"Policing" ourselves?
Pages
| Author | Topic: "Policing" ourselves? |
|---|---|
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 13:44
Profile
Three books that I'd recommend reading have been translated into the english language: 1) Erich Maria Remarque: The Spark of Life 2) Luna Millu: Smoke over Birkenau 3) Fania Fénelon: Playing for Time -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 18:04
Profile
What is lacking about information on the Internet is a way to determine reliability. Any idiot with enough ability to generate a website can post anything no matter how stupid it is. Wikipedia has had trouble with altering information to push an agenda so that they've had to change their policies in order that changes could be more easily noticed and evaluated to prevent wrong information from being accepted as fact. Unfortunately information is being restricted in the education system in the US. If you don't know that it's missing you never think to look for it. Most people don't take the time to educate themselves. Now there is a push to not place information out there that might offend a group. Arizona defeated a law to require universities to provide alternate material for individuals who might be offend by the course content. That would've allowed people to continue on in their own worlds without seeing alternatives. I don't even like thinking about how Intelligent Designers want to stop the teaching of evolution just because it's not a complete theory. All science still has new information occuring that changes existing theories. The Law of Gravity was discovered by Newton in the 1600's, but there are still some scientists that think there should be corrections to it to explain deviations that are barely measureable depending on the types of matter that are involved. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Saturday, April 22 2006 21:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:Where would you want to take such trust in reliability? How about karma-like stars? The BBC have your say counts recommendations for posts. In a small community the recommendations need not be anonymous. quote:This has been much publicised and addressed, afaik. There is nothing like your own critical thinking, imho. I do not want to replace that, anyhow, and I hope nobody else will dare to, either. quote:The time is there. Just read My love affair with porn and most of us will admit that we have similar habits if not with porn then spiderweb ... quote:How can additional alternate material allow people to continue on in their own worlds? What do you want to do against that? Brainwash them? Some of them may be right, too. I just do not get it. They did defeat that law, so what? quote:Intelligent design belongs in "Theory of Knowledge" as an example. The whole controversy is whether it should be taught in science on an equal footing. This reminds me of the past culture war in Germany about deemphasizing the rule of three in favor of set theory in the math curriculum. The results were just desasterous. You are right that keeping a link to the rule of three in some internet page would not be an acceptable alternative to teaching it, or some may say, pestering the poor students with it. Back to OM's original post. Apart from revealing gross lack of information - unless he was trolling - he asked for an exchange of opinion and - since then - is absent from the whole discussion as far as I see. Could it be that such provocative and subsequent evasive behavior is correlated to the topic? This would mean that we are not looking at an information problem but a psychological phenomenon? I do not mean to stigmatize that - that would not help in anyway - but we need to identify the mechanism bravely, if we want to address the problem in any efficient way. Possibly, some deeply-felt empty loneliness and disorientation that cannot be filled by any indoctrination unless it is disguised as heroic rebellion. [ Saturday, April 22, 2006 21:40: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 12:35
Profile
quote:It's a little known fact that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, published 11 years after his more widely known Special Theory of 1905, is the modern theory of gravity, replacing Newton's Law of Gravitation. When people hear 'gravity' they think 'Newton', but they should really think 'Einstein' just as much, because gravity was the greatest of his (ridiculously many) great achievements. There are no currently measurable deviations from Einstein's theory depending on the type of matter, but a few theorists continue to speculate that there could be, and a few experimentalists periodically check for them, whenever new technology allows more precise checks. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 13:43
Profile
Homepage
Newtonian mechanics are wrong, and we know they're wrong. They're also an extremely good approximation for the cases you're likely to come across in everyday, macroscopic, low velocity life. Newton is perfectly good for predicting how things will act with the imprecise measurement tools you are likely to have at your disposal. In other words, Newton's theories, however wrong, are right enough for a great deal of useful work. Intelligent design does not provide any useful building block. Nothing can be done with ID. Things can be done with evolution, mostly in theory but sometimes in practice, and they generally turn out to work. That means ID is not a useful theory and evolution is, regardless of which is right. It also means evolution has more empirical rightness. A better comparison would be Einstein's theories and evolution. We don't know that Einstein has the full picture, but the experts in the field overwhelmingly can't find anything missing. We don't know that evolutionary theory is completely right either, but the experts in the field overwhelmingly can't come up with a better theory. —Alorael, who is entirely guilty of bringing up an unresolvable issue that could have been avoided. He should be tried, convicted, drawn, quartered, and locked. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 15:46
Profile
Homepage
I hate it when people describe a scientific theory as "wrong." It's not that a theory is "right" or "wrong": it's that it's to a greater or lesser degree successfully able to make observable predictions that match real-world events. Newton's mechanics are quite successful in this regard; they're just not as successful in certain situations as Einstein's theories. Newton's mechanics are more successful than, say, Aristotle's mechanics, though, and it would be odd to say that Newton's mechanics are "right" when compared to Aristotle's but "wrong" when compared to Einstein's. I also hate it when people describe a scientific principle as "just a theory." In casual conversation, a "theory," a "hypothesis," an "inference," and a "guess" are all basically the same thing, but in formal scientific discourse, a "theory" is a rule underpinning vast amounts of interpretation of data. A "theory" is much more significant than a "fact": a fact can only tell you what happened one time, but a theory can tell you what is going to happen every time, and a theory doesn't become widely accepted (or widely termed a "theory") until there are vast tracts of data supporting it. I think that it's important for people to know these things, but a shockingly low number actually does. I suppose they're not taught very effectively in middle school and high school science classes. EDIT: For the record, this was just a rant in general, not particularly directed at anyone, as should be obvious but may not be. [ Sunday, April 23, 2006 15:50: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 17:20
Profile
Homepage
"Just a theory" bothers me a great deal, because most of what is scientifically "true" is still just a theory. A "wrong" theory doesn't bother me nearly as much, because theories differ only in the accuracy with which they describe observable phenomena. A theory is right when we cannot measure any deviation from the theory, although it may well be that we either lack sufficiently sensitive tools for measurement or access to a situation in which reality deviates from the theory's prediction. A theory is wrong when another theory is more right. This doesn't account for degrees of inaccuracy/wrongness, but it still describes the theories, albeit with incorrect terminology. —Alorael, would be very tempted to call a theory technically as well as colloquially wrong if it were able to predict real-world events 0% of the time. "Any mass exerts a force on all other masses directed radially outward from the first mass" is a theory of gravity that can really only be described as very, very wrong. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 18:38
Profile
What I was refering to on Newton's theory of gravity was a reproduction of Galileo's experiment with dropping different objects of the same mass. When performed in vacuum all objects should take the same time to fall the same distant. There was an experiment where there was a distinct difference depending upon the type of matter making up the objects. It was theorized that there was a corrective force that could be measured under the right conditions. This was exclusive of Einsteinian theories, but had been predicted by someone else. I only saw one reference to this about 15 years ago. Newton's theory works for most real world situations, Einstein's usually works for those cases like those at relativistic velocities. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 19:08
Profile
Kel... Why all the hate? Let's see the love! :) -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 19:33
Profile
Homepage
Because I hate you. >8E :mad: -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 19:38
Profile
 But I love you. With frilly flowers and happy hearts. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 20:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then perhaps the best reaction to the "evolution is just a theory" argument is to reply "your existence is also just a theory, and I like to keep an open mind" and walk off. :P [ Sunday, April 23, 2006 20:59: Message edited by: Frank H. Pabodie ] -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 21:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:Anything can predict real-world events most of the time if one allows for sufficient "percent uncertainty." :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 21:38
Profile
Homepage
If the theory does not fit the facts... 1. Redo the experiment until the facts confirm the theory. After enough iterations you'll get an outlier that falls where you're expecting results. 2. Accept 330% error and blame lack of funding. 3. Declare a special case. 4. Proclaim that you've discovered pseudometakinetoforces. You'll be unceremoniously ejected from polite scientific circles, but you'll be assured a comfortable life thanks to countless gullible followers. 5. Chastise the graduate students and make them do it again. —Alorael, who has been guilty of #2 more often than he'd like. Funding has very rarely been to blame. Laziness makes a much better candidate. Cleaning the glassware, calibrating the scales, and going through all the work with proper controls takes so much effort! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6912
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 22:44
Profile
Wow this conversation has shifted off topic big time. I pretty much took every science class in my high school and teachers talked about the whole evolution debate A LOT (all of them were pro teaching them, but it was odd heaving my physics teacher talk so much about it). My question is why not add courses like theology and philosophy to the curriculum instead of complaining so much about evolution. I know I would take a course in that if I had a chance. Going back to the original topic a bit. Despite the fact that racism makes me furious. As long as the people don’t promote violence I cant truly be against it. (I am Jewish with relatives that were in concentration camps) I really rather have my blood boil kos of some ppls opinions than not be able to express mine (does that make sense?) The only way to fight racism is education and it surprises me that some members mentioned that their school didn’t cover holocaust (or Stalin). My history teacher loved to point out humanities (censored) ups. I think it should defiantly be a requirement to learn about all major violations of human rights. If we don’t remember our mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. Much like human trafficking had a chance to bloom when it should have been attacked with extreme ferocity ones first discovered. Hitler vs Stalin: I also happen to be a Russian lol migrated in 1997. Stalin is surely not regarded with highest respects among the “elders” in my family (or anyone else’s that I know of). The difference is that even thought Stalin had a much bigger body count he also spent a lot more time in power. On deaths per year in power Hitler sure as hell takes the cake perhaps even the whole bakery. Posts: 89 | Registered: Wednesday, March 15 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, April 23 2006 23:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, I don't know what school you went to, but plenty of schools already have subjects like that available. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 10:44
Profile
You should do 5 in any case. It's good for them. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 13:37
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Thuryl: quote:Colleges, yes. High schools? In Dikiyoba's experience, very rarely. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 14:50
Profile
In the sixth grade we had a cursory overview of various major religions (which apparently includes Daoism, which I had never heard of then and which I have rarely heard of since), with the obvious bias toward Christianity, despite it being a public school. But there's not much else of that sort. -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 16:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:The really important things you cannot teach by establishing extra topics. I did have "religion" classes twice a week for 11 years but this was just an operation Enduring Boredom most of the time that managed to put to sleep my genuinely inquiring mind except when a new teacher switched us to Enduring 公案 by reading with us Emil Brunner and Kierkegaard. The latter went far above my head and it was sooo completely removed from my experience. Learning Tolkien's Quenya (sp?) poems by heart would have benefitted us more if only to impress others and lull ourselves. Yes, and I did have Philosophy classes in school and we did learn about Plato's cave.  But we did not understand that this was reality - starving our minds by stuffing them with knowledge that we had no way of making our own. We could have discussed, e.g. quote:or quote:However, this would have interfered with the objective to achieve readily verifiable learning results. That is the way school is. Edit: Fixed the typo. [ Monday, April 24, 2006 22:55: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 21:07
Profile
Homepage
Kierkegaard. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Monday, April 24 2006 22:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:Salmon, what did I tell you about hitting on Kel? You got Slarty, do NOT be greedy. -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
La Canaliste
Member # 5563
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 00:56
Profile
*nitpicking* One should distinguish between those theories such as Newtonian or Einsteinian mechanics which simply describe what happens and provide means of predicting what might happen with no analysis of the underlying phenomenon, ie wtf is gravity and why do masses attract each other and why is gravitational mass proportional to inertial mass, and those theories which seek to provide an explanation for the causes of things, such as intelligent design. Now I will go back to sleep. -------------------- I am a mater of time and how . Deep down, you know you should have voted for Alcritas! Posts: 387 | Registered: Tuesday, March 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 03:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:Is a theory more than just a description of a maximum of facts that is as concise as possible? Like specifying an algorithm to compute pi instead of specifying all the digits? There need not be any "underlying causes" in a theory but if there are, it is more useful,because the theory can be adapted to known facts. And there is nothing as practical as a good theory that lets you predict what is about to happen in your daily life under any given circumstances. Newtonian mechanics may be better than general relativity for car crashes but for GPS Newtonian would just not work. This usefulness carries along way, e.g. for the decision of how much detail to incorporate into a mathematical model. The criterion is the maximum likelihood estimate, i.e. the probability which the model would assign to the actual findings upon which it is based. The more parameters the less precision in their measurements the more vague the predictions the less likely to predict the actual findings based on the fitted parameters. I am still not sure that intelligent design is a theory in that sense rather than a perspective of trying to align facts in the evolution of life by being open to additional mechanisms that we do not understand yet. We do not undetand evolutionary mechanisms completely yet rsto a degree comparable to e.g. quantum electrodynamics and the same applies to our understanding of how intelligence works based on the rather well understood channel molecules and transmitters in nerve cells. Who am I to exclude that there are similarities or relations? There is a string theory that has superb beauty because so many things fit in to those twenty-something dimensions. Who am I to exclude that it has something to do with the origin of the universe? The crucial question is one of usefulness and intelligent design is indeed useful to enhance the influence of ultraconservative religious parents on what their kids are taught in school. Any other ideas? [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 03:48: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 06:47
Profile
Homepage
If one is using words properly, one does distinguish between the sort of "theory" that Newton had or Einstein had and the sort of "theory" that intelligent design is: Newton's theory was a "scientific" theory, and intelligent design is not. Scientific theories make testable predictions. Intelligent design predicts a lack of evidence. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |