31-03-2005 02:05									#91
	Tired of ads?

I'm reminded of a fellow I served in the Army with in Iraq. He worked for Civil Affairs and was an intelligent and fun loving guy but when it came to religion he was an absolute fundimentalist. He had all of these fundimentalist videos which he'd share with anyone and everyone in which it was claimed the world is 6,000 years old and the grand canyon was created by Noah's flood. I came up with tons fo examples and showed him peer reviewed articles which directly debunked the fundimentalist's claims of a 6k year old Earth but he would have none of it. He claimed science was a religion and was no more valid then his religion.

What got me the most is when he'd claim radioactive dating was "a lie created to deny god". I went over the details of K-Ar dating and how the crystal structure, the shape of the elements, and there respective charges made it highly likely any of the daughter particles found in the crystal were the result of radioactive decay and since we know the half life of the molecules involved we can get a pretty good estimate on age. He claimed that since a person hadn't been watching the radioactive decay for all 20 million years that no one could possibly know the decay rate of the radioactive particles.

You simply cannot reason a person out of a position they did not originally reason themselves into.

	31-03-2005 02:13									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DanS Besides, your and Boris' posts work on the underlying assumption that science would come out worse for the wear in a full airing of all views on the subject. In my experience, science does just fine as a positive argument. Scientists need to make sure that good affirmative arguments are made and to be honest about the the strength of the varying facts available. They need not worry about losing this argument.

Science classes should rely on facts, yes. And that's how they are supposed to work. Teaching ID wouldn't be airing any facts, it would be airing beliefs of a small segment that are not substantiated by facts.

I'll say it again--the only way to get views into school science classes should be to have said views vetted in peer-reviewed journals and then accepted as mainstream scientific thought. All other science has to go through this process, why should Creationism or ID get a special pass? Giving it such is circumventing the process and lending undue weight to the claims made by the proponents.

	31-03-2005 02:29									#93
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: It is completely possibly to reconcile irreconcilable beliefs.

per definition.

	31-03-2005 02:40									#94
	Tired of ads?

That was deliberate. Obviously, logically someone shouldn't hold irreconcilable beliefs, and yet they do.

	31-03-2005 02:45									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

To be clear at the outset, having an article peer reviewed is only a screen that balances the need to publish early and often versus the need for minimal accuracy. It's not the gold standard by any means and should not be seen as conferring legitimacy beyond a minimal level.

Much more rigorous (and less rigorous) methods of doing scientific studies exist and are acceptable for various purposes.

	31-03-2005 03:25									#96
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If they start teaching creationism alongside evolution... does that mean we could use it as a precedent to teach Marxism in economics classes?

	31-03-2005 03:28									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II If they start teaching creationism alongside evolution... does that mean we could use it as a precedent to teach Marxism in economics classes?

Equal parts fairy tale.

	31-03-2005 03:31									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Obviously, logically someone shouldn't hold irreconcilable beliefs, and yet they do.

Given enough time, the cognitive dissonance would be solved one way or the other.

	31-03-2005 03:48									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II If they start teaching creationism alongside evolution... does that mean we could use it as a precedent to teach Marxism in economics classes?

The two are not comparable.

	31-03-2005 04:03									#100
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That was deliberate. Obviously, logically someone shouldn't hold irreconcilable beliefs, and yet they do.

Normally the incident occurrs when someone suspends their disbelief until further evidence is in.

	31-03-2005 04:18									#101
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos I think the word your looking for is clergy. Most people know as much about the proof of scientific facts that they swear by as religious people do about their god. You are all operating on faith.

Talk for yourself buddy...

	31-03-2005 05:45									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Do you live in a red state?

I did.

quote: Basically the forces of darkness have massed and are continuing their assualt on all things scientific and/or educational.

Oh lord, we've lost Oerdin too...

	31-03-2005 07:18									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos If we are going by peer review, I am afraid science is very far behind religion. By like the 10s of billions.

Most people aren't theologians, so you're wrong.

	31-03-2005 07:19									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo quote: Efficacy of developmental BMD systems is not a "science question". A lot of "physics" that I see in most Physics Departments is really cutting-edge engineering (nanotech for instance). Reason why is that plenty of scientists are perfectly competent in doing engineering crap. That's why NASA picked Feynman to investigate the Challenger explosion. Hell, the American Physical Society has done its own studies on the viability of boost-phase ABM systems (they concluded that the proposals are still useless crap). So it's not exactly a big deal when SciAm veers into fancy engineering. Frankly, a lot of pop-science coverage is crap. And I'd much rather have SciAm cover interesting engineering than inanities like a totally qualitative explanation for string theory. Anyways, pop-science mags are certainly a better place for covering the efficacy of ABM systems than newspapers where people without any technical training are making technical judgements about ABM systems.

It wasn't even interesting engineering though. It was "they didn't work - are we wasting money?" I don't care about policy when I'm reading SciAm, I want SCIENCE.

	31-03-2005 07:23									#105
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara We had a Bible as literature class in my highschool, which included, maong other things, modern retellings of the story. Jesus Christ Superstar was supposed to have been taught, but the year I was finally going to be allowed to take it, the teacher decided to cut it out, because it was blasphemous.

We studied the Bible in my English class last year too. So what? It's important historical literature.

(We also read the Ramayana and a nomber of other works.)

	31-03-2005 07:24									#106
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: Obviously, logically someone shouldn't hold irreconcilable beliefs, and yet they do. Given enough time, the cognitive dissonance would be solved one way or the other.

What are you smoking? Can I have some?

	31-03-2005 07:25									#107
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The two are not comparable.

You're right. Communism has a lot more evidence against it.

	31-03-2005 08:21									#108
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It wasn't even interesting engineering though. It was "they didn't work - are we wasting money?" I don't care about policy when I'm reading SciAm, I want SCIENCE.

Who cares what you want? I like to be informed about technical matters as pertaining to my gov't's expenditures, and SciAm is a good place as any for it, since they actually know what they're writing about (unlike most journalists).

I don't see why SciAm shouldn't cover policy when policy dictates science and the spread of science to so great an extent. As in the decisions to let Hubble fall into disrepair, abandoning the Superconducting Supercollider, dropping NSF funding, or teaching Creationism in public schools. Politics dictates technology to an even greater extent.

SciAm also covers the history of science and technology, should that be axed as well?

	31-03-2005 08:50									#109
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS What would science have to fear from a broad airing of the arguments on all sides? Is science that weak that scientists need to worry?

Oh man, this is so old

What "arguments on all sides?" This is about science, not about pseudoscience mumblejumble. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, thus, it has no place in a science class.

	02-04-2005 15:10									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: MISSILE TESTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DUMBASSES.

I'm confused... for stuff like space exploration, missile tests are vital... Isn't space exploration about science?

quote: Why are science magazines so political and defensive nowadays? It's not just Scientific American; I've noticed the same thing with Discover and National Geographic. How many more defenses of evolution am I going to have to slog through to get to something interesting?

NG isn't scientific anymore. It used to be about strictly about geography, but now it's all about history, alternative cultures and the like... BLAH BLAH BLAH NATIVE AMERICANS AND THEIR HERITAGE... BLAH BLAH BLAH EXCITING EVIL NAZI SHIP WHICH WAS 500 YEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF AN OCEAN.

I wanted a magazine about geography when I ordered it, now it has been hijacked by hippies.


Oh, and Kucinich really should either drop that 50-line long signature or start posting his messages in a single post.

	02-04-2005 15:30									#111
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: What are you smoking? Can I have some?

Before you spout, please elaborate.

	02-04-2005 15:40									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Except he was threatened with torture - I believe it was called being put to question or somesuch, Inquisitional torture is not something I specialize in - if he did not recant. If anyone here does not believe that the results of toture by the Inquisitors at best resulted in massive pain, routinely resulted in crippling injuries, and not uncommonly killed directly or indirectly - delayed infections, unhealed bodily injury, etc. - more than a couple of the recipients, well, go google it or talk will Molly Bloom.

shawn, you're too kind.

'Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.

Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition. In 1634 he suffered a severe blow when his daughter Virginia, Sister Maria Celeste, died. She had been a great support to her father through his illnesses and Galileo was shattered and could not work for many months. When he did manage to restart work, he began to write Discourses and mathematical demonstrations concerning the two new sciences. '

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...ns/Galileo.html


He was indeed well aware of the consequences of admitting to heretical beliefs, and being shown the instruments of torture was a way of pyschologically softening up an old ill man.

Shows one the danger of science made the pawn of politicans or religion- the Inquisition then was in the same position as the enforcers of Nazi and Soviet science.

Michael Servetus was a notable real sacrifice to religious intolerance, an unholy alliance between Calvinist and Roman Catholic intolerance and a great loss to science.

	02-04-2005 18:17									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The two are not comparable.

Of course, I wasn't saying that Marxism is airy fairy crap like creationism... I was just saying that if science classes have to teach something for which the field has such clear antipathy, then classical economics should be taught alongside Marxism, its alternate, and antipathetic theory.

And then christian church services should also include Muslim services... Republicans and Democrats should be able to endorse each other's candidates... and cats and dogs should share the same leash.

Oh and evolution should be taught at sunday school.

	02-04-2005 18:20									#114
	Support Apolyton

quote: quote: It wasn't even interesting engineering though. It was "they didn't work - are we wasting money?" I don't care about policy when I'm reading SciAm, I want SCIENCE. Who cares what you want?

Presumably SciAm.

quote: I don't see why SciAm shouldn't cover policy when policy dictates science and the spread of science to so great an extent. As in the decisions to let Hubble fall into disrepair, abandoning the Superconducting Supercollider, dropping NSF funding, or teaching Creationism in public schools. Politics dictates technology to an even greater extent.

Politics and policy may dictate what science gets done, but it doesn't mean that they have anything to do with the actual science.

quote: SciAm also covers the history of science and technology, should that be axed as well?

SciAm devotes a single page to excerpts from articles 50, 100, and 150 years ago. Red herring.

EDIT: tags

	02-04-2005 18:21									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: What are you smoking? Can I have some? Before you spout, please elaborate.

Do you really think people actually eventually resolve and discard some of their irreconcilable beliefs? Consider the evidence...

	02-04-2005 22:04									#116
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If they're constantly conscious of them, and given enough time, yes.

	03-04-2005 00:11									#117
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: SciAm devotes a single page to excerpts from articles 50, 100, and 150 years ago. Red herring.

Actually, the history of the specific science/tech is included in many articles.

And exactly how many pages per issue are dedicated to policy matters alone?

And you didn't answer the question: should all references to the history of science/tech be axed?

quote: Politics and policy may dictate what science gets done, but it doesn't mean that they have anything to do with the actual science.

Besides dictating what science gets done...

	03-04-2005 00:59									#118
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Oh lord, we've lost Oerdin too...

You laugh but I contend it is you who is not being serious. I reprint a post which Pontiuth Pilate made on a web forum visited by many poly-tubbies.

quote: The Assault On Intellectuals And The Professions I got to thinking about how so many of the more reactionary political hot-button topics can be construed or interpreted as attacks on the ability of professionals, intellectuals, and experts to do their jobs. And how many of the conservative causes can be interpreted as alliances with the forces of wilful ignorance. And I don't just mean Creationists and other fundamentalists. I actually made a short list. It encompasses a surprising amount of the current Republican platform. Name me a profession and we'll see if it doesn't get on this list somehow. I just put down the more obvious examples: the doctors, the biological scientists, etc. The first section consists of professions whose workings have been openly attacked; the second those which have been undermined; and the third those which have been ignored and shunted to one side in favor of less expert but more politically potent opinions. We already know about some of the most egregious examples of anti-intellectualism, eg bullying actuaries about the cost of Medicare, manipulating and deleting information in climate-change reports, etc. But I think this shows the pattern is far wider than that. I also think there are examples of anti-intellectualism to be found in the radical left. PETA is no more a rational organization than the Baptist Church. But the Democratic Party has not exactly embraced those ideals. They've been publicly humiliated every time even a tangential connection comes up. That hasn't happened with the Republicans. Without further ado, the list. 1. DOCTORS -Banning abortion -Banning euthanasia -Banning soft drugs -Banning stem cell research -Rendering birth control inaccessible -Rendering parental counseling inaccessible LAWYERS -Repealing antitrust regulation -Restricting class-action lawsuits -Capping payable damages -Restricting lawsuits for criminal negligence, defective products, bullying workers and unions, work safety and injuries, compensation, -Tort reform, eliminating consumer rights -Ignoring ABA recommendations on judge nominations EDUCATORS -Ideological affirmative action [“There should be more conservative profs”] -Regulation of what high schools and colleges can teach -Guerilla textbooks [“The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History”] -School vouchers, enabling white flight and marketing ideology -Awarding taxpayer money to schools with ideological mission -Merit pay, No Child Left Behind, and other gov’t interference programs -Growth of importance of STs 2. SCIENTISTS -Various attacks on evolution, climate change, abiogenesis, ecology, sexology, etc, etc -Interfering in government-funded reports on global warming, sex education, etc, for political purposes -Overall: rejection of scientific mode of thought in favor of faith and superstition -Nonenforcement, “voluntary” pollution laws JOURNALISTS -Hostile attitude towards press, restricted access -Myth of liberal media, derision -Undermining with fake journalists -Supplanting with think tanks and astroturf groups -Psuedoscientific claims about a "Red vs Blue" America 3. ECONOMISTS -Trickle-down economics, tax cuts -Lackadaiscal attitude towards deficit spending -Rejection of notion of federal spending as investment -Rejection of Keynesian economics in general -Support for programs which are unequivocally wrong in economic terms [Social Security privatization etc] POLITICAL SCIENTISTS -The return to “states rights paramount” philosophy -Rejection of the secular state -Movement away from issue/fact-based politics -Rampant personal and corporate nepotism -Rejection of standard US foreign policy -Rejection of diplomacy and a multilateral world -Extremely strict application of FOIA to cast “Iron Curtain” around administration -Loyalty oaths, manufactured political photo ops [far worse than before]

It's pretty clear that religous zeolots and anti-intellectuals are attacking independent sources of knowledge and thinking because those people have challenged some of the idiotic claims the religious right has made.

	03-04-2005 07:17									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

What a ridiculous article...

	03-04-2005 08:51									#120
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

That's exactly what I was thinking. What a crock of ****.