Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 14:46 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>> >>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >> >>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>better description. >> >>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? > > Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the > accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? I can't. > Strawman indeed. I agree. > Since the > time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have > progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've > read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact > pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead > in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe > through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors > to math and science. > > I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates > science, Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different. > and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to > religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original context in place though.
From: John Fields on 22 Oct 2006 15:00 On 22 Oct 2006 00:35:48 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >unsettled wrote: > >> You're good at taking IQ tests. Doesn't actually >> mean you're "smart." > > > >It does. > > >Also you can count in: Endurance, Skill and Patience. (E.g. longer test >than the IQ Test ;)) > > >Mine is ~120 --- Seems like you ought to have better control of English, then. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 15:04 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed >>>>>>>>>> > is >>>>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who >>>>>>>>> reckon >>>>> they >>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant >>>>>>>>> they >>>>> had >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when >>>>>>>>some >>>>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not going to deal with this one. >>>> >>>>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? >>> >>>It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. >>>If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was >>>important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept >>>is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. >>> >> >> So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect." > >Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect. > >> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to >> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. > >All topics have conferences like that. > I find physicists to be especially aggressive. It's hard to brainstorm with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something there. Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers... check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now. The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as brutally competitive. Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc. John
From: John Larkin on 22 Oct 2006 15:06 On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:46:30 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:8t5nj29md56ugu8pm4epmitj8tgp66v2of(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:21:12 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>Saying "I believe in evolution" is a valid sentence. >>>> >>>> No, it is not valid within this context. You do know that >>>> the Creed starts out with "I believe...". >>> >>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best >>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. This is not >>>something which can be "known" as tomorrow some one may come up with a >>>better description. >>> >>>Does this open the floodgates for the Religious Right to send me to hell? >> >> Can you cite any modern case of the Religious Right denying the >> accuracy of Newton's law of gravitation? > >I can't. > >> Strawman indeed. > >I agree. > >> Since the >> time of Galileo's house arrest, the western churches have >> progressively conceded to science the domain of physical reality. I've >> read, and believe, the argument that Christianity is in fact >> pro-science, and Islam is not, which is why the West is so far ahead >> in technology. The Irish monks kept the wisdom of the Greeks safe >> through the dark ages, and the Jesuits were and are great contributors >> to math and science. >> >> I think that most of modern Christianity respects and celebrates >> science, > >Well for a given value of "most." Also when it comes to science which is >easy to reconcile with the religious teachings. When it comes to science >which is not so easy to reconcile then things are different. > >> and lots of modern scientists are unreasonably hostile to >> religion; sometimes so hostile it affects their science. > >I agree. It would have been nicer if you had left most of the original >context in place though. > I get railed at for snipping, and railed at for not snipping. What's a boy to do? John
From: T Wake on 22 Oct 2006 15:13
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:1dfnj29m7qmdina5m7ko9bh5650mcf92bi(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:42:48 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:975nj2hbutglodujgqd5ungvjn7ai8rhgo(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 22 Oct 06 11:46:02 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <54OdnR2_EJ87q6fYRVnysg(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:ehd4o6$8qk_004(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been >>>>>>>>>>> > subject >>>>>>>>>>> > to >>>>>>>>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not >>>>>>>>>>> > changed >>>>>>>>>>> > is >>>>>>>>>>> > the >>>>>>>>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people >>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> radio >>>>>>>>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed >>>>>>>>>>> beyond >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who >>>>>>>>>> reckon >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>> vailidity ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when >>>>>>>>>some >>>>>>>>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>>>>>>>guess at how nature and its laws work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >>>>>>>quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >>>>>>>situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not going to deal with this one. >>>>> >>>>>So why make any post? Why not just ignore it? >>>> >>>>It was a communication to the rational readers of this thread. >>>>If correcting John's idea of the Scientific Method was >>>>important, somebody else could do the writing. John's concept >>>>is slightly incorrect and requires a nitpik. >>>> >>> >>> So sorry. "Science" does not allow anyone to be "slightly incorrect." >> >>Only partialy true, so in essence this is itself slightly incorrect. >> >>> Reminds me of some physics conferences I've attended, where you had to >>> watch your step for slipping on the blood on the floor. >> >>All topics have conferences like that. >> > > I find physicists to be especially aggressive. It's hard to brainstorm > with them, because their first reaction to an idea is often to slap it > down, rather than play with it and see if there might be something > there. Possibly true, although some I went to in the past have veered madly in the opposite direction. I must admit it has been at least 10 years since I have been to one though. Often the most vicious are ones where people are looking for new applications of physics. (Imaging was the last catfight I noticed). (Not that anything involving a cluster of physicists should be described as "vicious." > Most physicists have a better understanding of device physics > than the average engineer, but are still rotten circuit designers... > check out the circuits in RSI, for instance. That wasn't so in the > RadLab days, but it sure seems that way now. > > The thing about physics, especially quantum/particle/cosmological > physics, is that some very smart people have already discovered a lot > of stuff, and there's no low-hanging fruit left that mere mortals can > reach. In condensed matter physics (aka "dirt physics") and chemistry > and biology, there's still a lot left to discover, so it's not as > brutally competitive. > > Circuit design is fun, because you can invent something entirely new > most any afternoon, and dabble in the physics and chemistry and optics > without having to spend a decade as an impoverished post-doc. Very true. There are still amazing advances to be made in physics but none are thought of as "easy." I think some people get disheartened - although this is (IMHO) why so many people try to reinvent the already studied. |