If the greater society thinks enslaving people with dark skin is a-okay, lo and behold religion comes to the society's aid with all sorts of deified justifications for that. When the society decides that slavery isn't so good any more, suddenly, religion is invoked to demonstrate the wrongness of slavery. IF history should tell us anything, it's that religion is useless at getting people to do the right thing, it's just good at getting people to do the currently popular thing.
That was probably the worst example you could pick. The abolition of slavery in both America and England is an example of religious people changing something that was contrary to their religion, but generally had popular support. Secular support of abolition was a relatively recent development after the fact.
Evolution is a fact. It can be tested in a laboratory. Unless you don't believe in things like tuberculosis, drug resistant tuberculosis actually. We can evolve bacteria easily. There is solid evidence in the fossil record, in the linkage between DNA sets, in fucking DOG BREEDS.
"Evolution" is neither a theory or a fact. It is shorthand for a group of theories such a Darwinism and Neodarwinism, including sub-theories and modifications such as Punctuated Equalibrium, that describe attempt to offer theoretical models for the observed facts. Facts are things directly measured or observed, including observations of existent life forms, and the known fossil record. Everything that is an interpretation of these facts is a theory. These theories include good ones and bad ones. I think "young-earth" creationist science is completely comprised of bad theories, but they are still theories. And no theory can ever become a fact.
It is not open for debate, it is not one of several competing theories, it is the ONLY theory there is for the existence of life and how it got to where we are today. There are no other theories. I am using the PROPER usage of the term here. Why this is something people have to argue about is beyond me.
No, you are not using the proper usage. There ARE competing evolutionary theories, and there have been since Darwin. Furthermore, NO theory of evolution is a theory for the existence of life! Finally, if you're talking about something that is not open for debate, then you are NOT talking about science.
GUILTY: standard error of assuming that a scientific theory is a speculation, conjecture or guess.
A scientific theory is a logically consistent framework for testable hypotheses. Evolutionary theory is a FACT, just like gravitational theory is a FACT, just like germ theory of disease is a FACT.
This is incorrect. Your definition of a theory is fine, but a FACT is something directly observable or measurable. There is ALWAYS room for multiple theories -- multiple theories of evolution, multiple theories of gravity, etc.
I agree. These generic solutions being proposed here will not work for everyone. Every "genius" is different. Some of them need a lot of help, others only a little, just like every non-genius. To give each kid the best education possible for him, you've got to first figure out what the best education is FOR HIM. And yes, that means the parents have to figure it out and then implement it! We're currently home schooling our three that are old enough for school. We re-analyze the needs of each of them every year. But it seems like the exception rather than the rule, for the best environment for any given child to be the extreme social setting of most public and private schools, especially large ones.
whereas the guy everyone regards as the dumber candidate is trustworthy and strong.
No, I think everyone voted for who they thought was the smarter candidate. The problem with Gore and Kerry was NOT that anybody thought they were too smart. The problem (among other things) was that they both gave the very strong impression that they believed themselves to be too smart. Especially Gore, who really killed himself his smirking and eye rolling during the debates.
First of all, even if you filled up the enormous below-sea-level areas of dead sea valley and the death valley with ocean water, the change in sea level would be fairly insignificant. Anyway, the rate of sea level rise is, for lack of a better word, glacial. Beach erosion and hurricanes will be a much larger problem for most coastal cities than other sea level change -- unless an incredibly massive volcano erupts under Antarctica. One day, we'll get as smart as the ancients were, and we'll stop building cities on coasts. (Granted, they had much greater, and much more sudden sea level rises to deal with.)
The intent is to detect any change in ocean circulation that may adversely influence global climate.
How would they discriminate between adverse and beneficial changes?
Haven't you heard? All change is adverse. Change that hurts humans is bad because it hurts the oppressed, and change that helps humans is bad because it helps the oppressors. Welcome to the 21st century, it's stranger than fiction.
The underlying assumption that these effects have some significant correlation to long-term memory in humans is questionable. Rats are fantastic for testing physiological responses to drugs, as most the involved systems operate similarly. Low level CNS stuff, which may be involved here, is good too. But things touching on consciousness -- like conscious memory, as opposed to conditioned reactions, should not be assumed to have any correlation to experiments like these.
Global warming theories aren't based merely on the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature. They're based on fundamental science and complicated models. The fundamental science has been known for over 100 years - complicated models weren't necessary for that. The complicated models are necessary to determine the scope of the greenhouse gas phenomenon (feedback cycles, etc., are non-linear and hence can be very difficult to predict with detail).
No, the AGW theory is based entirely on the tenuous idea that increased CO2 increases temperatures. All the models the IPCC uses are based upon that idea. If that idea is wrong, then all those models are useless. (At it is challenging, to say the least, to explain the ice core data while holding to that idea.)
Not to be elitist, but do you really think you could effectively review the data? I sure as hell couldn't. Which is not to say it should be kept secret, simply that it may not be that urgent to make the raw data hyper-available to every guy on the street. As long as interested scientists - regardless of their previous conclusions or political leanings - can get the raw data when they want to review it, I think the process should work fine.
As long as there is this kind of fear of science, anything can be passed off as scientific truth for any end, without anyone daring to check it or challenge it. Don't be afraid! Download some ice core data today! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.htm l
Because so many people lack the highly specialized knowledge to make sense of the raw data, there are two types of information that are far more important to make widely available: 1) Education on how to be a climate scientist and 2) The conclusions that qualified climate scientists have reached.
Also, please don't think about religious matters. There are only two things you need to know, 1) How you could become a priest and 2) Conclusions that the ordained priesthood has reached.
If the raw data is publicly available, it will give the people who want to deny basic science more ammunition for their inane babblings.
What you're talking about, "secret science," is science as cult, science as political power, science as hermetic knowledge, ANYTHING but science as science. Real science has nothing to hide.
For all I know, most of the models cited by the IPCC are TOP SECRET, but if you want actual data for studying climate change, most of the ice core data is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.htm l Tree ring data is also available, but conclusions draw from that are more questionable.
Yes. Check out the Publications section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Web site.
According to this article in Scientific American ($), they've come to the conclusion with 80% certainty that global climate change is not only real, but is caused by human activities. They're new 2007 assessment report isn't on the website yet, but it is discussed in SciAm, so it should be there shortly, I believe. Methodologies are discussed pretty well in the SciAm piece.
Yeah, the best of luck to anyone trying to find actual methodology on the IPCC site. Seriously, please post if you find it. I do know how they came to that 80% figure -- a bunch of bickering and bargaining until they could get a majority to vote for 80. Very scientific stuff.
However the aspects of Quantum Mechanics that Einstein didn't like (nonlocality, randomness, etc.) are firmly established and are probably not going to be "undone" by even a unified theory.
Randomness established? What experiment could possibly establish randomness? I'm with Einstein on that one.
Note that these aren't just helical structures, but seem to prominently include double-helixes. And their behavior seems far too similar to that of DNA to be coincidental.
Some may not realize that "panspermia" applies to interstellar seeding of similar life (in our case, encoded as aperiodic carbon-based crystals, "Just add water"). The dust in question, whether alive or not, couldn't have seeded us, because we have just about as little in common as chemically possible.
The way I understand it, it could be practically any kind of dust, including organic. If this process could occur with organic molecules, it could go a VERY long way towards explaining the development of organic life forms.
"Sounds a little like this guy's been buying into "Intelligent" design a little too much..." What is this supposed to mean -- that any line reasoning that is also used by people who believe in God is invalid? Is this why the scientific community for decades refused to accept the evidence of the biblical-scale flood that happened in the American North West at the end of the ice age?
I've often wondered something like this. If we ever have a computer powerful enough to fully simulate a human brain, would, would the simulation qualify as human?
Not if The Police are right, and we are spirits in a material world.
Besides which, if all you simulate is the brain, it's going to very quickly bleed to death.
If you had a computer that could put all of the rules of consciousness into practice, then you'd have a conscious computer.
The idea that a machine can become conscious simply by following some "special" set of rules, defies reason and is pure superstition. Since consciousness requires neither sensory inputs nor outputs, such a machine would not need to do anything, and any such rules could be simplified to non-existence.
So, taking your argument one step further and combining with the parent post, you think it's likely that 12-foot flightless birds exist somewhere else in the universe?
Except that for there to be a flightless bird, there first has to be the egg of a flightless bird. For there to be these structures, there first only has to be plasma, dust, and the laws of physics.
Considering that there are about 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells in the human body, I think it's time to surrender. I, for one, welcome.... blah blah blah.
I'm with you. For an adult male to shave is essentially to dress in drag. Hey, men have done worse things through history as societal norms than removing their facial hair to look like women. But the way that masculinity is feared by most modern Western men and women alike is disturbing.
The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.
I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.
If a judge's job were to interpret the law "based on past case histories," he would be doing nothing but turning past judgments into legislation! And power being what it is, many are happy to do so.
A judge's job is to apply the law, as written, to the case. Insofar as it's possible within that mandate, judgments should be as consistent with prior rulings as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you falsify neodarwinism's assertion that genetic mutation is random?
That was probably the worst example you could pick. The abolition of slavery in both America and England is an example of religious people changing something that was contrary to their religion, but generally had popular support. Secular support of abolition was a relatively recent development after the fact.
"Evolution" is neither a theory or a fact. It is shorthand for a group of theories such a Darwinism and Neodarwinism, including sub-theories and modifications such as Punctuated Equalibrium, that describe attempt to offer theoretical models for the observed facts. Facts are things directly measured or observed, including observations of existent life forms, and the known fossil record. Everything that is an interpretation of these facts is a theory. These theories include good ones and bad ones. I think "young-earth" creationist science is completely comprised of bad theories, but they are still theories. And no theory can ever become a fact.
No, you are not using the proper usage. There ARE competing evolutionary theories, and there have been since Darwin. Furthermore, NO theory of evolution is a theory for the existence of life! Finally, if you're talking about something that is not open for debate, then you are NOT talking about science.
This is incorrect. Your definition of a theory is fine, but a FACT is something directly observable or measurable. There is ALWAYS room for multiple theories -- multiple theories of evolution, multiple theories of gravity, etc.
I agree. These generic solutions being proposed here will not work for everyone. Every "genius" is different. Some of them need a lot of help, others only a little, just like every non-genius. To give each kid the best education possible for him, you've got to first figure out what the best education is FOR HIM. And yes, that means the parents have to figure it out and then implement it! We're currently home schooling our three that are old enough for school. We re-analyze the needs of each of them every year. But it seems like the exception rather than the rule, for the best environment for any given child to be the extreme social setting of most public and private schools, especially large ones.
No, I think everyone voted for who they thought was the smarter candidate. The problem with Gore and Kerry was NOT that anybody thought they were too smart. The problem (among other things) was that they both gave the very strong impression that they believed themselves to be too smart. Especially Gore, who really killed himself his smirking and eye rolling during the debates.
First of all, even if you filled up the enormous below-sea-level areas of dead sea valley and the death valley with ocean water, the change in sea level would be fairly insignificant. Anyway, the rate of sea level rise is, for lack of a better word, glacial. Beach erosion and hurricanes will be a much larger problem for most coastal cities than other sea level change -- unless an incredibly massive volcano erupts under Antarctica. One day, we'll get as smart as the ancients were, and we'll stop building cities on coasts. (Granted, they had much greater, and much more sudden sea level rises to deal with.)
Haven't you heard? All change is adverse. Change that hurts humans is bad because it hurts the oppressed, and change that helps humans is bad because it helps the oppressors. Welcome to the 21st century, it's stranger than fiction.
The underlying assumption that these effects have some significant correlation to long-term memory in humans is questionable. Rats are fantastic for testing physiological responses to drugs, as most the involved systems operate similarly. Low level CNS stuff, which may be involved here, is good too. But things touching on consciousness -- like conscious memory, as opposed to conditioned reactions, should not be assumed to have any correlation to experiments like these.
No, the AGW theory is based entirely on the tenuous idea that increased CO2 increases temperatures. All the models the IPCC uses are based upon that idea. If that idea is wrong, then all those models are useless. (At it is challenging, to say the least, to explain the ice core data while holding to that idea.)
As long as there is this kind of fear of science, anything can be passed off as scientific truth for any end, without anyone daring to check it or challenge it.
Don't be afraid! Download some ice core data today!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.ht
Also, please don't think about religious matters. There are only two things you need to know, 1) How you could become a priest and 2) Conclusions that the ordained priesthood has reached.
What you're talking about, "secret science," is science as cult, science as political power, science as hermetic knowledge, ANYTHING but science as science. Real science has nothing to hide.
For all I know, most of the models cited by the IPCC are TOP SECRET, but if you want actual data for studying climate change, most of the ice core data is here:m l
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.ht
Tree ring data is also available, but conclusions draw from that are more questionable.
Yeah, the best of luck to anyone trying to find actual methodology on the IPCC site. Seriously, please post if you find it. I do know how they came to that 80% figure -- a bunch of bickering and bargaining until they could get a majority to vote for 80. Very scientific stuff.
Randomness established? What experiment could possibly establish randomness? I'm with Einstein on that one.
Note that these aren't just helical structures, but seem to prominently include double-helixes. And their behavior seems far too similar to that of DNA to be coincidental.
How very arrogant to assume that only humans could be so arrogant.
The way I understand it, it could be practically any kind of dust, including organic. If this process could occur with organic molecules, it could go a VERY long way towards explaining the development of organic life forms.
"Sounds a little like this guy's been buying into "Intelligent" design a little too much..."
What is this supposed to mean -- that any line reasoning that is also used by people who believe in God is invalid? Is this why the scientific community for decades refused to accept the evidence of the biblical-scale flood that happened in the American North West at the end of the ice age?
Not if The Police are right, and we are spirits in a material world.
Besides which, if all you simulate is the brain, it's going to very quickly bleed to death.
The idea that a machine can become conscious simply by following some "special" set of rules, defies reason and is pure superstition. Since consciousness requires neither sensory inputs nor outputs, such a machine would not need to do anything, and any such rules could be simplified to non-existence.
Except that for there to be a flightless bird, there first has to be the egg of a flightless bird. For there to be these structures, there first only has to be plasma, dust, and the laws of physics.
Considering that there are about 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells in the human body, I think it's time to surrender. I, for one, welcome.... blah blah blah.
I'm with you. For an adult male to shave is essentially to dress in drag. Hey, men have done worse things through history as societal norms than removing their facial hair to look like women. But the way that masculinity is feared by most modern Western men and women alike is disturbing.
If a judge's job were to interpret the law "based on past case histories," he would be doing nothing but turning past judgments into legislation! And power being what it is, many are happy to do so.
A judge's job is to apply the law, as written, to the case. Insofar as it's possible within that mandate, judgments should be as consistent with prior rulings as possible.