I cited a reference source that was frankly beyond what I needed to provide since the scientific method can be assumed to be common knowledge amongst educated people.
if you're not educated then you really have no right to an opinion on this subject.
Since you ignored the reference source as well as the fact that you're arguing against common knowledge... I can only assume as I suspected that you are both determined to spread misinformation and unwilling to listen or learn on the issue. Thus rendering you little more then a parrot squawking nonsense.
Sure, and if someone says a rock isn't a horse they're just proving that they have an ideology that holds that view.
Never mind that a rock isn't a horse and suggesting otherwise is a contradiction of objective fact.
Kindly stop breathing. You are wasting oxygen.
Scientific Method (wikipedia): The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
You're wrong. That doesn't annoy me. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. However, refusing to admit you're wrong when you've had every opportunity to correct your position and then refusing to admit it is immoral. You are intentionally perverting truth and contradicting known fact. You are therefore intentionally spreading misinformation.
It is this that offends me.
If you wish to continue to hold your position at the very least give some basis for you false opinion and a means by which you'd accept correction. Then someone that knows more then you might have a chance if they care to educate you.
If you don't even provide that you're spreading misinformation while jamming your fingers in your ears and singing. And that is not only immoral... its obnoxious.
What will it be?
Will you admit your error?
Will you simply keep your false statements to yourself?
Will you continue to spew your stupidity but give some means for people to help you?
Or will you do all the above while closing your mind to correction?
I am assuming the latter. People that say such profoundly ignorant things tend to be only of the last category. If that's all you are... then I repeat... stop breathing.
Except for this article was started by someone advocating for atheists to adopt religious/ideological/belief based philosophical models instead of maintaining their "spock-like" detachment.
In other words "IDEOLOGICAL" people feel threatened by systems of thought that are empirical and not aligned with primate social models.
That includes religious and non-religious ideologies. In this case, it was a guy on NPR talking about how people should take sides in science on ideological grounds.
Its a process. It is no more a belief system then is a recipe for baking a cake.
You sit down, mix flour, eggs, milk, butter... etc... pour into a pan... bake for so many minutes at such and such a temperature then test the cake for completion by seeing if crumbs will come off a toothpick.
That is how science works. Its a process. Not a belief system. You do certain things, in a certain order, checking empirical variables at given points to ensure previous steps were carried out correctly and then verify the end result.
That is not a belief system.
And here is where I say "end of argument"... only some fucking retard is going to say "oh you can't just do that." Except I can because we are talking about science and science is a defined concept. Anyone that doesn't understand that science is a process and not a belief system is ignorant. Period. If we're going to be spock-like then what would spock say to someone that was completely wrong? Possibly he'd say "that conclusion is in error"? Which is a fancy way of saying "wrong."
People that don't understand science really shouldn't comment on science. Comment on my little pony episodes or something equally obnoxious.
A policeman in Los Angeles killed a man by answering emails while driving.
He was not even charged with a crime for it because apparently by answering police department email it was all in the service of the badge.
In this context... they continue to go after people that might answer a text while driving whether people are even injured or not.
Don't get me wrong... you shouldn't answer texts while driving. But I am incensed that the police officer is not even put on trial for manslaughter or negligent homicide.
If the police need to answer email while driving, then either give them automated cars or require them to have two police officers in every car. Short of that... they should be paying attention to driving while driving. Until that is a rule, I can't take this whole topic seriously.
Its really quite simple. They want to politicize, ideologue, and factionalize science.
Science has clout. Scientists carry weight when they say something. That is valuable to community organizers, politicians, opinion makers, etc. The problem is that scientists often refuse to cooperate. And its often hard to claim your political position is backed by science when there are just as many scientists that disagree with your political position as agree with it.
To that end, they must make science less "spock-like". Spock isn't going to take sides in your petty political battles. He doesn't care. And you can't use his words to undermine your opponent because if you read between the lines there tends to be so many qualifiers that it isn't worth anything.
So... they want to make science more about emotion... opinion... feelings.
The dead give away is that he's saying "atheists need X"... atheists are not a faction like Catholics or Muslims or Hindus. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean you actually share many values with other atheists. Its not a complete ideology. Its just a a rejection of theism. Nothing more. Its like trying to build a political coalition around people that don't like hamburgers. Sure... you all don't like hamburgers, but do you have anything else in common? Not really.
Yet he's attempting to build something around and advocate for anti-theism and to do so he suggests that science should be emotionalized. Effectively, to turn atheism into a viable ideology or religion in its own right they have to all believe things. Rather then simply concluding that god is illogical... they have to have a common culture. And from there you might build a political coalition and cultural core. The objective being to turn atheists into a viable political force which will be used by the politicians to fight their stupid wars amongst each other.
Which is really all this about... the tools and minions of those political machines fishing for cannon fodder for their campaigns.
They'll pervert anything to get just one more meat shield for the grind.
Looks like this particular article failed hilariously... While appealing to trek nerds is always amusing... they seem to have forgotten that those same nerds are going to respond to it in their own way... which is to take this pathetic article seriously and rip it to splinters.
advertising isn't that expensive and tesla doesn't need it... the ad value is not even remotely worth the cost of a major factory. Were it, then apple would stop using sweat shop labor instead of spending tens of millions on advertising every year.
Brag about how well this works after ten years of operation. I'd love to see if this is actually sustainable. Sure, they can build it... and sure they can start doing it that way... but is it economical? Actually?
We won't know until the system has been operating for years.
Did you miss the part where I said castro has killed more of his people per capita then Stalin? You're right there is no rebellion in Cuba... he'd kill everyone. He's gone on rampages and purges in the past. The dude does not fuck around.
And even if Castro's brother doesn't lift it... he's an old man too... he'll die and those that come after will reform and reform until cuba's communist dystopia is just a bad memory.
First, are you calling me a five year old for pointing out that Cuba has gone out of their way over the years to make relations worse thus sustaining the embargo? That isn't childish unless you consider knowledge of history and politics to be childish. If so your definition of "childish" is very close to the dictionary definition of "educated."
Second, what will really lift the embargo is that castro is going to die of old age and his regime will either fall or be converted into a more reasonable government which the US and anyone that cares about human rights can tolerate.
Third, you don't seem to understand what castro has done in his time. Per capita he killed more of his own people then Stalin. You make much of presuming both knowledge and sophistication but you don't seem to understand the history or facts of the issue. Consider this, there are millions of refugees from Cuba in the US that to this day HATE castro with a passion you could probably not even begin to understand. And that should give you pause... because you do not understand WHY they hate him so much. Please just inform yourself of the issue a bit before presuming to have an opinion.
Finally, as to how many years ought to be enough, it was not a punishment... it was a response. If Castro had stopped immediately after the embargo we would have lifted the embargo then and there. He's never stopped. And though the US has TRIED to normalize relations many times over the years castro has gone out of his way to spoil relations and sustain the embargo.
Consider this, the embargo actually protects his regime to a certain extent. Many people think that the US made a mistake by imposing it and that we'd have broken his regime sooner by allowing trade. I personally agree with that approach and would lift the embargo tomorrow if I were in charge. But understand that the reason I would be doing it would be to destroy his regime. I would encourage trade and cultural exchange with his country with the objective of showing his people what castro stole from them. And thus ultimately destabilize his government and bring about democratic reform.
You doubtless think this opinion is childish... but since when your misunderstanding of language is translated into english... you're calling me educated... I can only thank you for your kind words.
The US has tried to lift the embargo several times. Every time Cuba does something to get it maintained. There was famiously a plane hijacking one of the times we talked about lifting it.
Beyond that, the embargo does not stretch to the whole planet. They can trade with Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, etc. Just not the US. I think they can trade with any country and europe and probably canada. So... whatever Cuba.
Like most failed states, they're just blaming their incompetence on someone else.
The ships could be entirely automated. Drone container ships. No need for a crew at all. Though, I'd still think having at least a couple guys on board would be a good idea.
As to the speed, clipper ships hit speeds of about 16 knots while container ships hit something like 20-25 knots. The speed difference isn't extreme.
The biggest difference will be the hull streamlining. If you're pushing through the water with a big diesel engine then you can afford to have a fat bodied boat. Its more efficient for cargo but increases drag in the water. A fast merchant sail boat such as the clipper ships had a more streamlined hull. And the racing yachts try to be as knife like as possible since what really slows a boat down is pushing all that water out of the way as it moves forward. Ideally, the boat glides through the water with as little resistance as possible.
The problem with modern container ship design is that the cargo demands are so intense that the boats really can't be built that way unless you completely change the way you do it.
Really, I don't think sailboats can be accepted in this industry any more unless the industry is revolutionized.
Here is one idea that might work... tiny fully automated cargo ships. Possibly only moving 4 to 8 containers total. Tiny ships as far as modern cargo goes. But because they're automated they MIGHT be economical. They would also be highly adaptable because rather then having to bulk ship all the containers to a central shipping depot you could instead have much smaller cargo ships take cargo where it is actually wanted rather then where the largest port is in the region. This could allow for affordable micro shipments and such ships should be small enough to make them reasonable sailboats.
This is just an idea... I'm talking out of my ass on that one. I'd love to see wind powered container ships but I really doubt they'll ever be built. Not unless someone can come up with a way to compete with the big diesel monsters.
First we need batteries that aren't a complete joke.
The energy density and efficiency of batteries versus gas are not comparable.
Here some fool is going to say I'm not taking into the consideration the cost of pulling the fuel out of the ground or the cost to the environment. You're right... I'm not... because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm also not talking about how neither gasoline nor batteries taste like chocolate. The issue is that the gasoline is very energy dense, relatively inexpensive, low maintenance, and thus EFFECTIVE as a fuel source.
Batteries by contrast have so many fucking problems it boggles the mind that anyone could think we could replace gasoline with them without bringing the whole system to its knees.
For one the weight/mass to energy ratio is not comparable. For the same energy batteries must be larger and heavier.
Second, they wear out fairly quickly. Possibly we could mitigate this with flow batteries but I haven't seen anyone actually propose that for automobiles. Regardless, we are comparing a gasoline tank to a battery. Both serve similar functions. How long can a gasoline tank last? How many "power cycles" can it sustain? Compare that to a battery. Is it a fair comparison? It is a realistic one. that is what you are proposing to compete with and its laughable given current technology.
Third, batteries are hardly more environmentally friendly then the petrochemical industry. Ever seen a battery factory? Lead contamination is pretty common... as are a dozen other heavy metals that seep into the ground over the years. Often the land around large battery factories look like the surface of the moon. Lifeless... oh and completely toxic. Go Captain Planet.
Fourth, they're more expensive. It doesn't matter how you add up the numbers. They cost more. Which means transport goes up for everyone and everything which means everything imported goes up in cost.... I could go on and on... but really... just no.
... anything we're used to will be sufficient for what we normally do because what we normally do is limited by current circumstances.
By this logic, we wouldn't have needed electricity or indoor plumbing because at that time few people had wired their homes for electricity, owned light blubs, lamps, or had any of the appliances that use internal plumbing like toilets or showers.
The notion that standards can remain fixed because people don't rely on things they don't have is asinine.
The point that in some softer sciences it is harder to get evidence is not justification for not having any. The fact that they must wait for unusual historical occurrences for example merely means they have to be patient and wait for more data. Does that patience mean they might have to wait hundreds of years to get something confirmed? Absent other means of finding actual evidence... yeah.
No one has more of a right to determine the education of a child then the parent.
Are parents sometimes stupid? Sure. So is everyone. The difference is that typically no one cares about the child more then the parent. You don't care. The government doesn't care. The teacher doesn't care. You don't know the child's name. You won't lose any sleep over their success or failure.
The parents typically care a great deal. What is more, no one has more of a right then them.
First... they have custody. Not you. Not the government. They are their legal guardians which means they are legally allowed to make decisions for the child. Indifferent to the ethics which I think should be clear to you, this is simply the law. The argument should end at that point.
Second, they are financially taking care of the child. Sure, some kids are on welfare but most are not. That financial support provided by the parent gives them additional rights.
I really see no reason to go beyond that. You have no grounds to tell them otherwise in that situation. Could parents encourage bad education for the children? Sure... but then they suffer the consequences of doing that. No one will be hurt more by that then the children and the parents. Most people and groups of people will avoid practices that harm their children.
Here someone is going to bring up the religious fundamentalists and evolution. I would counter that doesn't really do that much damage. It would only potentially harm students that went into biology or geology. You can be a genius chemist, physicist, mathematician, etc and yet be a devout believer in creationism. Really the issue is over hyped and not terribly important. It would only harm biological students or possibly medical doctors. And even in those situations, we can assume their college educations would give them more then enough background to make up for a few bad science classes in high school.
Slashdot Mirror
They said the same thing about the auto-mobile... but that was just a fad along with those aero-planes. Horses for life.
Why does the classroom of the future need to be VR? I would think the typical computer monitor would be sufficient.
Right, because I said a rock was a rock and you said a rock was a horse... we'd just be expressing different beliefs.
Never mind the rock is a fucking mineral and you're a fucking moron.
I cited a reference source that was frankly beyond what I needed to provide since the scientific method can be assumed to be common knowledge amongst educated people.
if you're not educated then you really have no right to an opinion on this subject.
Since you ignored the reference source as well as the fact that you're arguing against common knowledge... I can only assume as I suspected that you are both determined to spread misinformation and unwilling to listen or learn on the issue. Thus rendering you little more then a parrot squawking nonsense.
I'd give you a cracker but I'm out of rat poison.
You can stop breathing any time.
Sure, and if someone says a rock isn't a horse they're just proving that they have an ideology that holds that view.
Never mind that a rock isn't a horse and suggesting otherwise is a contradiction of objective fact.
Kindly stop breathing. You are wasting oxygen.
Scientific Method (wikipedia):
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
You're wrong. That doesn't annoy me. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. However, refusing to admit you're wrong when you've had every opportunity to correct your position and then refusing to admit it is immoral. You are intentionally perverting truth and contradicting known fact. You are therefore intentionally spreading misinformation.
It is this that offends me.
If you wish to continue to hold your position at the very least give some basis for you false opinion and a means by which you'd accept correction. Then someone that knows more then you might have a chance if they care to educate you.
If you don't even provide that you're spreading misinformation while jamming your fingers in your ears and singing. And that is not only immoral... its obnoxious.
What will it be?
Will you admit your error?
Will you simply keep your false statements to yourself?
Will you continue to spew your stupidity but give some means for people to help you?
Or will you do all the above while closing your mind to correction?
I am assuming the latter. People that say such profoundly ignorant things tend to be only of the last category. If that's all you are... then I repeat... stop breathing.
Except for this article was started by someone advocating for atheists to adopt religious/ideological/belief based philosophical models instead of maintaining their "spock-like" detachment.
In other words "IDEOLOGICAL" people feel threatened by systems of thought that are empirical and not aligned with primate social models.
That includes religious and non-religious ideologies. In this case, it was a guy on NPR talking about how people should take sides in science on ideological grounds.
No. It. Isn't.
Its a process. It is no more a belief system then is a recipe for baking a cake.
You sit down, mix flour, eggs, milk, butter... etc... pour into a pan... bake for so many minutes at such and such a temperature then test the cake for completion by seeing if crumbs will come off a toothpick.
That is how science works. Its a process. Not a belief system. You do certain things, in a certain order, checking empirical variables at given points to ensure previous steps were carried out correctly and then verify the end result.
That is not a belief system.
And here is where I say "end of argument"... only some fucking retard is going to say "oh you can't just do that." Except I can because we are talking about science and science is a defined concept. Anyone that doesn't understand that science is a process and not a belief system is ignorant. Period. If we're going to be spock-like then what would spock say to someone that was completely wrong? Possibly he'd say "that conclusion is in error"? Which is a fancy way of saying "wrong."
People that don't understand science really shouldn't comment on science. Comment on my little pony episodes or something equally obnoxious.
That's fine except for that isn't science. And what people think isn't really important to science. Science is not a democracy.
A policeman in Los Angeles killed a man by answering emails while driving.
He was not even charged with a crime for it because apparently by answering police department email it was all in the service of the badge.
In this context... they continue to go after people that might answer a text while driving whether people are even injured or not.
Don't get me wrong... you shouldn't answer texts while driving. But I am incensed that the police officer is not even put on trial for manslaughter or negligent homicide.
If the police need to answer email while driving, then either give them automated cars or require them to have two police officers in every car. Short of that... they should be paying attention to driving while driving. Until that is a rule, I can't take this whole topic seriously.
Its really quite simple. They want to politicize, ideologue, and factionalize science.
Science has clout. Scientists carry weight when they say something. That is valuable to community organizers, politicians, opinion makers, etc. The problem is that scientists often refuse to cooperate. And its often hard to claim your political position is backed by science when there are just as many scientists that disagree with your political position as agree with it.
To that end, they must make science less "spock-like". Spock isn't going to take sides in your petty political battles. He doesn't care. And you can't use his words to undermine your opponent because if you read between the lines there tends to be so many qualifiers that it isn't worth anything.
So... they want to make science more about emotion... opinion... feelings.
The dead give away is that he's saying "atheists need X"... atheists are not a faction like Catholics or Muslims or Hindus. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean you actually share many values with other atheists. Its not a complete ideology. Its just a a rejection of theism. Nothing more. Its like trying to build a political coalition around people that don't like hamburgers. Sure... you all don't like hamburgers, but do you have anything else in common? Not really.
Yet he's attempting to build something around and advocate for anti-theism and to do so he suggests that science should be emotionalized. Effectively, to turn atheism into a viable ideology or religion in its own right they have to all believe things. Rather then simply concluding that god is illogical... they have to have a common culture. And from there you might build a political coalition and cultural core. The objective being to turn atheists into a viable political force which will be used by the politicians to fight their stupid wars amongst each other.
Which is really all this about... the tools and minions of those political machines fishing for cannon fodder for their campaigns.
They'll pervert anything to get just one more meat shield for the grind.
Looks like this particular article failed hilariously... While appealing to trek nerds is always amusing... they seem to have forgotten that those same nerds are going to respond to it in their own way... which is to take this pathetic article seriously and rip it to splinters.
What you want is an ideology... a belief system. Science is not a belief system.
advertising isn't that expensive and tesla doesn't need it... the ad value is not even remotely worth the cost of a major factory. Were it, then apple would stop using sweat shop labor instead of spending tens of millions on advertising every year.
It doesn't work that way.
Brag about how well this works after ten years of operation. I'd love to see if this is actually sustainable. Sure, they can build it... and sure they can start doing it that way... but is it economical? Actually?
We won't know until the system has been operating for years.
Did you miss the part where I said castro has killed more of his people per capita then Stalin? You're right there is no rebellion in Cuba... he'd kill everyone. He's gone on rampages and purges in the past. The dude does not fuck around.
Exactly. And everyone knows it.
And even if Castro's brother doesn't lift it... he's an old man too... he'll die and those that come after will reform and reform until cuba's communist dystopia is just a bad memory.
First, are you calling me a five year old for pointing out that Cuba has gone out of their way over the years to make relations worse thus sustaining the embargo? That isn't childish unless you consider knowledge of history and politics to be childish. If so your definition of "childish" is very close to the dictionary definition of "educated."
Second, what will really lift the embargo is that castro is going to die of old age and his regime will either fall or be converted into a more reasonable government which the US and anyone that cares about human rights can tolerate.
Third, you don't seem to understand what castro has done in his time. Per capita he killed more of his own people then Stalin. You make much of presuming both knowledge and sophistication but you don't seem to understand the history or facts of the issue. Consider this, there are millions of refugees from Cuba in the US that to this day HATE castro with a passion you could probably not even begin to understand. And that should give you pause... because you do not understand WHY they hate him so much. Please just inform yourself of the issue a bit before presuming to have an opinion.
Finally, as to how many years ought to be enough, it was not a punishment... it was a response. If Castro had stopped immediately after the embargo we would have lifted the embargo then and there. He's never stopped. And though the US has TRIED to normalize relations many times over the years castro has gone out of his way to spoil relations and sustain the embargo.
Consider this, the embargo actually protects his regime to a certain extent. Many people think that the US made a mistake by imposing it and that we'd have broken his regime sooner by allowing trade. I personally agree with that approach and would lift the embargo tomorrow if I were in charge. But understand that the reason I would be doing it would be to destroy his regime. I would encourage trade and cultural exchange with his country with the objective of showing his people what castro stole from them. And thus ultimately destabilize his government and bring about democratic reform.
You doubtless think this opinion is childish... but since when your misunderstanding of language is translated into english... you're calling me educated... I can only thank you for your kind words.
Good day, sir.
The US has tried to lift the embargo several times. Every time Cuba does something to get it maintained. There was famiously a plane hijacking one of the times we talked about lifting it.
Beyond that, the embargo does not stretch to the whole planet. They can trade with Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, etc. Just not the US. I think they can trade with any country and europe and probably canada. So... whatever Cuba.
Like most failed states, they're just blaming their incompetence on someone else.
The very idea of such contracts is so absurd that it makes my head hurt.
The ships could be entirely automated. Drone container ships. No need for a crew at all. Though, I'd still think having at least a couple guys on board would be a good idea.
As to the speed, clipper ships hit speeds of about 16 knots while container ships hit something like 20-25 knots. The speed difference isn't extreme.
The biggest difference will be the hull streamlining. If you're pushing through the water with a big diesel engine then you can afford to have a fat bodied boat. Its more efficient for cargo but increases drag in the water. A fast merchant sail boat such as the clipper ships had a more streamlined hull. And the racing yachts try to be as knife like as possible since what really slows a boat down is pushing all that water out of the way as it moves forward. Ideally, the boat glides through the water with as little resistance as possible.
The problem with modern container ship design is that the cargo demands are so intense that the boats really can't be built that way unless you completely change the way you do it.
Really, I don't think sailboats can be accepted in this industry any more unless the industry is revolutionized.
Here is one idea that might work... tiny fully automated cargo ships. Possibly only moving 4 to 8 containers total. Tiny ships as far as modern cargo goes. But because they're automated they MIGHT be economical. They would also be highly adaptable because rather then having to bulk ship all the containers to a central shipping depot you could instead have much smaller cargo ships take cargo where it is actually wanted rather then where the largest port is in the region. This could allow for affordable micro shipments and such ships should be small enough to make them reasonable sailboats.
This is just an idea... I'm talking out of my ass on that one. I'd love to see wind powered container ships but I really doubt they'll ever be built. Not unless someone can come up with a way to compete with the big diesel monsters.
First we need batteries that aren't a complete joke.
The energy density and efficiency of batteries versus gas are not comparable.
Here some fool is going to say I'm not taking into the consideration the cost of pulling the fuel out of the ground or the cost to the environment. You're right... I'm not... because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm also not talking about how neither gasoline nor batteries taste like chocolate. The issue is that the gasoline is very energy dense, relatively inexpensive, low maintenance, and thus EFFECTIVE as a fuel source.
Batteries by contrast have so many fucking problems it boggles the mind that anyone could think we could replace gasoline with them without bringing the whole system to its knees.
For one the weight/mass to energy ratio is not comparable. For the same energy batteries must be larger and heavier.
Second, they wear out fairly quickly. Possibly we could mitigate this with flow batteries but I haven't seen anyone actually propose that for automobiles. Regardless, we are comparing a gasoline tank to a battery. Both serve similar functions. How long can a gasoline tank last? How many "power cycles" can it sustain? Compare that to a battery. Is it a fair comparison? It is a realistic one. that is what you are proposing to compete with and its laughable given current technology.
Third, batteries are hardly more environmentally friendly then the petrochemical industry. Ever seen a battery factory? Lead contamination is pretty common... as are a dozen other heavy metals that seep into the ground over the years. Often the land around large battery factories look like the surface of the moon. Lifeless... oh and completely toxic. Go Captain Planet.
Fourth, they're more expensive. It doesn't matter how you add up the numbers. They cost more. Which means transport goes up for everyone and everything which means everything imported goes up in cost. ... I could go on and on... but really... just no.
Everyone uses them. Every major corporation and government... including the BBC. Fire your tech writer.
Next topic.
Then just make something up and we'll call it science.
If you want to call it science, you need evidence. Or its not science. Your inability to get evidence is not science's problem. That is your problem.
... anything we're used to will be sufficient for what we normally do because what we normally do is limited by current circumstances.
By this logic, we wouldn't have needed electricity or indoor plumbing because at that time few people had wired their homes for electricity, owned light blubs, lamps, or had any of the appliances that use internal plumbing like toilets or showers.
The notion that standards can remain fixed because people don't rely on things they don't have is asinine.
... Doesn't mean you don't need it.
The point that in some softer sciences it is harder to get evidence is not justification for not having any. The fact that they must wait for unusual historical occurrences for example merely means they have to be patient and wait for more data. Does that patience mean they might have to wait hundreds of years to get something confirmed? Absent other means of finding actual evidence... yeah.
Don't like it? Study something else.
No one has more of a right to determine the education of a child then the parent.
Are parents sometimes stupid? Sure. So is everyone. The difference is that typically no one cares about the child more then the parent. You don't care. The government doesn't care. The teacher doesn't care. You don't know the child's name. You won't lose any sleep over their success or failure.
The parents typically care a great deal. What is more, no one has more of a right then them.
First... they have custody. Not you. Not the government. They are their legal guardians which means they are legally allowed to make decisions for the child. Indifferent to the ethics which I think should be clear to you, this is simply the law. The argument should end at that point.
Second, they are financially taking care of the child. Sure, some kids are on welfare but most are not. That financial support provided by the parent gives them additional rights.
I really see no reason to go beyond that. You have no grounds to tell them otherwise in that situation. Could parents encourage bad education for the children? Sure... but then they suffer the consequences of doing that. No one will be hurt more by that then the children and the parents. Most people and groups of people will avoid practices that harm their children.
Here someone is going to bring up the religious fundamentalists and evolution. I would counter that doesn't really do that much damage. It would only potentially harm students that went into biology or geology. You can be a genius chemist, physicist, mathematician, etc and yet be a devout believer in creationism. Really the issue is over hyped and not terribly important. It would only harm biological students or possibly medical doctors. And even in those situations, we can assume their college educations would give them more then enough background to make up for a few bad science classes in high school.