Bad Questions?
in [Physics]
|
From: Painius on 20 Apr 2010 14:05 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message... news:hqknse$373$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4bcdb73c$0$5013$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >>> >>> The question regarding did the universe arise from >>> a big explosion (strictly speaking) I would have to say >>> 'no', since there was no 'explosion' as we know them. >> >> The second question that reads... >> >> "Is it true or false that the Universe began with a big >> explosion?" > > "Is it true or false that the Universe began about 13.75 > billion years ago by expanding out from a single point" ? You must be another one of those people who believe that EVERYTHING has to have a *point*. > How would you answer that? Probably the same way Nilsson would... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PFHJOSMmmA I'm most likely giving away way too much about myself when i say that this is my all-time favorite song. And it comes from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHgj1uQ5FH8 happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: glird on 20 Apr 2010 14:18 On Apr 12, 6:59 am, HVAC wrote: > The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species and that the universe began with a big bang.> Good for them!! (They say, "Prove it or shut up." > The National Science Board says it chose to leave the section out of the 2010 edition because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs. > "Factual knowledge" means "What scientists believe" even if they are wrong. > The survey questions that NSF has used for 25 years to measure knowledge of evolution and the big bang were "flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated knowledge and beliefs" says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist> LL's use of the word "scientific" in his opinionated sentence is an example of a conflation of knowledge and beliefs. >45% of Americans in 2008 answered true to the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." The figure is similar to previous years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%), and South Korea (64%). > When the other 55% learn that evolution is God's method of creation, they too will answer "true". >The same gap exists for the response to a second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with which only 33% of Americans agreed. > That means that 2/3 of all Americans know that it is nonsense to believe that everything in the universe suddenly appeared for no reason, and despite the fact that they were and still are taught that "energy cannot be created or destroyed". > Bruer calls the survey questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding" of the two topics. Let him fix that problem, rather than delete both questions. > "Evolution and the big bang are not a matter of opinion. > An answer to a survey question IS. > Miller, the scientific literacy researcher, believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. > Just because half as many of us voted with the majority opinion in question 1, and twice as many voted against the majority opinion in question 2 is not a "national" embarrassment. Indeed, although it may embarrass some scientists, it is THEIR opinion that is wrong. glird
From: Painius on 20 Apr 2010 10:16 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message... news:hpv5io$3al$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "[SMF]" <snbsmf(a)yahooligo.com> wrote in message > news:hpv1rq$89u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 4/12/2010 5:59 AM, HVAC wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer >>> these >>> questions literally, I would say NO to each. >> >> Or, I don't know. Anyone that answers with certainty will most >> likely do so based on faith, rather than knowledge. > > To the question of did humans arise from lower forms of > animals, I would have to (strictly speaking) say 'no'. They > arose from lower forms of HUMANS. > > The question regarding did the universe arise from > a big explosion (strictly speaking) I would have to say > 'no', since there was no 'explosion' as we know them. The first point sounds strikingly like an argument of the science of _semantics_. The question that reads... "Is it true or false that human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals?" ....in order to squelch the hubristic loathing of being seen as merely a "higher animal", should read... "Is it true or false that human beings, as we know them today, developed over long periods of time from earlier forms of life?" The second question that reads... "Is it true or false that the Universe began with a big explosion?" ....sounds like a classic "trick question" to me. It's hard to believe that a scientifically literate (well, cosmology- literate, anyway) person came up with this question. Cosmologists, to my knowledge, have *never* *ever* proposed that the Big Bang was an "explosion". It has always FAQ'd to any and all questioners that the Big Bang was, from the very beginning, an "expansion", but not an "explosion". Hence the "trick question" aspect of the second question. So that question should read... "Is it true or false that the Universe began about 13.75 billion years ago by expanding out from a singularity that was formed out of nothing, and that the Universe has been expanding ever since?" My own answers to these similar questions would have to be 1) yes, and 2) no. "Scientifically literate" is a very "loaded" term for the layman. Scientists should use less loaded terms when speaking or writing to the layman. For example, when an astronomer says that "Planet Mercury is inferior to Earth," or "Planet Mars is superior to Earth," this is not a "judgement" that Earth is better than Mercury or not as good as Mars, as many laymen might perceive it. The only thing that is meant is that Mercury is closer to the Sun than Earth, and that Mars is farther from the Sun than Earth. Even among scientists this might sometimes be a term that leaves something to be desired, this "scientifically literate" term. It implies that there is also such a thing as "scientific illiteracy". So, is an astrophysicist a lower form of life simply because he is "biology-illiterate" or "chemistry-illiterate"? 'Course not. Words are for the birds... Now BODY LANGUAGE ! That's the ticket ! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: HVAC on 20 Apr 2010 13:22 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4bcdb73c$0$5013$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> The question regarding did the universe arise from >> a big explosion (strictly speaking) I would have to say >> 'no', since there was no 'explosion' as we know them. > > The second question that reads... > > "Is it true or false that the Universe began with a big > explosion?" > "Is it true or false that the Universe began about 13.75 billion years ago by expanding out from a single point" ? How would you answer that? -- When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out. ~ Frank Sinatra.
From: Painius on 20 Apr 2010 15:22 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message... news:8bf4bb22-8325-488b-9e38-994792e4569c(a)f17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > > . . . > Indeed, although it may embarrass some scientists, it > is THEIR opinion that is wrong. > > glird Doesn't your making such a statement make you as bad as they are? How can you be so sure they're wrong? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: If it's measurable, it's in “The Universe”. Next: Pedophile Priests |