriage is completely legal between a man and a woman when no children are or ever will be produced, then it violates the equality clause in the constitution to deny that same status to homosexual couples.
There are simply too many civil benefits tied up in the legal contract of marriage to claim that depriving homosexuals the ability to enter that contract isn't depriving them of rights.
Prejudice is judging someone based on a superficial feature. Judging this guy based on the fact that he contributed personal money to a campaign to deprive homosexuals of the right to marry and get the civil benefits of that marriage is not prejudging anything. It's judging him by his actions, which is a pretty good standard.
While I agree the left isn't doing a good job, the right is no more interested in a scientifically literate populace. Our two party system has nicely carved up the population and will continue to trade power back and forth while nothing really changes. And people like you spouting partisan nonsense are part of the reason they get away with it.
The problem is more fundamental than that. It is us as Americans. The politicians know their market very well, and in fact pay lots of money to mold the market into ever more gullible sheep. Most Americans have a cursory education in science at best. We've got it drilled into us to treat everything we don't want to hear with skepticism and to think elections are pointless because they're all losers so we may as well vote for the one with the most TV ads.
Until Americans stop considering educated people to be elitist and stop voting for the guy they'd want to sit next to at an outdoor bar-b-que, you aren't going to get anything fixed.
He's free to say anything he likes. Even free to put his money where his mouth is. However, when someone uses their freedom to campaign against the freedom of others to be treated equally under the law, then I'm free to think they're assholes.
This is not a free speech issue. No one can arrest him based on what he said and who he gave money to. But, freedom to say something isn't the same as free from the social consequences of what you've said.
You can't sign a legal contract that changes your tax obligations. You also can't sign a contract that forces other nations to accept that you are "contractually bound" for purposes of immigration where current treaties often recognize marriage. Like it or not, there are a fair few things that are special to a legally recognized marriage and that is why depriving same sex couples of those rights is a violation of the equality under the law mandate in the U.S. constitution.
You could argue that all of those laws should be removed or updated to take out the word marriage, but it's a lot of bother to end up in the same place.
Tolerating bigotry isn't the same thing as tolerance. People who want to deprive others of their rights by virtue of their skin color or sexuality* shouldn't be tolerated. You can think whatever you want, but supporting laws against other people's rights is wrong and no one should feel obligated to put up with it out of some misguided attempt to avoid sounding "politically correct." Trying to legislate your morality is not "polite disagreement."
*consenting adult style sexuality here, so don't bother with the stupid "what's next, pedophilia??" garbage
There's a good YouTube video of Lawrence Krauss talking about getting "something from nothing" in which he explains that the current thinking is that nothing is very unstable (which is observed on the subatomic scale) and thus, in the time before time existed particles and energy popped in and out of existence so fast that they didn't violate any laws of physics. Until, the so rare as to possibly be unique event happened that what popped into existence exploded (big bang fashion) before it had a chance to disappear again. His talk gives background on why this sort of thing could be possible and current science that supports it. I'm a scientist by education but not in physics so I'm not qualified to point out any holes in his discussion.
His talk attempts to explain in semi-layman's terms where certain people are looking for answers and evidence to support their theory on that universe-starting event. So, there are people looking into this area, you just have to look.
Slashdot Mirror
The focus should always be on how to think rather than a list of facts. If you learn how to think critically you're set for life. If you learn a few facts, maybe you can regurgitate them on the next exam, but then what? A new generation of kids being able to think critically about the FUD and nonsense spouted at them by politicians must be really scary to politicians.
Yes, a long time ago that was true. That was when Islamic nations were the center of science and mathematics. That has changed now. Now science threatens religion by encouraging people to think critically about claims made about the universe at large. So long as it was all thought of as understanding the creator's work it was encouraged. At some point it changed to understanding in general and even began to ask the question of whether a creator was required.
So sure, way back when religion encouraged discovery. But it doesn't now. Especially not in the U.S.
It's not good to teach facts over method. If you've got limited time, then teaching kids how to think about problems is much more important than teaching them a bunch of things they can get for themselves from books and the internet. How to think critically and process the evidence behind claims that are presented to you is a lifelong skill. Facts are something you memorize for a test and then forget unless you need them again. This sort of law is based on people being afraid that kids will grow up and think critically about what the religious and political leaders want them to swallow.
Plus, it implies that things like evolution and anthropogenic climate change are merely "political" rather than well backed by scientific evidence. Just because there are people who have political reasons for not wanting kids to believe them doesn't mean the conclusions themselves are political.
I think both discussions should be had at the same time and with the same attention. People of both sexes need to hear the "don't be an idiot" speech and the "zero tolerance" speech. Getting offended at either of these is not going to fix anything. It seems someone shouts "don't blame the victim" whenever personal responsibility is mentioned and someone else yells "victimization" when people talk about predatory rapists. We should be careful because in the end we are the ones who will suffer if attacked. And rapists should be punished as the psychopathic predators that they are. Getting defensive on either side prevents real dialogue on how to solve the problem.
It is expensive to develop a new drug for lots of reasons. I used to work in chemistry and the equipment, chemicals, scientists and facilities are expensive. These days a lot of drugs get discovered based on natural compounds that have shown some bit of efficacy against whatever ailment. The active compound needs to be isolated, synthesized, tested, modified, tested, etc until they run out of ideas to make it as effective as possible. And that's just the start. Then you need to find a scalable way to produce enough of it to run clinical trials which are expensive too. And for your effort, you get zip in return if it turns out to work but is toxic or whatever.
And you can bet that any corners cut and any money saved in the process will be brought up in court as soon as someone has a bad reaction to the drug.
I don't love the idea of our health being a for profit endeavor, but unless everyone wants to abandon capitalism and cough it up as tax dollars, it's probably safe to assume that the process is about as good as it's going to get.
Pure research has led to quite a lot of "shit that works" alongside shit that went nowhere. If you choke off pure research in favor of things that short sighted politicians think will win them elections, you'll slow progress to a trickle. Most things in life: companies, inventions, experiments, marriages... are destined to fail. You still have to put the work in to get that one in a million success that changes the world.
Not accepting the theory of evolution because you have doubts about the rigor of the experiments or found some outlying data that was ignored but seems significant would indicate a person who could perform scientific work.
Not believing in evolution because a 2000 year old book says so would not. There are means to challenge a scientific theory; they are not infallible. But those means are science based and not faith based.
If you are inclined to let your religious bias overrule observed evidence then you should avoid scientific work on principle. Science isn't only right when it doesn't conflict with your views.
Perhaps it is confusing of the words faith and belief. You can believe something to be true because you've witnessed it. But faith implies believing without evidence.
A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is used in the vernacular. A scientific theory is already quite rigorously tested and while it may get revised and refined, it is unlikely to be entirely false. The closer equivalent to the way the public uses theory is a scientific hypothesis which is where the ideas start and get tested. Once a hypothesis goes through enough testing and scrutiny it might get promoted to a theory. A scientific law is something else again and states how things behave. A theory is not promoted to a law but rather might provide the explanation and testability for what the law declares.
I can believe that X knows very well what the HOLY_BOOK says without believing that it's true. I know the story in the Lord of the Rings pretty well, but I doubt you'd find many people to claim it was a real history. In the end, it's not about being an expert on the HOLY_BOOK but rather whether the book in question is factual. Even if the book is self consistent, it can still be wrong.
Use the return to classic view link. I hope they track the number of clicks and realize that everyone is bailing on the stupid beta version.
Peas and plants. Because now peas aren't plants? Who wrote that?
Netflix aren't paying for extra bandwidth. They are being extorted to pay more money in order to not be throttled down to the point where their customers give up and move on. Remember, Comcast competes with Netflix too. Cable internet providers have no interest in you spending $8 per month to watch everything on Netflix over their bandwidth rather than paying $100/mo to watch cable and movie channels. Comcast are abusing the monopoly they were given as a "utility" by telling their own customers they have unlimited downloads at a stated bandwidth and then telling Netflix they are strapped for throughput and Netflix better pay up to keep the bits flowing.
The trouble is that the ISPs want to promise high speed and unlimited usage but not deliver it. They want to put the blame on the streaming companies. ISPs have gotten away with false promises for years because the content wasn't demanding enough to prove them wrong. Now, rather than raise their own prices or put in caps and limit usage during prime time etc. they want to put the blame on Netflix etc. They make Netflix etc. pay them more money for the same bandwidth they are already charging customers for. Then when Netflix (or whoever) raises their prices to compensate, Netflix takes the blame instead of the ISP. The end user and Netflix (etc) have already paid for bandwidth. The ISP wants to get paid twice because their business model didn't allow for the user actually using the purchased bandwidth.
Being a millionaire in "our lifetime" probably won't mean much. With inflation and medical costs of growing old, you'll need a few million just to retire. Unless they think they'll earn that million in the next 5 years or so, it's not going to get them what they think.
Equality under the law is the key argument against your point. There are civil benefits to being married. These apply to childless heterosexual couples. They apply to infertile heterosexual couples. They apply to couples where one partner is a post-menopausal woman. So, the argument that it's solely about children doesn't fly. If a marriage is completely legal between a man and a woman when no children are or ever will be produced, then it violates the equality clause in the constitution to deny that same status to homosexual couples.
There are simply too many civil benefits tied up in the legal contract of marriage to claim that depriving homosexuals the ability to enter that contract isn't depriving them of rights.
Prejudice is judging someone based on a superficial feature. Judging this guy based on the fact that he contributed personal money to a campaign to deprive homosexuals of the right to marry and get the civil benefits of that marriage is not prejudging anything. It's judging him by his actions, which is a pretty good standard.
Your analogy doesn't work. Being a homophobe can be unlearned, being black can't be.
While I agree the left isn't doing a good job, the right is no more interested in a scientifically literate populace. Our two party system has nicely carved up the population and will continue to trade power back and forth while nothing really changes. And people like you spouting partisan nonsense are part of the reason they get away with it.
The problem is more fundamental than that. It is us as Americans. The politicians know their market very well, and in fact pay lots of money to mold the market into ever more gullible sheep. Most Americans have a cursory education in science at best. We've got it drilled into us to treat everything we don't want to hear with skepticism and to think elections are pointless because they're all losers so we may as well vote for the one with the most TV ads.
Until Americans stop considering educated people to be elitist and stop voting for the guy they'd want to sit next to at an outdoor bar-b-que, you aren't going to get anything fixed.
He's free to say anything he likes. Even free to put his money where his mouth is. However, when someone uses their freedom to campaign against the freedom of others to be treated equally under the law, then I'm free to think they're assholes.
This is not a free speech issue. No one can arrest him based on what he said and who he gave money to. But, freedom to say something isn't the same as free from the social consequences of what you've said.
You can't sign a legal contract that changes your tax obligations. You also can't sign a contract that forces other nations to accept that you are "contractually bound" for purposes of immigration where current treaties often recognize marriage. Like it or not, there are a fair few things that are special to a legally recognized marriage and that is why depriving same sex couples of those rights is a violation of the equality under the law mandate in the U.S. constitution.
You could argue that all of those laws should be removed or updated to take out the word marriage, but it's a lot of bother to end up in the same place.
Tolerating bigotry isn't the same thing as tolerance. People who want to deprive others of their rights by virtue of their skin color or sexuality* shouldn't be tolerated. You can think whatever you want, but supporting laws against other people's rights is wrong and no one should feel obligated to put up with it out of some misguided attempt to avoid sounding "politically correct." Trying to legislate your morality is not "polite disagreement."
*consenting adult style sexuality here, so don't bother with the stupid "what's next, pedophilia??" garbage
There's a good YouTube video of Lawrence Krauss talking about getting "something from nothing" in which he explains that the current thinking is that nothing is very unstable (which is observed on the subatomic scale) and thus, in the time before time existed particles and energy popped in and out of existence so fast that they didn't violate any laws of physics. Until, the so rare as to possibly be unique event happened that what popped into existence exploded (big bang fashion) before it had a chance to disappear again. His talk gives background on why this sort of thing could be possible and current science that supports it. I'm a scientist by education but not in physics so I'm not qualified to point out any holes in his discussion.
His talk attempts to explain in semi-layman's terms where certain people are looking for answers and evidence to support their theory on that universe-starting event. So, there are people looking into this area, you just have to look.
Only blithering idiots don't understand the difference between relations between consenting adults and those inflicted upon children.