Friday, September 30, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Scary science
Japanese scientists have captured a giant squid on camera!
That thing is pretty damn scary.
But still not as scary as the comparably sized octopus would be.
That thing is pretty damn scary.
But still not as scary as the comparably sized octopus would be.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Intelligent Design
It certainly doesn't feel like science. I would say that I am sympathetic to the view of many scientists that they shouldn't be forced to teach something in a classroom that doesn't pass scientific muster, or teach something other than science in their classrooms. If intelligent design is not considered to be science by a certain standard in the scientific community, than it ought not be taught in the science room.
However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.
So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.
So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.
However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.
So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.
So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Intelligent Design
It is not science. It offers no testable hypothesis. It endlessly repeats the hopeless logic that because biological, cosmological, and natural process that are highly complex seem to perform a function, this is evidence of design. Design theorists revert to statistics to show the how unlikely it is that these process emerged on their own, with no guidance.
The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.
If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.
Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.
The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.
If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.
Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Replies....
On Enterprise v. Star Destroyer: So it's all about size, is it? "Size matters not!," quoth Yoda.
On OSU: Troy Smith is the better choice, but he is far from great. He looks to throw second, if at all, and then only looks for one, maybe two receivers before running sideways. Additionally, he can't throw worth a damn; how many open receivers did he hit in the shoes against SDSU? He's going to have to knock that shit off during Big Ten play, or we're screwed.
On "Intelligent Design": Oh, Kris. Haven't you heard? ID is as scientifically reliable as evolution...If you disagree, you must be afraid of "truth"...The scientific community is really divided over evolution...We should rely on empirical evidence and testing and all that, but only until we come to the origins of life...then we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. It looks like science can never handle this one, guys. Rather than pursuing further research, let's just say it was a higher intelligence and go play golf"...In fact, since there are some gaps in understanding the mechanism of evolution, it is just a pseudo-religion...all them there scientists who believe in it are part of the conspiracy to destroy religion...they are on the defensive!...ha! ha! ha!...Peppered moths!...Fossil record...the holocaust never happened!...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...Wha ha haaaa!!!!.....
On OSU: Troy Smith is the better choice, but he is far from great. He looks to throw second, if at all, and then only looks for one, maybe two receivers before running sideways. Additionally, he can't throw worth a damn; how many open receivers did he hit in the shoes against SDSU? He's going to have to knock that shit off during Big Ten play, or we're screwed.
On "Intelligent Design": Oh, Kris. Haven't you heard? ID is as scientifically reliable as evolution...If you disagree, you must be afraid of "truth"...The scientific community is really divided over evolution...We should rely on empirical evidence and testing and all that, but only until we come to the origins of life...then we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. It looks like science can never handle this one, guys. Rather than pursuing further research, let's just say it was a higher intelligence and go play golf"...In fact, since there are some gaps in understanding the mechanism of evolution, it is just a pseudo-religion...all them there scientists who believe in it are part of the conspiracy to destroy religion...they are on the defensive!...ha! ha! ha!...Peppered moths!...Fossil record...the holocaust never happened!...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...Wha ha haaaa!!!!.....
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
If you hadn't heard, the newest internet fad to sweep the web is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." The website is very funny, regardless of your thoughts on the matter. Anyway, what are your thoughts on these matters such as:
Intelligent design?
Evolution?
Religion?
Belief in God?
Belief in general?
What I think: Intelligent Design is NOT science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom. Evolution is based on testable scientific hypotheses and despite flaws in the theory, IS science and should be taught in a science classroom. Religion has its place (we read The Bible in Senior English) and I am not against teaching of religion in public schools. However, religion (which more or less requires belief) does not belong in science. Intelligent design requires belief. QED and all that. Discuss.
Intelligent design?
Evolution?
Religion?
Belief in God?
Belief in general?
What I think: Intelligent Design is NOT science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom. Evolution is based on testable scientific hypotheses and despite flaws in the theory, IS science and should be taught in a science classroom. Religion has its place (we read The Bible in Senior English) and I am not against teaching of religion in public schools. However, religion (which more or less requires belief) does not belong in science. Intelligent design requires belief. QED and all that. Discuss.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Go Bucks!
I'm still sore from the Texas loss. Damn! They should've walked away with that one.
They bounced back today althought the offense still concernes me. Unfortunately it wasn't the game abc carried down here. I think making Troy Smith the starter was the right call, but they haven't put together many sustained drives yet this year. This is a problem when facing good offenses like Texas or Michigan State, and makes otherwise easy-win games closer than they should be.
Oh, yeah. Forgot to gloat last Sunday. Go Bengals!
They bounced back today althought the offense still concernes me. Unfortunately it wasn't the game abc carried down here. I think making Troy Smith the starter was the right call, but they haven't put together many sustained drives yet this year. This is a problem when facing good offenses like Texas or Michigan State, and makes otherwise easy-win games closer than they should be.
Oh, yeah. Forgot to gloat last Sunday. Go Bengals!
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Nerdtastic!
I found this, for the nerdier kids here.
I think it puts to rest any Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer arguments.
New bands you've never heard of and MUST check out:
Drive-By Truckers (The Dirty South, Decoration Day, Southern Rock Opera)
Umphrey's McGee (Anchor Drops, Local Band does OK)
Ween (not new, but brilliant nonetheless) (The Mollusk, White Pepper)
And a question for Bert: was your prof implying federalists, Kennedy or the Jeffersonians were bad? Or good? And why didn't you smack him for his asinine comparisons in the first place?
Finally, my thoughts on Harry Potter:
Harry will discover he is the final horcrux and will have to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort. He may or may not live through the ordeal; I think it depends on how Christian Rowling wants to make the story. He will face Voldemort alone, although Ron and Hermoine (and others) will help him get to the final battle. Snape, I think, will ultimately turn out to be good. As far as I could tell the only person he killed in Book 6 was Dumbledore, who was always a pretty clever guy. The Unbreakable Curse and Dumbledore's final "pleadings" with Snape together seem to indicate (to me) that they knew this would happen. Snape will likely aid Harry in getting to Voldemort.
In all my second favorite book, despite the kissy-makeout stuff. Although I guess that is what the kids do these days anyway. If I were to rank the books I would put them in this order: 4, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5. But I've only read 5 and 6 once each.
I think it puts to rest any Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer arguments.
New bands you've never heard of and MUST check out:
Drive-By Truckers (The Dirty South, Decoration Day, Southern Rock Opera)
Umphrey's McGee (Anchor Drops, Local Band does OK)
Ween (not new, but brilliant nonetheless) (The Mollusk, White Pepper)
And a question for Bert: was your prof implying federalists, Kennedy or the Jeffersonians were bad? Or good? And why didn't you smack him for his asinine comparisons in the first place?
Finally, my thoughts on Harry Potter:
Harry will discover he is the final horcrux and will have to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort. He may or may not live through the ordeal; I think it depends on how Christian Rowling wants to make the story. He will face Voldemort alone, although Ron and Hermoine (and others) will help him get to the final battle. Snape, I think, will ultimately turn out to be good. As far as I could tell the only person he killed in Book 6 was Dumbledore, who was always a pretty clever guy. The Unbreakable Curse and Dumbledore's final "pleadings" with Snape together seem to indicate (to me) that they knew this would happen. Snape will likely aid Harry in getting to Voldemort.
In all my second favorite book, despite the kissy-makeout stuff. Although I guess that is what the kids do these days anyway. If I were to rank the books I would put them in this order: 4, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5. But I've only read 5 and 6 once each.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Science
Hey Bert, I suppose the first part is for you. I just read an abstract of an article that is supposed to be published in a physical chemistry journal about Pu 238 and its use as an energy source, specifically for long range space satelites and such. I guess some crazy ass group over in germany or norway have built a long range fuel supply system using Pu 238 that supposedly can power a small satelite for upwards of 50 years (I don't know how they calculated that as I am no good at that "math" religion).
Secondly, a group in Japan just published an article on the successful use of fetal stem cells to grow healthy adult cells. If I can find an online version of the article, I will post it.
Go Science!
Bam!
Secondly, a group in Japan just published an article on the successful use of fetal stem cells to grow healthy adult cells. If I can find an online version of the article, I will post it.
Go Science!
Bam!
Monday, September 12, 2005
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Con Law
yesterday my Con Law professor likened the Federalist Society to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Repulicans--which may be fair--but he went on to liken Jefferson's opponents, the Federalists, to Ted Kennedy. I nearly jumped out of my chair.
Nonetheless, it is an amusing tale of intellectual dishonesty and liberal dominance of higher education.
Nonetheless, it is an amusing tale of intellectual dishonesty and liberal dominance of higher education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)