No...your are missing the point. Intelligent Design was/is a sleight of hand trick
Might be, I don't know. But I think we're talking past each other here.
whereby the word Creationism was removed from a propoganda device "The Panda Book" (because of several court rulings banning Creationism in the classroom) and the phrase "Intelligent Design" inserted into "Panda" instead - in a childish attempt to circumvent the USA Constitution.
Just a nit-pick. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this. I assume you're referring to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a National Church like the much-hated Church of England. Not that it has anything to do with the conversation at hand, however.
Since the "scientific method" in taught in all schools (likely, as kids do experiments) - what needs to be added in the classroom - is a more practical look at the difference between a science "notion" and what has shown to be true via the utilization of the "scientific method".
If I understand what you are saying here, I agree. I think. The problem I see is that schools have failed to teach the limits of science. I know you don't think the word means anything, but I use it to mean "the realm of practical knowledge that is obtainable through the observation of the consistencies in the natural universe." And the emphasis on consistency is where I think science education is greatly lacking (and where zealots on both sides tend to go wrong).
The concept of "laws of nature" are taught as scientific fact in schools, as if natural laws were some kind of living breathing being that can be seen under a microscope. In fact, no one has ever "seen" a law. It's a purely conjectural construct to explain why the universe seems to be consistent. But it's not science at all. Explaining the consistencies of the universe is beyond science (per my definition above) and natural laws are simply the atheist's version of "God did it." Also, there is no inherent logical conflict between believing in God as the source of consistency and science, any more than there is between "laws" and science. They are interchangeable because science, the observation and verification of consistencies, makes no inquiries into the source of those consistencies. And that is what needs to be taught. But then, that wouldn't leave much to argue about, would it?:-)
Heh. You just get better and better. Hard to believe, but you're still missing the point completely. And proving it at the same time. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design makes an excellent starting point for a classroom discussion of science and the border between science and philosophy, as well as what is "provable and observable." But bring this up, and a vast army of people like you will explode with rage and completely ignore the real topic of discussion.
As for the rest of your tirade, when did I ever defend the Roman Catholic Church? Or any church? I have studied history, you know. The Roman Catholic Church has never been a Christian organization. It started as the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire by other means. And it has always been a syncretic stramroller, wiping out anyone who held that the Bible was the rule of faith and practice for the Christian religion.
And no, most of the Protestant churches and denominations aren't any better. I would imagine that somewhere around 5% of the nominal Christians in the world actually conform to the Bible in any significant way. Probably much less in America.
You've proven my point. Instead of a clear discussion of philosophical issues, you are overcome with emotional language like "Christian Religious Mafia."
The reason that may not work so well is that there are viewpoints on various issues that are popularly unacceptable for emotional reasons. The Civil War is an excellent example. The Confederate view on the reason for the war was Constitutional limits on the power of the Central Government. As far as I can tell, this is a legitimate argument; although the war, like most wars, didn't have a single cause.
There are people, often with editorial power, who refuse to allow these viewpoints to be expressed, even in theoretical language, with the simple excuse that "it's obviously falsehood and has no place in a serious publication." In my experience, a more accurate reason for rejection would be "I associate that idea with racism and I hate racism so I'm going to reject it."
Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached.
Well, there's Everything, which is like a very loosely administered Wikipedia. But, like Slashdot itself, it's full of random crap, lame jokes, and a few nuggets of useful information here and there.
No! Don't do that! If you use a real OOP language and then try to learn something like C# or Java you'll just spend all your time swearing.
Boy, is that ever true. Objective-C and OpenStep was my first OOP environment (still not quite as pure as Smalltalk, but a helluva lot closer than C++ or C#). Now, I'm learning.NET for a job I'm on. It's better than Delphi and C++, but I'm continually disgusted with how roundabout and inconsistent the whole thing is.
The only thing worse than the rabid anti-Microsoft zealots are the people who constantly complain about hypocrisy from "Slashdot," as if it were a monolithic opinion generator.
Mind you, I find absolutely *nothing* wrong with that. Nations are not individuals and follow a different set of goals and morals than those used in private life.
Never trust a soldier to give strategic advice. They always come up with brilliant schemes that yet somehow don't work out in the field. The US only had to bomb the vietnamese supply lines to cripple their fighting capabilty.
The politicians did that, not the military. In fact, once McNamara was out of the way and the military was given latitude in operations, things began going decisively against the NVA.
AND they do make one helluva desktop, you gotta admit that! Much as I hate it, Windoze is the gold standard against which KDE and GNOME have been comparing themselves for years.
Which is part of the reason KDE and GNOME are so mediocre. Apple products have always been far more integrated, internally consistent, and thoughtful about giving the user reasonable access to OS features than Microsoft's slap-dash attempts. How anyone can think of Microsoft as the gold standard astonishes me.
Why is it that every Microsoft solution involves a "manager"? They never seem to get to the point and just fix a problem. Instead, we get these grandiose stacks of hierarchy. It's like the French government is behind every design decision.
Well, an awful lot of ISPs route across BellSouth lines and switches. I think that's the big fear. It's not technically reasonable though. And I tend to agree that the market would probably kill it before it got started, and certainly wouldn't let it last. Especially if they go for somebody like Google. Customers would be ourtraged.
There's a difference between balanced reporting and posting a huge flaming pile of crap to "get it all to balance out in the end"
I like to think of this as the "Bill O'Reilly comment generator." It's like he has this scorecard on his desk, with two columns: L and R. When he criticizes somebody or some idea on the Left, he puts a check in the L column. When he criticizes something on the Right, he puts a check in the R column. His statements at any given moment seem driven by a desire to make the columns match up.
Sony is a BIG company, huge enough to be considered a part of The Man.
Am I the only person tired of everybody both talking about, and believing in, "The Man"? Please. You'll have more impact with readers if you realize that 1968 is in the rear-view mirror.
I don't think that will ever happen because it doesn't suit the agenda of the anti-Diebold folks. Whether their machines are reliable or not, I don't know, but I get the feeling that this is just another of those "Ra Ra Ra, Go Team!" partisan issues. The truth isn't as important as "striking a blow" against your political enemies, real or imagined. Both Democrats and Republicans pick targets and go after them with religious zealotry for purely partisan reasons.
I've always felt that the politicians are just the usually extroverted front people, they provide an interface to the population for the civil servants, who are the usually introverted behind the scenes people who actually do the work.
The extroverts get the fame, glory and attention. The introverts get to solve the problems. Everybody's happy.
*Thwbpbpbpt*. Excuse me while I clean coffee off my monitor. Civil servants certainly run the show behind the scenes, but they do *anything* but "solve the problems." Mostly, they create problems in order to make themselves indispensible. And the politicians don't get "fame, glory, and attention." Politicians get the blame. They're nothing more than fall-guys for a run-amok bureaucracy.
Psychology (like most disciplines) suffers from "Physics Envy"; that is they lack the ability to make concrete statements like Physics has ("Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2").
I've often thought that this was the reason why we have so many "sciences" now: Military Science, Library Science, Political Science, Waste Management Science. There is a tendency in the West to label everything as a "science" in order to make people think more highly of your chosen path in life. I think it derives from a false understanding of science as "absolute truth" instead of a process for observing and recording apparent consistencies in the natural universe. Which is also the heart of the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, but that's a post for a different story.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Might be, I don't know. But I think we're talking past each other here.
Just a nit-pick. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this. I assume you're referring to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a National Church like the much-hated Church of England. Not that it has anything to do with the conversation at hand, however.
If I understand what you are saying here, I agree. I think. The problem I see is that schools have failed to teach the limits of science. I know you don't think the word means anything, but I use it to mean "the realm of practical knowledge that is obtainable through the observation of the consistencies in the natural universe." And the emphasis on consistency is where I think science education is greatly lacking (and where zealots on both sides tend to go wrong).
The concept of "laws of nature" are taught as scientific fact in schools, as if natural laws were some kind of living breathing being that can be seen under a microscope. In fact, no one has ever "seen" a law. It's a purely conjectural construct to explain why the universe seems to be consistent. But it's not science at all. Explaining the consistencies of the universe is beyond science (per my definition above) and natural laws are simply the atheist's version of "God did it." Also, there is no inherent logical conflict between believing in God as the source of consistency and science, any more than there is between "laws" and science. They are interchangeable because science, the observation and verification of consistencies, makes no inquiries into the source of those consistencies. And that is what needs to be taught. But then, that wouldn't leave much to argue about, would it? :-)
Heh. You just get better and better. Hard to believe, but you're still missing the point completely. And proving it at the same time. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design makes an excellent starting point for a classroom discussion of science and the border between science and philosophy, as well as what is "provable and observable." But bring this up, and a vast army of people like you will explode with rage and completely ignore the real topic of discussion.
As for the rest of your tirade, when did I ever defend the Roman Catholic Church? Or any church? I have studied history, you know. The Roman Catholic Church has never been a Christian organization. It started as the continuation of the pagan Roman Empire by other means. And it has always been a syncretic stramroller, wiping out anyone who held that the Bible was the rule of faith and practice for the Christian religion.
And no, most of the Protestant churches and denominations aren't any better. I would imagine that somewhere around 5% of the nominal Christians in the world actually conform to the Bible in any significant way. Probably much less in America.
You've proven my point. Instead of a clear discussion of philosophical issues, you are overcome with emotional language like "Christian Religious Mafia."
The reason that may not work so well is that there are viewpoints on various issues that are popularly unacceptable for emotional reasons. The Civil War is an excellent example. The Confederate view on the reason for the war was Constitutional limits on the power of the Central Government. As far as I can tell, this is a legitimate argument; although the war, like most wars, didn't have a single cause.
There are people, often with editorial power, who refuse to allow these viewpoints to be expressed, even in theoretical language, with the simple excuse that "it's obviously falsehood and has no place in a serious publication." In my experience, a more accurate reason for rejection would be "I associate that idea with racism and I hate racism so I'm going to reject it."
Consider Evolutionary Origin vs. Intelligent Design. Ultimately, neither are scientific. Yet it's still profitable to discuss them in a science class because they both make assumptions about the nature of the universe in non-observable ways and have impacted the approach to science in academia. But no serious discussion will ever take place on this because so much emotional baggage is attached.
Well, there's Everything, which is like a very loosely administered Wikipedia. But, like Slashdot itself, it's full of random crap, lame jokes, and a few nuggets of useful information here and there.
Boy, is that ever true. Objective-C and OpenStep was my first OOP environment (still not quite as pure as Smalltalk, but a helluva lot closer than C++ or C#). Now, I'm learning .NET for a job I'm on. It's better than Delphi and C++, but I'm continually disgusted with how roundabout and inconsistent the whole thing is.
See sig.
Wow, a /. reader who knows the word "churlish." You must be over 12 years of age. That puts you in the minority. :-)
The only thing worse than the rabid anti-Microsoft zealots are the people who constantly complain about hypocrisy from "Slashdot," as if it were a monolithic opinion generator.
What? Fighting games, or your friends?
Zimmerman telegram. London. Telegraph line. 'Nuff said.
Mind you, I find absolutely *nothing* wrong with that. Nations are not individuals and follow a different set of goals and morals than those used in private life.
The politicians did that, not the military. In fact, once McNamara was out of the way and the military was given latitude in operations, things began going decisively against the NVA.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Which is part of the reason KDE and GNOME are so mediocre. Apple products have always been far more integrated, internally consistent, and thoughtful about giving the user reasonable access to OS features than Microsoft's slap-dash attempts. How anyone can think of Microsoft as the gold standard astonishes me.
Why is it that every Microsoft solution involves a "manager"? They never seem to get to the point and just fix a problem. Instead, we get these grandiose stacks of hierarchy. It's like the French government is behind every design decision.
Well, an awful lot of ISPs route across BellSouth lines and switches. I think that's the big fear. It's not technically reasonable though. And I tend to agree that the market would probably kill it before it got started, and certainly wouldn't let it last. Especially if they go for somebody like Google. Customers would be ourtraged.
I like to think of this as the "Bill O'Reilly comment generator." It's like he has this scorecard on his desk, with two columns: L and R. When he criticizes somebody or some idea on the Left, he puts a check in the L column. When he criticizes something on the Right, he puts a check in the R column. His statements at any given moment seem driven by a desire to make the columns match up.
...that we can't use it on Slashdot. This place needs a good cleaning.
Am I the only person tired of everybody both talking about, and believing in, "The Man"? Please. You'll have more impact with readers if you realize that 1968 is in the rear-view mirror.
I don't think that will ever happen because it doesn't suit the agenda of the anti-Diebold folks. Whether their machines are reliable or not, I don't know, but I get the feeling that this is just another of those "Ra Ra Ra, Go Team!" partisan issues. The truth isn't as important as "striking a blow" against your political enemies, real or imagined. Both Democrats and Republicans pick targets and go after them with religious zealotry for purely partisan reasons.
*Thwbpbpbpt*. Excuse me while I clean coffee off my monitor. Civil servants certainly run the show behind the scenes, but they do *anything* but "solve the problems." Mostly, they create problems in order to make themselves indispensible. And the politicians don't get "fame, glory, and attention." Politicians get the blame. They're nothing more than fall-guys for a run-amok bureaucracy.
I've often thought that this was the reason why we have so many "sciences" now: Military Science, Library Science, Political Science, Waste Management Science. There is a tendency in the West to label everything as a "science" in order to make people think more highly of your chosen path in life. I think it derives from a false understanding of science as "absolute truth" instead of a process for observing and recording apparent consistencies in the natural universe. Which is also the heart of the Evolution vs. Creationism debate, but that's a post for a different story. :-)
The story I had always heard was that it was created by a couple of Jewish kids as a reinterpretation of Christianity.
I was thinking porn traps with a case of the sniffles.
If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.