>'Darn good enough' is actually a precise term because I already said the the predicted outcome must fall within margin of error (a statistical term, also known as confidence interval) for it to be 'darn good enough' and not simply a coincidence.
When Fermat's Formula was apparently solved recently, what was the level of confidence? What was the margin of error that the solution proposed? Are you saying math is not a science?
> Why should science classes have to sit down and show that fairy stories aren't science?
Because can show and demonstrate good critial thinking, just like my UFO example before? That sort of exerise helped me way more than memorizing F=ma.
>You're still missing the point that once they sneak this in via the back door
Is this the whole argument? Because "they" have an agenda?
Should we not teach about birth control in physical education class because "they" have an agenda? Should we not teach about alternative polictical/econmomic systems because "they" have an agenda? Should we not teach about the metric system because "they" have an agenda?
>They see that "a God exists" prompts the question, "which God?" As soon as we answer this question, we set out to aqcuire additional assumptions and dogma which may be considerably much less reasonable than the simple assumption that God exists.
Yet if I talk about matter that leads to atoms that leads to quantum that leads to uncertainty that leads to wacky things like a parallel universes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_ interpretation) this is acceptable because it doesn't require additonal assumptions that are less reasonable than "all matter is made from elemental particles"?
I just find it hard to believe that "God is creator" and "multiple/infinate similar universes where the impossible is possible" are not equally "unreasonable". Yet one is rejected by scientists and another is studied with interest.
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." - Niels Bohr
>Unless you can show me that Intelligent Design is an actual real science then yes you need to protect the kids in Kansas from being told that this is a real science.
You can show me it isn't science. Can't teachers show it? Isn't it going to be obvious? If we don't introduce it in an environment where they can ask questions and look equally with other theories, rather than have it presented in a once-sided environment?
>They're trying to use the strength of science against it.
Isn't this what science is all about in the first place? Isn't this what makes science "universal" and "truthful" in the first place? It isn't about money, nationalities or the colour of skin, its about "scientific methods" trying to break theories.
> "Since science is constantly evolving and testing itself why not teach "Intelligent Bollocks" in the classes and let the students compare the two. Obviously if evolution is as strong as the scientists say it is you've got nothing to worry about". Which of course is total nonsense. "Intelligent Bollocks" has no real basis in science.
Then shouldn't this be obvious or are you trying to decide what a kid in Kansas should think/be exposed to?
Are you trying to say that you need to protect kids in Kansas by keeping them ignorant of these ideas?
One of the best lessons in science was when my chemistry professor took an article on UFOs from a tabloid and started to take it apart piece by piece using logic, thought experiments and showed how it applied to scientific methods.
Lets say that UFO is not science. Was he wrong to do so? Why not have ID in science and then show why it is not science and its flaws?
>The argument of Occam's Razor is not really an explanation on why you should believe something is true but more why the description of something should be as simple as possible.
No, in my case it was used as ultimate justification in not believing in God.
Me: Why shouldn't I believe that God is creator of everything? Him: Because it involves too many complications and assumptions. Applying Occam's Razor, if there are two theories equally proven, choose the one with the least number off assumptions. Me: So your entire belief system is based on Occam's Razor? How is this different from my entire belief system based on a Creator?
>Having stated all that, many times people will believe in God--from which as a side-effect means believing what you see--yet at the same time deny evidence presented before them because it contradicts with their definition of God and the Bible. Such denial really shows a fault in their own belief system.
Ummm... lots of scientists do exactly this, deny the existance of evidence that contradicts their theories (quantium physics, HIV are just two examples).
>One of them (science) reliably describes and predicts the real world.
String theory and quantium physics reliablity describes and predicts things?
What does archaeology predict?
>It all comes down to your axioms.
Yes I agree with you here. My point being is that each side (science/religion) thinks they are "correct". They are correct... within each of its axioms and what/who is to say which axiom is "correct"?
>Others now can poke at the theory and try it for themselves. It takes time for a theory to become accepted... because they tried something themselves and the theory made pretty darn good predictions of the outcome.
What predictions does archaeology make?
And what you described, which I do agree with, doesn't seem wishy-washy/subjective to you "It takes time"? "Darn good enough"?
>Your point is taken but it does nothing for the discussion.
The question is what should be taught in an science class or not.
It comes down to what is "science" and the basic tools/elements that that make a scientist "believes" that his idea is correct is the same tools/elements a religous person does.
A scientist needs to convince himself and then others that an idea is "correct". And in the end, if he really thinks about it, its because he "feels" its right. Isn't this the same method religous people use?
>And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
In the most absolute sense, nothing is proveable and everything relies on faith. How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying? How can I believe what I am seeing is real? (Brains-in-the-jar, optical illusions, effects of various recreational drugs)
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
>You mean like Google? They hire PhDs regardless of field.
If you disregard the specific PhD, what exactly are you looking for that any non-PhD does not have?
Are you looking for a person who has the ability to do some research and then break it down into the greatest number of publishable papers possible? Maybe, since this trait would be good to patent something.:)
Having a Masters or a Doctorate does not automatically allow you to do architecture on any project.
There is experience of the specific subject matter, communication skills and most of all TRUST of the customer/client. If I had a new Doctorate employee and another employee whom I've worked with for 5+ years doing what I need, guess who I would choose.
This is especially important in the IT industry where years of experience is important.
>That of course begs the question "does anyone give a damn?" I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that WoW and the like are games, nothing more.
Casinos have games in them, with people losing to the house all the time. Yet they are still profitable and people still come in the bus loads. Look at really bad sports teams, if you have a loyal fan-base, then you can still be profitable even though its fustrating to those participating.
>I could only begin to imagine the tech support headaches stemming from people who have suffered the effects of hardcore play without being prepared to deal with them.
> pretty much adds to the enjoyment of the game knowing that attempting something difficult or even stupid won't set you back.
Thats what some people complain about. All "leveling" games have no level of risk or sense of actually achieving something. Any monkey can get to level 60 given enough time.
You run by a level 60 in WoW and you think, "gee that guy has a lot of time on his hands." You run by a level 60 in a permadeath game and its a whole different story.
>I thought that the requirement was only to make the source available, not to distribute it.
Making the source/document availiable is the issue here. Suppose it was an internal private document? How would you feel if your corporation could potentially/possiblily/outside chance in hell be legally forced to make public all of its documentation (bill payments, invoices, contracts, internal memos)?
Slashdot Mirror
>'Darn good enough' is actually a precise term because I already said the the predicted outcome must fall within margin of error (a statistical term, also known as confidence interval) for it to be 'darn good enough' and not simply a coincidence.
When Fermat's Formula was apparently solved recently, what was the level of confidence? What was the margin of error that the solution proposed? Are you saying math is not a science?
> Why should science classes have to sit down and show that fairy stories aren't science?
Because can show and demonstrate good critial thinking, just like my UFO example before? That sort of exerise helped me way more than memorizing F=ma.
>You're still missing the point that once they sneak this in via the back door
Is this the whole argument? Because "they" have an agenda?
Should we not teach about birth control in physical education class because "they" have an agenda?
Should we not teach about alternative polictical/econmomic systems because "they" have an agenda?
Should we not teach about the metric system because "they" have an agenda?
>They see that "a God exists" prompts the question, "which God?" As soon as we answer this question, we set out to aqcuire additional assumptions and dogma which may be considerably much less reasonable than the simple assumption that God exists.
_ interpretation) this is acceptable because it doesn't require additonal assumptions that are less reasonable than "all matter is made from elemental particles"?
Yet if I talk about matter that leads to atoms that leads to quantum that leads to uncertainty that leads to wacky things like a parallel universes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds
I just find it hard to believe that "God is creator" and "multiple/infinate similar universes where the impossible is possible" are not equally "unreasonable". Yet one is rejected by scientists and another is studied with interest.
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." - Niels Bohr
It really depends who you are.
For some, movies are pretty pale compaired to books ("The book is much better"). Same can be said for any entertainment medium.
Go to a book store and flip through some books and see what grabs you. It really depends what interests you.
>Unless you can show me that Intelligent Design is an actual real science then yes you need to protect the kids in Kansas from being told that this is a real science.
You can show me it isn't science. Can't teachers show it? Isn't it going to be obvious? If we don't introduce it in an environment where they can ask questions and look equally with other theories, rather than have it presented in a once-sided environment?
>I don't do this out of faith, but out of practicality. The solipsistic assumption is a dead end. It leads to no further conclusions
Thank you. That gives me food for thought.
The only thing I can think of is that this reduces scientific thought to "well what can I play with today?".
>They're trying to use the strength of science against it.
Isn't this what science is all about in the first place? Isn't this what makes science "universal" and "truthful" in the first place? It isn't about money, nationalities or the colour of skin, its about "scientific methods" trying to break theories.
> "Since science is constantly evolving and testing itself why not teach "Intelligent Bollocks" in the classes and let the students compare the two. Obviously if evolution is as strong as the scientists say it is you've got nothing to worry about". Which of course is total nonsense. "Intelligent Bollocks" has no real basis in science.
Then shouldn't this be obvious or are you trying to decide what a kid in Kansas should think/be exposed to?
Are you trying to say that you need to protect kids in Kansas by keeping them ignorant of these ideas?
One of the best lessons in science was when my chemistry professor took an article on UFOs from a tabloid and started to take it apart piece by piece using logic, thought experiments and showed how it applied to scientific methods.
Lets say that UFO is not science. Was he wrong to do so? Why not have ID in science and then show why it is not science and its flaws?
>You can "prove" anything you want if you're willing to apply sloppy thinking to a set of mutually contradictory axioms.
Or you are a woman.
>The argument of Occam's Razor is not really an explanation on why you should believe something is true but more why the description of something should be as simple as possible.
No, in my case it was used as ultimate justification in not believing in God.
Me: Why shouldn't I believe that God is creator of everything?
Him: Because it involves too many complications and assumptions. Applying Occam's Razor, if there are two theories equally proven, choose the one with the least number off assumptions.
Me: So your entire belief system is based on Occam's Razor? How is this different from my entire belief system based on a Creator?
>Having stated all that, many times people will believe in God--from which as a side-effect means believing what you see--yet at the same time deny evidence presented before them because it contradicts with their definition of God and the Bible. Such denial really shows a fault in their own belief system.
Ummm... lots of scientists do exactly this, deny the existance of evidence that contradicts their theories (quantium physics, HIV are just two examples).
>It teaches our children to accept things, not on the basis of their own critical thinking, but simply on the word of someone in authority.
Ummm...isn't this the way schools are right now?
>One of them (science) reliably describes and predicts the real world.
... within each of its axioms and what/who is to say which axiom is "correct"?
String theory and quantium physics reliablity describes and predicts things?
What does archaeology predict?
>It all comes down to your axioms.
Yes I agree with you here. My point being is that each side (science/religion) thinks they are "correct". They are correct
>Others now can poke at the theory and try it for themselves. It takes time for a theory to become accepted ... because they tried something themselves and the theory made pretty darn good predictions of the outcome.
What predictions does archaeology make?
And what you described, which I do agree with, doesn't seem wishy-washy/subjective to you "It takes time"? "Darn good enough"?
>Your point is taken but it does nothing for the discussion.
The question is what should be taught in an science class or not.
It comes down to what is "science" and the basic tools/elements that that make a scientist "believes" that his idea is correct is the same tools/elements a religous person does.
A scientist needs to convince himself and then others that an idea is "correct". And in the end, if he really thinks about it, its because he "feels" its right. Isn't this the same method religous people use?
>the point here is that "intelligent design" makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. This makes it not science.
h tml
Archaeology does not make predictions, is that not a science?
The fundemental basis of some science is
not falsifiable because they are definitions.(Prove that the physics defintion of force, F=ma, is false)
A good article on this is;
http://www.galilean-library.org/falsificationism.
>And given that there is no proof of such a being, apart from events and instances attributed to it, it is a matter of faith, and thus not of science.
In the most absolute sense, nothing is proveable and everything relies on faith. How do I know that birds can fly? Because I see them flying? How can I believe what I am seeing is real? (Brains-in-the-jar, optical illusions, effects of various recreational drugs)
I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.
Calgary is also one of the most expensive places to live in Canada (Toronto being another!).
Shame because I was thinking of moving there until I saw the prices of homes.
Um... so does this post make you a geek or a nerd?
>The PvP rewards are for hardcore players. You can get stuff that's just as good playing casually.
If that was true then it would defeat the whole purpose of participating in system.
Its not a "techie" perspective, its a biased opinion from someone who doesn't like to pay for music.
The point here is to be balanced, not something that pushes a single point of view to inflame or troll. This is not a high school newspaper.
>You mean like Google? They hire PhDs regardless of field.
:)
If you disregard the specific PhD, what exactly are you looking for that any non-PhD does not have?
Are you looking for a person who has the ability to do some research and then break it down into the greatest number of publishable papers possible? Maybe, since this trait would be good to patent something.
Having a Masters or a Doctorate does not automatically allow you to do architecture on any project.
There is experience of the specific subject matter, communication skills and most of all TRUST of the customer/client. If I had a new Doctorate employee and another employee whom I've worked with for 5+ years doing what I need, guess who I would choose.
This is especially important in the IT industry where years of experience is important.
>but I can't argue that tipping police with just enough money to help pay that credit card bill
If this is the case, then there is something wrong with the system. I thought that was what a salary was for.
Can I pay a guy to be busy with minor offenses so that my major offense will be ignored?
>That of course begs the question "does anyone give a damn?" I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that WoW and the like are games, nothing more.
Casinos have games in them, with people losing to the house all the time. Yet they are still profitable and people still come in the bus loads. Look at really bad sports teams, if you have a loyal fan-base, then you can still be profitable even though its fustrating to those participating.
>I could only begin to imagine the tech support headaches stemming from people who have suffered the effects of hardcore play without being prepared to deal with them.
Yep, I agree with you here.
> pretty much adds to the enjoyment of the game knowing that attempting something difficult or even stupid won't set you back.
Thats what some people complain about. All "leveling" games have no level of risk or sense of actually achieving something. Any monkey can get to level 60 given enough time.
You run by a level 60 in WoW and you think, "gee that guy has a lot of time on his hands." You run by a level 60 in a permadeath game and its a whole different story.
>I thought that the requirement was only to make the source available, not to distribute it.
Making the source/document availiable is the issue here. Suppose it was an internal private document? How would you feel if your corporation could potentially/possiblily/outside chance in hell be legally forced to make public all of its documentation (bill payments, invoices, contracts, internal memos)?