I think you misunderstood the meaning of the post I linked to. A couple of the comments summarize the meaning:
"Knowledge and experience cannot be transfered forcibly, or imposed on others. There is no weapon, argument or brainwashing that can force anyone to learn or know anything (cf. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning). Because we are experiencing an objective reality, no one can claim exclusive insight into reality that others cannot access. If I believe God is speaking to me, then others must be able to verify whether or not it is true through the exact same mechanism. This should, ideally, prevent the type of problems you bring up."
Also, another commenter stated: "[The author] said, 'before I can claim experience with God in a rational way, it must be independently verified by the personal experiences of others. This verification happens through a rational, logical discourse, which of necessity cannot happen until those involved have had similar experiences on which to base their conversation.'
"What this means is that before two people can have a rational, logical discourse (again, those words must be interpreted in light of [the author's] entire post) they both must separately have personal experiences with God. So, I have had personal experiences with God similar to what [the author] has had, therefore we can have rational, logical discourses about God. Through this discourse we can verify, through a process of 'objective checks and balances' that both of our experiences are valid (or not valid). This is a process that is repeatable between other people, which adds to evidence for or against our knowledge.
"Essentially all [the author] said is that two people cannot both talk about how fun Disneyland is without both having actually experienced Disneyland personally. Or, two people cannot talk rationally and logically about the taste of oranges if both have not tasted oranges."
In my view evidence depends on experience. "Experience" and "experiment" come from the same root. I'd argue that knowledge based on experience is thus emipircally-derived and empirical knowledge (empiricism is part of the scientific method but it not the entirety of the scientific method). This is not to discount the roles of logic and reasoning (which are also used with the scientific method) but we cannot discount experience or even intuition.
None of what I have said or nothing in that post I linked to was about providing philosophical justifications for feelings, it's about providing the philosophical framework in which others will accept the evidence for the existence of God (or that not all religion is human made). Without the acceptance of that framework then most discussions of evidence are fruitless. There are not valid and really good philosophical arguments for the existence of God; such an approach will always fall short (this goes the other way, there also are not valid, really good philosophical arguments against the existence of God).
I know I talked about philosophy a lot but this isn't about philosophy, it's about whether or not there is good, reproducible evidence for God. But whether or not you accept that evidence depends on your acceptance of a way of knowing that is broader than our scientific method (I said broader, not mutually exclusive of the scientific method). Anyway, I know my initial reply went beyond what you said but I was also responding to the broader discussion on this story.
Actually, I don't have any philosophical arguments for the existence of God. My evidence comes from personal experience, which is testable and repeatable (even by you). There's nothing I can say that will convince you if you have not also had some of those personal experiences. Yes, by using the scientific method I cannot produce any testable or repeatable evidence for the existence of God but that is because of the limits of our scientific method (this gets into the philosophy of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science and epistemology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology).We have to recognize that our methods of science limit the questions we are able to address. Science does not have a monopoly on truth or knowledge.
When I'm talking about proofs I'm not talking about arguments for the existence of God, I'm talking about actual experience with him. Every logical argument for or against the existence of God falls short. Yes, some are logically valid but all are incomplete. That's why you will never find a good argument for the existence of God, that's not how you decide if he exists or not.
The problem with emphasizing science and discounting religion so much is then you have to use science to give supporting evidence for or against your statements. You said, "Religion is entirely a human creation" but you have no evidence of that. You don't take such a hard stance in the rest of your paragraph but it is an indefensible stance to state a categorical negative like "God does not exist" or "Religion is entirely a human creation."
I cannot prove to you that God exists or that religion is not just a creation of humans (many of them certainly are though) but that does not mean that there is not evidence the He exists.
Exactly. People have been arguing for thousands of years that there are too many people - Malthus didn't originate the cry for population control - and yet somehow we as humans always seem to adapt. Yes, there are wars and famines (famines are usually caused by politics more than weather or climate) but people progress and innovate and adapt. China's restrictions on the number of children allowed is going to be a huge problem pretty soon (within the next 50 years). I'm not saying we should have kids without thinking about if we can personally support the children but there are many ways to feed everyone just fine (e.g., http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/is-the-world-re/). Yes, it will have a cost but so does everything.
People have been predicting a big California earthquake for many years. Yes, it'll happen at some point but if you're really worried about it then don't live in California (or the Pacific Northwest).
Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard his reasoning and I admit I was in the group who was criticizing him. His solution does seem like the only reasonable one in light of the legislature's actions. Thanks again for sharing that explanation.
Not at all. The LDS Church does not lead any politics in Utah. The Church itself becomes involved in very few political matters, and only when they have moral implications.
Most of the protests are over the fact that the bill was introduced, passed, and signed within a few days before anyone else really was able to read it. Plus, you add on top of that the fact that the bill looks like a "secrecy bill" and it's a recipe for people protesting what looks like the heavy hand of government trying to hide its actions. You don't, as the governor said, pass a bill then sort it out. Sort it out first, then pass it, then tweak it as needed. Give time for people to engage in dialogue. I'm not saying politicians need to do everything their constituents say - we're not a simple democracy - but politicians don't help themselves when it looks like they are hiding things.
That's not how politics works in Utah. The LDS Church voices its opinion in very, very few matters. On a recent one, the LDS Church hinted at not being in favor of harsh anti-illegal immigrant policies that would break up families, at least policies done at the state level yet Utah is moving towards an immigration policy similar to Arizona's. The LDS Church does not dictate politics in Utah. A number of the legislators are LDS but they certainly don't report to church leaders about political matters.
Yes. It's already in the works as are court challenges and a lot of contact of representatives. Why this even passed baffles me but politicians do inexplicable things all the time.
I have yet to meet someone in Utah (other than politicians) who likes this law that was passed. Utah politics gets a lot of things right (IMO) but this was not one of them. This bill will not last long as passed. It should not have been passed but it will be changed or removed later.
No, you just have massive spinning blades come falling out of the sky on people instead.;) You pointed out the main downside of nuclear power but the question is do the risks outweigh the benefits, especially with new, safer nuclear plants (than the one(s) having problems in Japan)?
That's because China calls themselves that but really is not one; well, they are slowly working towards one. The problem with China stems from their organization of the government. In the U.S. the "compound" part is based on democratic principles including liberty; in China, their republic is based on Communistic ideology (in part, having a government headed by a dictator and a one party system) and socialistic philosophy. China has been changing over the years though. So yes, the differences between the U.S.'s republic and the Chinese republic are great because of the implementations of republican (not the party) principles (democracy vs. communism). That still doesn't make the U.S. a representative democracy, it's just that that is the basis upon which our constitutional republic is built.
Exactly. Some people are getting upset without realizing that all the bill is doing is trying to make sure Utah students are taught properly about the U.S. government as well as about all other major forms of political and economic ideologies.
Actually it was about accuracy. That was a selective quote taken from a lot of things the state Senator said about the bill. The SL Tribune is an okay paper, it's just biased against Utah Republicans (I'm not saying that's bad - there are other papers that are generally supportive of Utah Republicans - but you can't take what's reported at face value {regardless of the source}).
You are correct but even in the article you linked to we read: "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered." In other words, a compound constitutional republic, which is what this Utah bill calls the U.S. So calling the U.S. a representative democracy is accurate, it's just not the most accurate. A modified (compound) constitutional republic is the best term. Yes, it's largely semantics but the fine distinctions are important.
That's not the reason they passed this bill. That's just one of the things that the state Senator said among many other things about the bill. The SL Tribune, while a decent newspaper, is not usually very favorable towards Republicans in Utah. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, you just have to realize that this is a quote taken completely out of context. It was only one of the rationales for the bill. Besides, it is true - many places do teach socialist policies as part of their education curriculum (I got it in some of my classes in middle and high school, not that I cared). We also teach capitalism via some curriculum as well.
Actually, the iPad generally has the fanciest screen. It's an IPS screen whereas I don't believe any of the other tablets are (I tried to find about the Xoom but Motorola didn't say). You also can't compare the RAM of the original iPad to the tablets that are just coming out now; besides, the RAM differences in cost are negligible. It's not about hardware feature differences, it's about supply. Apple designed their own processor (basically) and has all the agreements to get parts at really good prices. It's not that other companies are using much better parts than Apple (they are not), they are just using more expensive (i.e., Apple gets the good discount, other companies don't) parts.
That's because it's for the magazine Fast Company (I used to get it for free for some reason but thankfully it's stopped coming), which is geared towards entrepreneurs (it's not a particularly good magazine).
The thing we have to remember is that "anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite"-ism is != anti-science. There might be a correlation between those who are anti-science and those who are anti-intellectualism and the rest but I know a number of very good scientists who could be considered anti-intellectualism. Intellectualism generally (not always but generally) includes a disdain for less intellectual methods of knowledge. It places the intellect (rationalism, if you will) as the best (and maybe even only) way to discover knowledge. I could go on but you can be a scientist and not hold to all the other scientific elitism stuff.
The NYT article does a good job of displaying some of this elitism. For example, "Opposing the belief that global warming is human-caused has become systematic, like opposition to abortion,' [Weiss] says. 'It’s seen as another way for government to control people’s lives. It’s become a cultural issue." Sure, this quote is out of context but many of the AGW critics (deniers exist but they are a vocal minority) simply state that not all global warming (is it global warming or climate change?) is caused by humans. Isn't this a rational questioning of the science? This should drive (and has driven) scientists to demonstrate the reliability of their findings. The problem is that people who question AGW are called "deniers" without much thought taken for their arguments or lack thereof. A lot of people have very serious questions about global warming science, as they should - it's the kind of science that has huge political, social, and economic consequences. Many are simply opposed to governments imposing penalties and would rather the free(ish) market to decide. If enough people value green technologies then the markets will go that way eventually. I'm not arguing either way with my post, I'm merely pointing out that many of the oppositions to AGW are in fact opposition to political policy and not the science per se. Further, including abortion in with AGW is a cheap shot because being opposed to or in favor of abortion is about moral values, not science.
Anyway, the NYT article's author makes a number of good points (particularly that conservatives and liberals both have issues with science) but she doesn't even begin to get at the root of why so many people on all sides of the political spectrum might have issues with science: most people don't understand science. What's even ironic is that a lot of scientists do not understand science. They might understand how to do science but they do not understand science. Science is, after all, one way to discover facts. Facts are discovered (actually they are made - mauFACTured; fact comes from the Latin facio, facere, and factum {essentially the same word, just different forms}). However, facts are discovered through the biases of the methods (study epistemology and the philosophy of science for more on this) and the biases of the scientists. Facts also are != truth. Facts might be true but truth is independent from facts. People's biases strongly affect the research being conducted (by affecting what people choose to study or by affecting the funding or not funding of specific studies) as well as that being published (file drawer effect of research - in short, journals don't like publishing studies that fail to show anything seemingly meaningful but maybe the lack of a finding is what is meaningful). We were recently able to get an article published in which we had a null result only because it contradicted common beliefs in the medical field. Otherwise, our lack of results would not have been published.
I know how scientific journals work. The peer review process is sometimes a joke. People accept or don't accept work based on what they know. Sometimes what they know is wrong so articles can get rejected or accepted based on bad knowledge or assumptions of a reviewer. My research interests go against some of the conventional wisdom in my field precisely because I think most previous researchers have foc
The iPad has a worse screen than a Kindle? You need a qualifier on your statement. The iPad's screen is top quality. If you have any pictures in a textbook, the iPad is better. If you just have text and maybe a few equations, then the Kindle is great. If you have any interactivity to a textbook, the iPad will be better. Battery life shouldn't be much of an issue. If the iPad's battery is low, just bring its (very compact) charger with you and plug it in somewhere on campus, unless that happens to be illegal in Australia. iPad's do get 10 hours of battery life with normal usage, which is enough to get you through a day or two or three of school work.
Sure, some people purchase Apple products because of the hipness factor but many of us (scientists) purchase them because they are better than Windows and Linux based computers for our research. I can use Linux for most of the stuff I do research-wise but there are a number of research tools that I use that are Mac specific (and comparable ones for Windows or Linux are not comparable in actual usability or utility).
A lot of people also purchase Apple products because they do generally "just work."
If they also happen to be cool and hip, that's just an added bonus.
Additionally, I find it actually a pleasure to use a Mac. I have a nice GUI, I have a nice and usable CLI, and I have a lot of bundled and often used software. We cannot discount the costs of the software that Macs include. So while I enjoy using Macs, using Windows is not a pleasure, although Windows 7 is alright.
Disclaimer: I was using Apple products long before they were hip and cool (the 80s and 90s). Well, they were sort of cool in the 80s but not really in the 90s. I do own a Windows / dual boot Linux system (recently built because I couldn't afford a Mac; although, even if I could have afforded a Mac I might still have built this computer because I like to have a Windows computer around, especially one with a really nice graphics card for gaming) as well as a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstood the meaning of the post I linked to. A couple of the comments summarize the meaning:
"Knowledge and experience cannot be transfered forcibly, or imposed on others. There is no weapon, argument or brainwashing that can force anyone to learn or know anything (cf. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning). Because we are experiencing an objective reality, no one can claim exclusive insight into reality that others cannot access. If I believe God is speaking to me, then others must be able to verify whether or not it is true through the exact same mechanism. This should, ideally, prevent the type of problems you bring up."
Also, another commenter stated: "[The author] said, 'before I can claim experience with God in a rational way, it must be independently verified by the personal experiences of others. This verification happens through a rational, logical discourse, which of necessity cannot happen until those involved have had similar experiences on which to base their conversation.'
"What this means is that before two people can have a rational, logical discourse (again, those words must be interpreted in light of [the author's] entire post) they both must separately have personal experiences with God. So, I have had personal experiences with God similar to what [the author] has had, therefore we can have rational, logical discourses about God. Through this discourse we can verify, through a process of 'objective checks and balances' that both of our experiences are valid (or not valid). This is a process that is repeatable between other people, which adds to evidence for or against our knowledge.
"Essentially all [the author] said is that two people cannot both talk about how fun Disneyland is without both having actually experienced Disneyland personally. Or, two people cannot talk rationally and logically about the taste of oranges if both have not tasted oranges."
In my view evidence depends on experience. "Experience" and "experiment" come from the same root. I'd argue that knowledge based on experience is thus emipircally-derived and empirical knowledge (empiricism is part of the scientific method but it not the entirety of the scientific method). This is not to discount the roles of logic and reasoning (which are also used with the scientific method) but we cannot discount experience or even intuition.
None of what I have said or nothing in that post I linked to was about providing philosophical justifications for feelings, it's about providing the philosophical framework in which others will accept the evidence for the existence of God (or that not all religion is human made). Without the acceptance of that framework then most discussions of evidence are fruitless. There are not valid and really good philosophical arguments for the existence of God; such an approach will always fall short (this goes the other way, there also are not valid, really good philosophical arguments against the existence of God).
I know I talked about philosophy a lot but this isn't about philosophy, it's about whether or not there is good, reproducible evidence for God. But whether or not you accept that evidence depends on your acceptance of a way of knowing that is broader than our scientific method (I said broader, not mutually exclusive of the scientific method). Anyway, I know my initial reply went beyond what you said but I was also responding to the broader discussion on this story.
Actually, I don't have any philosophical arguments for the existence of God. My evidence comes from personal experience, which is testable and repeatable (even by you). There's nothing I can say that will convince you if you have not also had some of those personal experiences. Yes, by using the scientific method I cannot produce any testable or repeatable evidence for the existence of God but that is because of the limits of our scientific method (this gets into the philosophy of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science and epistemology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology).We have to recognize that our methods of science limit the questions we are able to address. Science does not have a monopoly on truth or knowledge.
When I'm talking about proofs I'm not talking about arguments for the existence of God, I'm talking about actual experience with him. Every logical argument for or against the existence of God falls short. Yes, some are logically valid but all are incomplete. That's why you will never find a good argument for the existence of God, that's not how you decide if he exists or not.
Here's a long LDS (Mormon) answer to your question but it covers many of the philosophical and religious answers to the question: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=100&chapid=1111
The problem with emphasizing science and discounting religion so much is then you have to use science to give supporting evidence for or against your statements. You said, "Religion is entirely a human creation" but you have no evidence of that. You don't take such a hard stance in the rest of your paragraph but it is an indefensible stance to state a categorical negative like "God does not exist" or "Religion is entirely a human creation."
On the other hand, I do have evidence that God exists but whether or not you will accept that evidence depends on your experience with that evidence. For more about what I really mean, read this post: http://www.theeternaluniverse.com/2011/02/everyday-philosophy-epistemological.html
I cannot prove to you that God exists or that religion is not just a creation of humans (many of them certainly are though) but that does not mean that there is not evidence the He exists.
Exactly. People have been arguing for thousands of years that there are too many people - Malthus didn't originate the cry for population control - and yet somehow we as humans always seem to adapt. Yes, there are wars and famines (famines are usually caused by politics more than weather or climate) but people progress and innovate and adapt. China's restrictions on the number of children allowed is going to be a huge problem pretty soon (within the next 50 years). I'm not saying we should have kids without thinking about if we can personally support the children but there are many ways to feed everyone just fine (e.g., http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/is-the-world-re/). Yes, it will have a cost but so does everything.
Geologists also believed a 9.0 earthquake virtually impossible from the location where the Japanese earthquake happened: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/japan-earthquake-surpise/
People have been predicting a big California earthquake for many years. Yes, it'll happen at some point but if you're really worried about it then don't live in California (or the Pacific Northwest).
Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard his reasoning and I admit I was in the group who was criticizing him. His solution does seem like the only reasonable one in light of the legislature's actions. Thanks again for sharing that explanation.
Exactly my thoughts. Logic, logic, logic, then throw all that logic out the window.
Not at all. The LDS Church does not lead any politics in Utah. The Church itself becomes involved in very few political matters, and only when they have moral implications.
Most of the protests are over the fact that the bill was introduced, passed, and signed within a few days before anyone else really was able to read it. Plus, you add on top of that the fact that the bill looks like a "secrecy bill" and it's a recipe for people protesting what looks like the heavy hand of government trying to hide its actions. You don't, as the governor said, pass a bill then sort it out. Sort it out first, then pass it, then tweak it as needed. Give time for people to engage in dialogue. I'm not saying politicians need to do everything their constituents say - we're not a simple democracy - but politicians don't help themselves when it looks like they are hiding things.
That's not how politics works in Utah. The LDS Church voices its opinion in very, very few matters. On a recent one, the LDS Church hinted at not being in favor of harsh anti-illegal immigrant policies that would break up families, at least policies done at the state level yet Utah is moving towards an immigration policy similar to Arizona's. The LDS Church does not dictate politics in Utah. A number of the legislators are LDS but they certainly don't report to church leaders about political matters.
Yes. It's already in the works as are court challenges and a lot of contact of representatives. Why this even passed baffles me but politicians do inexplicable things all the time.
I have yet to meet someone in Utah (other than politicians) who likes this law that was passed. Utah politics gets a lot of things right (IMO) but this was not one of them. This bill will not last long as passed. It should not have been passed but it will be changed or removed later.
No, you just have massive spinning blades come falling out of the sky on people instead. ;) You pointed out the main downside of nuclear power but the question is do the risks outweigh the benefits, especially with new, safer nuclear plants (than the one(s) having problems in Japan)?
That's because China calls themselves that but really is not one; well, they are slowly working towards one. The problem with China stems from their organization of the government. In the U.S. the "compound" part is based on democratic principles including liberty; in China, their republic is based on Communistic ideology (in part, having a government headed by a dictator and a one party system) and socialistic philosophy. China has been changing over the years though. So yes, the differences between the U.S.'s republic and the Chinese republic are great because of the implementations of republican (not the party) principles (democracy vs. communism). That still doesn't make the U.S. a representative democracy, it's just that that is the basis upon which our constitutional republic is built.
Exactly. Some people are getting upset without realizing that all the bill is doing is trying to make sure Utah students are taught properly about the U.S. government as well as about all other major forms of political and economic ideologies.
Actually it was about accuracy. That was a selective quote taken from a lot of things the state Senator said about the bill. The SL Tribune is an okay paper, it's just biased against Utah Republicans (I'm not saying that's bad - there are other papers that are generally supportive of Utah Republicans - but you can't take what's reported at face value {regardless of the source}).
You are correct but even in the article you linked to we read: "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered." In other words, a compound constitutional republic, which is what this Utah bill calls the U.S. So calling the U.S. a representative democracy is accurate, it's just not the most accurate. A modified (compound) constitutional republic is the best term. Yes, it's largely semantics but the fine distinctions are important.
That's not the reason they passed this bill. That's just one of the things that the state Senator said among many other things about the bill. The SL Tribune, while a decent newspaper, is not usually very favorable towards Republicans in Utah. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, you just have to realize that this is a quote taken completely out of context. It was only one of the rationales for the bill. Besides, it is true - many places do teach socialist policies as part of their education curriculum (I got it in some of my classes in middle and high school, not that I cared). We also teach capitalism via some curriculum as well.
Actually, the iPad generally has the fanciest screen. It's an IPS screen whereas I don't believe any of the other tablets are (I tried to find about the Xoom but Motorola didn't say). You also can't compare the RAM of the original iPad to the tablets that are just coming out now; besides, the RAM differences in cost are negligible. It's not about hardware feature differences, it's about supply. Apple designed their own processor (basically) and has all the agreements to get parts at really good prices. It's not that other companies are using much better parts than Apple (they are not), they are just using more expensive (i.e., Apple gets the good discount, other companies don't) parts.
That's because it's for the magazine Fast Company (I used to get it for free for some reason but thankfully it's stopped coming), which is geared towards entrepreneurs (it's not a particularly good magazine).
The thing we have to remember is that "anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite"-ism is != anti-science. There might be a correlation between those who are anti-science and those who are anti-intellectualism and the rest but I know a number of very good scientists who could be considered anti-intellectualism. Intellectualism generally (not always but generally) includes a disdain for less intellectual methods of knowledge. It places the intellect (rationalism, if you will) as the best (and maybe even only) way to discover knowledge. I could go on but you can be a scientist and not hold to all the other scientific elitism stuff.
The NYT article does a good job of displaying some of this elitism. For example, "Opposing the belief that global warming is human-caused has become systematic, like opposition to abortion,' [Weiss] says. 'It’s seen as another way for government to control people’s lives. It’s become a cultural issue." Sure, this quote is out of context but many of the AGW critics (deniers exist but they are a vocal minority) simply state that not all global warming (is it global warming or climate change?) is caused by humans. Isn't this a rational questioning of the science? This should drive (and has driven) scientists to demonstrate the reliability of their findings. The problem is that people who question AGW are called "deniers" without much thought taken for their arguments or lack thereof. A lot of people have very serious questions about global warming science, as they should - it's the kind of science that has huge political, social, and economic consequences. Many are simply opposed to governments imposing penalties and would rather the free(ish) market to decide. If enough people value green technologies then the markets will go that way eventually. I'm not arguing either way with my post, I'm merely pointing out that many of the oppositions to AGW are in fact opposition to political policy and not the science per se. Further, including abortion in with AGW is a cheap shot because being opposed to or in favor of abortion is about moral values, not science.
Anyway, the NYT article's author makes a number of good points (particularly that conservatives and liberals both have issues with science) but she doesn't even begin to get at the root of why so many people on all sides of the political spectrum might have issues with science: most people don't understand science. What's even ironic is that a lot of scientists do not understand science. They might understand how to do science but they do not understand science. Science is, after all, one way to discover facts. Facts are discovered (actually they are made - mauFACTured; fact comes from the Latin facio, facere, and factum {essentially the same word, just different forms}). However, facts are discovered through the biases of the methods (study epistemology and the philosophy of science for more on this) and the biases of the scientists. Facts also are != truth. Facts might be true but truth is independent from facts. People's biases strongly affect the research being conducted (by affecting what people choose to study or by affecting the funding or not funding of specific studies) as well as that being published (file drawer effect of research - in short, journals don't like publishing studies that fail to show anything seemingly meaningful but maybe the lack of a finding is what is meaningful). We were recently able to get an article published in which we had a null result only because it contradicted common beliefs in the medical field. Otherwise, our lack of results would not have been published.
I know how scientific journals work. The peer review process is sometimes a joke. People accept or don't accept work based on what they know. Sometimes what they know is wrong so articles can get rejected or accepted based on bad knowledge or assumptions of a reviewer. My research interests go against some of the conventional wisdom in my field precisely because I think most previous researchers have foc
The iPad has a worse screen than a Kindle? You need a qualifier on your statement. The iPad's screen is top quality. If you have any pictures in a textbook, the iPad is better. If you just have text and maybe a few equations, then the Kindle is great. If you have any interactivity to a textbook, the iPad will be better. Battery life shouldn't be much of an issue. If the iPad's battery is low, just bring its (very compact) charger with you and plug it in somewhere on campus, unless that happens to be illegal in Australia. iPad's do get 10 hours of battery life with normal usage, which is enough to get you through a day or two or three of school work.
Sure, some people purchase Apple products because of the hipness factor but many of us (scientists) purchase them because they are better than Windows and Linux based computers for our research. I can use Linux for most of the stuff I do research-wise but there are a number of research tools that I use that are Mac specific (and comparable ones for Windows or Linux are not comparable in actual usability or utility).
A lot of people also purchase Apple products because they do generally "just work."
If they also happen to be cool and hip, that's just an added bonus.
Additionally, I find it actually a pleasure to use a Mac. I have a nice GUI, I have a nice and usable CLI, and I have a lot of bundled and often used software. We cannot discount the costs of the software that Macs include. So while I enjoy using Macs, using Windows is not a pleasure, although Windows 7 is alright. Disclaimer: I was using Apple products long before they were hip and cool (the 80s and 90s). Well, they were sort of cool in the 80s but not really in the 90s. I do own a Windows / dual boot Linux system (recently built because I couldn't afford a Mac; although, even if I could have afforded a Mac I might still have built this computer because I like to have a Windows computer around, especially one with a really nice graphics card for gaming) as well as a Mac.