tgimaging wrote:
About the only 'thing' that was decided, was to present an incomplete picture to the student. Now isn't that the way to teach? Knowledge is about having ALL of the information.

Whoa...so we don't teach world history unless we can teach ALL of world history? We don't teach math unless we can teach ALL of math? So unless we have ALL information we have no knowledge?

And I still haven't heard anyone actually address any of the links I put forth. Not one. Nada. Zip.

kickfight wrote:

C'mon, Tim... this is why it's sometimes a bit exasperating to talk to you. Whenever something requires a bit of real, out-of-the-box thinking, rather than making the effort, you dismiss the whole thing with that lazy, erroenous "opinion" stamp.

So, tell ya what. So we have our concepts straight, why don't YOU tell me what you think 'chance occurrences' are, and we can at least be sure that we're not just dealing with 'opinions'... Oy vey...

Simple question. Do you or not? And if yes, than what is it? Simple question. /Tim

Tim Baker wrote:
Can't disagree with that. Just leave Christian philosophy out of science courses.  Put them in philosophy courses where they belong.  /tim

I'm happy that I can listen and learn from other opinions. It helps me to learn and grow. I wish that everyone could listen and see things from ALL aspects. Unfortunately, some start whining when something is said that isn't liked.

Why leave a part out that you don't want in? In school, I had to listen to evolution, and learned about it. It was interesting and expanded my knowledge. I don't agree with it, but have the fortitude not to whine about it. It's just one part of a larger picture.

As for leaving the philosophy part out I agree. Parents have that responsibility of teaching values to their kids - not schools.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
And I still haven't heard anyone actually address any of the links I put forth. Not one. Nada. Zip.

I'm still reading the Bart Ehman segment, and ordering a copy of the book on half.com. Sounds like it'd be an interesting source of great ammunition.

Have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"?

mjr.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Telescopes are artificial constructs? What do you think...they deliberately tweak the data they recieve on radio telescopes? The microwave patterns of radiation are all just figments of the imagination? This stuff is all measured and is science. You obviously took a look at NONE of the links I posted, you couldn't have and answered so quickly.

Um... cuz the links are kinda newbie knowledge? Sorry, but it's true.

So. Telescopes ARE artificial constructs. Can you name me the place where they grow and pick telescopes? They were created by humans, using their senses. The data and patterns are OBSERVATIONS, which are made by HUMANS, who employ their senses to make observations. See where this is going? The telescope is simply an extension of the eye; it does not inherently mean that it provides humans with deeper understanding of what appears on the other side of the lens.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
I've read what the Bible says on the subject. After careful consideration, I've decided that it can in no way be literal truth. Did you listen to the last article link I posted? What did you think of the authors notion of the two major interpretations of Jesus on the cross? C'mon do you want to debate or not?

Oh... you're debating theology? Sorry! I didn't catch that. No, I have no time to debate theology. But thanks anyway!

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Edit: And science needs WAY more than human experience before it is considered to be valid.

Heh heh... OK, so explain how science transcends human experience.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

Whoa...so we don't teach world history unless we can teach ALL of world history? We don't teach math unless we can teach ALL of math? So unless we have ALL information we have no knowledge?

And I still haven't heard anyone actually address any of the links I put forth. Not one. Nada. Zip.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to know about the world history from other cultures' perspectives? It's like looking at a photgraph from different perspectives.

Just have all the facts before jumping to your conclusion. LOL

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Comparative creation myths would be interesting and instructive.
mjr.

This got me laughing!  Thanks.  However, I then begin to think about my friend, who is a Cultural Anthropologist at a small college in my city, and he actually does teach a course with the same title, "Religious Myths."  It's a popular course, from what I understand, and he's very well versed in world religions and myths.  He received his Ph.D. from Harvard and is very interesting to listen to, and talk with.

/Tim

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Oh, and kids need to be taught way more than the practical basics if we are not going to fall further behind the rest of the world in Science and Math.

So, it's a competition, then. It's not really about teaching kids, it's about being better than the rest of the world. Yeah... that's a GREAT worldview.

tgimaging wrote:

Wouldn't it be wonderful to know about the world history from other cultures' perspectives? It's like looking at a photgraph from different perspectives.

Just have all the facts before jumping to your conclusion. LOL

That's the problem, you can't have all the facts. Therefore teaching all the facts is pointless. It also means that you CAN have knowledge without having ALL the facts.

Tim Baker wrote:
Simple question. Do you or not? And if yes, than what is it? Simple question. /Tim

Do I or Do I not what? Know what chance occurrences are? I can't say, Tim... the question is, typically, lazy. What do you mean? Randomness? Luck? Probability?

tgimaging wrote:
As for leaving the philosophy part out I agree. Parents have that responsibility of teaching values to their kids - not schools.

Only if the parents live in a cave and are not part of the rest of society.

Human societies only work when there's a blending of values and beliefs rather than a wholesale adoption from a single source. That's why groups of people who share beliefs and values tend to group together; simple tribalism: nobody wants to be all alone. Yes, society needs to allow individuals and families to have their own beliefs, but they also must work within the context of society at large.

I recall going to school with a kid whose parents (I am not making this up!) had raised the kid to believe, basically, that it was OK to steal from big companies. The kid's parents excused shoplifting from large stores on that grounds, but discouraged the kid from stealing from his playmates. I think such exercise of "parental responsibility to teach values" is monstrous.

Though, perhaps, what you're saying is that it's a parent's right to socialize their child into superstition and ignorance by teaching them that the world was created in 35 seconds by The Batman, and that science is just a code-word for communism,  and that we have Coca-Cola running in our veins that turns miraculously into blood when we're cut. Perhaps that's what you're saying. If it is, I pity your kids.

mjr.

tgimaging wrote:
Wouldn't it be wonderful to know about the world history from other cultures' perspectives? It's like looking at a photgraph from different perspectives.

Just have all the facts before jumping to your conclusion. LOL

I had a couple examples of history and another culture's experience.  One was in Vietnam last January.  We went to the War Crimes Museum in Saigon (Ho-Chi-Minh City) and he ask me why so many Americans wanted to see this museum.  He said, "the war between the North and South was a civil war, not an international war."  The Museum also referred to (what we call) the Vietnam was as "The American War.)

Second was in Thailand and they were showing the story of Christ on television (this was a couple years ago in December).  My friend's wife wanted to know who is was (she's Buddhist).  I spent about an hour trying to explain, but I might as well been talking to the wall.  In her culture, Buddha is Lord.  This Jesus fellow was all Greek (or perhaps Roman) to her.

Interesting advertures and insights.  Cheers, Tim

kickfight wrote:

Do I or Do I not what? Know what chance occurrences are? I can't say, Tim... the question is, typically, lazy. What do you mean? Randomness? Luck? Probability?

As it relates to your concept of 'research' and replication.  /Tim

kickfight wrote:

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Telescopes are artificial constructs? What do you think...they deliberately tweak the data they recieve on radio telescopes? The microwave patterns of radiation are all just figments of the imagination? This stuff is all measured and is science. You obviously took a look at NONE of the links I posted, you couldn't have and answered so quickly.

Um... cuz the links are kinda newbie knowledge? Sorry, but it's true.

Then how come you don't seem to be showing a grasp of that knowledge.

So. Telescopes ARE artificial constructs. Can you name me the place where they grow and pick telescopes? They were created by humans, using their senses. The data and patterns are OBSERVATIONS, which are made by HUMANS, who employ their senses to make observations. See where this is going? The telescope is simply an extension of the eye; it does not inherently mean that it provides humans with deeper understanding of what appears on the other side of the lens.

So what about objective versus subjective observations, there is no difference in value?

wrote:
Oh... you're debating theology? Sorry! I didn't catch that. No, I have no time to debate theology. But thanks anyway!

No I am not debating theology. But you have not responded to the article or the link.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Edit: And science needs WAY more than human experience before it is considered to be valid.

Heh heh... OK, so explain how science transcends human experience.

Science needs quantified facts. We can not as humans observe chemical reactions at most levels, but we know they happen. We cannot see atoms, or electrons, and we can't fully explain their behavior but they exist and we can manipluate them. Atomic theory is a theory, like evolution or the "big bang".

kickfight wrote:

So, it's a competition, then. It's not really about teaching kids, it's about being better than the rest of the world. Yeah... that's a GREAT worldview.

KickFight. If you're not aware of how far behind our educational system is falling in educating scientists and those with even a basic understanding of more complex mathematics and science when compared to Asian Countries (China being one), then you don't realize this is a competition.  I know this is changing the thread, but we're sending jobs that rely upon critical thinking and knowledge of science to countries like India.  Indeed, it is a competition in that sense.  In my opinion, it always will be until we wake up and focus on enhancing and expanding our educational process in the U.S. and quite getting distracted by supernational ideas like ID.  /tim

kickfight wrote:

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Telescopes are artificial constructs? What do you think...they deliberately tweak the data they recieve on radio telescopes? The microwave patterns of radiation are all just figments of the imagination? This stuff is all measured and is science. You obviously took a look at NONE of the links I posted, you couldn't have and answered so quickly.

Um... cuz the links are kinda newbie knowledge? Sorry, but it's true.

So. Telescopes ARE artificial constructs. Can you name me the place where they grow and pick telescopes? They were created by humans, using their senses. The data and patterns are OBSERVATIONS, which are made by HUMANS, who employ their senses to make observations. See where this is going? The telescope is simply an extension of the eye; it does not inherently mean that it provides humans with deeper understanding of what appears on the other side of the lens.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
I've read what the Bible says on the subject. After careful consideration, I've decided that it can in no way be literal truth. Did you listen to the last article link I posted? What did you think of the authors notion of the two major interpretations of Jesus on the cross? C'mon do you want to debate or not?

Oh... you're debating theology? Sorry! I didn't catch that. No, I have no time to debate theology. But thanks anyway!


Heh heh... OK, so explain how science transcends human experience.

E=MCsquared.  Human's have never experienced it.
Absolute Zero: Human's have never experienced it.

Two examples.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Then how come you don't seem to be showing a grasp of that knowledge.

Because this ain't show-n-tell. It's understand and articulate, not quote verbatim.

BodyPainter Rich wrote:
So what about objective versus subjective observations, there is no difference in value?

Sure there is.

BodyPainterRich wrote:
No I am not debating theology. But you have not responded to the article or the link.

is that a requirement? Because I'm not going down that silly rabbit hole.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Science needs quantified facts. We can not as humans observe chemical reactions at most levels, but we know they happen.

We can't observe chemical reactions?

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
We cannot see atoms, or electrons, and we can't fully explain their behavior but they exist and we can manipluate them. Atomic theory is a theory, like evolution or the "big bang".

Huh? So, we're guessing?

I know you're well-intentioned, but you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts here. We know something we call atoms exist. We know we can cause certain things to happen when we make them go real, real fast. We know that these things are similar to events that, for example, seem to be taking place on the surface of the sun, and probably have for a very long time. These are things we have observed and defined. We feel confident that these observations are accurate. But there's a huge part of Texas that was dug up based on some of these observations, and... well, that didn't go very far.

So, yes... these are theories, based on our observations. And those observations are just as fallible as any other aspect of our experience.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
Oh. Gee. Look. Another thread on religion.

More mental masturbation material for the armchair theologians and philosophers to tout their beliefs/disbeliefs in an Invisible Man.

Yippie.

I do believe Eric shot his load awfully fast. Interesting. Happy holidays and do ... err ... come again.   /Tim

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Only if the parents live in a cave and are not part of the rest of society.

Human societies only work when there's a blending of values and beliefs rather than a wholesale adoption from a single source. That's why groups of people who share beliefs and values tend to group together; simple tribalism: nobody wants to be all alone. Yes, society needs to allow individuals and families to have their own beliefs, but they also must work within the context of society at large.

I recall going to school with a kid whose parents (I am not making this up!) had raised the kid to believe, basically, that it was OK to steal from big companies. The kid's parents excused shoplifting from large stores on that grounds, but discouraged the kid from stealing from his playmates. I think such exercise of "parental responsibility to teach values" is monstrous.

Though, perhaps, what you're saying is that it's a parent's right to socialize their child into superstition and ignorance by teaching them that the world was created in 35 seconds by The Batman, and that science is just a code-word for communism,  and that we have Coca-Cola running in our veins that turns miraculously into blood when we're cut. Perhaps that's what you're saying. If it is, I pity your kids.

mjr.

Whatever terminology, or reasoning, or superstitution you choose to use doesn't change the cultural responsibility of the parents teaching their kids. And it's not just a human thing. Look at the ways of nature. Parents raise and teach the offspring. The parents have the responsibility - period.

Tim Baker wrote:
E=MCsquared.  Human's have never experienced it.
Absolute Zero: Human's have never experienced it.

Two examples.

But they have been measured, haven't they? uh-uh-uh!

Tim Baker wrote:
KickFight. If you're not aware of how far behind our educational system is falling in educating scientists and those with even a basic understanding of more complex mathematics and science when compared to Asian Countries (China being one), then you don't realize this is a competition.  I know this is changing the thread, but we're sending jobs that rely upon critical thinking and knowledge of science to countries like India.  Indeed, it is a competition in that sense.  In my opinion, it always will be until we wake up and focus on enhancing and expanding our educational process in the U.S. and quite getting distracted by supernational ideas like ID.  /tim

You mean 'supernatural', not 'supernational', right? That was NOT a Freudian slip.

OK, granted, we do have a lot to do re: our educational system, and (here my two threads merge), ID is just further muddying up an already muddy pond.

kickfight wrote:
But they have been measured, haven't they?

No, absolute zero has not been measured. It's a theoretical minumum. And E=MC2 is a notation that represents a model of physics reality. All of these things - like pi, infinity, irrational numbers, or the square root of -2 - are notations for aspects of reality as we understand it, which we've never seen and cannot write touch or point to. They're notations exactly because they are not "real" but are aspects of reality.

I suppose you could say they are ways in which science transcends experience, since you certainly can't "experience" infinity - you're too small.

You're just having fun wanking around and are going to say whatever comes to mind, aren't you? This is like high school philosophy class.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Only if the parents live in a cave and are not part of the rest of society.

Though, perhaps, what you're saying is that it's a parent's right to socialize their child into superstition and ignorance by teaching them that the world was created in 35 seconds by The Batman, and that science is just a code-word for communism,  and that we have Coca-Cola running in our veins that turns miraculously into blood when we're cut. Perhaps that's what you're saying. If it is, I pity your kids.

mjr.

This would be an appropriate summary.  However, they are 'not' my kids.  My kid is free to believe what she wants; and I don't impose my beliefs on her.  Although my daughter is religious (as was I until I could think for myself and realize we were being sold anecdotes as (pardon the pun) gospel).  She has her degree and thinks very well for herself.  When I discussed ID with her she just laughed and said, "Dad, that's retarded ... that's worshiping a false idol.  It violates the First Commandment."  I just smiled and thought, "you know for a religious girl, she got her tuition's worth from college."  /Tim

kickfight wrote:
But they have been measured, haven't they?

You used this argument on me to and YES MANY OF THESE THEORIES HAVE BEEN MEASURED! (using things like telescopes, mathematics, oscilloscopes, and other devices. Then the observations are put together to form THEORIES.

and here is where you seem to get it wrong THEORIES ARE NOT GUESSES!

Atomic theory is what allowed us to build the atom bomb. When the detonated the first one at Bikini, they weren't ENTIRELY sure what would happen because until that point it was THEORY (which seemed to have proven correct)

The theory of gravity was used to send men to the moon and back. It is still a theory.

The theory of electrical energy is what your computer runs on.

And evolutionary theory is what is used to create flu vaccines for newly EVOLVED strains of the influenza virus.

Show me one thing man has created with the (cough cough) "theory" or Intelligent Design. Can it be predicted? Can it be quanitfied?

Don't tell me I'm the one in over my head here, dude. And until you have refuted ANY of the links I posted, don't even bother to pretend to have a grasp on the idea of evolutionary or "big bang" theory.

Or better yet, present me with a creationist or "Intelligent Design" theory that does not rely on myth to back it up.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
No, absolute zero has not been measured. And E=MC2 is a notation that represents a model of physics reality.

You're just having fun wanking around and are going to say whatever comes to mind, aren't you?

mjr.

Heh heh... you know what I mean, doofus. They have been given parameters, they have had their conceptual model defined. This means that they have emerged from the human mind via some kind of analysis or observation. Absolute Zero has been defined as zero Kelvin and a whole bunch of negative numbers on the C and F meters.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

You used this argument on me to and YES MANY OF THESE THEORIES HAVE BEEN MEASURED! (using things like telescopes, mathematics, oscilloscopes, and other devices. Then the observations are put together to form THEORIES.

and here is where you seem to get it wrong THEORIES ARE NOT GUESSES!

Atomic theory is what allowed us to build the atom bomb. When the detonated the first one at Bikini, they weren't ENTIRELY sure what would happen because until that point it was THEORY (which seemed to have proven correct)

The theory of gravity was used to send men to the moon and back. It is still a theory.

The theory of electrical energy is what your computer runs on.

And evolutionary theory is what is used to create flu vaccines for newly EVOLVED strains of the influenza virus.

Show me one thing man has created with the (cough cough) "theory" or Intelligent Design. Can it be predicted? Can it be quanitfied?

Don't tell me I'm the one in over my head here, dude. And until you have refuted ANY of the links I posted, don't even bother to pretend to have a grasp on the idea of evolutionary or "big bang" theory.

Or better yet, present me with a creationist or "Intelligent Design" theory that does not rely on myth to back it up.

Whoa, son! Don't be shooting that little gun at everyone that walks by! I'm not defending ID at all! So.. since it seems that certain subtle aspects of conversation  (such as irony) elude you, so... I'm gonna give you a li'l time out, and check back witcha later... yikes!

Oh, and get it through your head: PEOPLE AREN'T INTERESTED IN YOUR LINKS. Just let it go already...

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Atomic theory is what allowed us to build the atom bomb. When the detonated the first one at Bikini

near Los Alamos, at a site codenamed "Trinity", New Mexico.

The Bikini shot was a cold-war hydrogen (thermonclear fusion) test, not the first atomic (fission) bomb.

Other than that, you're right.

mjr.

kickfight wrote:
I know you're well-intentioned, but you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts here. We know something we call atoms exist. We know we can cause certain things to happen when we make them go real, real fast. We know that these things are similar to events that, for example, seem to be taking place on the surface of the sun, and probably have for a very long time. These are things we have observed and defined. We feel confident that these observations are accurate. But there's a huge part of Texas that was dug up based on some of these observations, and... well, that didn't go very far.

So, yes... these are theories, based on our observations. And those observations are just as fallible as any other aspect of our experience.

He doesn't?  You haven't even shown a basic understanding of what is being posted or links to what have been posted.  You believe in Atoms?  Ever seen one? Have we ever seen a quark, a proton, or a gluon?  /tim

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I suppose you could say they are ways in which science transcends experience, since you certainly can't "experience" infinity - you're too small.

Well, I would think nothing can experience infinity, so experience isn't something that can be, by definition, applied to infinity.  But you can experience the concept of infinity by considering it, as we just have.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
You're just having fun wanking around and are going to say whatever comes to mind, aren't you? This is like high school philosophy class.

Yeah, during elementary school visit day!

Tim Baker wrote:
He doesn't?  You haven't even shown a basic understanding of what is being posted or links to what have been posted.  You believe in Atoms?  Ever seen one? Have we ever seen a quark, a proton, or a gluon?  /tim

Well, you've shown your understanding is catastrophically limited, and you're keeping up somehow!

So... regarding your questions about atoms, and quarks, and protons, and gluons, and hey... let's throw in fluxies and strings, just for fun... did you read what I posted? No... wait... let me say that again... DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED?

kickfight wrote:

Heh heh... you know what I mean, doofus.

Name-calling? Already? We haven't been properly introduced...

kickfight wrote:
They have been given parameters, they have had their conceptual model defined.

Not exactly. They are parameters. Essentially, "absolute zero" is a term upon which we hang the platonic ideal of cold. We define it entirely in terms of its parameters, namely, "the point at which all molecular motion stops" - it's a theoretical construct with a great deal of scientific utility because we can use it to measure against. Just as we can measure against zero. What is zero? It doesn't exist because it's zero. It's a parameter, a concept, a notation.

kickfight wrote:
This means that they have emerged from the human mind via some kind of analysis or observation. Absolute Zero has been defined as zero Kelvin and a whole bunch of negative numbers on the C and F meters.

I think it'd be more precise to say that they have been conceptualized by humans, and humans have given them names (because, well, we do that). But they "existed"  without humans. 2+1=3 is a notation for how objects behave that was true before there were humans. Atomic "math" was happening a long time before some person came along and hung science on it.

This is getting silly.

mjr.

kickfight wrote:

But they have been measured, haven't they? uh-uh-uh!

If you knew the answer to that question, you would not have even posted it.  A junior high science student would (should) know the answer.  You seriously need to learn something about basic science, in my opinion.

kickfight wrote:
But you can experience the concept of infinity by considering it, as we just have.

Experiencing a concept is completely different from experiencing the real thing. Really, what you're experiencing is yourself, thinking about something. It's the difference between experiencing a fall off a horse and experiencing thinking about falling off a horse. Having done both, I assert they are different.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

kickfight wrote:
Heh heh... you know what I mean, doofus.

Name-calling? Already? We haven't been properly introduced...

OK, sorry. Apologies. I meant that in a totally kidding way, and if you took offense, I apologize.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Not exactly. They are parameters. Essentially, "absolute zero" is a term upon which we hang the platonic ideal of cold. We define it entirely in terms of its parameters, namely, "the point at which all molecular motion stops" - it's a theoretical construct with a great deal of scientific utility because we can use it to measure against. Just as we can measure against zero. What is zero? It doesn't exist because it's zero. It's a parameter, a concept, a notation.

No, not exactly. They are concepts, which have defined parameters. We see this by providing a theoretical construct (Absolute Zero) with actual equivalents in 'practical' measurement indices (in C and F). Not that this is useful, since this is a conceptual marker, but it's interesting.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I think it'd be more precise to say that they have been conceptualized by humans, and humans have given them names (because, well, we do that). But they "existed"  without humans. 2+1=3 is a notation for how objects behave that was true before there were humans. Atomic "math" was happening a long time before some person came along and hung science on it.

Um... no, actually, that's hubris. These are all human-made concepts based on our interpretation of things. An animal may know the additive value of having more than one of a certain thing, but that doesn't mean that the animal understands that 1+1=2

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
This is getting silly.

You're telling me.

Tim Baker wrote:

If you knew the answer to that question, you would not have even posted it.  A junior high science student would (should) know the answer.  You seriously need to learn something about basic science, in my opinion.

Um, sorry, Tim. I wish I could drop to your level again, but I am going to have to focus on the conversation with the person who does have a level of knowledge and understanding. Ta.

kickfight wrote:

Heh heh... you know what I mean, doofus. They have been given parameters, they have had their conceptual model defined. This means that they have emerged from the human mind via some kind of analysis or observation. Absolute Zero has been defined as zero Kelvin and a whole bunch of negative numbers on the C and F meters.

I believe you need to define your terms, then. They appear to change to support your thesis.  Also, the non-word "doofus" is inappropriate, in my opinion. 

As I read your question "transcends human experience" suggests to me that you are asking for something that is beyond human experience.  Correct me if I'm incorrect.  In those two cases, we've never experienced absolute zero nor have we traveled at the speed of light.  Thus, the formulae support the question you asked regarding "transcending human experience."  Actually, most complex scientific theories in the natural sciences would 'transcend human experience."

What I would propose that on your future posts, please define your terms.  Thanks, Tim