Sorry for my ignorance, but I fail to understand how Evolutionary Biology should even take any part in the name "Science". It continues to look solely upon the past and plausible past events, rather than upon there here-and-now with which the rest of Science is concerned. Can somebody please tell me specifically how studying past events will ever help quench anything but our own curiosity? What does Evolutionary Biology do to help our understanding of Nature as we see it?
Maybe it is my definition of science that needs an overhaul. I was always convinced that curiosity was only the passion behind science, not the purpose. That its vital purpose is to discover and outline the laws of Nature, thereby allowing us to engineer new ways to exploit those laws to make things a little more liveable. I just don't see any Science-Engineering connection to Evolutionary Biology...
While I completely understand your line of thought here, I think this is a slight loophole:
What you forget is that a computer is a physical entity. So are the electrons flowing through that computer. The electrical currents through a DSL/Cable line, modem, NIC, motherboard, CPU, RAM, harddrive, video card, and monitor are all physically bound. So, when looking at 'information' as an assembly of 1s and 0s (really just the presence and lack of electrical current, respectively), you can analogously compare software as a physical product; however, it's not a product consistent of protons, neutrons and electrons, but a product assembled from the presence and lack of electrical current. It's all just like books on a shelf, just books with ink made of electrical currents, paper made of computer hardware, and bookshelves made of network servers. Therefore, one can't really argue that you have any such 'virtual' presence in the first place, as all you are doing is sending and receiving physical information arranged into electrical currents, rather than subatomic particles.
LCDs have little quirky details about them though, like viewing angle restrictions (even if they are getting larger), refresh latency (again, getting quicker), contrast ratios, etc. It's not that LCD is a worse technology than CRT, it's just that LCD is a more complex techonology.
...as you probably want to get more people interested, right? i mean, it would only make sense, from a "civic-minded" point of view, to use your resources on students who actually need those kinds of interests/skills in this day and age, rather than those who are already excited about science/electronics/programming/robotics/etc.
true, High School students are very focused on good grades, the opposite sex and sociality. this dogged focus applies, however, exclusively to the "mainstream" High School students. others, not dissimilar to myself, are not so focused upon these things (maybe that's why i read/. every chance i get...). the question is, are you trying to get the "mainstream" students' attention, in order to interest them in IT-related subjects? or are you simply attempting to rally nerds/geeks? i can tell you straight out, the former is alot harder than the latter.
aside from that, much depends strictly upon what part of the country you're trying to get at. here in NE, at least around Massachusetts, there are quite a few large and thriving science teams. combine that w/ the programming & electronics crowd, and you've got a pretty healthy group. i can't say a word about other parts of the nation, for obvious reasons. problem is, places like here, for sure, aren't you most prime targets, as you
the Japanese usually tend to be very liberally tech-savvy. it makes sense when you look at the fact that they really dont have much space to farm with. they have to depend upon engineering/manufacturing in order to compete in the world market.
and, as another slashdotter mentioned, we've got our space, theyve got their gadgets.
ok, first of all, Evolution is in itself an -ism. it is a sort of atheistic religion that fills in the gap for not having any kind of deity to explain things...well at least for as far back as evolution can go in time.
next:
THE SCIENCE YOU SPEAK OF IS ALL BASED ON FAITH IN THE FIRST PLACE! can we honestly say that this "reality", as we call it, is actually an absolute in and of itself? or is there an underlying, or overlying if anything, absolute that defines our very existence? if so, then science is NOT the basis of everything. in fact, science should NEVER be considered the basis of anything, it is merely an observation and analysis of what we can actually see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. there is NOTHING that we can possibly even try to observe that eludes all 5 senses. so what we cannot percieve, cannot be science, right? and you do agree that science can only be achieved by standing upon the sholders of those before us, yes? then someone, a long time ago, assumed that what they saw/heard/smelled/touched/tasted was what it was. science was built upon observations, and if observations are assumptions, then science must be in itself an elaborate assumption.
and also, in light of eternity, the time that the universe has existed shows up only as an infinitesimal blip. this sparks the realization of another couple things we cannot begin to comprehend due to our finite speck of knowledge: that which is infinite and/or infinitesimal. ......
but to return to the topic at hand: how were these fossils dated? how many samplings of the datings did they test? any other specifics?
The very reason of what I said is based in the fact that science doesnt necessarily give "easy" answers. Probably my unrefined approach to the topic threw you off of my meaning. Besides, what is it that is considered easy? Answers that fit one's previous paradigm? If so, then we are all guilty of bad science, as it is simple human nature to cling to one's "security blanket", if you will.
I may not be updated in the latest facts, and in fact, I am willing to admit that I am still very naive in my knowledge of the sciences, and wish to learn more. But one needs not chastize and tell me to do what I have already done.
"Ignorance is bliss but knowledge is the greatest reward you can ever get. It's up to you to choose which one you want. For the next few weeks, before going to sleep, go outside, watch the stars for an hour or two. Then look at your image in a mirror and ask yourself : who am I and what does God want me to do? Should I blindly believe what other people tell me or should I seek answers for myself? Look at your wife, your kids... If you look hard enough, maybe you'll begin to understand. The road to wisdom is hard, long and lonely. It is also really painful, sometimes. But in the end, if you can make it, you'll know who you really are. And this is priceless."
In these things I agree entirely with you. I only could wish that God had given me the gift of communication to show others that I do wish to attain the priceless riches of knowledge, before they express their misguided disapproval of my percieved ignorance. This is not the first time that this has happened, and I truly do hope to find a way around these misunderstandings.
Another thing: a deceptive book like The Watchtower should never be used as a guide, but rather, I use the true Word of God as a guide, looking forward to one day joining with God's infinite knowledge and wisdom which is of even more priceless value than the finite knowledge that Science has to offer. I do agree, however, that while we are still here, Science is the best place to look for the fulfilment of this hunger for knowledge, even if it is only able to partially fill that hunger due to its lack of infinite totality.
exactly what did happen? we may never know...in fact, i dont think it's at all possible to "know" exactly what did happen. but, despite the plethora of "evidence", one cant but help to consult anchient texts. they were the ones closer in time to those happenings, right? well, then maybe there actually was a flood. i mean, it would explain for alot of the deep earth wells that are still settling deeper, but should be much deeper had the earth really been so old. also, most fossils are easily explained due to the millions of tons of water pressure, not to mention the formation of the grand canyon. of course, a flood may suggest a young earth, due to the erosions that havent happened...but even that is speculative. really, all we can do is look at the facts of our current state, and make an assumption based upon them, so there really is no purely "scientific" way to do history. there will always be a bias firmly placed by initial orientations, just as Evolution pushes atheism, Creationism pushes theism. with that said, there really is no way to properly decide for everone which is correct. this is the exact reason why i feel deeply uneased at the development of Evolution accepted as "fact" among the scientific/educational ranks, despite the numerous holes and inconsistencies that are present, rather than placing the proper "Theory" label to it, as there is no way to prove history like the rest of science.
there may never be a settlement on this issue, but those are my 2 bits for now
w00t, FP... anyh00t, more on topic:
yeah, im sure all of us have some sort of enemy that picked on us for being that intellectually gifted kid on the block. sorta like a really cruel way to say "I told ya so!" (of course assuming your intellectual gifts followed through and actually DID achieve something)
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for my ignorance, but I fail to understand how Evolutionary Biology should even take any part in the name "Science". It continues to look solely upon the past and plausible past events, rather than upon there here-and-now with which the rest of Science is concerned. Can somebody please tell me specifically how studying past events will ever help quench anything but our own curiosity? What does Evolutionary Biology do to help our understanding of Nature as we see it?
Maybe it is my definition of science that needs an overhaul. I was always convinced that curiosity was only the passion behind science, not the purpose. That its vital purpose is to discover and outline the laws of Nature, thereby allowing us to engineer new ways to exploit those laws to make things a little more liveable. I just don't see any Science-Engineering connection to Evolutionary Biology...
While I completely understand your line of thought here, I think this is a slight loophole:
What you forget is that a computer is a physical entity. So are the electrons flowing through that computer. The electrical currents through a DSL/Cable line, modem, NIC, motherboard, CPU, RAM, harddrive, video card, and monitor are all physically bound. So, when looking at 'information' as an assembly of 1s and 0s (really just the presence and lack of electrical current, respectively), you can analogously compare software as a physical product; however, it's not a product consistent of protons, neutrons and electrons, but a product assembled from the presence and lack of electrical current. It's all just like books on a shelf, just books with ink made of electrical currents, paper made of computer hardware, and bookshelves made of network servers. Therefore, one can't really argue that you have any such 'virtual' presence in the first place, as all you are doing is sending and receiving physical information arranged into electrical currents, rather than subatomic particles.
LCDs have little quirky details about them though, like viewing angle restrictions (even if they are getting larger), refresh latency (again, getting quicker), contrast ratios, etc. It's not that LCD is a worse technology than CRT, it's just that LCD is a more complex techonology.
a y and SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_El ectron-emitter_Displays
What I'm iching to see hit my desktop are the newer technologies like FED (Field Emission Display) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_displ
what do you mean? we do have holographic displays (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40264 ,00.html) ...just none that are practical.
howd that get cut off?!? anyhow...
...as you probably want to get more people interested, right? i mean, it would only make sense, from a "civic-minded" point of view, to use your resources on students who actually need those kinds of interests/skills in this day and age, rather than those who are already excited about science/electronics/programming/robotics/etc.
true, High School students are very focused on good grades, the opposite sex and sociality. this dogged focus applies, however, exclusively to the "mainstream" High School students. others, not dissimilar to myself, are not so focused upon these things (maybe that's why i read /. every chance i get...). the question is, are you trying to get the "mainstream" students' attention, in order to interest them in IT-related subjects? or are you simply attempting to rally nerds/geeks? i can tell you straight out, the former is alot harder than the latter.
aside from that, much depends strictly upon what part of the country you're trying to get at. here in NE, at least around Massachusetts, there are quite a few large and thriving science teams. combine that w/ the programming & electronics crowd, and you've got a pretty healthy group. i can't say a word about other parts of the nation, for obvious reasons. problem is, places like here, for sure, aren't you most prime targets, as you
the Japanese usually tend to be very liberally tech-savvy. it makes sense when you look at the fact that they really dont have much space to farm with. they have to depend upon engineering/manufacturing in order to compete in the world market.
and, as another slashdotter mentioned, we've got our space, theyve got their gadgets.
ok, first of all, Evolution is in itself an -ism. it is a sort of atheistic religion that fills in the gap for not having any kind of deity to explain things...well at least for as far back as evolution can go in time.
......
next:
THE SCIENCE YOU SPEAK OF IS ALL BASED ON FAITH IN THE FIRST PLACE! can we honestly say that this "reality", as we call it, is actually an absolute in and of itself? or is there an underlying, or overlying if anything, absolute that defines our very existence? if so, then science is NOT the basis of everything. in fact, science should NEVER be considered the basis of anything, it is merely an observation and analysis of what we can actually see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. there is NOTHING that we can possibly even try to observe that eludes all 5 senses. so what we cannot percieve, cannot be science, right? and you do agree that science can only be achieved by standing upon the sholders of those before us, yes? then someone, a long time ago, assumed that what they saw/heard/smelled/touched/tasted was what it was. science was built upon observations, and if observations are assumptions, then science must be in itself an elaborate assumption.
and also, in light of eternity, the time that the universe has existed shows up only as an infinitesimal blip. this sparks the realization of another couple things we cannot begin to comprehend due to our finite speck of knowledge: that which is infinite and/or infinitesimal.
but to return to the topic at hand: how were these fossils dated? how many samplings of the datings did they test? any other specifics?
The very reason of what I said is based in the fact that science doesnt necessarily give "easy" answers. Probably my unrefined approach to the topic threw you off of my meaning. Besides, what is it that is considered easy? Answers that fit one's previous paradigm? If so, then we are all guilty of bad science, as it is simple human nature to cling to one's "security blanket", if you will.
I may not be updated in the latest facts, and in fact, I am willing to admit that I am still very naive in my knowledge of the sciences, and wish to learn more. But one needs not chastize and tell me to do what I have already done.
"Ignorance is bliss but knowledge is the greatest reward you can ever get. It's up to you to choose which one you want. For the next few weeks, before going to sleep, go outside, watch the stars for an hour or two. Then look at your image in a mirror and ask yourself : who am I and what does God want me to do? Should I blindly believe what other people tell me or should I seek answers for myself? Look at your wife, your kids... If you look hard enough, maybe you'll begin to understand. The road to wisdom is hard, long and lonely. It is also really painful, sometimes. But in the end, if you can make it, you'll know who you really are. And this is priceless."
In these things I agree entirely with you. I only could wish that God had given me the gift of communication to show others that I do wish to attain the priceless riches of knowledge, before they express their misguided disapproval of my percieved ignorance. This is not the first time that this has happened, and I truly do hope to find a way around these misunderstandings.
Another thing: a deceptive book like The Watchtower should never be used as a guide, but rather, I use the true Word of God as a guide, looking forward to one day joining with God's infinite knowledge and wisdom which is of even more priceless value than the finite knowledge that Science has to offer. I do agree, however, that while we are still here, Science is the best place to look for the fulfilment of this hunger for knowledge, even if it is only able to partially fill that hunger due to its lack of infinite totality.
exactly what did happen? we may never know...in fact, i dont think it's at all possible to "know" exactly what did happen. but, despite the plethora of "evidence", one cant but help to consult anchient texts. they were the ones closer in time to those happenings, right? well, then maybe there actually was a flood. i mean, it would explain for alot of the deep earth wells that are still settling deeper, but should be much deeper had the earth really been so old. also, most fossils are easily explained due to the millions of tons of water pressure, not to mention the formation of the grand canyon. of course, a flood may suggest a young earth, due to the erosions that havent happened...but even that is speculative. really, all we can do is look at the facts of our current state, and make an assumption based upon them, so there really is no purely "scientific" way to do history. there will always be a bias firmly placed by initial orientations, just as Evolution pushes atheism, Creationism pushes theism. with that said, there really is no way to properly decide for everone which is correct. this is the exact reason why i feel deeply uneased at the development of Evolution accepted as "fact" among the scientific/educational ranks, despite the numerous holes and inconsistencies that are present, rather than placing the proper "Theory" label to it, as there is no way to prove history like the rest of science.
there may never be a settlement on this issue, but those are my 2 bits for now
mass newyorkers rooting for the Red Sox?
w00t, FP... anyh00t, more on topic: yeah, im sure all of us have some sort of enemy that picked on us for being that intellectually gifted kid on the block. sorta like a really cruel way to say "I told ya so!" (of course assuming your intellectual gifts followed through and actually DID achieve something)