Creationism is a fundamentalist point of view that god actively created the world (in the extreme case, literally in 7 days). Intelligent design is compatible with creationism, but it's also compatible with the Theist notion of the divine clockmaker - the notion of a God who created the universe by giving it a push at the dawn of time, and since has been hands off. (Intelligent design would hold that such a god would have had to be very selective in the direction of his push, of course.)
ID was dreamt up by Creationists as a way to get their ideas into schools after it was ruled that creationism was religious. It was recently revealed in the Dover case that earlier editions of the creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" made multiple references to "creationism," and in newer editions, these were all replaced with "Intelligent Design" without changing the surrounding context. "Pandas" is treated as the most authoritative school text by ID proponents, so it is difficult to conclude they see any substantial difference.
Really, the differences between ID and creationism are insignificant. ID is just a bit broader in scope. It's a dishonest attempt to make creationism sound less religious.
You can argue with this all you like, but the fact is
This sounds a lot like "La, la, la, I can't hear you."
f you think you can disprove intelligent design, you don't understand the 'theory.'
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. ID isn't a theory, anyway. It's just throwing up one's hands and saying "God^H^H^HSome really smart being must have done it." That ain't science.
ID posits that life didn't just appear, but was orchestrated/designed/set-into-motion by some intelligent source while evolution declares that it just happened.
"Just happened" is an absurd summation of what evolution is about.
(Really, what science means by this is that they don't know, but it obviously happened, and these materials are needed, so they must have been there when it happened. But we weren't there when it 'happened' so we can't say for sure if anyone was stirring the pool with a stick or not, but we'll say there wasn't.
Direct experiment is not the only means of verifying scientific theories, and the claim that it is is a canard dreamt up by ID/Creationism proponents. If the theory predicts that certain things should be observed in nature, then those observations are confirming factors. You can disprove evolutionary theory: Just find, say, hominid fossils in strata older than dinosoaurs.
The whole "you weren't there" thing is nonsense. I notice that the religious never find that a problem with their creation stories. If science is only restricted to what happens in a lab, say goodbye to astronomy and geology.
-this being taught as 'fact' in schools is what irks many, especially when the scientific community insists evolution is solid and doesn't give any credence to any other ideas, even when they are just as possible/probable.)
But these other ideas aren't as possible or probable. The theory of evolution is supported by actual, real evidence. ID isn't even a scientific theory. People like Behe keep saying it is, but when pressed, all they can say is, "Well, it looks to us like it was designed." End. No more investigations. He even admitted in court that ID is only scientific if the definition of science were extended so broadly that it included astrology!
If their theory is scientific, how can it be falsified? What experiment or observations could show it is wrong? ID can be confirmed by anything at all, so it's useless.
Evolution happened. In that sense, it is a fact, and all that remains is to explain how it happened. Without evolution, modern biology makes no sense. It is the unifying principle of biology, and if you want to discard it, you have to discard biology as we know it. All those miraculous drugs, all the research on stem cells, all of it goes out the window.
What really irks many about statements such as I just made is that the idea of evolution is odious to them for reasons having nothing to do with science. They just don't like it, and strain to find a "scientific" way to discredit it. Problem is, none of them have. I dare you to find anything, any evidence whatsoever in favor of creationism/ID (yes, they are the same thing). Even if you consider them as separate ideas, all their champions do is try to say evolution is wrong for this or that reason.
How about this: State the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Give us something that can be confirmed by evidence or disproven. There is no such thing.
Imagine if all science was done the way ID proponents want it done. We'd see a phenomenon, like, say, gravity. Then we'd say, "Hmm. It's really hard to see how this could be. So God or Elvis or some alien makes it go." Then it would be settled. Great.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work..
And all that has to happen is that something has to be demonstrated and replicated. Hasn't happened yet.
I don't have time to keep going around about this. If you want the last word, be my guest.
No, their evidence just has to be verifiable. One fact is enough to disprove a theory.
But look what you've done. You've gone from "evidence" to "fact" in one fell swoop. One fact can be enough to disprove a theory. But determining that the fact is indeed a fact will take a lot of evidence. It is only right that extreme scrutiny be applied to claims of facts that disprove well-established theories. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So yes, you will need a lot of evidence to overturn the second law of thermodynamics or QM. Evolution is such a far-reaching and complex theory that I find it hard to imagine a single fact that could disprove it. Maybe you can give an example of one?
Usually, facts like these don't result in well-established theories being discarded. They result in theories being modified. It always bothers me when, for example, people will claim that Newton's theories were proven "wrong," when in fact they were merely incomplete. The Mars rovers got there on Newtonian physics. Quantum theory isn't useful for orbital mechanics. So, I agree with you about models being important in proportion to their usefulness.
I don't know about the usefulness of discussions of the semantics of the word "law". If someone wants to call the laws of thermodynamics "suggestions," I don't know what's gained or lost.
P.S. Sorry for any typos. I checked, but I seem to always miss some. I cut my finger and am trying to type with a big ol' bandage on my left index finger.
The problem is that so many people take these *theories* as gospel and set out purposely to make anything that might contradict them in the least fail, ignoring evidence or worse. Theories are ideas, not hard fact. A lot of people have lost sight of that and seem to be trying to turn science into the new religion.
I think you're missing something, though. A theory isn't a guess, it's a body of knowledge that explains/describes observed facts. In evolution's case, this theory is built on a massive pile of evidence from biology, genetics, geology, astronomy, and on and on. It, like all scientific knowledge, could be superceded by something else, but that something would have to be very, very, VERY well supported and undergo a huge amount of scrutiny. Same thing with Quantum Meachanics. It's very well supported, and has been verified over and over again empirically. For someone to claim to overturn that, it would take a lot more than one anomalous claim. That's how it's supposed to work.
When someone tellss me they can "disprove evolution," or "disprove quantum theory," I am immediately very skeptical and would require a lot of convincing to take them seriously. That's how it's supposed to be. If they really can overturn well supported theories, they have to bring with them enough evidence to do the job. That's not religious dogmatism--it's just sensible. If they're right, that QM is no good, then they should be able to demonstrate that. Their mountain of evidence has to be big and strong enough to topple my mound of evidence.
On top of that, we have a constant barrage of crackpots claiming to have built perpetual motion machines or have a new form of energy. Yes, their "evidence" is often ignored, but that's partly the fault of crackpots. They've cried wolf too many times, and most scientists (and science teachers) don't have time to closely examine every claim. Life's too short to waste on chasing wild geese. Yes, there are some doozy examples of scientists ignoring someone who was right. That's because science isn't perfect, but it does have self-correcting mechanisms. People talk about Wegener being laughed at when he proposed continental drift. That looks foolish now, but the evidence won out in the end. The scientific process works, even if it sputters a bit now and then.
I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.
There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:
I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:
1. Honest mistakes 2. Lies 3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.) 4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)
It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.
Dark Matter is far from an accepted Hypothesis, yet seemingly intelligent people defend it on the basis that it's the best thing going.
That's just stupid. Science isn't about being right, or falling into lockstep with "accepted theories", it is about continually asking questions.
True, to an extent. Science also involves moving from one piece of knowledge to the next. At some point, we have to regard a question as settled and move on. In science, though, "settled" doesn't mean cannot be questioned. It does mean that you better have some very, very good evidence to counter the piles of evidence already in place.
My question about dark matter has always been "Why is it more acceptable to make up a new type of matter, rather than deal with the idea that the fundamental forces may work differently than is believed?"
Why is one SO MUCH better than the other? There is precedent for both possibilities.
Yes, but we know about things like the laws of motion with much more certainty than we know the contents of the galaxy. When it was observed that the speed of rotation of galaxies is inconsistent with the amount of matter we saw, it was a very reasonable thing to hypothesize that there is a lot of matter we don't see. With all the talk of WIMPs and MACHOs and antimatter and so on, it makes the dark matter concept sound a lot more exotic than it need be. Maybe there's just a lot of cold stuff that doesn't radiate a significant amount, so we can't detect it.
But it's no good to just say "Well, maybe Kepler's laws were wrong, maybe all our physics is wrong," without offering a viable alternative. It's not like we just pulled that stuff out of our collective asses and decided to believe it; There's a huge amount of evidence in their favor, and there are good reasons to think we have the basics down very well. Could we be wrong? Sure, but usually it's not that we're wrong, we've just got a piece missing. That's why I hate it when people talk about how wrong Newton was in light of quantum mechanics. He wasn't wrong, he was absolutely right. He just wasn't complete, and his theory didn't work in certain instances.
I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general. I'm sure lots of scientists believe in them wholeheartedly, but I'm of a more humble seed.
First, carbon (C14) dating doesn't work past about 6000 years, so that wasn't the method. Why did you leap to the conclusion that it was?
Second, belief don't enter into it. If you have good reasons to believe well-established scientific procedures are wrong, state them. There's not a lot of intellectual oomph to just feeling like you'd rather not accept it. But if you have a good reason to criticize a method, let's hear it - that's how science is supposed to work.
Third, making patronizing comments about what scientists "believe" isn't very humble. Maybe you should find out what technique was used and learn how it works before you act as if scientists just pulled it out of someone's butt and decided randomly that it must work out of arrogance.
Believe me- just about anything you say can be construed as racist. "The sky is blue" "Why it gotta be blue? Why can't it be black, you racist..."
Except nobody would ever, ever seriously say that. When someone starts with the "anything you say could be called racist" stuff, it sounds like they're providing themselves cover for their own gaffes. Nobody would ever call these statements racist (and mean it):
Two plus two equals four.
People need to eat to survive.
I like ketchup.
The sky is blue.
It's like the saying that you can "prove anything" with statistics. Because you actually can't. You can abuse statistics to make it look like you're proving something, but that can be refuted by a close examination. But most people don't want to do all that hard thinking, so they just dismiss statistics in toto.
Same with racism. If it's too hard to maintain some empathy, try to be respectful and actually think about what you say before you say it (or if you're just plain racist), the easy way out is to say "anything can be construed as racist."
There's another reason for locks and alarms: To make your car (or whatever) more of a pain to steal than the next guy's. It's like the joke about the campers who hear a grizzly bear coming. One starts putting on his running shoes. The other says, "What are you doing? You can't outrun a bear!" The reply: "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
Eh. I tried honest debate. You blathered back. Now you accuse me of unspecified fallacies while employing the classic ad hominem yourself. Kudos.
Fun's over, though. I really don't care whether or not my professional skills are validated by the mighty Linzeal of Slashdot, 24th Level Woo-Woo (ST 6, IN 17, WI 3, DX 10, CO 18, CH 2). (BTW, that's not an ad hominem fallacy - it's just a naked insult.)
I may not be an expert but I've taken enough educational classes in my current University that they blackballed me from progressing any further stating that an essay I wrote on generation ships requiring the research and development of autonomous teaching enitities being installed as a backup in case of social degradation may have to be put in a position to cull ineffective members of that society to save resources as evil and warranting that I not be allowed to do student teaching in High Schools
I'm glad you wrote this very, very long sentence. Now I understand you fully. You're trolling or you're a crackpot.
Either way, moving on to more fertile fields now...
All the information she needs is already out there for free. The only change is that every day more and more of such knowledge becomes free.
The fallacy here is that there is far more to teaching than merely imparting information. If you think sitting a kid down with a shelf of books and a computer is going to make them educated, you don't understand education.
Teaching includes modeling behavior, motivating, explaining, advising, and a whole host of other things I'm too weary to explain. There simply is no substitute for learning from someone who can explain concepts in multiple ways, check for understanding, and encourage students when things get tough.
But this is slashdot, where everyone knows that teachers are evil, stupid, incompetent, avaricious, selfish, and criminal. We are the cause of all of society's ills, and we don't care. We are all exactly the same as everyone's worst teacher was.
It would be easier to take if all the people who heap derision upon teachers had any clue as to what teaching is all about. Believe it or not, having gone to school doesn't make you an authority on teaching, nor an expert on "the state of public education."
The best teacher I've had once said, "Everybody has a right to an informed opinion."
That's a good way to put it. Web polls are really bad regarding this. They like to ask questions like, "Do you believe HIV causes AIDS?" Who gives a damn what people think? All that matters are the facts. Opinions that aren't grounded in fact have no value.
I know someone who is a civil engineer. He designs and build roads. Now there's a profession where everyone gives him advice. Huge numbers of people are sure they know how to solve all traffic problems.
What on earth makes you think teachers don't swear or get frustrated? Are you honestly expecting us to turn off our emotions, especially in the face of vast ignorance such as yours? What an idiotic attempt at a slam, and a pathetic ad hominem as well.
And god forbid one of us ever makes a spelling error.
By the way, my friends routinely display amazement at the dichotomy between my classroom behavior and that which is outside the class. I have never lost my cool, sworn, or belittled a child, despite working in a residential treatment center that housed the most difficult children in the system.
That's professionalism, and the vast majority of teachers I know and have observed display it scrupulously.
No it wasn't, it was that UNQUALIFIED outsiders are ROUTINELY treated as though their opinions are valid. Nice try at the straw man though, perhaps if you'd had me as a teacher you'd understand what that meant.
Yes! Everyone has a right to an opinion, and anyone might come up with a good idea. But everyone is a freaking expert on education, whether or not they actually have done anything to acquire such expertise. In addition, they like to bash teachers because "most of them" (I love that - never any factual basis) are just like the worst teacher they ever had.
Third, don't say teaching isn't particularly hard unless you've actually tried it. In your idealized situation with an apprentice motivated to learn, sure, teaching can be pretty easy if you have the right skills and knowledge to teach the subject matter at hand. However, when dealing with the beaurocracy of any school system, public or private, parents who either don't care about their child's performance, parents who complain when you rightfully say that their child is performing badly, etc., the life of a modern school teacher isn't an easy one. Trust me, I am speaking from experience as a substitute teacher who has tried to actually teach and not just babysit a class.
Thank you for pointing this out. I usually don't read slashdot stories on education because it's usually just a public school/teacher bashfest. The ones that pass themselves off as experts on what it's like to teach usually are the ones who haven't lifted a finger to try to teach anyone.
Teaching is a huge job. Like you said, if it were just a matter of imparting information to bright, motivated students, it wouldn't be that hard (although it requires a knack for teaching - a lot of very smart people are unable to teach). But we don't just get those ideal students. We get kids with behavioral problems. Kids who live in poverty. Kids with learning disorders. Kids in 10th grade who read at a 4th grade level. Parents who want to sue you for failing their kid. Parents who won't cooperate. It is not easy. A third of teachers quit the profession within 3 years. They quit because the job's a lot harder than they expected. A large number of such teachers, when surveyed, said they were surprised at how physically demanding the job was. It's a strange job. You end up doing a zillion things you wouldn't expect unless you had experience teaching.
Good teachers do more than just transfer information. They inspire, they motivate, they make their students *think*. They make them apply knowledge and extend it. They're out there, in public schools, and I've seen them. (Yes, I've seen bad teachers as well. As in any profession, some practitioners suck.)
Unfortunately, if anyone reads this, I'll probably get flamed for defending teachers. It's just too easy to bash teachers as a group rather than try to look at it from their perspective. I knew I'd be on the receiving end of it when I decided to become a teacher, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
When someone responds talks back to you in the same tone when you spout your hate for religion you scream, "Troll!"
When did I "spout hate for religion?" All I said was that I didn't agree with using science to justify belief in god. That's it. When did I even say I didn't believe? You're making all these assumptions: Spout. Hate. Scream. I've done none of those things. I politely mentioned a spelling error as an aside, without flaming, but you decided I was calling you stupid. If I have displayed hatred or "screamed, " show me where and I'll apologize.
And responding in the same tone?! Look back at what I wrote. It was calm and polite, albeit mildly sarcastic. I haven't once insulted you as you have me. If you really are serious, why fly off the handle and assume all kinds of evil intent on the part of someone who just made some pretty tame comments? You're just sounding defensive. That's why I suspected trolling - your reply was so out of proportion to what I wrote.
Now, can we stop littering these damn threads with religious discussions, or at least take it somewhere else and try to stay on topic?
Fair enough, but - and I hope this doesn't constitute spouting hatred - you entered this religious discussion before me. If you don't want replies, maybe you shouldn't post.
Ah, there you are. There is always one of you in the crowd. I had no idea athEIsts broke the i before e except after c rule. Look how stupid I am! I mean, it even sounds spelled that way (to help you out, that is called "sarcasm"). You must have great faith in your argument to need to point out a poster's spelling errors and grammar problems.
I thought I pointed it out rather politely. I didn't call you stupid. Many people spell the word wrong. It's not because atheists break a rule, it's because it's related to THEology and THEism. You're awful touchy.
None of this invalidates the existence of God, but it sure does make people like yourself bitter because you chew what they shove into your mouth.
I'm bitter? I simply disagreed with something you wrote. You're the one getting all excited. Or pretending to be.
If you refuse to lift your head up from the grass and look around with wonder, you are nothing more than cattle.
I probably am being trolled, but this rant sounds so much like the stuff I used to regularly read on Usenet so many years ago...
The really great trollers throughout history had a talent for writing something that sounds insane enough to be plausible, but had a few nice little nuggets of hyper-absurdity that gave it away to the sharp-eyed. Just ranting and foaming doesn't really measure up. There are too many real rants and foams like this. A good troll needs something extra.
Think. Look around and think. Did this happen by accident? You don't even have to feel: think! You don't even need instinct: think!!! Spit out that grass and join the living.
Hey, great. This is looking more and more like a not very clever troll. There are so many fallacies and weird assumptions here it can't be real.
Someday I'll learn when it's pointless to try to dialog with someone.
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god.
Uh, who could legitimately proclaim someone an atheist (note spelling) other than that person? Of course atheists, like christians, are "self-proclaimed." You say that as if it's some sort of zinger.
Also, only religious people tell atheists that science is "their god."
Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner.
Oh, really? Science doesn't prove anything about god. That's the whole point: Believing in a god or gods is about faith, not proof. Whenever religious folk are confronted with some contradiction or problem with their god-ideas, they say it's just taken on faith and they don't need to prove themselves. OK. But then the same people start talking about how they can PROVE god's existence, and cite their interpretation of a scientific discovery, or a faith healer, or any number of other things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny, which invariably fails to find this "proof." Why do they do this? Which is it, faith or proof?
Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is.
"Beautiful and intricate" do not mean "God did it."
Take a look at the Panda's thumb or the human retina (or lower back) for examples of flawed design. Nature ain't perfect.
There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
OK, you lost me with the architects force-feeding cattle part. Have I been trolled?
Readability, sure, but I'm not sure if I want CT to go through submissions and start correcting for spelling...
Would it really be that much effort beyond picking through submissions and posting them? Even just firing them through a spell checker would catch a lot of errors.
I see your point, though. Nevertheless, I want to be responsible for my errors and to hold myself to a higher standard.
I like your attitude. I think they should make some effort to correct articles, especially some I've seen from non-native English speakers. Some of those have been just horrible.
I understood you, and I'm not criticizing you. It just seems to me that it would help slashdot look more professional if editors checked for grammar and spelling, or at least readability. I would prefer it if we all came to expect this, but such expectations aren't currently justified. That's my point. If they actually did it regularly, you would expect it.
Slashdot Mirror
Creationism is a fundamentalist point of view that god actively created the world (in the extreme case, literally in 7 days). Intelligent design is compatible with creationism, but it's also compatible with the Theist notion of the divine clockmaker - the notion of a God who created the universe by giving it a push at the dawn of time, and since has been hands off. (Intelligent design would hold that such a god would have had to be very selective in the direction of his push, of course.)
ID was dreamt up by Creationists as a way to get their ideas into schools after it was ruled that creationism was religious. It was recently revealed in the Dover case that earlier editions of the creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" made multiple references to "creationism," and in newer editions, these were all replaced with "Intelligent Design" without changing the surrounding context. "Pandas" is treated as the most authoritative school text by ID proponents, so it is difficult to conclude they see any substantial difference.
Really, the differences between ID and creationism are insignificant. ID is just a bit broader in scope. It's a dishonest attempt to make creationism sound less religious.
You can argue with this all you like, but the fact is
This sounds a lot like "La, la, la, I can't hear you."
f you think you can disprove intelligent design, you don't understand the 'theory.'
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a theory. ID isn't a theory, anyway. It's just throwing up one's hands and saying "God^H^H^HSome really smart being must have done it." That ain't science.
ID posits that life didn't just appear, but was orchestrated/designed/set-into-motion by some intelligent source while evolution declares that it just happened.
"Just happened" is an absurd summation of what evolution is about.
(Really, what science means by this is that they don't know, but it obviously happened, and these materials are needed, so they must have been there when it happened. But we weren't there when it 'happened' so we can't say for sure if anyone was stirring the pool with a stick or not, but we'll say there wasn't.
Direct experiment is not the only means of verifying scientific theories, and the claim that it is is a canard dreamt up by ID/Creationism proponents. If the theory predicts that certain things should be observed in nature, then those observations are confirming factors. You can disprove evolutionary theory: Just find, say, hominid fossils in strata older than dinosoaurs.
The whole "you weren't there" thing is nonsense. I notice that the religious never find that a problem with their creation stories. If science is only restricted to what happens in a lab, say goodbye to astronomy and geology.
-this being taught as 'fact' in schools is what irks many, especially when the scientific community insists evolution is solid and doesn't give any credence to any other ideas, even when they are just as possible/probable.)
But these other ideas aren't as possible or probable. The theory of evolution is supported by actual, real evidence. ID isn't even a scientific theory. People like Behe keep saying it is, but when pressed, all they can say is, "Well, it looks to us like it was designed." End. No more investigations. He even admitted in court that ID is only scientific if the definition of science were extended so broadly that it included astrology!
If their theory is scientific, how can it be falsified? What experiment or observations could show it is wrong? ID can be confirmed by anything at all, so it's useless.
Evolution happened. In that sense, it is a fact, and all that remains is to explain how it happened. Without evolution, modern biology makes no sense. It is the unifying principle of biology, and if you want to discard it, you have to discard biology as we know it. All those miraculous drugs, all the research on stem cells, all of it goes out the window.
What really irks many about statements such as I just made is that the idea of evolution is odious to them for reasons having nothing to do with science. They just don't like it, and strain to find a "scientific" way to discredit it. Problem is, none of them have. I dare you to find anything, any evidence whatsoever in favor of creationism/ID (yes, they are the same thing). Even if you consider them as separate ideas, all their champions do is try to say evolution is wrong for this or that reason.
How about this: State the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Give us something that can be confirmed by evidence or disproven. There is no such thing.
Imagine if all science was done the way ID proponents want it done. We'd see a phenomenon, like, say, gravity. Then we'd say, "Hmm. It's really hard to see how this could be. So God or Elvis or some alien makes it go." Then it would be settled. Great.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, can be disproved here and now, if and only if, something outside the 'laws' of quantum theory is discovered to work..
And all that has to happen is that something has to be demonstrated and replicated. Hasn't happened yet.
I don't have time to keep going around about this. If you want the last word, be my guest.
No, their evidence just has to be verifiable. One fact is enough to disprove a theory.
But look what you've done. You've gone from "evidence" to "fact" in one fell swoop. One fact can be enough to disprove a theory. But determining that the fact is indeed a fact will take a lot of evidence. It is only right that extreme scrutiny be applied to claims of facts that disprove well-established theories. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So yes, you will need a lot of evidence to overturn the second law of thermodynamics or QM. Evolution is such a far-reaching and complex theory that I find it hard to imagine a single fact that could disprove it. Maybe you can give an example of one?
Usually, facts like these don't result in well-established theories being discarded. They result in theories being modified. It always bothers me when, for example, people will claim that Newton's theories were proven "wrong," when in fact they were merely incomplete. The Mars rovers got there on Newtonian physics. Quantum theory isn't useful for orbital mechanics. So, I agree with you about models being important in proportion to their usefulness.
I don't know about the usefulness of discussions of the semantics of the word "law". If someone wants to call the laws of thermodynamics "suggestions," I don't know what's gained or lost.
P.S. Sorry for any typos. I checked, but I seem to always miss some. I cut my finger and am trying to type with a big ol' bandage on my left index finger.
The problem is that so many people take these *theories* as gospel and set out purposely to make anything that might contradict them in the least fail, ignoring evidence or worse. Theories are ideas, not hard fact. A lot of people have lost sight of that and seem to be trying to turn science into the new religion.
I think you're missing something, though. A theory isn't a guess, it's a body of knowledge that explains/describes observed facts. In evolution's case, this theory is built on a massive pile of evidence from biology, genetics, geology, astronomy, and on and on. It, like all scientific knowledge, could be superceded by something else, but that something would have to be very, very, VERY well supported and undergo a huge amount of scrutiny. Same thing with Quantum Meachanics. It's very well supported, and has been verified over and over again empirically. For someone to claim to overturn that, it would take a lot more than one anomalous claim. That's how it's supposed to work.
When someone tellss me they can "disprove evolution," or "disprove quantum theory," I am immediately very skeptical and would require a lot of convincing to take them seriously. That's how it's supposed to be. If they really can overturn well supported theories, they have to bring with them enough evidence to do the job. That's not religious dogmatism--it's just sensible. If they're right, that QM is no good, then they should be able to demonstrate that. Their mountain of evidence has to be big and strong enough to topple my mound of evidence.
On top of that, we have a constant barrage of crackpots claiming to have built perpetual motion machines or have a new form of energy. Yes, their "evidence" is often ignored, but that's partly the fault of crackpots. They've cried wolf too many times, and most scientists (and science teachers) don't have time to closely examine every claim. Life's too short to waste on chasing wild geese. Yes, there are some doozy examples of scientists ignoring someone who was right. That's because science isn't perfect, but it does have self-correcting mechanisms. People talk about Wegener being laughed at when he proposed continental drift. That looks foolish now, but the evidence won out in the end. The scientific process works, even if it sputters a bit now and then.
I'm thinking it was a joke. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the biggest one is the obviousness.
I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.
7 629
There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=640
I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:
1. Honest mistakes
2. Lies
3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.)
4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)
It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.
YIAAST.
Dark Matter is far from an accepted Hypothesis, yet seemingly intelligent people defend it on the basis that it's the best thing going.
That's just stupid. Science isn't about being right, or falling into lockstep with "accepted theories", it is about continually asking questions.
True, to an extent. Science also involves moving from one piece of knowledge to the next. At some point, we have to regard a question as settled and move on. In science, though, "settled" doesn't mean cannot be questioned. It does mean that you better have some very, very good evidence to counter the piles of evidence already in place.
My question about dark matter has always been "Why is it more acceptable to make up a new type of matter, rather than deal with the idea that the fundamental forces may work differently than is believed?"
Why is one SO MUCH better than the other? There is precedent for both possibilities.
Yes, but we know about things like the laws of motion with much more certainty than we know the contents of the galaxy. When it was observed that the speed of rotation of galaxies is inconsistent with the amount of matter we saw, it was a very reasonable thing to hypothesize that there is a lot of matter we don't see. With all the talk of WIMPs and MACHOs and antimatter and so on, it makes the dark matter concept sound a lot more exotic than it need be. Maybe there's just a lot of cold stuff that doesn't radiate a significant amount, so we can't detect it.
But it's no good to just say "Well, maybe Kepler's laws were wrong, maybe all our physics is wrong," without offering a viable alternative. It's not like we just pulled that stuff out of our collective asses and decided to believe it; There's a huge amount of evidence in their favor, and there are good reasons to think we have the basics down very well. Could we be wrong? Sure, but usually it's not that we're wrong, we've just got a piece missing. That's why I hate it when people talk about how wrong Newton was in light of quantum mechanics. He wasn't wrong, he was absolutely right. He just wasn't complete, and his theory didn't work in certain instances.
I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general. I'm sure lots of scientists believe in them wholeheartedly, but I'm of a more humble seed.
First, carbon (C14) dating doesn't work past about 6000 years, so that wasn't the method. Why did you leap to the conclusion that it was?
Second, belief don't enter into it. If you have good reasons to believe well-established scientific procedures are wrong, state them. There's not a lot of intellectual oomph to just feeling like you'd rather not accept it. But if you have a good reason to criticize a method, let's hear it - that's how science is supposed to work.
Third, making patronizing comments about what scientists "believe" isn't very humble. Maybe you should find out what technique was used and learn how it works before you act as if scientists just pulled it out of someone's butt and decided randomly that it must work out of arrogance.
Sheesh.
Believe me- just about anything you say can be construed as racist. "The sky is blue" "Why it gotta be blue? Why can't it be black, you racist..."
Except nobody would ever, ever seriously say that. When someone starts with the "anything you say could be called racist" stuff, it sounds like they're providing themselves cover for their own gaffes. Nobody would ever call these statements racist (and mean it):
Two plus two equals four.
People need to eat to survive.
I like ketchup.
The sky is blue.
It's like the saying that you can "prove anything" with statistics. Because you actually can't. You can abuse statistics to make it look like you're proving something, but that can be refuted by a close examination. But most people don't want to do all that hard thinking, so they just dismiss statistics in toto.
Same with racism. If it's too hard to maintain some empathy, try to be respectful and actually think about what you say before you say it (or if you're just plain racist), the easy way out is to say "anything can be construed as racist."
There's another reason for locks and alarms: To make your car (or whatever) more of a pain to steal than the next guy's. It's like the joke about the campers who hear a grizzly bear coming. One starts putting on his running shoes. The other says, "What are you doing? You can't outrun a bear!" The reply: "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
Eh. I tried honest debate. You blathered back. Now you accuse me of unspecified fallacies while employing the classic ad hominem yourself. Kudos.
Fun's over, though. I really don't care whether or not my professional skills are validated by the mighty Linzeal of Slashdot, 24th Level Woo-Woo (ST 6, IN 17, WI 3, DX 10, CO 18, CH 2). (BTW, that's not an ad hominem fallacy - it's just a naked insult.)
I may not be an expert but I've taken enough educational classes in my current University that they blackballed me from progressing any further stating that an essay I wrote on generation ships requiring the research and development of autonomous teaching enitities being installed as a backup in case of social degradation may have to be put in a position to cull ineffective members of that society to save resources as evil and warranting that I not be allowed to do student teaching in High Schools
I'm glad you wrote this very, very long sentence. Now I understand you fully. You're trolling or you're a crackpot.
Either way, moving on to more fertile fields now...
All the information she needs is already out there for free. The only change is that every day more and more of such knowledge becomes free.
The fallacy here is that there is far more to teaching than merely imparting information. If you think sitting a kid down with a shelf of books and a computer is going to make them educated, you don't understand education.
Teaching includes modeling behavior, motivating, explaining, advising, and a whole host of other things I'm too weary to explain. There simply is no substitute for learning from someone who can explain concepts in multiple ways, check for understanding, and encourage students when things get tough.
But this is slashdot, where everyone knows that teachers are evil, stupid, incompetent, avaricious, selfish, and criminal. We are the cause of all of society's ills, and we don't care. We are all exactly the same as everyone's worst teacher was.
It would be easier to take if all the people who heap derision upon teachers had any clue as to what teaching is all about. Believe it or not, having gone to school doesn't make you an authority on teaching, nor an expert on "the state of public education."
(Yes there are some dedicated hard working teachers out there but majority of them are not)
Do you have some facts to back up this assertion?
It's easy to just trash huge swaths of people like that when you don't have to provide any actual evidence.
So asking for a clarification is "Offtopic?" Sheesh.
This, mixed in with the Cylons looking like humans, feeling like humans, makes the entire of the show even more amigious
"Amigious?"
The best teacher I've had once said, "Everybody has a right to an informed opinion."
That's a good way to put it. Web polls are really bad regarding this. They like to ask questions like, "Do you believe HIV causes AIDS?" Who gives a damn what people think? All that matters are the facts. Opinions that aren't grounded in fact have no value.
I know someone who is a civil engineer. He designs and build roads. Now there's a profession where everyone gives him advice. Huge numbers of people are sure they know how to solve all traffic problems.
What on earth makes you think teachers don't swear or get frustrated? Are you honestly expecting us to turn off our emotions, especially in the face of vast ignorance such as yours? What an idiotic attempt at a slam, and a pathetic ad hominem as well.
And god forbid one of us ever makes a spelling error.
By the way, my friends routinely display amazement at the dichotomy between my classroom behavior and that which is outside the class. I have never lost my cool, sworn, or belittled a child, despite working in a residential treatment center that housed the most difficult children in the system.
That's professionalism, and the vast majority of teachers I know and have observed display it scrupulously.
No it wasn't, it was that UNQUALIFIED outsiders are ROUTINELY treated as though their opinions are valid. Nice try at the straw man though, perhaps if you'd had me as a teacher you'd understand what that meant.
Yes! Everyone has a right to an opinion, and anyone might come up with a good idea. But everyone is a freaking expert on education, whether or not they actually have done anything to acquire such expertise. In addition, they like to bash teachers because "most of them" (I love that - never any factual basis) are just like the worst teacher they ever had.
Third, don't say teaching isn't particularly hard unless you've actually tried it. In your idealized situation with an apprentice motivated to learn, sure, teaching can be pretty easy if you have the right skills and knowledge to teach the subject matter at hand. However, when dealing with the beaurocracy of any school system, public or private, parents who either don't care about their child's performance, parents who complain when you rightfully say that their child is performing badly, etc., the life of a modern school teacher isn't an easy one. Trust me, I am speaking from experience as a substitute teacher who has tried to actually teach and not just babysit a class.
Thank you for pointing this out. I usually don't read slashdot stories on education because it's usually just a public school/teacher bashfest. The ones that pass themselves off as experts on what it's like to teach usually are the ones who haven't lifted a finger to try to teach anyone.
Teaching is a huge job. Like you said, if it were just a matter of imparting information to bright, motivated students, it wouldn't be that hard (although it requires a knack for teaching - a lot of very smart people are unable to teach). But we don't just get those ideal students. We get kids with behavioral problems. Kids who live in poverty. Kids with learning disorders. Kids in 10th grade who read at a 4th grade level. Parents who want to sue you for failing their kid. Parents who won't cooperate. It is not easy. A third of teachers quit the profession within 3 years. They quit because the job's a lot harder than they expected. A large number of such teachers, when surveyed, said they were surprised at how physically demanding the job was. It's a strange job. You end up doing a zillion things you wouldn't expect unless you had experience teaching.
Good teachers do more than just transfer information. They inspire, they motivate, they make their students *think*. They make them apply knowledge and extend it. They're out there, in public schools, and I've seen them. (Yes, I've seen bad teachers as well. As in any profession, some practitioners suck.)
Unfortunately, if anyone reads this, I'll probably get flamed for defending teachers. It's just too easy to bash teachers as a group rather than try to look at it from their perspective. I knew I'd be on the receiving end of it when I decided to become a teacher, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
No problem. I understand. Take it easy.
When someone responds talks back to you in the same tone when you spout your hate for religion you scream, "Troll!"
When did I "spout hate for religion?" All I said was that I didn't agree with using science to justify belief in god. That's it. When did I even say I didn't believe? You're making all these assumptions: Spout. Hate. Scream. I've done none of those things. I politely mentioned a spelling error as an aside, without flaming, but you decided I was calling you stupid. If I have displayed hatred or "screamed, " show me where and I'll apologize.
And responding in the same tone?! Look back at what I wrote. It was calm and polite, albeit mildly sarcastic. I haven't once insulted you as you have me. If you really are serious, why fly off the handle and assume all kinds of evil intent on the part of someone who just made some pretty tame comments? You're just sounding defensive. That's why I suspected trolling - your reply was so out of proportion to what I wrote.
Now, can we stop littering these damn threads with religious discussions, or at least take it somewhere else and try to stay on topic?
Fair enough, but - and I hope this doesn't constitute spouting hatred - you entered this religious discussion before me. If you don't want replies, maybe you shouldn't post.
Ah, there you are. There is always one of you in the crowd. I had no idea athEIsts broke the i before e except after c rule. Look how stupid I am! I mean, it even sounds spelled that way (to help you out, that is called "sarcasm"). You must have great faith in your argument to need to point out a poster's spelling errors and grammar problems.
I thought I pointed it out rather politely. I didn't call you stupid. Many people spell the word wrong. It's not because atheists break a rule, it's because it's related to THEology and THEism. You're awful touchy.
None of this invalidates the existence of God, but it sure does make people like yourself bitter because you chew what they shove into your mouth.
I'm bitter? I simply disagreed with something you wrote. You're the one getting all excited. Or pretending to be.
If you refuse to lift your head up from the grass and look around with wonder, you are nothing more than cattle.
I probably am being trolled, but this rant sounds so much like the stuff I used to regularly read on Usenet so many years ago...
The really great trollers throughout history had a talent for writing something that sounds insane enough to be plausible, but had a few nice little nuggets of hyper-absurdity that gave it away to the sharp-eyed. Just ranting and foaming doesn't really measure up. There are too many real rants and foams like this. A good troll needs something extra.
Think. Look around and think. Did this happen by accident? You don't even have to feel: think! You don't even need instinct: think!!! Spit out that grass and join the living.
Hey, great. This is looking more and more like a not very clever troll. There are so many fallacies and weird assumptions here it can't be real.
Someday I'll learn when it's pointless to try to dialog with someone.
It is fascinating to see self-proclaimed athiests talk about science being their god.
Uh, who could legitimately proclaim someone an atheist (note spelling) other than that person? Of course atheists, like christians, are "self-proclaimed." You say that as if it's some sort of zinger.
Also, only religious people tell atheists that science is "their god."
Science proves the existence of God (a supreme creator) at every corner.
Oh, really? Science doesn't prove anything about god. That's the whole point: Believing in a god or gods is about faith, not proof. Whenever religious folk are confronted with some contradiction or problem with their god-ideas, they say it's just taken on faith and they don't need to prove themselves. OK. But then the same people start talking about how they can PROVE god's existence, and cite their interpretation of a scientific discovery, or a faith healer, or any number of other things that can be subject to scientific scrutiny, which invariably fails to find this "proof." Why do they do this? Which is it, faith or proof?
Every new discovery validates more and more how beautiful and intricate the universe is.
"Beautiful and intricate" do not mean "God did it."
Take a look at the Panda's thumb or the human retina (or lower back) for examples of flawed design. Nature ain't perfect.
There are architects that lay the foundations of man's institutions on earth who are powerful indeed, but they can never approach the glory of God, no matter what they force-feed their cattle.
OK, you lost me with the architects force-feeding cattle part. Have I been trolled?
Readability, sure, but I'm not sure if I want CT to go through submissions and start correcting for spelling...
Would it really be that much effort beyond picking through submissions and posting them? Even just firing them through a spell checker would catch a lot of errors.
I see your point, though. Nevertheless, I want to be responsible for my errors and to hold myself to a higher standard.
I like your attitude. I think they should make some effort to correct articles, especially some I've seen from non-native English speakers. Some of those have been just horrible.
I understood you, and I'm not criticizing you. It just seems to me that it would help slashdot look more professional if editors checked for grammar and spelling, or at least readability. I would prefer it if we all came to expect this, but such expectations aren't currently justified. That's my point. If they actually did it regularly, you would expect it.