In my mind "teach the contraversy" doesn't refer to real contraversies, it roughly translates to "teach the red herrings". You can see the same behaviour in AGW "skeptics" and creationists, this is why AGW "skeptics" know a lot about Darwin's weather station but very little about the methods used to eliminate systematic errors such as the urban heat island. They will link to WUWT and tell you how some stations are as much as 8-10degC out of whack but refuse to accept this has zero affect on observing the change in temprature.
That's why ancient buildings are always made of huge stone blocks, before Jesus gravity was unreliable so buildings needed more inertia. Same thing with animals, that's why dinosaurs were so big. Unfortunately there weren't big enough and were all sent hurltling off in to space 70mya during a particularly long gravity outage. The only reason mammals survived is that they lived in burrows and learnt to walk on the roof.
String theory gets a bad wrap. It's not physics it's maths, the 'problem' is that the answers it gives are no better than the existing answers and the novel predictions it makes cannot (yet) be tested.
Having said that I agree, "I don't know" is the correct scientific answer to the question - "What is outside the big bang we are currently experiencing?". Of course the "I don't know" gaps in science is where religious people insert god.
Quite a confused "basis" you have there. Science is a method by which to test competing ideas, ie: observe - model - predict - repeat. Science says nothing about how the ideas are generated since a method for creativity would be an oxymoron, nor does it claim any concept is proven or certain. The only faith required is the faith that the real world exists. QED did not come about because people chose to believe it, it came about because of EVIDENCE such as Dirac predicting anti-matter decades before it was observed.
An open mind can be a virtue but not if your brains fall out. The only honest answer to the question of what is outside (or "before") the big bang is "I don't know", science can't help because there is no observation, religion can't help because it pulls the answer from it's arse.
"OUT OF Uranus" - I did mean "from Uranus", Jupiter and Mars would show proper phases from that POV. Planets that are further from the Sun than the Earth never show true phases from Earth. Mars' obit is close enough to Earth that you can get a slightly shaded edge (gibbous phase) but that would be hard to detect in a 4" scope. All the other outer planets always show a full disk.
"Jupiter: They won't see any cloud bands -- just a glowing white dot. They might see phases on it......Mars: A slightly tinted dot, probably with phases"
I can only assume your posting from Uranus since it's impossible to see phases on Jupiter and Mars from the Earth.
Also my 4" does show 3 faint grey bands on Jupiter and I can see the ice cap on Mars as a bright spot. If they can find it, M4 is quite a spectacular globular cluster thru a 4" scope.
"The/. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand."
So what, I see little difference between greenpeace, the heartland institue and the discovery institute, I do not dissmisses then "out of hand" I dismiss them because they are all anti-science. They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side.
Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger. They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARLS's). I don't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others.
"When the big names on one side of the debate turn out to be engaged in avoiding freedom-of-information requests, carrying on back-channel actions like squeezing people out of journals, and making ridiculous claims about Himalayan glaciers, it weakens their case. That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening; it's just the story of the boy who cried wolf."
The fact that climate scientists who are part of the IPCC pointed out the doggy Himalayan paragraph and the IPCC prominently acknowledged the error on thier main report page strengthens their claims of scientific rigour. The rest just feeds the never ending appetite humans have for witch burning and gossip. It doesn't help that we no longer get news and opinion, we get the two rolled together into a multi-channel, multi-media, web-enabled, 24x7 display of ignorance and hubris.
"At least ACA/Today Tonight (Australian "current affairs" programs) make an effort not to be obvious about inflaming public opinion."
Mate, those two shows in particular have the same smell as the Fox News channel which is available on FoxTel (Australia's biggest cable provider). Murdoch bought Oz out well before he moved to the US. Anyone doubting the influence this guy need only scoll the list in that link, what's more he will happily tell you he uses those assets to shape public opinion.
Murdoch also has a 15% stake in Ch7 (Today Tonight), Ch7 also partners with FoxTel, James Packer (Ch9-ACA) and Rupert's son are in bussiness together, James is not as smart as his dad who would slap that scientology crap out of him if he were alive today.
Like the UK's BBC, the most informative news and current affairs programs in Oz are on the state sponsered channels. Murdoch makes a noise every now and then about how unfair it is that he has to compete with public broadcasters, he then uses his media empire to point to the "socialist elite" running these institutions. But the need for these kinds of public broadcasters really hit home to me while watching the invasion of Iraq, I had access to CNN, FOX, MSNBC, (US)ABC, SKY News, BBC, Aussie public broadcasters ABC/SBS, and AlJazzera, I was not affraid to use my remote! What I saw was two distinct versions of the "real world". Hindsight is 20/20 and with hindsight I'd say that the public broadcasters were reporting a war while the rest were promoting a crusade, except AlJazzera, who were being bombed.
I can agree that observation is a necassary but insuffient foundation. I like the Asimov quote - "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny'"
Yeah, we've all seen the cartoon but the scientfic method does not claim to offer a method for creativity, to do so would be tautological. What the scientific method offers is a useull way to test the fruits of creativity. The bad fruit tends to complain that there are no instructions for creativity.
Great series. I used to read his column, the one that sticks in my mind connected the radius of the space shuttle booster rockets to the width of a horses arse. I don't think real geeks are affraid of what people think, just that inquiring minds are obsessed with knowing.
"Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation."
You went too far, you stripped off the meat. Science uses observation to find models that accurately predict new observations. The guts of the philosophy is that the utility of reliable predictive models is self evident.
"South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode"
Yes they did, and then they were promtly forced to drop it.
AGW is a global problem, verification of any system will be difficult. Technically I don't see much of a difference between cap and trade and tax, provided the tax is targeted at the source, rebates are given for verifyable extraction and sequestration (eg:biochar), the tax rate starts low and is predictably ramped up over time to achieve a specific reduction goal.
"The introduction of artificial scarcity by a non-market entity (government) does not make something a market solution."
How is that rhetorical bullshit informative? There is nothing artificial about the biosphere's capacity to absorb our wastes. Ignoring those limits implies humanity is no smarter than jar of fermenting yeast.
And where do you get the idea that government is a "non-market entity"? - Not only are they usually the largest customers but they make the rules, the rules - ARE - the market.
If you consider warlords, tribal elders, nobility, etc, as primative forms of government then I can't think of a market that is not government mandated, even the black market is to a large degree mandated by government prohibition.
"All I've said is that the debate will continue despite this announcement"
Fair enough, but you might want to investigate the reasons why perfect strangers repeatedly insist on misunderstanding you before giving them advice on comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
In my mind "teach the contraversy" doesn't refer to real contraversies, it roughly translates to "teach the red herrings". You can see the same behaviour in AGW "skeptics" and creationists, this is why AGW "skeptics" know a lot about Darwin's weather station but very little about the methods used to eliminate systematic errors such as the urban heat island. They will link to WUWT and tell you how some stations are as much as 8-10degC out of whack but refuse to accept this has zero affect on observing the change in temprature.
Rubbish, Newton himself said that Jesus was sent to Earth to operate the levers of gravity.
That's why ancient buildings are always made of huge stone blocks, before Jesus gravity was unreliable so buildings needed more inertia. Same thing with animals, that's why dinosaurs were so big. Unfortunately there weren't big enough and were all sent hurltling off in to space 70mya during a particularly long gravity outage. The only reason mammals survived is that they lived in burrows and learnt to walk on the roof.
String theory gets a bad wrap. It's not physics it's maths, the 'problem' is that the answers it gives are no better than the existing answers and the novel predictions it makes cannot (yet) be tested.
Having said that I agree, "I don't know" is the correct scientific answer to the question - "What is outside the big bang we are currently experiencing?". Of course the "I don't know" gaps in science is where religious people insert god.
Quite a confused "basis" you have there. Science is a method by which to test competing ideas, ie: observe - model - predict - repeat. Science says nothing about how the ideas are generated since a method for creativity would be an oxymoron, nor does it claim any concept is proven or certain. The only faith required is the faith that the real world exists. QED did not come about because people chose to believe it, it came about because of EVIDENCE such as Dirac predicting anti-matter decades before it was observed.
An open mind can be a virtue but not if your brains fall out. The only honest answer to the question of what is outside (or "before") the big bang is "I don't know", science can't help because there is no observation, religion can't help because it pulls the answer from it's arse.
"OUT OF Uranus" - I did mean "from Uranus", Jupiter and Mars would show proper phases from that POV. Planets that are further from the Sun than the Earth never show true phases from Earth. Mars' obit is close enough to Earth that you can get a slightly shaded edge (gibbous phase) but that would be hard to detect in a 4" scope. All the other outer planets always show a full disk.
"Jupiter: They won't see any cloud bands -- just a glowing white dot. They might see phases on it......Mars: A slightly tinted dot, probably with phases"
I can only assume your posting from Uranus since it's impossible to see phases on Jupiter and Mars from the Earth.
Also my 4" does show 3 faint grey bands on Jupiter and I can see the ice cap on Mars as a bright spot. If they can find it, M4 is quite a spectacular globular cluster thru a 4" scope.
"The /. demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the oil industry regarding environmental effects are to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This same demographic sees it as fact that studies funded by the tech industry regarding biological effects are to be accepted out-of-hand."
So what, I see little difference between greenpeace, the heartland institue and the discovery institute, I do not dissmisses then "out of hand" I dismiss them because they are all anti-science. They are all capable of getting the facts straight when the science is on their side.
Slashdot has a high proportion of knowledgeable people who can think beyond the identity of the messenger. They at least try and base their opinions on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic (PEARLS's). I don't expect anyone who sees the above quote as a contradiction will understand why that approach is profoundly superiour to all others.
"When the big names on one side of the debate turn out to be engaged in avoiding freedom-of-information requests, carrying on back-channel actions like squeezing people out of journals, and making ridiculous claims about Himalayan glaciers, it weakens their case. That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening; it's just the story of the boy who cried wolf."
The fact that climate scientists who are part of the IPCC pointed out the doggy Himalayan paragraph and the IPCC prominently acknowledged the error on thier main report page strengthens their claims of scientific rigour. The rest just feeds the never ending appetite humans have for witch burning and gossip. It doesn't help that we no longer get news and opinion, we get the two rolled together into a multi-channel, multi-media, web-enabled, 24x7 display of ignorance and hubris.
"If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any religious people" - Hugh Laurie.
"Why buy something you can't own after you pay for it?"
Dunno, I'm a dog person myself.
"At least ACA/Today Tonight (Australian "current affairs" programs) make an effort not to be obvious about inflaming public opinion."
Mate, those two shows in particular have the same smell as the Fox News channel which is available on FoxTel (Australia's biggest cable provider). Murdoch bought Oz out well before he moved to the US. Anyone doubting the influence this guy need only scoll the list in that link, what's more he will happily tell you he uses those assets to shape public opinion.
Murdoch also has a 15% stake in Ch7 (Today Tonight), Ch7 also partners with FoxTel, James Packer (Ch9-ACA) and Rupert's son are in bussiness together, James is not as smart as his dad who would slap that scientology crap out of him if he were alive today.
Like the UK's BBC, the most informative news and current affairs programs in Oz are on the state sponsered channels. Murdoch makes a noise every now and then about how unfair it is that he has to compete with public broadcasters, he then uses his media empire to point to the "socialist elite" running these institutions. But the need for these kinds of public broadcasters really hit home to me while watching the invasion of Iraq, I had access to CNN, FOX, MSNBC, (US)ABC, SKY News, BBC, Aussie public broadcasters ABC/SBS, and AlJazzera, I was not affraid to use my remote! What I saw was two distinct versions of the "real world". Hindsight is 20/20 and with hindsight I'd say that the public broadcasters were reporting a war while the rest were promoting a crusade, except AlJazzera, who were being bombed.
I can agree that observation is a necassary but insuffient foundation. I like the Asimov quote - "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny'"
You have a talent for over simplifying.
"I think what you are saying is that if a model accurately predicts something, then the model is accurate"
Nope, I'm saying it's usefull. The Earth centric model lasted so long because it accurately predicted the motion of the moon and planets.
I'm not sure how arbitrary democracy is, but what I'm saying is I don't belive in magic fairy dust. It ignores history
Thanks, that was informative. IIRC he the same bloke who has basically vetoed the 18+ game rating. OTOH I share his distaste for the Advertiser.
Yeah, we've all seen the cartoon but the scientfic method does not claim to offer a method for creativity, to do so would be tautological. What the scientific method offers is a useull way to test the fruits of creativity. The bad fruit tends to complain that there are no instructions for creativity.
Great series. I used to read his column, the one that sticks in my mind connected the radius of the space shuttle booster rockets to the width of a horses arse. I don't think real geeks are affraid of what people think, just that inquiring minds are obsessed with knowing.
"Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation."
You went too far, you stripped off the meat. Science uses observation to find models that accurately predict new observations. The guts of the philosophy is that the utility of reliable predictive models is self evident.
"South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode"
Yes they did, and then they were promtly forced to drop it.
AGW is a global problem, verification of any system will be difficult. Technically I don't see much of a difference between cap and trade and tax, provided the tax is targeted at the source, rebates are given for verifyable extraction and sequestration (eg:biochar), the tax rate starts low and is predictably ramped up over time to achieve a specific reduction goal.
"It's obviously not a market solution if the government has to force it to exist."
Define "market".
"The introduction of artificial scarcity by a non-market entity (government) does not make something a market solution."
How is that rhetorical bullshit informative? There is nothing artificial about the biosphere's capacity to absorb our wastes. Ignoring those limits implies humanity is no smarter than jar of fermenting yeast.
And where do you get the idea that government is a "non-market entity"? - Not only are they usually the largest customers but they make the rules, the rules - ARE - the market.
"even when the market is government mandated"
If you consider warlords, tribal elders, nobility, etc, as primative forms of government then I can't think of a market that is not government mandated, even the black market is to a large degree mandated by government prohibition.
"All I've said is that the debate will continue despite this announcement"
Fair enough, but you might want to investigate the reasons why perfect strangers repeatedly insist on misunderstanding you before giving them advice on comprehension.