Yes, the two statements go together like bread and butter. Although kids only need to be coerced when they are not interested in what you are teaching.
"What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids thing that they will learn on their own, or in the workplace?
What's wrong with just teaching kids to research? Good, old fashion critical thinking, that they can carry around in their heads. A skill that they may never learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids things that they will look up on their own, even in the workplace?
"Exactly, just like the idea that global warming is caused / can be stopped by humans."
That idea is based on experimental evidence that was first performed in the 1850's, ie: they OBSERVED CO2 to absorb IR radiation in lab experiments. In the early 1900's someone came up with the idea our emmissions could warm the planet and went looking for evidence. In the late 1950's the NAS wrote that our emmissions are indeed warming the climate. 2009 and we have had an enourmous scientific effort over the last 2 decades to nail down the 'real world' details.
"We have too much untested theory, it was about time someone started checking how much our model fits with the real world"
If you have a scientific mind you will check how this has been done for AGW (or any other theory) before accepting/dissmising it. However a large chunk of the population won't and will remain ignorant of the basics. Rather than questioning/educating themselves they will point to ANECDOTES about dark coloured cars or some other obvious rubbish that fits their pre-concieved notions. Kinda reminds me of another 'theory' that's been around for 150yrs and still upsets a lot of religious people, dontcha think?
I dropped out of HS at 16, after more than a decade in labouring/factory jobs I went to university and graduated at 31 with a BSc with majors in CS and OR. I had a family at the time and still managed to make a few bucks driving cabs. I picked that course to get into the industry but I loved programming my AppleII well before I thought I could make money by programming.
I am now 50 and still "in demand". Not one year since graduating in 1991 have I failed to exceed the average national take home pay by a respectable margin.
"This experiment has proved that iron fertilization...[snip]...Rhetoric, statistics, or celebrity backing isn't going to prove anything. Only the experiment can be the final arbiter. In recent years, I have seen field after field all but abandon the experiment as a scientific tool. Computer models, statistics and dubious mathematics became the tools of choice. It's nice to see one in the news again.
If statistics are not an arbiter then why do people insist on repeatability of results? Does one contradictory result automatically invalidate 100 other results? This one experiment doesn't PROVE anything, it does however add to the already existing evidence that this idea is a waste of time.
As for models, this is what seperates science from any other philosophy, without them science would be incapable of predicting the future with any more certainty than religion. For example why would someone tip iron into the ocean and look for sequestration if they didn't have a models saying that is what could happen?
I suspect the reason you don't like math, statistics and computer models is that they tell you things you don't want to hear.
As for the experiment, even if you could get a ton of carbon sequestered for every ton of iron that still mean dumping 7 BILLION tons of iron per year to absorb our emmision. My wild guess is that it would be rational (both economically and environmentally) to simply phase out coal burners.
"This whole wikileaks thing is likely centered around an AUSTRALIAN censorship list..."
That has not passed the senate and doesn't look like it ever will with the mandatory blacklist intact. And why would an arrest be centered around a list the government claims is fake?
Yet another slashdotter who thinks science is in the business of proof. Science does not prove anything it offers the best theory for the available evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that life colonised the land from the sea. There is also evidence that sometimes it goes the other way, eg: remnant hip bones in whales.
I think you hit the nail on the head, it's way too boring to actually study the problem and calmly wean ourselves off coal over the next 4-5 decades. It's much more fun to dream up half-arsed geo-engineering ideas and then run in circles ignoring the evidence.
Doc Ruby may have forgotten to mention ocean acidification due to CO2 and the effects of changed storm tracks on our agriculture and water catchment but it's a simple statement of fact that the IPCC reports DO resemble the Soylent oceanographic survey.
And before the usual idiots start screaming about grant money and politics, the financial and organisational documents for the IPCC are all available on the web, they state...
1. The IPCC is funded and supported by over 300 nations, that is more or less ALL sides of politics.
2. The IPCC has a annual budget of $5-6 million, yes million not billion!
3. The reports are written soley by scientists who are NOT PAID for their time and effort.
4. The scientists who wrote the last report did not write the one before it, nor will they write the next one.
"a game renders one map at a time because it's pointless to render other maps until the player made his gameplay decisions and arrived there"
Rendering is perfect for parallel processing, sure you only want one map at a time but each core can render part of the map independently from other parts of the map.
"The suggestion here was taking as outside the scope of the debate whether one wanted electronic tabulation."
Uhu, but still, what's the problem counting machines are trying to solve? What are these avenues? - "poor representation, duopoly, and incumbent advantage" are all about how one gets placed on the ballot, nothing to do with trustworthy counting.
I was 10 when I watched Armstrong land on the moon, every kid was into space and I had read "grown up books" in the library with pictures of water canals on Mars and rainforests on Venus. Since then astronomy has been fully digitised and we have mapped most of the EM spectrum. I'm not saying it won't continue to improve (especially in the area of corrective optics) but I think it will be slower now that the spectrum land rush is coming to an end and digitization is well and trully complete.
The long term limiting factor with all astronomical technology is signal to noise, there have been huge advances in my lifetime concerned with the accuracy of finding and ploting the signal, but you still have to collect the photons. Mirror making tech is old tech but even it took a big jump in the seventies, I remeber reading how they made the mirror for Hubble sometime in the late 70's. It's the gold standard for mirrors (~1mm deviation over an area the size of Australia), I know, pity it was the wrong shape.
Thing is, the electronics are now that good that we no longer need large mirrors with that degree of accuracy, we can larger less accurate mirrors and then correct for known distortions, even real-time chaotic ones such as atompospheric wobbles.
I don't think Kepler will be a situation where someone announces "the answer", the best "iconic image" we will have to print on our T shirts will be a spectrum. How long it takes to get to the T shirt stage depends on how many candidate planets, their orbits, the number of photons we can catch and plot, and most of all, how confident do you want to be about yes/no.
"science depends on witnesses who must be either believed or disbelieved"
Nope, science depends on evidence that can be tested. Belief in a particular witness is called "argument from authority" and is not part of science. For example, we don't have any evidence for "why" but we have plenty of witnesses.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not part of science, science explicitly states it's doubts in levels of certainly, 100% certainty is called an assumption. Assumptions must be noted and attacked BY THE JURY who in turn never finish their deliberations because science has NO CONVICTIONS other than the philosphical conviction that it's method is the most useful tool for understanding the universe.
Unlike religion and other forms of dogma, science does not claim to have THE answer, it claims to have the BEST answer currently available and it backs that claim with it's track record.
But hey, nice try at equating religion to science. And sure, you can claim science is "just another way of thinking" but if you BELIEVE all philosophies are equal then you are free to stop thinking and choose your beliefs based on your mood.
BTW: To get the "when" in science use "t", negative for backwards, positive for forwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the two statements go together like bread and butter. Although kids only need to be coerced when they are not interested in what you are teaching.
"Your statement assumes Google is doing something wrong"
No, my attempt at gallows humour raises the suspision that Google are in the "asking questions" phase.
"What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids thing that they will learn on their own, or in the workplace?
What's wrong with just teaching kids to research? Good, old fashion critical thinking, that they can carry around in their heads. A skill that they may never learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids things that they will look up on their own, even in the workplace?
"Based on my experience, he probably meant that as a joke"
Based on my experience and his user name, he probably didn't.
Do you even read your own links?
"Exactly, just like the idea that global warming is caused / can be stopped by humans."
That idea is based on experimental evidence that was first performed in the 1850's, ie: they OBSERVED CO2 to absorb IR radiation in lab experiments. In the early 1900's someone came up with the idea our emmissions could warm the planet and went looking for evidence. In the late 1950's the NAS wrote that our emmissions are indeed warming the climate. 2009 and we have had an enourmous scientific effort over the last 2 decades to nail down the 'real world' details.
"We have too much untested theory, it was about time someone started checking how much our model fits with the real world"
If you have a scientific mind you will check how this has been done for AGW (or any other theory) before accepting/dissmising it. However a large chunk of the population won't and will remain ignorant of the basics. Rather than questioning/educating themselves they will point to ANECDOTES about dark coloured cars or some other obvious rubbish that fits their pre-concieved notions. Kinda reminds me of another 'theory' that's been around for 150yrs and still upsets a lot of religious people, dontcha think?
Don't knock it until you've tried it...
"a[n] older person is a lot less likely to get on with a young team"
And that's just one reason why we are much more likely to be in charge of it.
"If you love it do it"
I dropped out of HS at 16, after more than a decade in labouring/factory jobs I went to university and graduated at 31 with a BSc with majors in CS and OR. I had a family at the time and still managed to make a few bucks driving cabs. I picked that course to get into the industry but I loved programming my AppleII well before I thought I could make money by programming.
I am now 50 and still "in demand". Not one year since graduating in 1991 have I failed to exceed the average national take home pay by a respectable margin.
"This experiment has proved that iron fertilization...[snip]...Rhetoric, statistics, or celebrity backing isn't going to prove anything. Only the experiment can be the final arbiter. In recent years, I have seen field after field all but abandon the experiment as a scientific tool. Computer models, statistics and dubious mathematics became the tools of choice. It's nice to see one in the news again.
If statistics are not an arbiter then why do people insist on repeatability of results? Does one contradictory result automatically invalidate 100 other results? This one experiment doesn't PROVE anything, it does however add to the already existing evidence that this idea is a waste of time.
As for models, this is what seperates science from any other philosophy, without them science would be incapable of predicting the future with any more certainty than religion. For example why would someone tip iron into the ocean and look for sequestration if they didn't have a models saying that is what could happen?
I suspect the reason you don't like math, statistics and computer models is that they tell you things you don't want to hear.
As for the experiment, even if you could get a ton of carbon sequestered for every ton of iron that still mean dumping 7 BILLION tons of iron per year to absorb our emmision. My wild guess is that it would be rational (both economically and environmentally) to simply phase out coal burners.
Deliberate misinformation and hyperbole is now insightfull???
"This whole wikileaks thing is likely centered around an AUSTRALIAN censorship list..."
That has not passed the senate and doesn't look like it ever will with the mandatory blacklist intact. And why would an arrest be centered around a list the government claims is fake?
"So who's worse, Google for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the PRS for extortion?"
To paraphrase a refugee I once saw on TV; It makes no difference. PRS shoot then ask questions, Goggle ask questions then shoot.
"Countries like Australia"
Don't belive all that you read on slashdot mate.
"They didn't "dumb it down", they hyped it up"
Same thing.
Copernicus removed Earth from the center of God's creation, Darwin did the same to Man.
Yet another slashdotter who thinks science is in the business of proof. Science does not prove anything it offers the best theory for the available evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that life colonised the land from the sea. There is also evidence that sometimes it goes the other way, eg: remnant hip bones in whales.
I think you hit the nail on the head, it's way too boring to actually study the problem and calmly wean ourselves off coal over the next 4-5 decades. It's much more fun to dream up half-arsed geo-engineering ideas and then run in circles ignoring the evidence.
How is the parent flamebait?
Doc Ruby may have forgotten to mention ocean acidification due to CO2 and the effects of changed storm tracks on our agriculture and water catchment but it's a simple statement of fact that the IPCC reports DO resemble the Soylent oceanographic survey.
And before the usual idiots start screaming about grant money and politics, the financial and organisational documents for the IPCC are all available on the web, they state...
1. The IPCC is funded and supported by over 300 nations, that is more or less ALL sides of politics.
2. The IPCC has a annual budget of $5-6 million, yes million not billion!
3. The reports are written soley by scientists who are NOT PAID for their time and effort.
4. The scientists who wrote the last report did not write the one before it, nor will they write the next one.
"Explain why we are still not in an ice age if the "natural contributions of the Earth's own systems" are stable and don't cause climate change."
He said stable enough to live in, you will learn more by reading something than you will by building strawmen.
"a game renders one map at a time because it's pointless to render other maps until the player made his gameplay decisions and arrived there"
Rendering is perfect for parallel processing, sure you only want one map at a time but each core can render part of the map independently from other parts of the map.
"The suggestion here was taking as outside the scope of the debate whether one wanted electronic tabulation."
Uhu, but still, what's the problem counting machines are trying to solve? What are these avenues? - "poor representation, duopoly, and incumbent advantage" are all about how one gets placed on the ballot, nothing to do with trustworthy counting.
I was 10 when I watched Armstrong land on the moon, every kid was into space and I had read "grown up books" in the library with pictures of water canals on Mars and rainforests on Venus. Since then astronomy has been fully digitised and we have mapped most of the EM spectrum. I'm not saying it won't continue to improve (especially in the area of corrective optics) but I think it will be slower now that the spectrum land rush is coming to an end and digitization is well and trully complete.
The long term limiting factor with all astronomical technology is signal to noise, there have been huge advances in my lifetime concerned with the accuracy of finding and ploting the signal, but you still have to collect the photons. Mirror making tech is old tech but even it took a big jump in the seventies, I remeber reading how they made the mirror for Hubble sometime in the late 70's. It's the gold standard for mirrors (~1mm deviation over an area the size of Australia), I know, pity it was the wrong shape.
Thing is, the electronics are now that good that we no longer need large mirrors with that degree of accuracy, we can larger less accurate mirrors and then correct for known distortions, even real-time chaotic ones such as atompospheric wobbles.
I don't think Kepler will be a situation where someone announces "the answer", the best "iconic image" we will have to print on our T shirts will be a spectrum. How long it takes to get to the T shirt stage depends on how many candidate planets, their orbits, the number of photons we can catch and plot, and most of all, how confident do you want to be about yes/no.
"So I'll say, our mind is not a mathematical model of anything. It's an evolved computational system that makes us better able to survive."
The "evolved computational system" is the machine that runs the survival model, that model is "you" and your perceptions.
And by perceptions I mean how you percieve and interact with your immediate environment in everyday life.
"science depends on witnesses who must be either believed or disbelieved"
Nope, science depends on evidence that can be tested. Belief in a particular witness is called "argument from authority" and is not part of science. For example, we don't have any evidence for "why" but we have plenty of witnesses.
Beyond reasonable doubt is not part of science, science explicitly states it's doubts in levels of certainly, 100% certainty is called an assumption. Assumptions must be noted and attacked BY THE JURY who in turn never finish their deliberations because science has NO CONVICTIONS other than the philosphical conviction that it's method is the most useful tool for understanding the universe.
Unlike religion and other forms of dogma, science does not claim to have THE answer, it claims to have the BEST answer currently available and it backs that claim with it's track record.
But hey, nice try at equating religion to science. And sure, you can claim science is "just another way of thinking" but if you BELIEVE all philosophies are equal then you are free to stop thinking and choose your beliefs based on your mood.
BTW: To get the "when" in science use "t", negative for backwards, positive for forwards.