Extremism for Science and Religion

[micro...@hotmail.com]

It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
people's beliefs.
But both sides have went to far...
The extremes need to lose on both sides.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Olrik]

Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> people's beliefs.

Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> > It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> > people's beliefs.
>

-Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.

And how is that?

You are another dangerous person willing to attack the innocent...
This is the worlds problem of Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking is morally depraved.
Show me where I am wrong Stephen Hawking.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
> > But both sides have went to far...
> > The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>

> > Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>> people's beliefs.
>
>Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.

How, specifically can that happen?

[Olrik]

Le 2012-02-23 00:43, Aetherist a écrit :
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>> people's beliefs.
>>
>> Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> How, specifically can that happen?

It happens when "innocent people's beliefs" interferes with teaching the
theory of evolution, for example.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-02-23 00:42, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>> people's beliefs.
>>
>
> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> And how is that?
>
> You are another dangerous person willing to attack the innocent...
> This is the worlds problem of Stephen Hawking.
> Stephen Hawking is morally depraved.

You're nothing.

> Show me where I am wrong Stephen Hawking.

I really doubt Stephen Hawking will answer your miserable post.

>
> Mitchell Raemsch

[Aetherist]

What does science have to fear from 'teaching' anything???

[kni...@baawa.com]

It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.

BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.

If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"

>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >people's beliefs.
> >But both sides have went to far...
> >The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
> >Mitchell Raemsch
>
>     It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>
>    BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>
>    If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA

Science does lie about abortion.
If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...
Sick science calls it by another name and women are
given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

On 2/22/2012 10:14 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>> people's beliefs.
>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>
>> BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>
>> If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
> Science does lie about abortion.

No, it doesn't.

> If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
> human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...

And when does "baby" begin?

> Sick science calls it by another name and women are
> given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.

Sorry, but abortion does not kill a baby.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 22, 10:19 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/22/2012 10:14 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>> people's beliefs.
> >>> But both sides have went to far...
> >>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> >>      It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>
> >>     BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>
> >>     If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>
> >> Warlord Steve
> >> BAAWA
>
> > Science does lie about abortion.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> > If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
> > human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...
>
> And when does "baby" begin?

When it grows...

>
> > Sick science calls it by another name and women are
> > given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.
>
> Sorry, but abortion does not kill a baby.

That is its consequence bastard...

[DanielSan]

On 2/22/2012 10:22 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:19 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/22/2012 10:14 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>>>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>>> It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>
>>>> BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>
>>>> If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>>
>>>> Warlord Steve
>>>> BAAWA
>>
>>> Science does lie about abortion.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
>>> human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...
>>
>> And when does "baby" begin?
>
> When it grows...

When what grows?

>>> Sick science calls it by another name and women are
>>> given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.
>>
>> Sorry, but abortion does not kill a baby.
>
> That is its consequence bastard...

Nope. No baby has been killed by abortion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>> people's beliefs.
>
>Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.

Science doesn't care what people believe.

But when religionists are stupid enough to make claims about the real
world, they become subject to the tools, methods etc of the real
world.

Which includes science.

It's the believers' own fault for bringing their beliefs up outside
their religion.

Why do they pretend otherwise?

>> But both sides have went to far...
>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch

Another long time loonie who has been hiding in the woodwork and
crawled out.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:51:05 -0800, Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Where did anybody say it did, moron?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:46 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>> >people's beliefs.
>> >But both sides have went to far...
>> >The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>> >Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>     It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>
>>    BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>
>>    If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
>Science does lie about abortion.

Liar.

>If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
>human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...

Prove it, liar.

>Sick science calls it by another name and women are

Liar.

>given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.

Liar.

>Mitchell Raemsch

[Josh Miles]

On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>> people's beliefs.
>>
>
> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> And how is that?

Creationism in public classrooms.

[MarkA]

The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:10:29 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>> beliefs.
>> But both sides have went to far...
>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
>The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
>wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.

And it's not "both sides" of anything, let alone "both extremes" -
just believers in serious denial about reality who can't keep it
inside their religion.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Feb 22, 9:23 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> people's beliefs.

"Common sense" is how people understand the world around them using
their senses. It's often demonstrably false. The world is not flat,
the Sun does not circle the Earth, and so on.

Shall we discuss superstitions? Also, please define "innocent":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783

> But both sides have went to far...
> The extremes need to lose on both sides.

If you believe something that is demonstrably false you deserve to
"lose", and the Universe will kill you if you act as if your belief
were true.

Extreme stupidity is fatal. Less extreme stupidity used to be fatal,
but civilization prevents many marginally stupid people from getting
themselves killed.


Mark L. Fergerson

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
> > beliefs.
> > But both sides have went to far...
> > The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs".  If they are
> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.

But science is the wrong one here...

[huge]

On 02/23/2012 02:01 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>>> beliefs.
>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
>> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.
>
> But science is the wrong one here...

Are you saying we should _pretend_ to believe supernaturalist crap
so that people won't be inconvenienced?

Exactly _HOW_ is "science" the wrong one "here"? What is "here"?
Groan.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 6:59 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:23 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> > people's beliefs.
>
>   "Common sense" is how people understand the world around them using
> their senses. It's often demonstrably false. The world is not flat,
> the Sun does not circle the Earth, and so on.
>
>   Shall we discuss superstitions? Also, please define "innocent":
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783
>
> > But both sides have went to far...
> > The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
>   If you believe something that is demonstrably false you deserve to
> "lose", and the Universe will kill you if you act as if your belief
> were true.
>
>   Extreme stupidity is fatal.

Hawking says we will solve our problems on the Moon...

[raven1]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>people's beliefs.

So if someone wants to believe that the Earth is flat, scientists
should remain silent on the topic? Why?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:55:25 -0500, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
><micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>people's beliefs.
>
>So if someone wants to believe that the Earth is flat, scientists
>should remain silent on the topic? Why?

Because if you speak up, they might throw you off the edge.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism micro...@hotmail.com <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>> > beliefs.
>> > But both sides have went to far...
>> > The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>> > Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs".  If they are
>> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.
>
> But science is the wrong one here...

How so? The truth should be able to withstand all scrutiny.
If science looks at the claims of religion, and finds them
to be lacking, then that's a problem that religion has to deal
with. If there WAS a God, and specifically, the one expounded
by the Abrahamic religions, then science should be able to
see some evidence of that. Why? Because the Bible makes
VERY specific claims about things God has supposedly done,
and continues to do, here in the natural world. We should
be able to detect those things. If we can't, well, then
maybe religion isn't "truth".

[PD]

By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
Same with art, English, and economics.

A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
demarcation problem.

[PD]

How does it interfere with the teaching the theory of evolution?
Does someone's misconception that bullets fall to the ground because
they slow down interfere with the teaching of two-dimensional kinematics?

[huge]

On 02/23/2012 04:13 PM, PD wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>
>>> And how is that?
>>
>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem.

Called it, not calls it. He is long dead, and the 'problem' is of
little concern to anyone except historians of 20th century philosophical
history.

But since you bring it up, I'll answer it anyway.
Real science is perfectly exemplified by evolution.

Crap masquerading
as science is perfectly exemplified by creationism.

But all of this is for a philosophy course. Scientists learn by doing
science and having their work repeatedly verified by other scientists
performing the same experiments and observations and math.

[DanielSan]

On 2/23/2012 12:01 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>>> beliefs.
>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
>> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.
>
> But science is the wrong one here...

Science is simply a process. What makes it "wrong"?

[PD]

On 2/23/2012 4:29 PM, huge wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 04:13 PM, PD wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>
>>>> And how is that?
>>>
>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>
>> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>> Same with art, English, and economics.
>>
>> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem.
>
> Called it, not calls it. He is long dead, and the 'problem' is of
> little concern to anyone except historians of 20th century philosophical
> history.

I disagree. The demarcation problem is a problem of continued interest
to active scientists.

>
> But since you bring it up, I'll answer it anyway.
> Real science is perfectly exemplified by evolution.
>
> Crap masquerading
> as science is perfectly exemplified by creationism.

I don't disagree. I'm not defending creationism as science. The question
is whether understanding the difference between what is science and what
is NOT science but pretends to be science is important in teaching
science. I claim that it is.

>
> But all of this is for a philosophy course. Scientists learn by doing
> science and having their work repeatedly verified by other scientists
> performing the same experiments and observations and math.

There's a little bit more to it than that.

When you say "do science" what activity exactly do you have in mind? How
would you know that what's going through your head as a young and
aspiring scientist would be classed as science or not classed as
science. Do you have a lamp in your head that flashes green when what
you're thinking meets some criterion of being science, and flashes red
otherwise?

>
>
>> Don't know how you
>> properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>> demarcation problem.
>

I stand by this statement.

[PD]

On 2/23/2012 4:42 PM, PD wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 4:29 PM, huge wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 04:13 PM, PD wrote:

>>>
>>> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>>> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>>> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem.
>>
>> Called it, not calls it. He is long dead, and the 'problem' is of
>> little concern to anyone except historians of 20th century philosophical
>> history.
>
> I disagree. The demarcation problem is a problem of continued interest
> to active scientists.

As a current example, I might point toward you the disagreement between
prominent theoretical physicists about whether "string theory" and a
multiverse landscape is science or not. There are legitimate and
difficult arguments both ways.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 2:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 4:29 PM, huge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/23/2012 04:13 PM, PD wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

> >>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> >>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>>>>> people's beliefs.
>
> >>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> >>>> And how is that?
>
> >>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> >> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> >> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> >> Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> >> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
> >> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
> >> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem.
>
> > Called it, not calls it. He is long dead, and the 'problem' is of
> > little concern to anyone except historians of 20th century philosophical
> > history.
>
> I disagree. The demarcation problem is a problem of continued interest
> to active scientists.

Where is it in question?
The demarcation is not hard to see...
If the baby is growing it clearly is human life
that cannot be abortable...

Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
>
> > But since you bring it up, I'll answer it anyway.
> > Real science is perfectly exemplified by evolution.
>
> > Crap masquerading
> > as science is perfectly exemplified by creationism.
>
> I don't disagree. I'm not defending creationism as science. The question
> is whether understanding the difference between what is science and what
> is NOT science but pretends to be science is important in teaching
> science. I claim that it is.
>
>
>
> > But all of this is for a philosophy course. Scientists learn by doing
> > science and having their work repeatedly verified by other scientists
> > performing the same experiments and observations and math.
>
> There's a little bit more to it than that.
>
> When you say "do science" what activity exactly do you have in mind? How
> would you know that what's going through your head as a young and
> aspiring scientist would be classed as science or not classed as
> science. Do you have a lamp in your head that flashes green when what
> you're thinking meets some criterion of being science, and flashes red
> otherwise?
>
>
>
> >> Don't know how you
> >> properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
> >> demarcation problem.
>

> I stand by this statement.- Hide quoted text -

[huge]

I agree with that, but Popper didn't invent the concept of trying to
distinguish bullcrap from non-bullcrap, which goes back to the
beginnings of scientific thinking.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Science is a principality and a power that not all of which is
immoral.
But part of Science is promoting abortion and this is an abomination.
You cannot kill your baby...
There is no question as to where human life begins...
Science has lied.

Mitchell Raemsch

[PD]

I agree he didn't invent it. He was a prominent philosopher of science
who labeled it.

But the problem is more subtle than bullcrap and non-bullcrap.

Ptolemaic epicycles weren't really science either, but understanding
why it's not and why Newtonian gravity is, turns out to be fairly
important for understanding how to do science. And of course, I've
just mentioned string theory, which I'm sure a whole fleet-load of
physicists would assure you is not bullcrap, but maybe it's not
science, either. Then there's information theory, a la Claude Shannon.
Is that science? It has practical applications, but it's more
mathematics than science. Or is it? See, for example, holographic
cosmological models, which is based on the *thermodynamics of
information*.

I say let science teachers pick what they want to illustrate the
difference between science and pseudo-science, and not do our kids a
disservice by making sure they learn nothing but "facts" and never
learn what science is.

[PD]

On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

That's not the demarcation problem as described by Popper. You're
talking about something else.

> If the baby is growing it clearly is human life
> that cannot be abortable...

A fetus is alive and it is definitely growing. But this label "human",
you see, is the subject of debate. You say it is human because the
life was created by sexual union of two humans, or maybe because it
has the usual normal complement of human chromosomes. Lawyers have
drawn a line and said that it is not human until it leaves the
mother's womb. Science doesn't say one way or the other, as far as I
know, whether lawyers are right or you are right. As far as I know,
there is no *scientific* measure for applying that label on a
particular day of a pregnancy.

[DanielSan]

On 2/23/2012 2:40 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 12:01 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
>>>> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.
>>
>>> But science is the wrong one here...
>>
>> Science is simply a process. What makes it "wrong"?
>
> Science is a principality and a power that not all of which is
> immoral.

No, it isn't.

> But part of Science is promoting abortion and this is an abomination.

Science does not promote abortion.

> You cannot kill your baby...

Abortion does not kill babies.

> There is no question as to where human life begins...

About 200,000 years ago.

> Science has lied.

About? Remember, science is simply a process. It makes no moral or
ethical judgments (humans do that). It is simply the testing,
observation, and prediction of observable phenomena. I think you have
the wrong idea of what "science" is.

[huge]

On 02/23/2012 05:03 PM, PD wrote:
> On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, huge<h...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 04:48 PM, PD wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/23/2012 4:42 PM, PD wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2012 4:29 PM, huge wrote:
>>>>> On 02/23/2012 04:13 PM, PD wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>>>>>> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>>>>>> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem.
>>
>>>>> Called it, not calls it. He is long dead, and the 'problem' is of
>>>>> little concern to anyone except historians of 20th century philosophical
>>>>> history.
>>
>>>> I disagree. The demarcation problem is a problem of continued interest
>>>> to active scientists.
>>
>>> As a current example, I might point toward you the disagreement between
>>> prominent theoretical physicists about whether "string theory" and a
>>> multiverse landscape is science or not. There are legitimate and
>>> difficult arguments both ways.
>>
>> I agree with that, but Popper didn't invent the concept of trying to
>> distinguish bullcrap from non-bullcrap, which goes back to the
>> beginnings of scientific thinking.
>
> I agree he didn't invent it. He was a prominent philosopher of science
> who labeled it.
>
> But the problem is more subtle than bullcrap and non-bullcrap.

I'm not so sure that's so.

>
> Ptolemaic epicycles weren't really science either, but understanding
> why it's not and why Newtonian gravity is, turns out to be fairly
> important for understanding how to do science. And of course, I've
> just mentioned string theory, which I'm sure a whole fleet-load of
> physicists would assure you is not bullcrap, but maybe it's not
> science, either. Then there's information theory, a la Claude Shannon.
> Is that science? It has practical applications, but it's more
> mathematics than science. Or is it? See, for example, holographic
> cosmological models, which is based on the *thermodynamics of
> information*.

All of those controversies are happening or have happened. But
Popper didn't really figure prominantly in it. I haven't heard his
name come up in any of the books I've read on, e.g., astrophysics or
quantum mechanics lately. They just argue the actual issues. I don't
think there is some hard-and-fast demarcation line between science
and non-science. Some things are easier to verify than others,
some are more strongly indicated by math based on observation than
others. Both are, however, very good things to have.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:01:48 -0800, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>> > people's beliefs.
>> > But both sides have went to far...
>> > The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>> > Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs".  If they
>> are wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to
>> say so.
>
> But science is the wrong one here...
>

Where is "here"? Science has built in self-examination/error correction.
If it's wrong, it's because more information is needed.

[MarkA]

Science tells us that pregnancy is an arms race between the interests
of the fetus and those of the mother. A woman has the right to defend
herself against attack. Unless, of course, she's a Muslim.

[PD]

I agree. Which is why it is a recognizes as a Problem, and not
something easily settled out by some simple rule. That is why it is
also VERY worthwhile to talk through several cases, so that students
can derive some internal sensibilities by parsing.

Students (and many armchair science hobbyists) have a VERY difficult
time understanding what constitutes a scientific theory, as opposed to
an "explanation" or some set of metaphysical assumptions or being able
to design things that work.

> Some things are easier to verify than others,
> some are more strongly indicated by math based on observation than
> others.  Both are, however, very good things to have.
>

On this, I want to revisit this business of "verification". Science
isn't about verified facts. If that were the case, Newtonian gravity
would be dismissible as non-science, because it has been shown to be
*wrong* in some important cases, and if you recall, that is the metric
for falsification in science. Just because it has been falsified does
not mean it is not science.

Whatever you think of creationism for other reasons, what science is,
is complicated, and this is why it's very useful to teach as much
about the edges of it as about the center of it.

[huge]

This is another reason Popper has lost influence; he thought that
verification was required.

And of course you are right below,
it is not absolutely required, although if it is missing you need
at least some theory that predicts successfully and which
mathematically agrees with all known facts.

> If that were the case, Newtonian gravity
> would be dismissible as non-science, because it has been shown to be
> *wrong* in some important cases, and if you recall, that is the metric
> for falsification in science. Just because it has been falsified does
> not mean it is not science.
>
> Whatever you think of creationism for other reasons, what science is,
> is complicated, and this is why it's very useful to teach as much
> about the edges of it as about the center of it.

I agree that it's a good thing to teach, but I don't see any reason
to bring Popper into it. It is an appeal to an 'authority' that has
largely been found wanting.

[PD]

That doesn't sound right. Popper classed an idea as being a proper
theory if it was (among other things) in principle falsifiable -- that
is, subject to test -- not verified. Newtonian gravity was very
falsifiable. And verified! Right up until the day it wasn't!

>
> And of course you are right below,
> it is not absolutely required, although if it is missing you need
> at least some theory that predicts successfully and which
> mathematically agrees with all known facts.
>
>> If that were the case, Newtonian gravity
>> would be dismissible as non-science, because it has been shown to be
>> *wrong* in some important cases, and if you recall, that is the metric
>> for falsification in science. Just because it has been falsified does
>> not mean it is not science.
>>
>> Whatever you think of creationism for other reasons, what science is,
>> is complicated, and this is why it's very useful to teach as much
>> about the edges of it as about the center of it.
>
> I agree that it's a good thing to teach, but I don't see any reason
> to bring Popper into it. It is an appeal to an 'authority' that has
> largely been found wanting.

I am not making as much of a big deal about Popper as you think, and I
don't think Popper as a name needs to be brought into science class. But
probing the zone between what is science and what is not science is a
*crucial* activity in teaching science. And scientists agree. This I
know because they are constantly concerned with it, and they all work
hard to train their students about it. My reason for bringing up Popper
was only to point out that philosophers of science -- who spend a lot of
time thinking about how science actually does what it does -- also flag
it as a Big Problem to be concerned with.

I bring it up because so many people get it wrong or oversimplify
things. Some say, if it's wrong or falsified, then it's not science; if
that were true then the Bohr model of the atom would be not science.
Some say that if it's not testable, then it's not science; then this
begs the question why hundreds of trained physicists have been working
on string theory for DECADES -- on purpose! Some people say that if it
hasn't been verified in experiment, then it's not science; come on, the
Higgs boson search at the Large Hadron Collider wasn't science until
there was a hint of evidence for it?

[huge]

Yes, you're right, it was falsifiability, not verifiability;
I should have been more careful there.

That falsifiability has fallen by the wayside, so Popper has been
largely left behind.

>
>>
>> And of course you are right below,
>> it is not absolutely required, although if it is missing you need
>> at least some theory that predicts successfully and which
>> mathematically agrees with all known facts.
>>
>>> If that were the case, Newtonian gravity
>>> would be dismissible as non-science, because it has been shown to be
>>> *wrong* in some important cases, and if you recall, that is the metric
>>> for falsification in science. Just because it has been falsified does
>>> not mean it is not science.
>>>
>>> Whatever you think of creationism for other reasons, what science is,
>>> is complicated, and this is why it's very useful to teach as much
>>> about the edges of it as about the center of it.
>>
>> I agree that it's a good thing to teach, but I don't see any reason
>> to bring Popper into it. It is an appeal to an 'authority' that has
>> largely been found wanting.
>
> I am not making as much of a big deal about Popper as you think, and I
> don't think Popper as a name needs to be brought into science class. But
> probing the zone between what is science and what is not science is a
> *crucial* activity in teaching science.

On this I would agree.

> And scientists agree. This I
> know because they are constantly concerned with it, and they all work
> hard to train their students about it. My reason for bringing up Popper
> was only to point out that philosophers of science -- who spend a lot of
> time thinking about how science actually does what it does -- also flag
> it as a Big Problem to be concerned with.

I don't want to completely discount philosophy of science, but a lot of
popularizers of science, Krauss, Hawking, Dawkins, and Tyson, have been
going after philosophy lately. I think they are actually talking about
the kind of flat footed metaphysics that has gone on in the past, but
there is certainly a lot of general bloviation common to philosophers
that takes focus away from known facts about a particular subject.

[sbalneav]

On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 12:01 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent people's
>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>>> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs". If they are
>>>> wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not "extreme" to say so.
>>
>>> But science is the wrong one here...
>>
>> Science is simply a process. What makes it "wrong"?
>
> Science is a principality and a power that not all of which is
> immoral.
> But part of Science is promoting abortion and this is an abomination.

How does Science "promote" abortion?

> You cannot kill your baby...

That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
question, not a Scientific one.

> There is no question as to where human life begins...

No one's debating that having an abortion terminates a pregnancy
which, left to allow to complete to term, will result in a human.

The question is, at what point do we declare the fetus "human" enough
that aborting it would be cruel to it.

Science, (correctly) points out at what point the zygote develops
what functions. Deciding that once such-and-such a function has
developed sufficiently, we'll say the foetus can no longer be
aborted is a function of LAW, not Science.

> Science has lied.

How has Science lied? What, EXACTLY does Science say that's a lie,
with respect to abortion?

> Mitchell Raemsch

[sbalneav]

On 12-02-23 04:15 PM, PD wrote:
> On 2/22/2012 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-02-23 00:43, Aetherist a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>
>>> How, specifically can that happen?
>>
>> It happens when "innocent people's beliefs" interferes with teaching the
>> theory of evolution, for example.
>>
>
> How does it interfere with the teaching the theory of evolution?

It does when some innocent person's beliefs cause class time to be
taken away from teaching legitimate science to teach non-science.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 3:20 pm, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:40:33 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 12:01 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 23, 6:10 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.invalid>  wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >> >>> people's beliefs.
> >> >>> But both sides have went to far...
> >> >>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
> >> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> >> >> The Universe cares little about "innocent people's beliefs".  If
> >> >> they are wrong, and science exposes their wrongness, it is not
> >> >> "extreme" to say so.
>
> >> > But science is the wrong one here...
>
> >> Science is simply a process.  What makes it "wrong"?
>
> > Science is a principality and a power that not all of which is immoral.
> > But part of Science is promoting abortion and this is an abomination. You
> > cannot kill your baby...
> > There is no question as to where human life begins... Science has lied.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Science tells us that pregnancy is an arms race between the interests
> of the fetus and those of the mother.  A woman has the right to defend
> herself against attack.

The baby attack? Please substantiate that.
C-section...

>
> --
> MarkA
> Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before

> About eight o'clock- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Since when does a baby threaten a mother? C-section...
In the past the mother had the right to choose birth
even if she was going to die...
There are some moral mothers still of wanting that right...
They want that right to choose...

Mitchell Raemsch

[micro...@hotmail.com]

There is no demarcation problem....

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>
>>> And how is that?
>>
>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
>By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>Same with art, English, and economics.

Bull. Shit.

Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
business outside the host religion.

>A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>demarcation problem.

Creationism doesn't even look like science.

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:23:40 -0800, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:51:05 -0800, Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com>
>wrote:

>
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:47:51 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Le 2012-02-23 00:43, Aetherist a écrit :

>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>

>>>>> Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>

>>>> How, specifically can that happen?
>>>
>>>It happens when "innocent people's beliefs" interferes with teaching the
>>>theory of evolution, for example.
>>

>>What does science have to fear from 'teaching' anything???
>
>Where did anybody say it did, moron?

"... interferes with teaching ..."

Science is a process of structured logic and causative connections.
It cannot be harmed by teaching. It becomes a political and religous
issue and not one of the scientific method the very moment to translate
the process into beliefs and teaching of same.

[Jim Austin]

On Feb 22, 9:23 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> people's beliefs.

Science should strive for truth, regardless of innocent people's
beliefs inconsistent therewith.

> But both sides have went to far...

There is no such thing as going too far when it comes to seeking the
truth.

> The extremes need to lose on both sides.

No. Science should win and anti-science types should lose.

>
> Mitchell Raemsch

[Aetherist]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>
>>>> And how is that?
>>>
>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>
>>By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>>because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>>Same with art, English, and economics.
>
>Bull. Shit.
>
>Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
>business outside the host religion.

In your NOT so humble O-P-I-N-I-O-N! If one presents both ideas side
by side, objectively stating the body of evidence and basis for both
and let the students decide the issue for themselves. I do not fear
the result. YOU ARE NOT! in any position to dictate the thoughts and
beliefs of others. I think creationism is a result of garbled ancient
knowledge and in no way reflects any valid situation. The evidence
clearly supports the evolutional process.

>>A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>>really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>>crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>>properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>>demarcation problem.
>
>Creationism doesn't even look like science.

So what? It's not and why care?

[sbalneav]

But it's NOT SCIENCE. Classroom time is limited as it is. Teach
Science in science class. If people want religion, they can get
it at Sunday School. Unless you're also suggesting that Science
get equal time in Sunday School?

[huge]

On 02/23/2012 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how is that?
>>>>
>>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>>
>>> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>>> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>>> Same with art, English, and economics.
>>
>> Bull. Shit.
>>
>> Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
>> business outside the host religion.
>
> In your NOT so humble O-P-I-N-I-O-N! If one presents both ideas side
> by side, objectively stating the body of evidence and basis for both
> and let the students decide the issue for themselves.

There is no evidence for creationism.

And, by your logic we should also let students take time out to
explore the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and the
invisible pink unicorn, for which there is also no evidence.

Indeed, you would have to take time out for the students to
investigate leprauchauns orbiting the crab nebula and whether
Frodo lives.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>
>>> And how is that?
>>
>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
>By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>Same with art, English, and economics.
>

>A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>demarcation problem.

Creationism is to evolution that storks are to obstetricians.

(attrib unknown)

Demarcation? One has evidence and the other doesn't. Why even make
such a stupid statement?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:46 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"

>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>> >people's beliefs.

>> >But both sides have went to far...

>> >The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>

>> >Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>     It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>
>>    BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>
>>    If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.

>Science does lie about abortion.

That's nothing but your agenda talking. Where is your counter
science? Where are the mountains of medical studies, peered reviewed
documents that claim 'science' is lying?

Nada... right?

>If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
>human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...

It's not a baby. It's a zygote. Zygotes are NOT babies. Just
because you call a zygote a baby doesn't make it a baby.

You're one of the brainwashed religers addicted to the
superstitious catchphrases and power words.

Baby. Life. Kill. Murder. Person.

>Sick science calls it by another name and women are
>given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.
>
I knew you were dense. I didn't know you were Black Hole dense
until now.

Skippy, the law gives women the 'right' to have abortions, not
science.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 6:51 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:46 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"

>
>
>
>
>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >> >people's beliefs.
> >> >But both sides have went to far...
> >> >The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>
> >> >Mitchell Raemsch
>
> >>     It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>
> >>    BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>
> >>    If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
> >Science does lie about abortion.
>
>    That's nothing but your agenda talking. Where is your counter
> science? Where are the mountains of medical studies, peered reviewed

My agenda is to show that there is no demarcation point to human life
at all to be applied.
No studies are needed. You can go back to school for yourself.
You may appeal to your peers on this issue for acceptance but I do
not.

I can see that human life begins at conception and there can be
no option of killing your baby. Changing the name to fetus doesn't
change the baby...

Mitchell Raemsch

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>
>> You cannot kill your baby...
>
> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
> question, not a Scientific one.
>
>> There is no question as to where human life begins...

> No one's debating that having an abortion terminates a pregnancy
> which, left to allow to complete to term, will result in a human.

Sure we are debating that! When does life begin? It's an open scientific
question! Many say it begins at conception. But one could also argue
that by the above definition it also could be said to begin BEFORE
conception. In other words celibacy deny's allowing a pregnancy that if
left to term would result in a life. Hence in this view celibacy is
murder. Others argue life begins at conception, but the law widely holds
that life begins at birth for sure.

> The question is, at what point do we declare the fetus "human" enough
> that aborting it would be cruel to it.

That is the question indeed. When does human "life" actually begin. And
that is because for the law pretty much everyone agrees that killing an
human that is alive is murder. While chopping out some bit of flesh,
while certainly "alive" in the sense of living cells, but still not
constituting human consciousnesses is not murder. Assault, perhaps, or
other crime, but not murder. Hence the question of when human life
begins is central to the law.

> Science, (correctly) points out at what point the zygote develops
> what functions. Deciding that once such-and-such a function has
> developed sufficiently, we'll say the foetus can no longer be
> aborted is a function of LAW, not Science.

Hence it seems a question science needs to address but has not as of
now, is the very one of when life begins so murder can be clearly
defined legally.

My personal view is that life begins around the age of 35 years old for
many people and abortion should be legal until life begins.

[Josh Miles]

On 2/23/2012 4:13 PM, PD wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>

>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>
>>>

>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>
>>> And how is that?
>>
>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
> properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
> demarcation problem.

That's perfectly OK. What I meant is creationism taught in public
schools as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. It's religion
masquerading as science.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>

> > On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > How does Science "promote" abortion?
>
> >> You cannot kill your baby...
>
> > That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
> > the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political

Who gives the woman the right?
Isn't that an interesting question.

> > question, not a Scientific one.

But science is just that. It is deciding.
Who is giving it the right?
The sanctity of life is the most important scientific question I know.

Science lies.

Science can take a lesson from the church.
There is no question of when the human form begins to live.
It is when the baby begins to grow.
Even without suffering a human life cannot be terminated...

There can be no argument...
Science being an authority is a problem.
I see it as the same problem President Reagan talked about.
"Government itself is the problem."

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

Can I go ahead and hook into another human being for sustenance and
protection, if that human being does not consent?

[DanielSan]

On 2/23/2012 6:59 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:51 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:46 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>>>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>> But both sides have went to far...
>>>>> The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>>>> It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>
>>>> BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>
>>>> If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>>> Science does lie about abortion.
>>
>> That's nothing but your agenda talking. Where is your counter
>> science? Where are the mountains of medical studies, peered reviewed
>
> My agenda is to show that there is no demarcation point to human life
> at all to be applied.

So, all fertile men are mass murderers?

> No studies are needed. You can go back to school for yourself.
> You may appeal to your peers on this issue for acceptance but I do
> not.
>
> I can see that human life begins at conception

Why there?

> and there can be
> no option of killing your baby. Changing the name to fetus doesn't
> change the baby...

Changing the name from fetus to baby doesn't change the fetus.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 7:42 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> protection, if that human being does not consent?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You need to stop having sex then...
What you do is creating the problem...
And you shouldn't have a right to end
human life you have created by your actions....

Mitchell Raemsch

[sbalneav]

On 12-02-23 09:09 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>>
>>> You cannot kill your baby...
>>
>> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
>> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
>> question, not a Scientific one.
>>
>>> There is no question as to where human life begins...
>
>> No one's debating that having an abortion terminates a pregnancy
>> which, left to allow to complete to term, will result in a human.
>
> Sure we are debating that! When does life begin? It's an open scientific
> question!

I wouldn't say so. There's a continuous progression between a zygote
and a delivered child. Science, NOWHERE, will say "The Zygote isn't
life, but the baby is". Science, correctly, says "A zygote's a
zygote, a foetus at 2 months has the following features, etc etc."

My own personal opinion, for sake of completeness, is that the current
definition of first trimester not being a "human" yet, is right. But
that's a personal opinion, NOT a scientific issue.

> Many say it begins at conception. But one could also argue
> that by the above definition it also could be said to begin BEFORE
> conception. In other words celibacy deny's allowing a pregnancy that if
> left to term would result in a life. Hence in this view celibacy is
> murder. Others argue life begins at conception, but the law widely holds
> that life begins at birth for sure.

Right. The LAW. There are those who would try to claim that the
average teenage male commits genocide several times a week, but they're
nutters.

>> The question is, at what point do we declare the fetus "human" enough
>> that aborting it would be cruel to it.
>
> That is the question indeed. When does human "life" actually begin. And
> that is because for the law pretty much everyone agrees that killing an
> human that is alive is murder. While chopping out some bit of flesh,
> while certainly "alive" in the sense of living cells, but still not
> constituting human consciousnesses is not murder.

And, as for myself, I'd agree.

> Assault, perhaps, or
> other crime, but not murder.

What crime would people having their appendix removed be charged with?

> Hence the question of when human life
> begins is central to the law.

Sure, but Science can't answer that. "Life" is a value judgement
in this case, and Science doesn't do value judgements.

>> Science, (correctly) points out at what point the zygote develops
>> what functions. Deciding that once such-and-such a function has
>> developed sufficiently, we'll say the foetus can no longer be
>> aborted is a function of LAW, not Science.
>
> Hence it seems a question science needs to address but has not as of
> now, is the very one of when life begins so murder can be clearly
> defined legally.

Science never will address it.

> My personal view is that life begins around the age of 35 years old for
> many people and abortion should be legal until life begins.

Some people never truly live.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

> On 12-02-23 09:09 PM, BJAC...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:

- Some people never truly live.

You mean some babies....

[sbalneav]

On 12-02-23 09:31 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>>
>>>> You cannot kill your baby...
>>
>>> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
>>> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
>
> Who gives the woman the right?
> Isn't that an interesting question.

It's her body. What gives YOU the right to want to interfere in
her body?

>>> question, not a Scientific one.
> But science is just that. It is deciding.
> Who is giving it the right?
> The sanctity of life is the most important scientific question I know.
>
> Science lies.

As I challenged you, name give an example of how science lies.

What, believe in invisible pals, and stop asking questions that
are difficult to answer? No, that's not a good way to learn
about the universe.

> There is no question of when the human form begins to live.

Well, there IS, or we'd all agree here.

> It is when the baby begins to grow.

Is a single fertillized egg a baby?
Is an acorn an oak tree?
Is a pile of iron ore the Eiffel Tower?

> Even without suffering a human life cannot be terminated...

Why not?

> There can be no argument...

You're getting one right now, bub. Deal with it.

> Science being an authority is a problem.

Yeah, well, we had a good solid 1500 years or so when the Church
was the authority. We call that period of history "The Dark Ages".
Some of us would rather we not go back there. Science has proven
time and again, that it actually produces real knowledge about
real things here in the real world.

> I see it as the same problem President Reagan talked about.
> "Government itself is the problem."

Who, the guy who was suffering from Alzheimers while he was in
office? "We begin bombing in 5 minutes"? Bedtime for Bonzo?
THAT'S your quotable authority? I mean, usually when you
make an appeal to authority, you should, you know, appeal
to an authority. Not some second rate, half insane, washed
up hollywood actor who played straight man to a monkey.

> Mitchell Raemsch

[sbalneav]

Yeah. These two for instance.

http://off2dr.com/smf/index.php?topic=699.0

God told her to.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 8:23 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

> On 12-02-23 09:31 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>
> >>>> You cannot kill your baby...
>
> >>> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
> >>> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
>
> > Who gives the woman the right?
> > Isn't that an interesting question.
>
> It's her body.  What gives YOU the right to want to interfere in
> her body?
>
> >>> question, not a Scientific one.
> > But science is just that. It is deciding.
> > Who is giving it the right?
> > The sanctity of life is the most important scientific question I know.
>
> > Science lies.
>
> As I challenged you, name give an example of how science lies.

Certainly. Recently the Swedish Acadamy of Science admitted
to the orignal coverup science made with regards to black holes.
Some people inhereted the lie other authorities kept it in place.

Science has admitted to dodging intellectual honesty.
The world is a better place for what the Nobel Committee did
in revealing the negative truth in science.

Mitchell Raemsch; the Tripple Prize...

> > Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[DanielSan]

On 2/23/2012 7:31 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:09 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com"<b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>>
>>>> You cannot kill your baby...
>>
>>> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
>>> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political
>
> Who gives the woman the right?

It's her body.

> Isn't that an interesting question.
>
>>> question, not a Scientific one.
> But science is just that. It is deciding.

Nope.

> Who is giving it the right?
> The sanctity of life is the most important scientific question I know.
>
> Science lies.

Nope.

Church prescribes and proscribes. Science explains.

> There is no question of when the human form begins to live.

So you say.

> It is when the baby begins to grow.

So, from birth.

> Even without suffering a human life cannot be terminated...

So, you're going to advocate for complete cessation of cancer treatment.
It is growing human life, after all, and cancer treatment terminates
the growth of that human life.

> There can be no argument...
> Science being an authority is a problem.

Science is not an authority here.

> I see it as the same problem President Reagan talked about.
> "Government itself is the problem."

Government is we the people. If "the people" are the problem....

[DanielSan]

You didn't answer the question. Can I go ahead and hook into another
human being, without their consent, for sustenance and protection?

[PD]

On Feb 23, 7:52 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

> >> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> >>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>>>> people's beliefs.
>
> >>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> >>> And how is that?
>
> >> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> >By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> >because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> >Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> Bull. Shit.
>
> Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
> business outside the host religion.

And art and English are subjects that are arguably not about reality
and compete with science for time and attention.
Furthermore, I'm not keen on keeping a close watch on art and English
teachers out of mistrust of what they might include in their materials
used for instruction. Same goes for science teachers.

>
> >A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
> >really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
> >crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
> >properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
> >demarcation problem.
>
> Creationism doesn't even look like science.

It might not look like it to you or me, but it looks enough like
science to young and unfamiliar minds that it's important to make the
distinction.
You don't see people confused about creationism being science? I do.
You think that if science teachers never mention creationism, young
students will learn that everything that isn't mentioned isn't
science? I don't.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:00 -0800, Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:23:40 -0800, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:51:05 -0800, Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:47:51 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Le 2012-02-23 00:43, Aetherist a écrit :
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, micro...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>>
>>>>> How, specifically can that happen?
>>>>
>>>>It happens when "innocent people's beliefs" interferes with teaching the
>>>>theory of evolution, for example.
>>>
>>>What does science have to fear from 'teaching' anything???
>>
>>Where did anybody say it did, moron?
>
>"... interferes with teaching ..."

Whixh bit of that says "fears" anything,imbecile?

>Science is a process of structured logic and causative connections.
>It cannot be harmed by teaching. It becomes a political and religous
>issue and not one of the scientific method the very moment to translate
>the process into beliefs and teaching of same.

Was this meant to make any sense?

[PD]

On Feb 23, 8:40 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

> >> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> >>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>>>> people's beliefs.
>
> >>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> >>> And how is that?
>
> >> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> >By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> >because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> >Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> >A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
> >really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
> >crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
> >properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
> >demarcation problem.
>
>    Creationism is to evolution that storks are to obstetricians.
>
>    (attrib unknown)
>
>    Demarcation? One has evidence and the other doesn't. Why even make
> such a stupid statement?

The Standard Model of fundamental interactions has evidence and string
theory doesn't. Which one is science?

Demarcation is NOT as simple as you would like it to be.

Creationism *claims* to have evidence (even if it doesn't), and young
minds just hear the words at high level. The only way they're going to
be assured what the difference is by having a look at the *kind* and
*quality* of the evidentiary claims.

>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA

[PD]

On Feb 23, 9:29 pm, Josh Miles <n...@thanks.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 4:13 PM, PD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

I agree.

[PD]

On Feb 23, 6:47 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> On 12-02-23 04:15 PM, PD wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/22/2012 11:47 PM, Olrik wrote:
> >> Le 2012-02-23 00:43, Aetherist a écrit :

> >>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:30:25 -0500, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> >>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>>>> people's beliefs.
>

> >>>> Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>

> >>> How, specifically can that happen?
>
> >> It happens when "innocent people's beliefs" interferes with teaching the
> >> theory of evolution, for example.
>

> > How does it interfere with the teaching the theory of evolution?
>
> It does when some innocent person's beliefs cause class time to be
> taken away from teaching legitimate science to teach non-science.

I'm not sure what you think is legitimate science.
Suppose you have a student who believes that the universe is static
and has always been that way. (Einstein believed this was true in
1910, for example.) Is that something that should not be addressed in
a science class?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:02:15 -0800, Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how is that?
>>>>
>>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>>
>>>By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>>>because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>>>Same with art, English, and economics.
>>
>>Bull. Shit.
>>
>>Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
>>business outside the host religion.
>
>In your NOT so humble O-P-I-N-I-O-N!

Fact, liar.

> If one presents both ideas side
>by side, objectively stating the body of evidence and basis for both
>and let the students decide the issue for themselves. I do not fear

It's not "both sides" of anything - just religionists in denial about
reality, insisting their fantasies be taught in schools as fact.

And what "issue"?

There is none outside the lies of creationists who are upset when
reality contradicts their fairy stories.

>the result. YOU ARE NOT! in any position to dictate the thoughts and
>beliefs of others.

Where do you get this stupidity from, moron?

> I think creationism is a result of garbled ancient
>knowledge and in no way reflects any valid situation. The evidence
>clearly supports the evolutional process.

Creationism is fundamentalist religion whose fanatics insist that
obvious fairy stories are true.

It is a dishonest backdoor attempt to get their religion taught to
everybody else's kids.

Even to people outside that religion.

Do you also think all the other creation myths should be taught and
"let the children decide for themselves"?

Like the Earth coming out of the sea on the back of a giant turtle?

If not, why not?

Do you also think both the flat Earth and the sphere should be
presented and "let the children decide for themselves"?

>>>A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>>>really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>>>crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>>>properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>>>demarcation problem.
>>
>>Creationism doesn't even look like science.
>
>So what? It's not and why care?

BECAUSE IT IS BEING TAUGHT AS SCIENCE. Please try to keep up.

[PD]

On Feb 23, 8:06 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> On 12-02-23 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net>  wrote:
>

> >> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

If you spend all your time teaching *facts* in science, you're not
doing a good job of teaching science, sorry.
The proper training of science is as much about the *thinking process*
as it is about the facts. It's about the method of investigation.
As it is, imo, teachers do not have enough time to teach this, and
students come away with heads full of information and very little
appreciation of the scientific method and its principles.

Explaining to students, "This example is science, and this is why; and
this is not science (even though some people mistakenly think so) and
this is why," is EXTREMELY effective in explaining this.

[PD]

On Feb 23, 8:09 pm, huge <h...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net>  wrote:
>

> >> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

> >>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
> >>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
> >>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>
> >>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>
> >>>>> And how is that?
>
> >>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>
> >>> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
> >>> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
> >>> Same with art, English, and economics.
>
> >> Bull. Shit.
>
> >> Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
> >> business outside the host religion.
>
> > In your NOT so humble O-P-I-N-I-O-N!  If one presents both ideas side
> > by side, objectively stating the body of evidence and basis for both
> > and let the students decide the issue for themselves.
>
> There is no evidence for creationism.
>
> And, by your logic we should also let students take time out to
> explore the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and the
> invisible pink unicorn, for which there is also no evidence.

If there were a lot of people who made a lot of noise about the flying
spaghetti monster being science, and there were obviously some
confusion about it being science, then yes, science teachers should
spend some time looking at the flying spaghetti monster and explaining
why it isn't science.

I see absolutely no value in trying to squash an idea by NOT TALKING
ABOUT IT.

[DanielSan]

Squash an idea?

More like it's irrelevant. If you're in math class, what is the
relevance of talking about a civil war?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:06:42 -0600, sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net>
wrote:

>On 12-02-23 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>

>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

>>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how is that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>>>
>>>> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>>>> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>>>> Same with art, English, and economics.
>>>
>>> Bull. Shit.
>>>
>>> Creation is a religious belief that has no basis in reality, and no
>>> business outside the host religion.
>>
>> In your NOT so humble O-P-I-N-I-O-N! If one presents both ideas side


>> by side, objectively stating the body of evidence and basis for both

There is no evidence for creation let alone anything that remotely
suggests it. It's merely one of the world's hundreds of religious
beliefs.

On the other hand evolution is the label for a set of observed facts
that won't go away, that have been the subject of at least 160 years
of solid research leading to whole new spinoff sciences and
technologies even hypocritical creationists take for granted, which
simply wouldn't exist if our understanding were wrong.

In exactly the same way that atomic physics led to radiation treatment
for cancer in medicine, nuclear power stations etc.

Both these sciences are confirmed every day from their results.

>> and let the students decide the issue for themselves. I do not fear

>> the result. YOU ARE NOT! in any position to dictate the thoughts and
>> beliefs of others. I think creationism is a result of garbled ancient
>> knowledge and in no way reflects any valid situation. The evidence
>> clearly supports the evolutional process.

Creationism isn't garbled ancient knowledge - it's a "just-so" story
that mainstream Christians take with a pinch of salt.

Which even in the USA means about ten times as many Christians as
atheists, because atheists are such a small demographic.

>But it's NOT SCIENCE. Classroom time is limited as it is. Teach
>Science in science class. If people want religion, they can get
>it at Sunday School. Unless you're also suggesting that Science
>get equal time in Sunday School?

That's only one of the issues - the other is prosetylising
Christianity to a captive audience of impressionable young minds using
dishonest methods.

It was science that provided what we take for granted in modern life
putting and keeping us at the forefront in an increasingly competitive
world.

And these deluded fanatics want to nip it in the bud. So where are the
scientists going to come from who provided all this in the past - all
the medical, electronic and other advances we take for granted?

They want to replace the basis for all this with one of the world's
hundreds of religions - that doesn't even belong in public schools
because those are for all kids not just those of fundamentalist
Christians.

They'd be the first to scream blue murder if their kids came home
telling them that fundamentalist Islamic doctrines were fact. Or
Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or any other.

Yet they imagine they have a god-given right to do the equivalent to
everybody else's kids.

>>>> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>>>> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>>>> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>>>> properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>>>> demarcation problem.
>>>
>>> Creationism doesn't even look like science.
>>
>> So what? It's not and why care?

So the poster doesn't mind if our education system is worse than many
third world countries?

[PD]

On Feb 24, 5:36 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2012 2:52 AM, PD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 8:09 pm, huge<h...@operamail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 02/23/2012 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net>    wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com>    wrote:

> >>>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a crit :

If there is a common misconception that something about the civil war
is mathematics, then it would be instructive in the math class to
address that.

I see absolutely no value in denying a misconception by refusing to
talk about it.

[DanielSan]

Howso?

> I see absolutely no value in denying a misconception by refusing to
> talk about it.

It might be a misconception, but that isn't what we're talking about.
It's not about "clearing up a misconception", it's about teaching it as
an alternative. That is, 2+2=4 is factual. 2+2=5 is not. What
creationists are trying to do is to get math teachers to teach kids that
2+2=4 or 5. Do you see the danger inherent here?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:51:16 -0800, kni...@baawa.com wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:14:46 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
><micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>>On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, kni...@baawa.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:23:57 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>>
>>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> >It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>> >people's beliefs.

>>> >But both sides have went to far...
>>> >The extremes need to lose on both sides.
>>>
>>> >Mitchell Raemsch
>>>

>>>     It's not 'to' far. It's 'too' far.
>>>
>>>    BTW, science isn't a compromise or a bitch to superstition.
>>>
>>>    If it was, we'd still be barking at the moon.
>
>>Science does lie about abortion.
>
> That's nothing but your agenda talking. Where is your counter
>science? Where are the mountains of medical studies, peered reviewed

>documents that claim 'science' is lying?
>
> Nada... right?
>
>>If science is going to answer when a human being becomes a
>>human being it is simple: when the baby begins to grow...
>
> It's not a baby. It's a zygote. Zygotes are NOT babies. Just
>because you call a zygote a baby doesn't make it a baby.
>
> You're one of the brainwashed religers addicted to the
>superstitious catchphrases and power words.
>
> Baby. Life. Kill. Murder. Person.

It's Orwellian use of language - eliminate the words that carry
different meanings and replace them with a single one and you can no
longer communicate the difference,

But it should be obvious to these Liars For God that you can't burp a
zygote.

>>Sick science calls it by another name and women are
>>given the right to kill their baby through their doctor.
>>
> I knew you were dense. I didn't know you were Black Hole dense
>until now.

You'll never get through the barrier of invincible stupidity.

The different stages are given different labels because they're
different. By the English language not by science.

For exactly the same reason cats aren't called dogs.

> Skippy, the law gives women the 'right' to have abortions, not
>science.

These morons hate science because it casts doubt on their fairy tales
and doesn't prove their pretend friend.

>Warlord Steve
>BAAWA

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:09:08 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 2/23/2012 7:45 PM, sbalneav wrote:

>> On 12-02-23 04:40 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> How does Science "promote" abortion?
>>

>>> You cannot kill your baby...
>>

>> That's not a question that science decides, that's a question that
>> the Courts, the Government, and the People decide. It's a political

>> question, not a Scientific one.
>>

>>> There is no question as to where human life begins...
>

>> No one's debating that having an abortion terminates a pregnancy
>> which, left to allow to complete to term, will result in a human.
>
>Sure we are debating that! When does life begin? It's an open scientific
>question! Many say it begins at conception. But one could also argue
>that by the above definition it also could be said to begin BEFORE
>conception. In other words celibacy deny's allowing a pregnancy that if
>left to term would result in a life. Hence in this view celibacy is
>murder. Others argue life begins at conception, but the law widely holds
>that life begins at birth for sure.

"When life begins" is another example of Orwellian use of language as
thought control.

The actual point is when something with the potential to become a
human being if everything goes well, becomes one.

And clearly a blob of undifferentiated cells isn't one yet.

Both it and birth are the ends of a spectrum somewhere along which it
becomes a human being.

>> The question is, at what point do we declare the fetus "human" enough
>> that aborting it would be cruel to it.
>
>That is the question indeed. When does human "life" actually begin. And
>that is because for the law pretty much everyone agrees that killing an
>human that is alive is murder. While chopping out some bit of flesh,
>while certainly "alive" in the sense of living cells, but still not
>constituting human consciousnesses is not murder. Assault, perhaps, or
>other crime, but not murder. Hence the question of when human life
>begins is central to the law.
>
>> Science, (correctly) points out at what point the zygote develops
>> what functions. Deciding that once such-and-such a function has
>> developed sufficiently, we'll say the foetus can no longer be
>> aborted is a function of LAW, not Science.
>
>Hence it seems a question science needs to address but has not as of
>now, is the very one of when life begins so murder can be clearly
>defined legally.

No.

When it becomes a human being.

>My personal view is that life begins around the age of 35 years old for
>many people and abortion should be legal until life begins.

:-)

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:29:22 -0600, Josh Miles <n...@thanks.com> wrote:

>On 2/23/2012 4:13 PM, PD wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:

>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is common sense that science ought not be fighting innocent
>>>>>> people's beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> -Unless those "innocent people's beliefs" interfere with science.
>>>>
>>>> And how is that?
>>>
>>> Creationism in public classrooms.
>>
>> By that token, teaching social studies also interferes with science,
>> because it occupies time and attention that could be spent on science.
>> Same with art, English, and economics.
>>

>> A valuable service in teaching science is showing something that is
>> really science and something that looks like science but isn't. This is
>> crucial. Popper calls this the demarcation problem. Don't know how you
>> properly teach someone how to be a scientist without going over the
>> demarcation problem.
>

>That's perfectly OK. What I meant is creationism taught in public
>schools as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. It's religion
>masquerading as science.

Even religion shouldn't be taught in public schools except
peripherally as part of history, civics etc. Or comparatively as part
of an anthropology class.

Certainly not as fact/truth/etc - that belongs in churches, Sunday
schools etc where it is taught to children of that religion or
denomination.

Public schools are for everybody. Not just Christians.

[PD]

Because it would clarify to students what mathematics is about, by
addressing a common misconception.
IMO, it does no service to ignore misconceptions or to try to correct
them by not dealing with them at all.
There is a common misconception that creationism can be construed as
science. This should be actively dealt with -- in science classes.

>
> > I see absolutely no value in denying a misconception by refusing to
> > talk about it.
>
> It might be a misconception, but that isn't what we're talking about.
> It's not about "clearing up a misconception", it's about teaching it as
> an alternative.  That is, 2+2=4 is factual.  2+2=5 is not.  What
> creationists are trying to do is to get math teachers to teach kids that
> 2+2=4 or 5.  Do you see the danger inherent here?

That's certainly not what *I* was talking about in this entire thread.
If you'll read my posts here, you'll get a better feel for where I'm
coming from.
I do not support teaching creationism as legitimate science. I support
including it in the teaching of science as an example of something
that looks like science (to some people) but isn't. That's extremely
useful in teaching young students what science is.

[huge]

On 02/24/2012 04:52 AM, PD wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:09 pm, huge<h...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 08:02 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:52:15 -0800, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:13:55 -0600, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2012 8:06 AM, Josh Miles wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:42 PM, microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 9:30 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> Le 2012-02-23 00:23, microm2...@hotmail.com a �crit :

Let it happen then in a course of comparitive religion or philosophy.
A biology teacher need not take time for Gomer ideas. There is plenty
to cover already.

[Christopher A. Lee]

I have no idea why he felt he needed to lie like that.

Creationism is religion, not science.

Too many paranoid liars pretend that keeping religious beliefs where
they belong, ie inside their religion, is suppressing them.

[PD]

On Feb 24, 5:42 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> It might be a misconception, but that isn't what we're talking about.
> It's not about "clearing up a misconception", it's about teaching it as
> an alternative.  That is, 2+2=4 is factual.  2+2=5 is not.  What
> creationists are trying to do is to get math teachers to teach kids that
> 2+2=4 or 5.  Do you see the danger inherent here?

On the "factual" front, science isn't about teaching a collection of
facts.
If you were going to do that, then Newtonian gravity would not be
taught in science class, because it is not factually correct. That is,
Newtonian gravity has been falsified by data, in all the right ways
that science would bless. Yet, the teaching of Newtonian gravity IS
critical to teaching science, and it's important to understand why,
even if it is not factually correct.

This kind of misconception about what should and should not be taught
in science class is precisely WHY I think it's critical for science
teachers to spend time on edge cases clarifying what science is about.
Even people who are science advocates (such as you) have
misconceptions about it.

[DanielSan]

I don't think anyone would fault a science teacher from mentioning
creationism or intelligent design in science class...with the caveat
that it's not science at all.

I think you didn't make that clear. Josh Miles above was referring to
teaching creationism *AS* science and that doing so would interfere with
science. This "clearing up misconceptions" thing is something you
inserted just a couple hours ago, so....

Maybe that has been your stance all along but it wasn't evident in your
posts up to this point.

[DanielSan]

On 2/24/2012 4:52 AM, PD wrote:
> On Feb 24, 5:42 am, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It might be a misconception, but that isn't what we're talking about.
>> It's not about "clearing up a misconception", it's about teaching it as
>> an alternative. That is, 2+2=4 is factual. 2+2=5 is not. What
>> creationists are trying to do is to get math teachers to teach kids that
>> 2+2=4 or 5. Do you see the danger inherent here?
>
> On the "factual" front, science isn't about teaching a collection of
> facts.

It's about observing phenomena and critically thinking about it.

> If you were going to do that, then Newtonian gravity would not be
> taught in science class, because it is not factually correct. That is,
> Newtonian gravity has been falsified by data, in all the right ways
> that science would bless. Yet, the teaching of Newtonian gravity IS
> critical to teaching science, and it's important to understand why,
> even if it is not factually correct.
>
> This kind of misconception about what should and should not be taught
> in science class is precisely WHY I think it's critical for science
> teachers to spend time on edge cases clarifying what science is about.
> Even people who are science advocates (such as you) have
> misconceptions about it.

Sorry, but you have some misconceptions about me.

[PD]

High school students don't have philosophy in their core curriculum.
By relegating it to a dismissable and optional zone, it guarantees
that students get a substandard education on what science is. To be
absolutely dead solid on this point, if it is your contention that
science teaching should be about accepted scientific facts and nothing
else, then I believe you are part of the problem about why science
education is as poor as it is. Teaching "facts" at the expense of
teaching the method of thinking and what distinguishes science from
other activities, in my opinion, does a vast disservice to science
education.

[PD]

Well, *I* certainly wouldn't fault a science teacher for doing so. I'm
not so sure that applies to "anyone", looking at the conversation
here.

>
> I think you didn't make that clear.  Josh Miles above was referring to
> teaching creationism *AS* science and that doing so would interfere with
> science.  This "clearing up misconceptions" thing is something you
> inserted just a couple hours ago, so....

Here is my first post in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6ade07d683638c26
I think you'll find that I've been elaborating on this point for the
whole discussion.

[huge]

To educate on what science is you need not give any appreciable time
or credence to any particular non-scientific belief system. Indeed this
would particularly single out the creationists simply because
they are the loud and obnoxious. To teach what science is does not
require any such singling-out -- it can be done positively.

> To be
> absolutely dead solid on this point, if it is your contention that
> science teaching should be about accepted scientific facts and nothing
> else, then I believe you are part of the problem about why science
> education is as poor as it is. Teaching "facts" at the expense of
> teaching the method of thinking

Ah -- method. Yes. That is the positive thing that should be taught.
Singling out particular Gomer ideas is not necessary for this.

[DanielSan]

That's the post I was referencing, yes. Josh Miles was referring to
science teachers teaching creationism *AS* science, not telling science
teachers to reference creationism as a misconception about science.
Josh Miles was only talking about science class. So, when you brought
up social studies, art, English, and economics, you were creating a
strawman. Again, Josh Miles was talking about teaching creationism as
science in science class, as an alternative to scientific theories such
as evolution.

It would be the same as someone demanding math teachers to teach that pi
is equal to 3 (because that is how it's defined in the Bible) alongside
saying that pi is approximately equal to 3.14159265.

[PD]

I'm not proposing that creationism be singled out. There are several
candidates. Science teachers should be given the room to choose which
ones are best suited to making the point.

>
> > To be
> > absolutely dead solid on this point, if it is your contention that
> > science teaching should be about accepted scientific facts and nothing
> > else, then I believe you are part of the problem about why science
> > education is as poor as it is. Teaching "facts" at the expense of
> > teaching the method of thinking
>
> Ah -- method.  Yes.  That is the positive thing that should be taught.
> Singling out particular Gomer ideas is not necessary for this.

I disagree. Again, I'll point out string theory. This is an
interesting case where it is arguably outside of method. Yet hundreds
of physicists actively work on it. You don't think that's worth
talking about?

[Androcles]

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ji81le$2n8$3...@dont-email.me...

Phuckwit Duck is mentally deranged, as shown by his statements:

"A pulse is not DC electricity. Idiot. Bloody-faced idiot. Self-flagellating
bloody-faced idiot" -- Phuckwit Duck.
c = 1 and unitless in natural units." -- Phuckwit Duck
"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant" -- Phuckwit
Duck
"It turns out that you can verify curvature of a space without
ever stepping away from the space to see it embedded in a
higher dimension." - Phuckwit Duck.

[PD]

On Feb 24, 7:00 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/24/2012 4:52 AM, PD wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 5:42 am, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> It might be a misconception, but that isn't what we're talking about.
> >> It's not about "clearing up a misconception", it's about teaching it as
> >> an alternative.  That is, 2+2=4 is factual.  2+2=5 is not.  What
> >> creationists are trying to do is to get math teachers to teach kids that
> >> 2+2=4 or 5.  Do you see the danger inherent here?
>
> > On the "factual" front, science isn't about teaching a collection of
> > facts.
>
> It's about observing phenomena and critically thinking about it.

It's a little more involved than that. If you take a look at the Higgs
boson, for example, there was absolutely no observational rationale
for a Higgs boson. There was a *formal* problem with field theories
that, while they could reproduce some of the equations of motion (e.g.
Maxwell), they had no mechanism for dealing with mass. The Higgs
mechanism was a *field theoretic* device for making field theories
compatible with mass. One possibility that then arose was the
possibility that the Higgs field was quantized and that it could then
be found by a decay search. There is no guarantee that the Higgs field
is observable as a Higgs boson.

There is a great deal of *creativity* associated with science, which
is not driven by facts or by logical deduction. In fact, some of the
most profound advances in science have come from saying, "To hell with
deducing things from previous assumptions or precepts. What if those
assumptions and precepts were discarded? What model might spring from
that?" Pattern-recognition is an art, and nobody knows how the human
mind does it.

Science students are notoriously underprepared here and they come in
thinking that scientific model-building is all about knowing facts and
all about deduction. The proper treatment should be taught from the
sixth grade on. Instead, they come into college with these VAST voids
in their understanding of what science does, and all those
misconceptions have to be ground down and eradicated, and the proper
appreciation rebuilt.

[huge]

And some would argue that it is within method since it is a mathmatical
theory based on known behavior of the quantum world, even if not
verifiable. Now, did I need
to refer to creationism to say that?

[PD]

> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6ade07d6836...

> > I think you'll find that I've been elaborating on this point for the
> > whole discussion.
>
> That's the post I was referencing, yes.  Josh Miles was referring to
> science teachers teaching creationism *AS* science, not telling science
> teachers to reference creationism as a misconception about science.

That wasn't my read of his post at all. He said that creationism
creates interference for the teaching of science.

I said that lots of things create interference for the teaching of
science. I also said that the teaching of what is science and what is
not science is ESSENTIAL for the teaching of science. Hardly
interference.

> Josh Miles was only talking about science class.  So, when you brought
> up social studies, art, English, and economics, you were creating a
> strawman.  Again, Josh Miles was talking about teaching creationism as
> science in science class, as an alternative to scientific theories such
> as evolution.
>
> It would be the same as someone demanding math teachers to teach that pi
> is equal to 3 (because that is how it's defined in the Bible) alongside
> saying that pi is approximately equal to 3.14159265.

Again, you focus on facts. Teaching science isn't about teaching
facts.