I'm not in favor of including disclaimers. That would be extremely irritating, I agree. I suppose the problem may be that concepts such as what a theory actually IS aren't usually covered until college, and parents who haven't taken such courses in higher ed *and paid attention* can get very fussy.
Perhaps the problem is that, since modern science has been around a while, it is now ingrained in academia, and viewed, especially by school boards, as "This is the way things are." Rather, if science is treated as an investigation, a solving of mysteries, the problem may not be so pronounced.
If a class is taught from the point of view of, "Oh dear, look at all these different animals! How on earth did they all come to be? Here is a set of ideas that have been proposed by people who know a lot about such things, and they've provided evidence. Therefore, it's worth us looking into. Wow, their rules seem to explain things quite well, as far as we can tell", then the spirit of science is preserved.
However, in our modernist society, we cling to science's supposed ability to prove everything HERE AND NOW, to tell us the one and only way that things are. Perhaps it stems from ancient thought, a la the royalty in Galileo's time, where it was ingrained into the populace that this is THE WAY THINGS ARE, and there exists such a way things are that we are completely positive about.
If our society was willing to accept concepts of "we don't know for absolute sure, but this one set of rules seems to fit pretty darn well, so that's what we're going with" and not consider it a BAD thing, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
"The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Those idealist sticker writers are up to it again!
The rest of the sticker...
Individual results may vary. The material may be paraphrased by the teacher and made into a transparency for happy fun copy-over time. Students will be assigned reading, but it's likely that the book will never be opened. Key words will be memorized by the students for the exam, after which time they will be promptly forgotten by most, aside from trivia junkies and the two future science majors of the class.
Philosophically, we don't know anything is truly fact unless we're the ones who set the original rules. (a la 1+1=2 in our symbolic numbering system)
While it has no scientific basis and is incredibly, extremely, stupidly unlikely, it is possible that what we describe as general relativity is actually caused by tiny mystical invisible wooden garden gnomes who wind magical clocks 1/10^50 times smaller than a proton.
General relativity is, however, supported by a breadth of scientific research that confirms trends and common occurrences, and is therefore accepted. However, it cannot be philosophically declared as truly fact.
If tomorrow the speed of light slowed to 5 m/s, and gravity stopped working on compact discs, we would have to reevaluate our best held theories to account for the possibility that general relatively simply happened to fit very well until now. A forthcoming emmissary from the mystical garden gnomes may lend support to an alternate theory.
You may say "But the speed of light won't slow down tomorrow, and compact discs won't stop paying attention to gravity, silly fool!" I would likely agree with you. However, I ask, "How do we know for sure?" Technically, we're working entirely on observations.
My extremely roundabout and probably poorly-worded point is this: We are working entirely on observations in an open system. Science allows us to come up with theories that are "as good as" fact, and may in fact hold true for 100% of our experiments. Those explanations that work consistently are kept, and the inconsistent ones are tossed.
Consider the extremely remote possibility that the world was actually created in 1823 by hyperintelligent shades of the color blue. Consider that history books, dinosaur bones, Prague, and John Quincy Adams are all originated from phenomenally good simulations. Stupidly improbable, and I agree it's an idiotic theory, but hey, you weren't there to know!
The real issue, in my opinion, is an obsession with language. The word "fact," meaning that it is and always will be completely and utterly THE WAY THINGS ARE, is bandied about very freely, when philosophically it almost never applies. "We're 99.99999999999999999999999% confident that it's a fact" would be more appropriate, but I suppose it's considerably more cumbersome to write.
Does your emulator use NES cartridges? Is blowing at different speeds and angles across the unit and cartridges the solution to all its technical woes?
Re:It Stays Exactly the Same, Year after Year! NOT
on
New Calendar Proposal
·
· Score: 1
So will someone tell me why this is any less difficult than what we currently use?
"If I had my way, everyone would get Newton Week off as a paid vacation and could spend the time doing physics, or other activities of their choice," he said, only half jokingly . "You can't say the same of leap years."
Didn't you RTA? An ENTIRE WEEK! To do PHYSICS! All other points should be moot after such a prospect of unbridled joy is introduced!
Some things from shows that were on in the past few years:
Junkyard Wars - A pile of random semi-useless crap that you make into something cool that achieves a specified goal.
BattleBots - It doesn't have to be as high-profile or dramatic, perhaps they just have to hit a target with NERF arrows, but there's plenty of exploration without getting into hardcore robotics.
catapults/trebuchets - Group makes one, people submit items and trajectories, launch them across the field; or, perhaps take turns launching water balloons at each other with competing trajectory-adjustable devices, like the old video games.
Not a TV thing, but a Rube Goldberg competition could be cool.
Indeed! Trips are fun, and it alleviates the whole nerdiness problem lamented by other posters.
-Don't tell them to go to college(that's too far in the future for most HS students to care about), instead tell them about certification programs they can begin working on today, to get their foot in the door to a job like yours.
The "elitist snob" geek in me doesn't agree with this suggestion, but the others are great!
Jabber is still around? Tried it a few years ago, found their client irritating (not to mention I know nobody that uses it). Which IM service to use is very low on my Geek-Evangelism scale (I use most of my efforts getting people off IE and Outlook). My AIM is still up and running, in any case.
Indeed. I'm not disputing its potential for usefulness. However, I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, its use is ineffective, while the people that use it THINK that it is the end-all.
Decades ago, the TV was hailed as the next greatest thing in education. Teachers would soon be able to record their own lectures and presentations for a much more efficient, effective educational experience!!!
Hopefully the computer hype will die down soon enough.
"They also have OpenOffice and the Gimp, plus Firefox for the web."... "Linux firewall"
Yours is a geek household. You don't count.
Seriously, though, I think the study addresses the majority of the population, who buy the $400 special at Wal-Mart or CompUSA and plonk their kids in front of some Edutainment and expect them to magically become smarter.
Then someday they will develop such a game that is wearable and highly addictive. Soon it will incapacitate the entire crew of the Enterprise, making it free for the taking by the clever game-developer aliens!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not in favor of including disclaimers. That would be extremely irritating, I agree. I suppose the problem may be that concepts such as what a theory actually IS aren't usually covered until college, and parents who haven't taken such courses in higher ed *and paid attention* can get very fussy.
Perhaps the problem is that, since modern science has been around a while, it is now ingrained in academia, and viewed, especially by school boards, as "This is the way things are." Rather, if science is treated as an investigation, a solving of mysteries, the problem may not be so pronounced.
If a class is taught from the point of view of, "Oh dear, look at all these different animals! How on earth did they all come to be? Here is a set of ideas that have been proposed by people who know a lot about such things, and they've provided evidence. Therefore, it's worth us looking into. Wow, their rules seem to explain things quite well, as far as we can tell", then the spirit of science is preserved.
However, in our modernist society, we cling to science's supposed ability to prove everything HERE AND NOW, to tell us the one and only way that things are. Perhaps it stems from ancient thought, a la the royalty in Galileo's time, where it was ingrained into the populace that this is THE WAY THINGS ARE, and there exists such a way things are that we are completely positive about.
If our society was willing to accept concepts of "we don't know for absolute sure, but this one set of rules seems to fit pretty darn well, so that's what we're going with" and not consider it a BAD thing, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
"The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Those idealist sticker writers are up to it again!
The rest of the sticker...
Individual results may vary. The material may be paraphrased by the teacher and made into a transparency for happy fun copy-over time. Students will be assigned reading, but it's likely that the book will never be opened. Key words will be memorized by the students for the exam, after which time they will be promptly forgotten by most, aside from trivia junkies and the two future science majors of the class.
Philosophically, we don't know anything is truly fact unless we're the ones who set the original rules. (a la 1+1=2 in our symbolic numbering system)
While it has no scientific basis and is incredibly, extremely, stupidly unlikely, it is possible that what we describe as general relativity is actually caused by tiny mystical invisible wooden garden gnomes who wind magical clocks 1/10^50 times smaller than a proton.
General relativity is, however, supported by a breadth of scientific research that confirms trends and common occurrences, and is therefore accepted. However, it cannot be philosophically declared as truly fact.
If tomorrow the speed of light slowed to 5 m/s, and gravity stopped working on compact discs, we would have to reevaluate our best held theories to account for the possibility that general relatively simply happened to fit very well until now. A forthcoming emmissary from the mystical garden gnomes may lend support to an alternate theory.
You may say "But the speed of light won't slow down tomorrow, and compact discs won't stop paying attention to gravity, silly fool!" I would likely agree with you. However, I ask, "How do we know for sure?" Technically, we're working entirely on observations.
My extremely roundabout and probably poorly-worded point is this: We are working entirely on observations in an open system. Science allows us to come up with theories that are "as good as" fact, and may in fact hold true for 100% of our experiments. Those explanations that work consistently are kept, and the inconsistent ones are tossed.
Consider the extremely remote possibility that the world was actually created in 1823 by hyperintelligent shades of the color blue. Consider that history books, dinosaur bones, Prague, and John Quincy Adams are all originated from phenomenally good simulations. Stupidly improbable, and I agree it's an idiotic theory, but hey, you weren't there to know!
The real issue, in my opinion, is an obsession with language. The word "fact," meaning that it is and always will be completely and utterly THE WAY THINGS ARE, is bandied about very freely, when philosophically it almost never applies. "We're 99.99999999999999999999999% confident that it's a fact" would be more appropriate, but I suppose it's considerably more cumbersome to write.
Hypothetically, assume that said friends might exist.
Call?
Only when they're not sucking up to the French government.
"If it's done safely, therapeutically, there's no danger involved."
Does your emulator use NES cartridges? Is blowing at different speeds and angles across the unit and cartridges the solution to all its technical woes?
I didn't think so.
Got mine on eBay a while back.
So will someone tell me why this is any less difficult than what we currently use?
"If I had my way, everyone would get Newton Week off as a paid vacation and could spend the time doing physics, or other activities of their choice," he said, only half jokingly . "You can't say the same of leap years."
Didn't you RTA? An ENTIRE WEEK! To do PHYSICS! All other points should be moot after such a prospect of unbridled joy is introduced!
Indeed. It's the people born on the 31st of January, May, July, August, and October that would be upset.
Get them a good piece of geek fiction. Hitchhiker's Guide, LOTR, Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, etc.
1. Running speed: 3km/hour (airborne time: 0.05 second)
---------
It can already catch a sprinting slashdotter!?
So, to answer your question, yes.
Or Alan Thicke
And D Cups Full of Justice!!!!!
Indeed! Trips are fun, and it alleviates the whole nerdiness problem lamented by other posters.
-Don't tell them to go to college(that's too far in the future for most HS students to care about), instead tell them about certification programs they can begin working on today, to get their foot in the door to a job like yours.
The "elitist snob" geek in me doesn't agree with this suggestion, but the others are great!
Jabber is still around? Tried it a few years ago, found their client irritating (not to mention I know nobody that uses it). Which IM service to use is very low on my Geek-Evangelism scale (I use most of my efforts getting people off IE and Outlook). My AIM is still up and running, in any case.
Indeed. I'm not disputing its potential for usefulness. However, I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, its use is ineffective, while the people that use it THINK that it is the end-all.
Decades ago, the TV was hailed as the next greatest thing in education. Teachers would soon be able to record their own lectures and presentations for a much more efficient, effective educational experience!!!
Hopefully the computer hype will die down soon enough.
I'd say it's the strictness about time and activity, rather than the specific lack of video games or TV, that had the greater effect.
"They also have OpenOffice and the Gimp, plus Firefox for the web." ... "Linux firewall"
Yours is a geek household. You don't count.
Seriously, though, I think the study addresses the majority of the population, who buy the $400 special at Wal-Mart or CompUSA and plonk their kids in front of some Edutainment and expect them to magically become smarter.
Like voice recognition, sans the ensuing uncomfortable situations involving eavesdroppers!
Or, perhaps,
"Old Koreans derp di derp, DI TIDDLEDY TERP!"
Then someday they will develop such a game that is wearable and highly addictive. Soon it will incapacitate the entire crew of the Enterprise, making it free for the taking by the clever game-developer aliens!