Big gun? Workable, but you can't send anything fragile, including people
Aha, that's simply because your gun isn't big enough. Consider an 11km high pylon tower, quite doable, with maglev tunnels in them to accelerate a vessel at 7g, quite acceptable again. The savings you make in fuel consumption and atmospheric density/turbulence are quite significant enough to lower the cost of launches to LEO to justify the initial expenditure, assuming you had a long term path to profitability in mind, like siting medical facilities in orbit for the rapid drop of transplant organs or something.
There simply is no tech out there which can come close to the reliability, efficiency, and costs of horses. that is why everyone is using them.
Forgive the adjustment of your comment, but it does serve to underline the point - rockets carry all of their fuel with them. There's no reason why we can't build a gantry several kilometers high which supplies energy to ships to help attain higher speeds as they launch. So for one they start higher, and for another they start faster. Maybe that will only be a significant factor in getting to LEO, but from LEO you can go much farther a lot easier. Make the trip to LEO easier, and the whole thing becomes a lot simpler and cheaper. Like a staging post.
That is to say, if there is an alternative, it must be expressed in matter, and maintaining more than one reality requires additional matter (or base state of energy).
A relativistic bomb is where you accelerate something to a fraction of the speed of light and slam it into a planet. Something the size of the Space Shuttle at 20% light speed would be more powerful than every nuke on the planet combined. A 1km diameter asteroid at 90% the speed of light would atomise everything on the surface of the earth and reduce it to a vast sandy wasteland with patches of glass where it had fused in the heat. The top 10m of the seas would boil off too.
The general understanding I have of these is that relativistic bombs could never work, since they would be torn to shreds by the interplanetary medium long before they hit the target. At the very best, they would be impossible to steer accurately for similar reasons.
No I really don't see the difference between those two things besides ideology. You've chosen to argue that one is more likely than the other without any evidence whatsoever. The two things are equally possible.
See, this is what I mean about knee jerk reactions without ever engaging higher cognitive functions. Intelligence is the mother of all evolutionary advantages, do you really think it that unlikely that we might be the first to develop it?
*boggle* I challenge you to find one discovery in the history of the human race that wasn't built on the backs of previous researchers and the observational evidence that came before.
There's even a word for it, serendipity. Anyway I think you misunderstood my point, its not that people out for a wander stumble on new discoveries out of the blue, although they have, its that imagination and the ability to step outside the box mentally play an important role in the scientific method. Strident dogmatism is the antithesis of that, and will ultimately lead to serious problems.
No other species relied on that, and we have their remains to poke at.
We don't really. We have a tiny percentage of some species that happened to be in the right place at the right time, which would itself be only a tiny percentage of all species which ever existed. Funerary rites would most certainly interfere with fossilisation, and if you wouldn't even want to credit them with that, you can at least envision that they would have an orderly process to dispose of the remains of their dead and not just leave them where they drop.
I think I do. I'm not sure that you are following the scope of the disappearing act that you postulate, again, on no evidence whatsoever.
No, I think you don't. Take a look at these: http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people/videos/#air-force-one About the only thing that might remain would be stores of gold, and even those could come a cropper or be rendered indistinguishable as artifacts, assuming you had the billion to one good fortune of digging hundreds of meters down in the right spot.
The number of extinctions changes what in my argument?
The underlying assumption that we know all there is to know about everything? Bottom line is, we know very little about anything.
Here, let me make one last attempt to garner your understanding: Moses was an alien. Can you disprove it? After all, an alien capable of making the trip would also be capable of perfect deception. I could spend the next year giving you ad hoc reasoning as to why your objections don't mean anything. But I just pulled it out of my ass. It's a completely unfounded assertion. But I could defend it in exactly the same way you are defending your statements. The point is that without a shred of empirical evidence to base your claim on, you, too, are just talking out of your ass. And that, not some dogmatism, is what makes it nothing more than an amusing story.
And we're off. The extreme example I used was intended to prove a point about the use of imagination in the scientific method and the way that the dogmatic herd thinking which is becoming prevalent runs the risk of damaging creativity in science. I often find this in engineers particularly who are labouring under the mistaken belief that they are scientists. Rigid and conservative thinking is a benefit in engineering, in science it is a detriment.
The scorn which is being heaped upon even admitting the possibility that such a killing evolutionary advantage as intelligence might have previously appeared before mankind is evidence of a problem. I don't expect you to solve the problem, just pointing out that it exists.
If there is no evidence how con you use the scientific method?
It's an extreme example as I mentioned, to emphasise the point. The fact is that the scientific method requires both imagination and creativity, and we won't get that while people are jumping with both feet on anything that doesn't fit their assumed orthodoxy. I say assumed because actual scientists know well enough how discovery works, more often because someone said, "hmm, that's weird", than someone said "yes, my calculations were correct". This is very much at odds with the so-called rationalists who are in fact dogmatists.
Someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would see that you've made no verifiable predictions, that your hypothesis that something 'used to exist but no evidence can possibly be found' is not falsifiable, and conclude that this is fundamentally not a question that can be addressed by the scientific method.
If you were to assert that this hypothesis was scientific, you would deserve criticism.
On the contrary, it is possible that evidence might one day be found to support this. Not very likely, but possible. You have missed the point I was trying to make however - science is not composed of calls to previous authority, they tried that in the middle ages and it didn't work out. This semi-legalistic adherence to methods that many people really don't understand runs the risk of drowning out true creative genius in a flood of self righteous calls to authority from these same poorly informed zealots. I don't think that's acceptable, and I don't see how anyone could think it is.
I fail to see a difference between pink unicorns that died out and left no trace and previous civilization that died out and left no trace, yet you seem to think one is interesting while the other a degrading reference.
How do you know there might be no trace? The fact is that earlier civilisations are far from impossible, while not being probable, while pink unicorns are nonsense. Can you see the point being made? Knee jerk adherence to dogma is as bad as the religious fanatics, since it destroys the imagination, a vital component of the scientific method. Discoveries are not often built on previous experience.
So, you are now relying on imagined funeral rites to explain the lack of skeletal evidence from a civilization of which you have no other evidence either?
I'm relying on the idea that such a group probably wouldn't dump their dead into tar pits as a general rule.
So, you wouldn't recognize carved stone? Or metal? No one in your hypothetical civilization cut a gem, or built a massive city? No subways? No basements? No plastics? No analogues to Cheyenne Mountain? We can somehow find stone tools from millions of years ago, but a whole advanced civilization somehow evaporated?
That's exactly right, you wouldn't recognise carved stone after its been ground to rubble under tens of millions of years of geology. I don't think you really understand what happens over geological time scales.
So, let me follow your logic. We have some extinctions which are clearly due to outside events. We have some that are not yet understood. We are causing one ourselves right now. Therefore, it's plausible that an advanced civilization of which there isn't the slightest shred of evidence can be plugged in as a cause.
I think you might be underestimating the amount of extinction events there actually were. Here are more than twenty that we know of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Bring something other than wild speculation and ad hoc reasoning to the table, and people will likely find it a lot more worthy of discussion. Until then, it's an amusing story, but nothing else.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I'm talking about. How would you differentiate tiny spots of ceramics from the megatonnage of rock and soil sitting on top of them?
you suffer from historical myopia: the false impression that something is changing, usually in some horrible dire direction, when nothing is changing at all
But things do change, they change all the time. Sometimes they change in a non-random trend based fashion. What this report appears to indicate is just such a trend. Without descending into the abuse you appear to enjoy handing out, perhaps you could support the idea that this is just business as usual with reference to previous historical trends, in particular regarding the state of education while such trends were ongoing?
I certainly would not be too quick to dismiss the apparent rejection of rational thought by those entrusted with imparting knowledge to up and coming generations.
No, it wouldn't. Biological matter can survive millions of years, let alone all of the artificial materials that such a civilization would have generated. And where in the world's history did this global civilization appear, without leaving anything behind or making a measurable impact on the environment of their time? How is it that we can find trilobites, ammonites, worm impressions, dinosaur skeletons and even the impressions of feathers dating back millions of years, but not one scrap of evidence of an advanced civilization?
Ask yourself this - how much of the biodiversity of the ancient world have we actually recovered in the fossil record? One percent? One percent of one percent? It takes a pretty specialised set of conditions to create fossils, and it would suprise me not at all to find that funerary rites are not conducive to those. As for the rest, what materials do you imagine would survive? Anything from say ten million years in the past would be indistinguishable from the surrounding strata. And a measureable impact - there were many extinction events of various levels in the history of the earth, and by no means are all or even the majority of them satisfactorarily explained. I would add to that the note that we are right now in the midst of a massive reduction in biodiversity due to our own advanced civilisation.
The rejection of wild stories which do not match up with any known evidence is not evidence of "mental orthodoxy." It's evidence of a healthy regard for proof. Conjecture about ancient civilizations all you like. No one will stop you. But don't expect anyone to actually take you seriously until you pony of data.
I don't expect anyone to take that hypothesis seriously. I do expect people to entertain the possibility without pouring scorn left right and centre.
You seem to want the fact that you have no evidence ignored, and yet feel that those that would point it out are unjustified.
Admitting the possibility is not subscribing to the idea, and you must admit it is a possibility. This is where the imagination element of the scientific method comes into play, and it is a vital force, that a dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy will inevitably stamp out.
I'm going to copy from my other post, since it sums up the point rather well, and the chances of anyone actually finding it in this nasty new layout are slim:
"Again to hammer this point home, someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would not dismiss it outright. My complaint is about people who, upon hearing something too far outside their accepted orthodoxy, immediately go into denial and mockery mode, without ever engaging their higher cognitive functions.
From wikipedia, as William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
What I dislike here is the removal of imagination from the equation."
And on that particular topic, who knows that we may not find in the distant future a whirling relic in the deeps of space, frozen for all time with its terrestrial crew mummified inside it. This pouring of scorn on new ideas and thoughts, or ideas with insufficient present support, like plate tectonics once had, is a frankly inadequate response. However, I will once again emphasise that something like ID is just nuts, it has no connection to even the fundamental laws of physics.
(Who downmodded me for asking a perfectly valid question?)
I literally can't find half my posts in this new system.
I think your reply does not justify your assertion. I think almost one of the so-called "amateur atheists" would dismiss the possibility of a previous civilization outright.
You'd think wrong then. Again to hammer this point home, someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would not dismiss it outright. My complaint is about people who, upon hearing something too far outside their accepted orthodoxy, immediately go into denial and mockery mode, without ever engaging their higher cognitive functions.
From wikipedia, as William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
What I dislike here is the removal of imagination from the equation.
stubborn outspoken ignorance is a facet of every time period. the mistake is in letting it get to you. that's your personal weakness showing, not the weakness of society showing
Sorry, but the fact is, when a majority of teachers start favouring religion over science, its time to sit up and pay attention.
Okay, to take an extreme example, I've witnessed an engaging debate on whether or not previous (non human) civilisations might have existed on earth. On the one hand, the argument is perfectly factual that even a civilisation as advanced as our own would be completely erased in a matter of a few million years, even space based assets would either degrade into the atmosphere or fly off entirely. On the other hand you had the look-I-can-say-woo crowd scoffing at the idea and bringing up pink unicorn analogies.
Once people start dismissing things out of hand, admittedly things which are on the further edge of possibility, while nonetheless remaining possible, you've started to walk down a dangerous road of mental orthodoxy, which would be abhorrent to outside thinkers like Einstein. Once again, this is not in reference to real scientists who understand the scientific method, and further understand the value of imagination, nor is it a reference to intelligent design, which is widely and properly refuted.
What the Catholic church did for geocentrism in the Renaissance, the mega churches and funny-mental Christians are now doing for intelligent design.
Funnily enough, the Catholic church didn't have a problem as such with heliocentrism, the absolute autocrat of this powerful organisation had a problem with Galileo trying to moonlight as a politician by handing out not so veiled insults. I'm no fan of the Church, any organisation that shelters child abusers must be disbanded at best, but lets stick to the facts.
and i will bet you a GNP that every other country has the same problem
The issue of pay isn't as clear cut as you might think. The problem you run into is that if you sweeten the pot too much, you attract people who only want the benefits and have no real interest in or passion for their field, in this case teaching science. We all observed similar effects during the dot com bubble, with reams of people who really had no business getting into IT joining up because they heard the pay was good.
I don't know, there's a rising darkness in the US, not to get too emotive on the matter. I cannot imagine something as fundamental as evolution making people uncomfortable in a widespread manner even a couple of decades ago. Your children are being targeted here, the future of your country. To add to the problem, the multiplying disciples of Dawkins (NOT actual scientists, I mean the amateur atheists) are just as likely to dig their heels in and refuse to step outside what authority figures tell them, even on scientific matters - there's a general withdrawal from creative problem solving and imagination that urgently needs to be addressed.
Really? What about remote control radio, sparkplugs, establishing the principles of modern radar, Nobel prize nominee, patenting the first instance of VTOL aircraft, reaching the cover of Time magazine, fluent in eight languages, calculating the resonant frequency of the earth, and demonstrating wireless energy transmission as far back as 1891? He may well have been a crackpot but he was an absolutely brilliant crackpot, with many good ideas.
"Rape by deception" laws, i.e. if you misrepresent yourself to get sex, you've committed a crime, would put every single liar looking to get laid on the wrong side of the law.
Not to mention any woman that wears make-up or pads their bra.
Slashdot Mirror
Aha, that's simply because your gun isn't big enough. Consider an 11km high pylon tower, quite doable, with maglev tunnels in them to accelerate a vessel at 7g, quite acceptable again. The savings you make in fuel consumption and atmospheric density/turbulence are quite significant enough to lower the cost of launches to LEO to justify the initial expenditure, assuming you had a long term path to profitability in mind, like siting medical facilities in orbit for the rapid drop of transplant organs or something.
There simply is no tech out there which can come close to the reliability, efficiency, and costs of horses. that is why everyone is using them.
Forgive the adjustment of your comment, but it does serve to underline the point - rockets carry all of their fuel with them. There's no reason why we can't build a gantry several kilometers high which supplies energy to ships to help attain higher speeds as they launch. So for one they start higher, and for another they start faster. Maybe that will only be a significant factor in getting to LEO, but from LEO you can go much farther a lot easier. Make the trip to LEO easier, and the whole thing becomes a lot simpler and cheaper. Like a staging post.
Or just stick with firefox.
That is to say, if there is an alternative, it must be expressed in matter, and maintaining more than one reality requires additional matter (or base state of energy).
Something like dark matter and energy?
Isn't your paranoid view of aliens just as anthropomorphic, though?
If he's wrong, we lose nothing. If he's right, we gain everything.
A relativistic bomb is where you accelerate something to a fraction of the speed of light and slam it into a planet. Something the size of the Space Shuttle at 20% light speed would be more powerful than every nuke on the planet combined. A 1km diameter asteroid at 90% the speed of light would atomise everything on the surface of the earth and reduce it to a vast sandy wasteland with patches of glass where it had fused in the heat. The top 10m of the seas would boil off too.
The general understanding I have of these is that relativistic bombs could never work, since they would be torn to shreds by the interplanetary medium long before they hit the target. At the very best, they would be impossible to steer accurately for similar reasons.
No I really don't see the difference between those two things besides ideology. You've chosen to argue that one is more likely than the other without any evidence whatsoever. The two things are equally possible.
See, this is what I mean about knee jerk reactions without ever engaging higher cognitive functions. Intelligence is the mother of all evolutionary advantages, do you really think it that unlikely that we might be the first to develop it?
*boggle* I challenge you to find one discovery in the history of the human race that wasn't built on the backs of previous researchers and the observational evidence that came before.
Take a look here
http://www.helium.com/knowledge/291333-the-most-important-accidental-scientific-discoveries
There's even a word for it, serendipity. Anyway I think you misunderstood my point, its not that people out for a wander stumble on new discoveries out of the blue, although they have, its that imagination and the ability to step outside the box mentally play an important role in the scientific method. Strident dogmatism is the antithesis of that, and will ultimately lead to serious problems.
No other species relied on that, and we have their remains to poke at.
We don't really. We have a tiny percentage of some species that happened to be in the right place at the right time, which would itself be only a tiny percentage of all species which ever existed. Funerary rites would most certainly interfere with fossilisation, and if you wouldn't even want to credit them with that, you can at least envision that they would have an orderly process to dispose of the remains of their dead and not just leave them where they drop.
I think I do. I'm not sure that you are following the scope of the disappearing act that you postulate, again, on no evidence whatsoever.
No, I think you don't. Take a look at these: http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people/videos/#air-force-one About the only thing that might remain would be stores of gold, and even those could come a cropper or be rendered indistinguishable as artifacts, assuming you had the billion to one good fortune of digging hundreds of meters down in the right spot.
The number of extinctions changes what in my argument?
The underlying assumption that we know all there is to know about everything? Bottom line is, we know very little about anything.
Here, let me make one last attempt to garner your understanding: Moses was an alien. Can you disprove it? After all, an alien capable of making the trip would also be capable of perfect deception. I could spend the next year giving you ad hoc reasoning as to why your objections don't mean anything. But I just pulled it out of my ass. It's a completely unfounded assertion. But I could defend it in exactly the same way you are defending your statements. The point is that without a shred of empirical evidence to base your claim on, you, too, are just talking out of your ass. And that, not some dogmatism, is what makes it nothing more than an amusing story.
And we're off. The extreme example I used was intended to prove a point about the use of imagination in the scientific method and the way that the dogmatic herd thinking which is becoming prevalent runs the risk of damaging creativity in science. I often find this in engineers particularly who are labouring under the mistaken belief that they are scientists. Rigid and conservative thinking is a benefit in engineering, in science it is a detriment.
The scorn which is being heaped upon even admitting the possibility that such a killing evolutionary advantage as intelligence might have previously appeared before mankind is evidence of a problem. I don't expect you to solve the problem, just pointing out that it exists.
Please get your adrenal glands checked out. Thanks.
Chill kuya. Kaming lahat ay sa parehong side.
If there is no evidence how con you use the scientific method?
It's an extreme example as I mentioned, to emphasise the point. The fact is that the scientific method requires both imagination and creativity, and we won't get that while people are jumping with both feet on anything that doesn't fit their assumed orthodoxy. I say assumed because actual scientists know well enough how discovery works, more often because someone said, "hmm, that's weird", than someone said "yes, my calculations were correct". This is very much at odds with the so-called rationalists who are in fact dogmatists.
Someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would see that you've made no verifiable predictions, that your hypothesis that something 'used to exist but no evidence can possibly be found' is not falsifiable, and conclude that this is fundamentally not a question that can be addressed by the scientific method. If you were to assert that this hypothesis was scientific, you would deserve criticism.
On the contrary, it is possible that evidence might one day be found to support this. Not very likely, but possible. You have missed the point I was trying to make however - science is not composed of calls to previous authority, they tried that in the middle ages and it didn't work out. This semi-legalistic adherence to methods that many people really don't understand runs the risk of drowning out true creative genius in a flood of self righteous calls to authority from these same poorly informed zealots. I don't think that's acceptable, and I don't see how anyone could think it is.
I fail to see a difference between pink unicorns that died out and left no trace and previous civilization that died out and left no trace, yet you seem to think one is interesting while the other a degrading reference.
How do you know there might be no trace? The fact is that earlier civilisations are far from impossible, while not being probable, while pink unicorns are nonsense. Can you see the point being made? Knee jerk adherence to dogma is as bad as the religious fanatics, since it destroys the imagination, a vital component of the scientific method. Discoveries are not often built on previous experience.
So, you are now relying on imagined funeral rites to explain the lack of skeletal evidence from a civilization of which you have no other evidence either?
I'm relying on the idea that such a group probably wouldn't dump their dead into tar pits as a general rule.
So, you wouldn't recognize carved stone? Or metal? No one in your hypothetical civilization cut a gem, or built a massive city? No subways? No basements? No plastics? No analogues to Cheyenne Mountain? We can somehow find stone tools from millions of years ago, but a whole advanced civilization somehow evaporated?
That's exactly right, you wouldn't recognise carved stone after its been ground to rubble under tens of millions of years of geology. I don't think you really understand what happens over geological time scales.
So, let me follow your logic. We have some extinctions which are clearly due to outside events. We have some that are not yet understood. We are causing one ourselves right now. Therefore, it's plausible that an advanced civilization of which there isn't the slightest shred of evidence can be plugged in as a cause.
I think you might be underestimating the amount of extinction events there actually were. Here are more than twenty that we know of... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Bring something other than wild speculation and ad hoc reasoning to the table, and people will likely find it a lot more worthy of discussion. Until then, it's an amusing story, but nothing else.
And that was the point flying right by you.
Ceramics can last for geological time scales.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I'm talking about. How would you differentiate tiny spots of ceramics from the megatonnage of rock and soil sitting on top of them?
you suffer from historical myopia: the false impression that something is changing, usually in some horrible dire direction, when nothing is changing at all
But things do change, they change all the time. Sometimes they change in a non-random trend based fashion. What this report appears to indicate is just such a trend. Without descending into the abuse you appear to enjoy handing out, perhaps you could support the idea that this is just business as usual with reference to previous historical trends, in particular regarding the state of education while such trends were ongoing?
I certainly would not be too quick to dismiss the apparent rejection of rational thought by those entrusted with imparting knowledge to up and coming generations.
No, it wouldn't. Biological matter can survive millions of years, let alone all of the artificial materials that such a civilization would have generated. And where in the world's history did this global civilization appear, without leaving anything behind or making a measurable impact on the environment of their time? How is it that we can find trilobites, ammonites, worm impressions, dinosaur skeletons and even the impressions of feathers dating back millions of years, but not one scrap of evidence of an advanced civilization?
Ask yourself this - how much of the biodiversity of the ancient world have we actually recovered in the fossil record? One percent? One percent of one percent? It takes a pretty specialised set of conditions to create fossils, and it would suprise me not at all to find that funerary rites are not conducive to those. As for the rest, what materials do you imagine would survive? Anything from say ten million years in the past would be indistinguishable from the surrounding strata. And a measureable impact - there were many extinction events of various levels in the history of the earth, and by no means are all or even the majority of them satisfactorarily explained. I would add to that the note that we are right now in the midst of a massive reduction in biodiversity due to our own advanced civilisation.
The rejection of wild stories which do not match up with any known evidence is not evidence of "mental orthodoxy." It's evidence of a healthy regard for proof. Conjecture about ancient civilizations all you like. No one will stop you. But don't expect anyone to actually take you seriously until you pony of data.
I don't expect anyone to take that hypothesis seriously. I do expect people to entertain the possibility without pouring scorn left right and centre.
You seem to want the fact that you have no evidence ignored, and yet feel that those that would point it out are unjustified.
Admitting the possibility is not subscribing to the idea, and you must admit it is a possibility. This is where the imagination element of the scientific method comes into play, and it is a vital force, that a dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy will inevitably stamp out.
The reason people dismiss ideas like that are
I'm going to copy from my other post, since it sums up the point rather well, and the chances of anyone actually finding it in this nasty new layout are slim:
"Again to hammer this point home, someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would not dismiss it outright. My complaint is about people who, upon hearing something too far outside their accepted orthodoxy, immediately go into denial and mockery mode, without ever engaging their higher cognitive functions.
From wikipedia, as William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
What I dislike here is the removal of imagination from the equation."
And on that particular topic, who knows that we may not find in the distant future a whirling relic in the deeps of space, frozen for all time with its terrestrial crew mummified inside it. This pouring of scorn on new ideas and thoughts, or ideas with insufficient present support, like plate tectonics once had, is a frankly inadequate response. However, I will once again emphasise that something like ID is just nuts, it has no connection to even the fundamental laws of physics.
(Who downmodded me for asking a perfectly valid question?)
I literally can't find half my posts in this new system.
I think your reply does not justify your assertion. I think almost one of the so-called "amateur atheists" would dismiss the possibility of a previous civilization outright.
You'd think wrong then. Again to hammer this point home, someone who was reasonably familiar with the scientific method would not dismiss it outright. My complaint is about people who, upon hearing something too far outside their accepted orthodoxy, immediately go into denial and mockery mode, without ever engaging their higher cognitive functions.
From wikipedia, as William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), "invention, sagacity, genius" are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone; multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
What I dislike here is the removal of imagination from the equation.
stubborn outspoken ignorance is a facet of every time period. the mistake is in letting it get to you. that's your personal weakness showing, not the weakness of society showing
Sorry, but the fact is, when a majority of teachers start favouring religion over science, its time to sit up and pay attention.
Okay, to take an extreme example, I've witnessed an engaging debate on whether or not previous (non human) civilisations might have existed on earth. On the one hand, the argument is perfectly factual that even a civilisation as advanced as our own would be completely erased in a matter of a few million years, even space based assets would either degrade into the atmosphere or fly off entirely. On the other hand you had the look-I-can-say-woo crowd scoffing at the idea and bringing up pink unicorn analogies.
Once people start dismissing things out of hand, admittedly things which are on the further edge of possibility, while nonetheless remaining possible, you've started to walk down a dangerous road of mental orthodoxy, which would be abhorrent to outside thinkers like Einstein. Once again, this is not in reference to real scientists who understand the scientific method, and further understand the value of imagination, nor is it a reference to intelligent design, which is widely and properly refuted.
What the Catholic church did for geocentrism in the Renaissance, the mega churches and funny-mental Christians are now doing for intelligent design.
Funnily enough, the Catholic church didn't have a problem as such with heliocentrism, the absolute autocrat of this powerful organisation had a problem with Galileo trying to moonlight as a politician by handing out not so veiled insults. I'm no fan of the Church, any organisation that shelters child abusers must be disbanded at best, but lets stick to the facts.
and i will bet you a GNP that every other country has the same problem
The issue of pay isn't as clear cut as you might think. The problem you run into is that if you sweeten the pot too much, you attract people who only want the benefits and have no real interest in or passion for their field, in this case teaching science. We all observed similar effects during the dot com bubble, with reams of people who really had no business getting into IT joining up because they heard the pay was good.
I don't know, there's a rising darkness in the US, not to get too emotive on the matter. I cannot imagine something as fundamental as evolution making people uncomfortable in a widespread manner even a couple of decades ago. Your children are being targeted here, the future of your country. To add to the problem, the multiplying disciples of Dawkins (NOT actual scientists, I mean the amateur atheists) are just as likely to dig their heels in and refuse to step outside what authority figures tell them, even on scientific matters - there's a general withdrawal from creative problem solving and imagination that urgently needs to be addressed.
Tesla was a crackpot who had one good idea
Really? What about remote control radio, sparkplugs, establishing the principles of modern radar, Nobel prize nominee, patenting the first instance of VTOL aircraft, reaching the cover of Time magazine, fluent in eight languages, calculating the resonant frequency of the earth, and demonstrating wireless energy transmission as far back as 1891? He may well have been a crackpot but he was an absolutely brilliant crackpot, with many good ideas.
"Rape by deception" laws, i.e. if you misrepresent yourself to get sex, you've committed a crime, would put every single liar looking to get laid on the wrong side of the law.
Not to mention any woman that wears make-up or pads their bra.