I am a high school science teacher in the Lake Washington School District. I usually stay away from education discussions here, because there are enough uninformed know-it-alls to make the discussions annoying (I mean a minority here, no disparagement of/. intended). People think that they know everything about education because they went to school at some time. Not necessarily true.
I don't have much time (grading calls) but I wanted to address a couple things I've seen in my perusal of the comments. 1. Someone said they issued laptops with no restrictions. Not true. It just isn't. There was a problem, and it's bad, but we actually aren't a bunch of idiots randomly passing out laptops. We USE them extensively for assignments, assessments, surveys/polls, research, and communication. There is security in place, although I don't know all aspects of it since my IT days are behind me. I do know that the web filters work wherever the laptops are used, and I know already of a few students who got busted for using proxies. It's going to happen, because a lot of our students are smart. I don't think it was a student who introduced the virus, but I can't state my reasons, so I don't expect anyone to believe me.
2. Incompetent IT. Not true, either. It was an error. A costly one, but I don't think this is an indication of utter incompetence. Hiring IT people isn't easy, because we can't pay what the private sector does.
Crap. I gotta run. Suffice to say, this has been a pain in the butt, and has made everything more difficult, but I know a lot of these IT people who are being trashed and they work their asses off and do a great job when we need them. This kind of problem is unprecedented here.
At one-tenth of a pound heavier that really doesn't sound like much, but it can start to matter if you hold your iPad in one hand for long periods or have any kind of repetitive stress injury.
I'm shocked at how physically inept modern people are becoming. The gnashing of teeth over ounces when it comes to gadgets is truly shocking to me. How does one become so incapacitated that an ounce or two is really worth mentioning?
SIgh. I posted this already but wasn't logged in. Try again:
I have MS. That's how I became so physically inept. I have nerve pain and occasional weakness and numbness in my hands, and I get shock sensations at random as well. That's one reason ounces matter to some (about 2.5 million worldwide) of us. It sure was shocking to me, getting this disease. In addition, some of us are old. Some have arthritis. Shocking! Carpal tunnel is common. One way to tell you have it is tapping the wrist can cause shock-like sensations in the fingers. That makes it harder to hold things as well. Even with normal, non-shockingly incapacitated hands one can really feel the difference when holding a tablet for a long time.
Gnashing teeth? A little hyperbolic, perhaps? Maybe there are good reasons to pay attention to weight?
Scientists deserve the credit for the science that we get from them. The success of the rovers depends entirely on Engineers.
Engineers deserve a huge proportion of the credit, but this statement is too much. In the first place, scientists worked closely with engineers in the design and during the manufacturing process. Plus, how do you know whether some scientist didn't come up with an idea the engineers could use during a crisis? Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are both scientists and engineers.
You're right that the engineers don't get credited enough in news stories, but it's no better pretending scientists had nothing to do with the mission's success. This kind of mission is a team effort.
Just be sure that you aren't so driven by aperture lust that you get something too big and clunky to use. If you can anchor it in a fixed position, like a permanent observatory, go for all the aperture you can get. If you plan to move it in and out of the house, stay at about 10 inches or less. They get big and heavy *very* quickly. I'm happy with a 6 inch (150 mm), because I can take it places without wrecking my back or needing a new truck.
It seems a secondary consideration, but the smaller telescope you actually take out and *use* is far better than the light bucket that gathers dust because it's such a pain to set up and use.
Ohh boy... isnt that like saying the world was flat back in the middle ages? Yet some people the world believe the world is round, sounds good on paper, but really since we cant detect that it its probabley just a belief anyway..
No, because the information in other universes is undetectable in principle, whereas determining the geometry of Earth is, in principle and reality, possible.
Would you mind not generalizing your response to include oodles of people who haven't made the statement you responded to? You were replying to one person, so the including words "Mac users" was unnecessary and unjustified. I'm one of those Mac users and I disagree with what that person wrote (although I don't hold him in contempt for it).
On a positive note, at least you didn't write MAC. That drives me nuts, and yes, I know, little things shouldn't bug me so much.
Some will say that is a lot of money for 9 months worth of work.
OK, I'm a teacher, and I am not complaining about my salary. It's not great, but I'm not unhappy with it. However - My school year this year is August 27 to June 25. That's 10 months. I'm tired of the "9 months" thing.
Also, where are all these people getting the idea that only the very most dedicated teachers work outside the regular day? You can't survive as a teacher that way. We even have to sign a responsibility contract that says we will work as much extra time, including weekends, as needed, as well as doing extracurricular activities. I spend at *least* 2-3 hours extra per day, and often more, grading papers, preparing labs, planning lessons, photocopying, contacting parents, helping out with clubs and events, and so on. Again, I'm fine with my pay - I'm just tired of other people telling me how little I work, when I work my tail off. I work harder than when I was in software development.
Snow Days (it snows you should be there)
We have to make these up, you know.
Every state holiday under the sun (we only take the big ones)
This year, I got Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Xmas, MLK Day, and Memorial Day. That's not much more than when I was in private sector.
Long Thanksgiving break
I got 2 days. What are you talking about?
Spring Break
This is nice.
Christmas Break (about 3-4 weeks off we get 2 weeks off)
It isn't because he "ever had anything to do with industry." He's up to his neck in it. junkscience.com is just that: junk. It's the worst purpotedly "scientific" web site I've ever seen. Nothing but right-wing crap. This isn't a criticism of anyone conservative, it's aimed specifically at the site's author.
It's really stupid to take a criticism of one person based on that person's track record, and try to turn it into criminalization of another viewpoint. That kind of persecution complex is typical of right wing hacks.
The site's blantant biases are well documented. I'm not going to rehash it here.
Please accept my apology on behalf of the vast majority of the rest of us in the "first world," lacking a better term. The parent's comment made me cringe so hard I almost imploded. I'm not sure if that cretin is from the US, but in case he/she is, as a sentient American, I doubly apologize.
I really wish assholes like the OP would quit talking about the rest of the world in such condescending terms. I'm sick of being made to look bad by association with fools like that. Believe it or not, OP, otherly-skinned or located people are not ignorant savages. Now if we could just get rid of the ignorant savages among us in the first world.
you can only buy Apple stuff at the Apple Store or at Apple.com, businesses can only purchase hardware or software for Apples through Apple, and Apple makes sure it's [sic] stuff only works with Apple stuff:
Please. I bought the Macbook I am now using at a local non-Apple dealer, and I'm using it with a Microsoft mouse and a Wacom tablet. Macs work with any 3rd party peripherals that use standard interfaces. At work, where everything is PC/Windows based, I have no problems using the A/V equipment or tranfering files. Most of the music on my iPod comes from CDs, and the vast majority of iPod accessories come from 3rd party companies.
I agree that iTMS doesn't work with other players, and that's not good, but your statement quoted above is a real howler. When you have to exaggerate to that extent to make your point, it makes everything you say far less convincing.
I think it was actually, "We...the...PEOPLE! In-order...toformamoreperfectUNION...Establish JUSTICE...ensure domestic tranquilityPROVIDE for thecommondefense... promote the generalwelfare AND... secure the BLESSINGS of liberty to OURSELVES andour posteritydo ORDAIN...and ESTABLISH...this CONSTITUTION..."
I can't continue, even though the denoument is at hand. For nitpicky geeks, I'm going for feel here, not accuracy.
The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.
Come on - I agree scientific illiteracy is a huge problem, but I don't think this broad a statement is justifiable. I've found most lay people are truly interested and at least partly open to learning. Fundamentalist idiots aren't the majority. There are too many of them, though. (I know you didn't say fundamentalist.)
People simply do not like to learn that what they believed for most (if not all) of their lives is in fact incorrect, and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid learning that.
Yes, but there are also people like me, who was once just like that myself. Patient and reasonable people changed my mind. It's not true that people like this are unreachable. We scientists and science teachers need to take some responsibility for the attitude and ignorance. I'm not trying to be a pollyanna - I get as exasperated and pissy about this as anyone, but I try very hard to see ignorance as an opportunity to help, not just to complain and give up, or worse, denigrate others so I can feel superior.
That, and there's a very large motivation for many people to be able to say "Pfft! Scientists! What do they know, anyway!". The default assumption that scientists are in fact idiots, and have entirely ignored the most obvious of dangers, IS something to be scoffed at, I'm sorry.
Look, I'm right up there scoffing away a lot of the time. Just look at my posts about creationism, for which I have nothing but contempt. But the original question that got the snarky answer was an honest question. OP didn't say scientists are idiots, etc. - He just asked a question.
Yes, sometimes a good scoffing is called for. Some things are so idiotic, the only sensible response is a good mocking. One of my favorite sayings is H.L. Mencken's observation: "Sometimes a belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." But we should also not become so jaded that we interpret every query or misconception as that obnoxious, pridefully ignorant hostility to science. We can help make a dent in scientific ignorance if we try a little empathy and try not to make people feel stupid for asking questions. Ignorance is not crime. Willful ignorance is.
You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.
Perhaps, but I think this is a normal, reasonable kind of fear, and we shouldn't try to make people feel stupid for asking questions. This is the biggest problem science faces in getting the public on our side. We need to be less quick in attacking people for not knowing things, and instead show a little empathy and help them learn. There's no sin in not knowing things--the only crime is refusing to accept facts when they are demonstrated.
I want the public to better understand science. The first step in doing that, I believe, is recognizing people's concerns as understandable, if not scientifically sound. As annoying as the pridefully ignorant are, most people aren't really like that. They just have honest questions, and those questions should be answered without supercilious condescension.
I was student of Don Brownlee at the University of Washington, and I think he's about the most decent and caring professor I've ever had. Even when I was an undergrad, I could go to his office and he'd just talk about his work for what seemed like hours, even to a lowly undergrad. I'm not saying this to name-drop -- I want people to know what a cool person he is. If anyone deserves success, it's Dr. Brownlee. Truly one of the good guys in science. He's one of those rare professors who managed to make himself famous (the guy has an asteroid named after him) while remaining humble and committed to helping his students learn. We need more scientists like him.
The success of the home schooling community supports my assertion.
That's a really dumb thing to say. The best assessment of homeschooling is "mixed." Many students have been homeschooled very well. Those who are taught by incompetent parents aren't as often reported.
For every competent, successful parent who homeschooled their children successfully, I'll show you a whackjob fundie moron who taught their kids nonsense. I'm not going to trash homeschooling, but to say it's wildly successful beyond public schools is totally unwarranted by research. Your assertion is nothing more than that: an assertion.
While your statement has some truth to it, the problem with the way organic chemistry is taught is that all this is done in a vacuum. People are made to memorize equations, reagents, naming conventions, etc., etc....and for what? Maybe if you're lucky enough, you "get it" or are currently taking other classes where you can see some applicability. For most, however, it is just memorization with little purpose behind it.
I don't think there's much overlap between what you are saying and my comment. I agree with you, but the original question was about how to go about classifying reactions. All I'm saying is that doing well in organic chem as it is taught now will require a lot of memorization, even if you understand that electrons "flow downhill" and so on. I think you are exactly right that teaching applications is the best way to do this. I'm just not sure how much abstraction can be done away with. A lot of this is just a theoretical groundwork for understanding biochemical interactions in future courses. I imagine the fraction of students who actually go on to do organic chemistry for its own sake is pretty small. For them, synthesis *is* an application. Which is probably why they do well.
I think of organic as being something like UNIX. Lots of little tools that often seem unrelated to the beginner, but can be strung together to do really cool things when some proficiency is gained. You don't have to memorize everything, but it's nice not to have to pull out the manual too often. This memorization, of course, comes from doing more than reading.
Physical chemistry, just to bolster your point, is what finally made calculus make sense to me. I struggled and struggled with it, and one day, while doing rate of reaction problems, it suddenly all made sense. Until I actually applied the math to a field that was relevant to me, it was all too abstract. Once I made that leap, I went on to more advanced math and did well. Not only had I learned what the point was, I had also learned that I could handle math.
IAAC, the memorizing is a terrible way to learn chemistry (actually it's a bad way to learn anything). you'll never learn anything by memorizing rules.
This is partially true, but I think your generalization is too broad. There are some things in organic chem you just have to memorize. Easy things like names of functional groups and stuff, but also some named reactions are just too complex to be able to just derive from basic principles. Especially knowing reaction conditions. Do you need heat, a catalyst, an oxidizer or reducer, or what? You have to memorize what Tollen's reagent is, and so on. I agree that it's important to understand the broader concepts, but there's no way around a lot of memorization in organic.
I'm one of those weirdos who always loved this stuff. Organic labs produce the most wonderfully indescribable odors. Even something mundane, like pyridene, has an odor I have never been able to adequately describe to anyone. You have to experience it. (DISCLAIMER: I do not recommend inhaling large amounts of pyridene vapor.)
I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.
NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)
What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.
And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.
Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.
But you want a link?
I didn't ask you for a link.
Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?
Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.
I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.
Ignorance, and again your highschool's fault. That idea is called Lamarckian inheritance. Any decent highschool biology class should explain Lamarckian inheritance... including that exact giraff example... and explain that it was the old idea before evolution and that it has been proven wrong. Any proper highschool biology class should have taught you that evolution does not say that.
I agree, but I ask you not to be too quick to jump to the conclusion it's the high schools' fault. I've seen examples of students who declare up front that they (in spite of not yet having learned anything about it) don't believe it, won't believe it, and won't learn it. My response is to say "I can't tell you what to believe, but you are in this class, and to pass, you have to learn it. At least then you'll know what it is you don't believe."
They respond differently, but most of them will study enough to pass the test, then go out and start spouting the nonsense they got from creationist tracts and forget everything they learned. Then they do things like conflate Lamarckism with modern evolution. Unfortunately, creationists revel in ignorance.
We don't always succeed, but most of us are really trying to get students to understand science properly. We can't, however, force them to get it when they have their minds made up that they won't. I blame parents and/or church leaders for that attitude.
BTW, most parents and churches are perfectly reasonable about this. Most students don't have this attitude.
Of course, those comments weren't mine, but I did spot none that would justify such an assumption. Would you care to point out an example?
Somehow, I think not. The type of person you were responding to will usually hit and run. They don't have a case, so they aren't interested in trying to defend the indefensible.
Uh, no I don't. I don't even think matter is eternal. How you extract this from what I wrote is a deep and abiding mystery. Sounds more like you pulled it out of your rear end.
You accept on faith that the most complex processes that we still don't fully grasp despite our best technology happened accidently.
No, I accept the evidence that evolution occured.
You accept on faith that matter without intelligence managed to organize into the most complex organisms.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. NOTHING. Evolution is only about new species descending from common ancestors, and the dominant mechanism for that being natural selection.
The theory of life arising from from matter is abiogenesis, and it is nowhere nearly as well developed as evolutionary theory.
Hmmm...evolution sounds like a nice religion. Where do I go to church?
Can't you guys come up with something new? Can't get people to call creationism a science, so let's try calling evolution a religion! How feeble.
It seems that where ever I go I here the theory of evolution being used as a fact. A theory is not a fact.
It's a theory AND a fact.
Quoting Stephen Jay Gould, because he said it so well:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
This is included in an article you should read and then get back to us. It might be nice if you refrained from telling everyone how wrong they are until you first knew what you were talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer something less frantic, like: http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment.
I am a high school science teacher in the Lake Washington School District. I usually stay away from education discussions here, because there are enough uninformed know-it-alls to make the discussions annoying (I mean a minority here, no disparagement of /. intended). People think that they know everything about education because they went to school at some time. Not necessarily true.
I don't have much time (grading calls) but I wanted to address a couple things I've seen in my perusal of the comments. 1. Someone said they issued laptops with no restrictions. Not true. It just isn't. There was a problem, and it's bad, but we actually aren't a bunch of idiots randomly passing out laptops. We USE them extensively for assignments, assessments, surveys/polls, research, and communication. There is security in place, although I don't know all aspects of it since my IT days are behind me. I do know that the web filters work wherever the laptops are used, and I know already of a few students who got busted for using proxies. It's going to happen, because a lot of our students are smart. I don't think it was a student who introduced the virus, but I can't state my reasons, so I don't expect anyone to believe me.
2. Incompetent IT. Not true, either. It was an error. A costly one, but I don't think this is an indication of utter incompetence. Hiring IT people isn't easy, because we can't pay what the private sector does.
Crap. I gotta run. Suffice to say, this has been a pain in the butt, and has made everything more difficult, but I know a lot of these IT people who are being trashed and they work their asses off and do a great job when we need them. This kind of problem is unprecedented here.
At one-tenth of a pound heavier that really doesn't sound like much, but it can start to matter if you hold your iPad in one hand for long periods or have any kind of repetitive stress injury.
I'm shocked at how physically inept modern people are becoming. The gnashing of teeth over ounces when it comes to gadgets is truly shocking to me. How does one become so incapacitated that an ounce or two is really worth mentioning?
SIgh. I posted this already but wasn't logged in. Try again:
I have MS. That's how I became so physically inept. I have nerve pain and occasional weakness and numbness in my hands, and I get shock sensations at random as well. That's one reason ounces matter to some (about 2.5 million worldwide) of us. It sure was shocking to me, getting this disease. In addition, some of us are old. Some have arthritis. Shocking! Carpal tunnel is common. One way to tell you have it is tapping the wrist can cause shock-like sensations in the fingers. That makes it harder to hold things as well. Even with normal, non-shockingly incapacitated hands one can really feel the difference when holding a tablet for a long time.
Gnashing teeth? A little hyperbolic, perhaps? Maybe there are good reasons to pay attention to weight?
We are everywhere. We watch, in silence, waiting for the right moment.
What to do then, I dunno.
Scientists deserve the credit for the science that we get from them. The success of the rovers depends entirely on Engineers.
Engineers deserve a huge proportion of the credit, but this statement is too much. In the first place, scientists worked closely with engineers in the design and during the manufacturing process. Plus, how do you know whether some scientist didn't come up with an idea the engineers could use during a crisis? Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are both scientists and engineers.
You're right that the engineers don't get credited enough in news stories, but it's no better pretending scientists had nothing to do with the mission's success. This kind of mission is a team effort.
Just be sure that you aren't so driven by aperture lust that you get something too big and clunky to use. If you can anchor it in a fixed position, like a permanent observatory, go for all the aperture you can get. If you plan to move it in and out of the house, stay at about 10 inches or less. They get big and heavy *very* quickly. I'm happy with a 6 inch (150 mm), because I can take it places without wrecking my back or needing a new truck.
It seems a secondary consideration, but the smaller telescope you actually take out and *use* is far better than the light bucket that gathers dust because it's such a pain to set up and use.
Ohh boy... isnt that like saying the world was flat back in the middle ages? Yet some people the world believe the world is round, sounds good on paper, but really since we cant detect that it its probabley just a belief anyway..
No, because the information in other universes is undetectable in principle, whereas determining the geometry of Earth is, in principle and reality, possible.
You Mac users can't have it both ways.
Would you mind not generalizing your response to include oodles of people who haven't made the statement you responded to? You were replying to one person, so the including words "Mac users" was unnecessary and unjustified. I'm one of those Mac users and I disagree with what that person wrote (although I don't hold him in contempt for it).
On a positive note, at least you didn't write MAC. That drives me nuts, and yes, I know, little things shouldn't bug me so much.
Some will say that is a lot of money for 9 months worth of work.
OK, I'm a teacher, and I am not complaining about my salary. It's not great, but I'm not unhappy with it. However - My school year this year is August 27 to June 25. That's 10 months. I'm tired of the "9 months" thing.
Also, where are all these people getting the idea that only the very most dedicated teachers work outside the regular day? You can't survive as a teacher that way. We even have to sign a responsibility contract that says we will work as much extra time, including weekends, as needed, as well as doing extracurricular activities. I spend at *least* 2-3 hours extra per day, and often more, grading papers, preparing labs, planning lessons, photocopying, contacting parents, helping out with clubs and events, and so on. Again, I'm fine with my pay - I'm just tired of other people telling me how little I work, when I work my tail off. I work harder than when I was in software development.
Snow Days (it snows you should be there)
We have to make these up, you know.
Every state holiday under the sun (we only take the big ones)
This year, I got Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Xmas, MLK Day, and Memorial Day. That's not much more than when I was in private sector.
Long Thanksgiving break
I got 2 days. What are you talking about?
Spring Break
This is nice.
Christmas Break (about 3-4 weeks off we get 2 weeks off)
Nope. I got 2 weeks.
Please, people, don't exaggerate to make a point.
It isn't because he "ever had anything to do with industry." He's up to his neck in it. junkscience.com is just that: junk. It's the worst purpotedly "scientific" web site I've ever seen. Nothing but right-wing crap. This isn't a criticism of anyone conservative, it's aimed specifically at the site's author.
It's really stupid to take a criticism of one person based on that person's track record, and try to turn it into criminalization of another viewpoint. That kind of persecution complex is typical of right wing hacks.
The site's blantant biases are well documented. I'm not going to rehash it here.
Dear Third World:
Please accept my apology on behalf of the vast majority of the rest of us in the "first world," lacking a better term. The parent's comment made me cringe so hard I almost imploded. I'm not sure if that cretin is from the US, but in case he/she is, as a sentient American, I doubly apologize.
I really wish assholes like the OP would quit talking about the rest of the world in such condescending terms. I'm sick of being made to look bad by association with fools like that. Believe it or not, OP, otherly-skinned or located people are not ignorant savages. Now if we could just get rid of the ignorant savages among us in the first world.
God, how embarrassing.
you can only buy Apple stuff at the Apple Store or at Apple.com, businesses can only purchase hardware or software for Apples through Apple, and Apple makes sure it's [sic] stuff only works with Apple stuff:
Please. I bought the Macbook I am now using at a local non-Apple dealer, and I'm using it with a Microsoft mouse and a Wacom tablet. Macs work with any 3rd party peripherals that use standard interfaces. At work, where everything is PC/Windows based, I have no problems using the A/V equipment or tranfering files. Most of the music on my iPod comes from CDs, and the vast majority of iPod accessories come from 3rd party companies.
I agree that iTMS doesn't work with other players, and that's not good, but your statement quoted above is a real howler. When you have to exaggerate to that extent to make your point, it makes everything you say far less convincing.
I think it was actually, "We...the...PEOPLE! In-order...toformamoreperfectUNION...Establish JUSTICE...ensure domestic tranquilityPROVIDE for thecommondefense... promote the generalwelfare AND... secure the BLESSINGS of liberty to OURSELVES andour posteritydo ORDAIN...and ESTABLISH...this CONSTITUTION..."
I can't continue, even though the denoument is at hand. For nitpicky geeks, I'm going for feel here, not accuracy.
The problem comes when you try to actually address those fears. The general public doesn't really want our answers, scientifically sound or not.
Come on - I agree scientific illiteracy is a huge problem, but I don't think this broad a statement is justifiable. I've found most lay people are truly interested and at least partly open to learning. Fundamentalist idiots aren't the majority. There are too many of them, though. (I know you didn't say fundamentalist.)
People simply do not like to learn that what they believed for most (if not all) of their lives is in fact incorrect, and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid learning that.
Yes, but there are also people like me, who was once just like that myself. Patient and reasonable people changed my mind. It's not true that people like this are unreachable. We scientists and science teachers need to take some responsibility for the attitude and ignorance. I'm not trying to be a pollyanna - I get as exasperated and pissy about this as anyone, but I try very hard to see ignorance as an opportunity to help, not just to complain and give up, or worse, denigrate others so I can feel superior.
That, and there's a very large motivation for many people to be able to say "Pfft! Scientists! What do they know, anyway!". The default assumption that scientists are in fact idiots, and have entirely ignored the most obvious of dangers, IS something to be scoffed at, I'm sorry.
Look, I'm right up there scoffing away a lot of the time. Just look at my posts about creationism, for which I have nothing but contempt. But the original question that got the snarky answer was an honest question. OP didn't say scientists are idiots, etc. - He just asked a question.
Yes, sometimes a good scoffing is called for. Some things are so idiotic, the only sensible response is a good mocking. One of my favorite sayings is H.L. Mencken's observation: "Sometimes a belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." But we should also not become so jaded that we interpret every query or misconception as that obnoxious, pridefully ignorant hostility to science. We can help make a dent in scientific ignorance if we try a little empathy and try not to make people feel stupid for asking questions. Ignorance is not crime. Willful ignorance is.
You're absolutely right. Your suggestion is silly.
Perhaps, but I think this is a normal, reasonable kind of fear, and we shouldn't try to make people feel stupid for asking questions. This is the biggest problem science faces in getting the public on our side. We need to be less quick in attacking people for not knowing things, and instead show a little empathy and help them learn. There's no sin in not knowing things--the only crime is refusing to accept facts when they are demonstrated.
I want the public to better understand science. The first step in doing that, I believe, is recognizing people's concerns as understandable, if not scientifically sound. As annoying as the pridefully ignorant are, most people aren't really like that. They just have honest questions, and those questions should be answered without supercilious condescension.
I was student of Don Brownlee at the University of Washington, and I think he's about the most decent and caring professor I've ever had. Even when I was an undergrad, I could go to his office and he'd just talk about his work for what seemed like hours, even to a lowly undergrad. I'm not saying this to name-drop -- I want people to know what a cool person he is. If anyone deserves success, it's Dr. Brownlee. Truly one of the good guys in science. He's one of those rare professors who managed to make himself famous (the guy has an asteroid named after him) while remaining humble and committed to helping his students learn. We need more scientists like him.
The success of the home schooling community supports my assertion.
That's a really dumb thing to say. The best assessment of homeschooling is "mixed." Many students have been homeschooled very well. Those who are taught by incompetent parents aren't as often reported.
For every competent, successful parent who homeschooled their children successfully, I'll show you a whackjob fundie moron who taught their kids nonsense. I'm not going to trash homeschooling, but to say it's wildly successful beyond public schools is totally unwarranted by research. Your assertion is nothing more than that: an assertion.
While your statement has some truth to it, the problem with the way organic chemistry is taught is that all this is done in a vacuum. People are made to memorize equations, reagents, naming conventions, etc., etc....and for what? Maybe if you're lucky enough, you "get it" or are currently taking other classes where you can see some applicability. For most, however, it is just memorization with little purpose behind it.
I don't think there's much overlap between what you are saying and my comment. I agree with you, but the original question was about how to go about classifying reactions. All I'm saying is that doing well in organic chem as it is taught now will require a lot of memorization, even if you understand that electrons "flow downhill" and so on. I think you are exactly right that teaching applications is the best way to do this. I'm just not sure how much abstraction can be done away with. A lot of this is just a theoretical groundwork for understanding biochemical interactions in future courses. I imagine the fraction of students who actually go on to do organic chemistry for its own sake is pretty small. For them, synthesis *is* an application. Which is probably why they do well.
I think of organic as being something like UNIX. Lots of little tools that often seem unrelated to the beginner, but can be strung together to do really cool things when some proficiency is gained. You don't have to memorize everything, but it's nice not to have to pull out the manual too often. This memorization, of course, comes from doing more than reading.
Physical chemistry, just to bolster your point, is what finally made calculus make sense to me. I struggled and struggled with it, and one day, while doing rate of reaction problems, it suddenly all made sense. Until I actually applied the math to a field that was relevant to me, it was all too abstract. Once I made that leap, I went on to more advanced math and did well. Not only had I learned what the point was, I had also learned that I could handle math.
I just wanna know why I misspelled pyridine not once, but twice, even though I know better. Anybody know? Because I don't.
IAAC, the memorizing is a terrible way to learn chemistry (actually it's a bad way to learn anything). you'll never learn anything by memorizing rules.
This is partially true, but I think your generalization is too broad. There are some things in organic chem you just have to memorize. Easy things like names of functional groups and stuff, but also some named reactions are just too complex to be able to just derive from basic principles. Especially knowing reaction conditions. Do you need heat, a catalyst, an oxidizer or reducer, or what? You have to memorize what Tollen's reagent is, and so on. I agree that it's important to understand the broader concepts, but there's no way around a lot of memorization in organic.
I'm one of those weirdos who always loved this stuff. Organic labs produce the most wonderfully indescribable odors. Even something mundane, like pyridene, has an odor I have never been able to adequately describe to anyone. You have to experience it. (DISCLAIMER: I do not recommend inhaling large amounts of pyridene vapor.)
You have no right to be condescending. You have *no idea* what you're talking about.
BUT the problem is, there is NO EVIDENCE other than deductive logic on how that happened.
This is a breathtakingly wrong statement. Let me help you.
Evidence for evolution. Here is a very good summary of some of the evidence. It shows example after example of physical evidence for evolution. The nice thing about this site is it explains the evidence, shows how it could be falsified, and includes criticisms. To say there is no evidence is completely ignorant. There are transitional fossils, molecular evidence, fossil hominids, evidence of jury-rigged mechanisms, and much more.
I assume you will criticize me for referring you to different parts of the same site. However, that site has an excellent collection of information, and it's all referenced so you can check the primary sources all you want.
NEWS FLASH --> The 'Theory' of evolution still has holes in it. Big ones, like; how did life come to exist? (The question of how life 'evolved' is well explained and fairly supported by 'evolution.' No one is questioning that.)
What do you mean, no one is questioning that?!? That's the whole issue! Here's a NEWS FLASH for you: Evolutionary theory has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how life came to exist. It's about how life *changes*. It's about how life's diversity came about. It's about natural selection and common descent. None of this depends on how life got here. That's a separate area, called abiogenesis, and it's not part of evolution.
And, by-the-way, scientific proof is only accepted as 'proof' if it is repeatable and predictable. In which case, NEITHER evolution or ID has proof behind it as to the beginnings of life, and the only theory that we could 'prove' is ID, for reasons stated in my previous post.
Science doesn't have proof. It has evidence. You don't know what you're talking about, and I'm tired of trying to educate you.
But you want a link?
I didn't ask you for a link.
Do I have to google for you as well as think for you?
Is being an asshole your normal mode of discourse? Damn, if you are going to be so condescending, you should have some faint idea of what you're talking about. LEARN something about science, learn about evolution, and then you might be able to speak with some kind of credibility. Believe me if I wanted someone to think for me, I'd look elsewhere.
I am, however, willing to guess that you won't bother to look at any of the evidence I provided you. You've already decided it doesn't exist, and surely wouldn't want to be bothered with facts.
Ignorance, and again your highschool's fault. That idea is called Lamarckian inheritance. Any decent highschool biology class should explain Lamarckian inheritance... including that exact giraff example... and explain that it was the old idea before evolution and that it has been proven wrong. Any proper highschool biology class should have taught you that evolution does not say that.
I agree, but I ask you not to be too quick to jump to the conclusion it's the high schools' fault. I've seen examples of students who declare up front that they (in spite of not yet having learned anything about it) don't believe it, won't believe it, and won't learn it. My response is to say "I can't tell you what to believe, but you are in this class, and to pass, you have to learn it. At least then you'll know what it is you don't believe."
They respond differently, but most of them will study enough to pass the test, then go out and start spouting the nonsense they got from creationist tracts and forget everything they learned. Then they do things like conflate Lamarckism with modern evolution. Unfortunately, creationists revel in ignorance.
We don't always succeed, but most of us are really trying to get students to understand science properly. We can't, however, force them to get it when they have their minds made up that they won't. I blame parents and/or church leaders for that attitude.
BTW, most parents and churches are perfectly reasonable about this. Most students don't have this attitude.
Of course, those comments weren't mine, but I did spot none that would justify such an assumption. Would you care to point out an example?
Somehow, I think not. The type of person you were responding to will usually hit and run. They don't have a case, so they aren't interested in trying to defend the indefensible.
You accept on faith the eternity of matter.
Uh, no I don't. I don't even think matter is eternal. How you extract this from what I wrote is a deep and abiding mystery. Sounds more like you pulled it out of your rear end.
You accept on faith that the most complex processes that we still don't fully grasp despite our best technology happened accidently.
No, I accept the evidence that evolution occured.
You accept on faith that matter without intelligence managed to organize into the most complex organisms.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. NOTHING. Evolution is only about new species descending from common ancestors, and the dominant mechanism for that being natural selection.
The theory of life arising from from matter is abiogenesis, and it is nowhere nearly as well developed as evolutionary theory.
Hmmm...evolution sounds like a nice religion. Where do I go to church?
Can't you guys come up with something new? Can't get people to call creationism a science, so let's try calling evolution a religion! How feeble.
It seems that where ever I go I here the theory of evolution being used as a fact. A theory is not a fact.
It's a theory AND a fact.
Quoting Stephen Jay Gould, because he said it so well:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
This is included in an article you should read and then get back to us. It might be nice if you refrained from telling everyone how wrong they are until you first knew what you were talking about.