“StevoR, I thought it might have been a more recent story and writer than Asimov but you’re probably right. It does sound Asmovian the way you describe it. BTW, Asimov would get the day right. Those Yanks do have their elections on a predictable schedule. I love golden age Clarke and Asimov by the way.

Rev: “and hast revealed them unto babes”
Why do Paris and Elle et al deserve special revelation?
&
shane Says:
October 5th, 2008 at 5:50 am
StevoR, forgot to say thanks. How ignorant of me. So, thanks.”

No worries!

I grew up on Asimov, Niven and Clarke – plus Stapledon, Wyndham, Brunner, Orson Scott Card etc .. Yes, I love my SF! Tragic ain’t it?

(But hey, I’m happy. )

—–

Damn hope this doesn’t go through twicxe -forgot tochange the moinker .. *Sigh*

(But hey, I’m happy. )

The great thing about science, is that the conclusions are based on evidence. When new evidence is found, the conclusions may change or they may remain the same. You are confusing this with belief.

Humans “believed” the earth was flat, but the scientific process determined that it is not.
Humans “believed” the earth was the center of the universe, but science proved that it is not.

Your comments show that you are steadfast in your religion. If you choose to believe in something despite the evidence to the contrary, that is your right. But it is not scientific, and has no place in a science classroom.

p.s. The correct spelling is “grammar.”

The executive branch concentrates 1/3 of our system of checks and balances in the hands of essentially one person, although that person obviously relies on assistance from many great minds, some of whom must be confirmed (one check/balance). The executive branch sets the priorities for government, submits bills to the houses of congress for their consideration, and works in many ways behind the scenes to build consensus for their legislative agenda. In the past 8 years, the executive branch has claimed and/or been granted powers heretofore unseen. More germaine to this conversation, the VP has been the most powerful VP in the history of our nation, and Gov. Palin (at the debate) fully supported the “flexibility” of the Constitution on that point.

It matters very much that she would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but it matters more that as VP she plans to take a very active role in reforming Washington and the nation.

Al said:

By the way, I think Deepak is right: India HAS let BOTH Science and God explain the world. For example, the exact science which is Yoga (yes, Yoga) does a lot of explaining how the human body works, and how its lifespan can be lengthened and its existence enjoyed. I think there is a lot to be said for a faith and practice (Yoga) that, for millenia, has provided evidence, RESULTS, that are cohesive with its claims: Yoga extends life.

Just something to think about. Life-long yogis live to be 80-90, and some for longer. Life-long scientists? Well, our national average chemical-dependent scientific life-expectancy is what? 73? Yogis have us beat by 20 years.

There’s a result to think about.

Yes. Let’s think about this.

First, IF yoga (note the lowercase initial there, Al, because “yoga” is not a proper noun, just an ordinary noun) is a science, then yogis are scientists. So your contrast between yogis and scientists as distinct is illogical.

Second, there are no peer-reviewed journals about yoga, are there? It is true that yoga may feature in peer-reviewed journals about sports science, but that hardly qualifies yoga as a science in its own right. By what criteria do you classify yoga as a science? What are its principle methodologies? Where are the results published? And does it really expand huamn understanding of how stuff works?

Third, the vast majority of people that have attended yoga classes experience a fitness class, not a systematic method of investigation (which is what would classify it as science to actual scientists).

Fourth, from whence come your data about lifespans? Are these figures reliable? Do the figures indicate a true difference between yogis and scientists, or are there confounding factors for which you have not accounted?

Fifth, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. No amount of anecdotal reporting can support a scientific conclusion. All it can do is spark a scientific investigation. Your “millenia” of “results” are irrelevant from a scientific viewpoint.

Thus, your assertions are demonstrated to be no more than that – assertions. Your argument is illogical, your “data” appear to be unfounded, and your conclusion appears to be made up on the spot.

In short, you are wrong. Even if your conclusion is right, you have no idea whether this is really true or not, and the method you used to get there not only fails to convince, it does the opposite. Your illogical argument drives reasoning people to disagree with you.

Dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

(Well, today anyway – it ain’t over yet)

I fully understand your argument. I just think it’s an impractical, overly simplistic, philosophical argument that makes anything anyone might ever think or say meaningless.

Subjectivity is precisely what we are describing. Relativity. Einstein… ever hear of him? or his successors, all who study and devote their time in Quantum Physics? CERN? ring any bells? Or flutes, si vu preferez? “whatever floats your boat….”

And I’m saying that some things you’re saying are subjective aren’t. There are absolute truths in the world that that have nothing to do with how people might interpret things. If I decide to stop eating because I don’t think it’s necessary, I’m not right. I’m just an idiot who’s going to starve to death.

And why do you think I was talking about closed minded people in power as creationists?
I don’t know. Could it be because you began by scolding people who are speaking out against teaching creationism in science class? Nah.

There are quite the same number, if not more now, closed-minded evolutionists in power, too. Neither power camp are harmless. Both act on the demise of the other.

On one hand, we have a group that believes what they do because they read it in the bible. If evidence contradicts what the bible says, they ignore or twist that evidence. They’ll never actually change their views though. On the other hand we have a group that believes what they do because if a logical interpretation of evidence, and who are willing to change that belief if that’s where the evidence leads them. Now, how exactly are evolutionists close minded? And as a reminder, you’re the one that used the offensive “harmless simpletons” phrase.

But then, you seem to devote a lot of passion on this website…. a lot of good this does anyone, huh?
Oh, please don’t turn to silly insults. I’ve tried so hard to keep from asking how a simpleton could understand what science is better than a real life “scientist”, but I may not be able to hold back anymore. See what you made me do? I didn’t want to put the word “scientist” in quotes, but you drove me to it.

“It is not up to you, as a reporter, to question the validity of the facts or information you are presenting..”

To whom are you speaking? This is a blog, and Phil is not a reporter.

“I’ve always been under the impression that Science and Religion BOTH come from the exact same source: our BRAINS.”

Your impression is wrong. Science is a method by which we explain reality, in a way that can be tested and verified. The end result is that thru science, we discover that reality exists whether you (or your brain) are there to see it or not.

Religion is not the same.

Interesting choice, heavy metal and classical…. According to a recent scientific study, people with musical favorites of Heavy Metal and Classical actually DID test similarly on a number of personal attribute questions: they enjoy a sense of the grandiose in life and entertainment…. It was big news a few weeks ago – I think early September.

And you’re right. Any two things ARE the same. It is our perception of those things which cause us to discriminate, either eliminating them from our consciousness involving our next steps, or acting on their incoming information. Our subconscious delivers our root impressions of said information (which is, of course, set up by previous conscious decisions…). Our current conscious decisions either keep them “in frame” or not. We consciously process, what, UP TO 1 to 2 percent of our environment at any one moment (which science says the smallest fraction of “time” is 10^-37 of a second)? That which we don’t process is as dross, filler, not important, and we count it all as equal: that which does NOT impact us. Our consciousness moves forward on the small amount which does affect us. Therefore seemingly different things have the same result MOST of the time: no impact on us.

And anyways, Heavy Metal and Classical music are the same: they both use a series of cacophanous rhythms, discord, harmony, melody, etc. which give some pleasure, some not. They are interpreted by most as music, what differs is merely PERSONAL taste. Where does that come from? Each. Individual. Brain.

I am right, too. :0)

Subjectivity is precisely what we are describing. Relativity. Einstein… ever hear of him? or his successors, all who study and devote their time in Quantum Physics? CERN? ring any bells? Or flutes, si vu preferez? “whatever floats your boat….”

And why do you think I was talking about closed minded people in power as creationists? (which, I take it, you mean “literal 6 day Genesis history” people) There are quite the same number, if not more now, closed-minded evolutionists in power, too. Neither power camp are harmless. Both act on the demise of the other.

But then, you seem to devote a lot of passion on this website…. a lot of good this does anyone, huh?

They’re not harmless. They’re not simpletons (how condescending of you). And the post is about whether or not non-science should be taught science class.

As a scientist, I’m aware we the people of the science community are compelled to be OBJECTIVE, and look at results. Not “right or wrong” issues.

Sometimes those results tell us something. Say I do an experiment where I pour salt on snails to find out what happens. My results show that they turn to goo. If someone else insists that when you pour salt on snails they grow to man sized and start talking, then I’m right, and they’re wrong.

I’ve always been under the impression that Science and Religion BOTH come from the exact same source: our BRAINS

Using this line of reasoning, you could argue that any two things are exactly the same. Heavy Metal and Classical Music are the same. Satanists and Bible thumpers are the same. Spinach and the crusades are the same. Just because we know about things because we think of them with our brains does not make them the same.

Since there are limitless connections made within each of those nut-like neural configurations, there are limitless conclusions to be drawn.

That might be true, but there are a limited number of reasonable, evidence based conclusions that we can draw. Creationism is not among them.

the fact is that you hae NO proof either way.. other than what you have been told (and have accepted as truth) by those you believe to be right.

Not only that.. but from what i see your also tryignto create “spin” on the political occurrences in the united states of america.

that is not good reporting.

It is not up to you, as a reporter, to question the validity of the facts or information you are presenting..
and so..
this is indeed one of the worst articles i have ever had the mispleasure of wasting my time on.

Be advised that this is the last article from your magazine i will ever read.. you have lost a customer, and have made ME lose faith (thats right i said faith) in what i THOUGHT was a somewhat reliable magazine.

Al, you call deliberately using political pressure to dumb down science education in public schools in favour of religious apologetics, and thereby violating the First Amendment, harmless?

Just checkin’…

Just something to think about. Life-long yogis live to be 80-90, and some for longer. Life-long scientists? Well, our national average chemical-dependent scientific life-expectancy is what? 73? Yogis have us beat by 20 years.

There’s a result to think about.

I’ve always been under the impression that Science and Religion BOTH come from the exact same source: our BRAINS. Since there are limitless connections made within each of those nut-like neural configurations, there are limitless conclusions to be drawn. The ones that do the best explaining of environmental phenomena, according to each brain, are the connections that stick around.

So we see by this, Science and Religion are actually one in the same: what we have here are two sometimes conflicting faiths. Both do their part in explaining worldly phenomena. Both do their part in describing what we as humans, as individuals, as society, should do. What we should be concerned about, as Scientists, forever and anon, is RESULTS. And the CAUSE of said results. Isn’t that what started Copernicus and Galileo on their journeys? Shouldn’t we be so speculative?

Rev: “and hast revealed them unto babes”
Why do Paris and Elle et al deserve special revelation?