An alternate view worth hearing

Upon closer examination, this is worth reposting as a separate strand. I am glad someone brough it up. So, here we go:

Ok this just pisses me off.Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what? It comes from temperature readings and readings of gas levels in our present day atmosphere. So how long have we had a reliable and accurate method of measuring temperature? I think Galileo had one of the first ones in 1593. Now when did we first start recording these temperatures? I dont know. But we notice the increase in temperature within the last 200 years or so. Now how do we know that the earth isnt doin it by itself? Well the earth has never increased this fast and to such a large degree (pun intended). How do we know that? Well those "guys" looks at ice and trees and rocks and it has never done this before. Ok but how far back are these "guys" lookin? Hundreds of Thousands of Years! To me that seems like a BIG scale, i wonder how accurate can it be? How can we be certain that this isnt just a blip, a little jump, how can we be sure that is hasnt already happened? 100,000 year vs 200 hmmm.The world is cyclical, life then death then more life. Rain then water then more rain. Ice age then warming then ice age. The facts are that we dont know, and throwing money at something that could not even be a problem is just stupid. Dont just tell me im doomed then make me give you money to solve it. Nothing pisses me off more than throwing money at a "problem." Global warming is just a tool used by politicians to fuel our fears, its the same as James Fox's 1995 prediction of a 15 percent increase in murder among teenagers. That was used to help Clinton's election and the rate dropped 50 percent within five years. You are all being tricked by power/money-hungry politicians like Al Gore, can someone tell me why he got the noble peace prize?ugh Glaz why do you post this? Im probably the only one who will present a counterpoint against this liberal garbage."Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers." -Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

For my part, I’ll only say one thing: no-one said there is no disagreement among scientists…

What would you do…

…for a Klondike bar? It might be a bit of a diversion from the theme, but it got polar bears and ice. So, we can pretend we are still on topic.

So, let’s assume we all agree that climate change (regardless of its causes) is an issue which needs to be addressed. From where I sit, it looks like politicians are not likely to get anything substantial accomplished for quite a while. So, it is all up to us – mere mortals. What can you do to address the issue?

Here is my 5-year plan (yes, I know – my communist underbelly is showing)
1. Do not vote republican
2. Drive a fuel efficient car
3. Better insulate my house
4. Put solar panels on the roof of my house
5. Investigate moving back to Russia – when all of you down here are swimming in the waters of melted glaciers, Siberia will be nice and ready for occupancy.

Scientific Laws, Theories & Hypothesis

Ok, all of you English speakers out there, educate me. If singular (i.e. one) is hypothesis, what do you call it if I have many of those…
But I digress…

Ok this just pisses me off. Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what?

Good thing to ponder: when a scientist says “scientific theory” (such as molecular theory of matter, theory of relativity, theory of evolution or, as in the above quote, global warming theory), what does she mean? She can’t possibly mean an educated guess or something similar to it since the word for that is hypothesis… It can’t mean scientists are uncertain of its predictions or its predictions are not fully tested since, again, that is what the word hypothesis mean.


Since we are about to start learning about theory of gravitation (or is it a law? I forget...):
So what is a scientific theory? How is it different from a law? Hint: read the first chapter of your textbook.



By the way, String Theory is actually not a theory, but a hypothesis (since it is completely and totally untested).

The People's Elbow video

Thanks! Great find!

Global Warming

It looks like we need a separate thread for the topic of global warming. So, here we go:

1. Who broke it? (i.e. what are the causes?)
2. Who should fix it?
3. Does everyone needs to know any science to understand that the issues of climate change need to be addressed (i.e. I don’t need to know how my car works in order to be able to drive it…)

Moon Landing Hoax

For the budding skeptics out there, here is a great site where you will find answers to one of life’s burning questions: Did we really land on the Moon?

For all of you Sci-Fi fans out there: why is the site called “Clavius Moon Base”?

On Pseudo-science. Troisième et dernière partie.

Moving on...

Assessing science is like assessing an Isaac Asimov novel. The fundementals are based in factors prevalent in society or in the natural world, but take into account human ingenuity and natural phenomena. Overall, it makes you think.

All I got here is: Huh? I am having trouble parsing this one. Heeeelp!

In a society overwhelmed with religious fanaticism and blind acceptance as a key element of the status quo, we need skeptics.

Is this statement truly accurate? Is our society truly “overwhelmed with religious fanaticism”? Is “blind acceptance” a correct description of Americans’ participation in the world? I am not saying there are no problems, but is the situation truly this dire? Yes, the world is in desperate need of skeptical thinkers, but is this the way to argue this point?

People are generally weak and insecure.

Just an opinion here, but I find this Hobbesian view of the world and human nature terribly depressing and rather inaccurate. Again a strongly worded statement does not the truth make… One would hope that our vision of humanity’s political and social interactions have evolved since 17th century. In my opinion such a vision of the human condition is not only outdated, but dangerous. It is this fundamental believe that produces at best nanny-states and at worst oppressive totalitarian regimes. “People are generally weak and insecure,” starts the argument, therefore they need strong government to protect them. In order to protect the weak populace government needs to be able to identify aberrant (i.e. abhorrent) thought. The easiest way to do this … well, bugging phones would be a start. Do you see where I am headed with this? Take it from someone who grew up under such a regime – it is not pretty.

Humanity has always needed something to explain the basics and explore the unknowns involved in the lives we live every day.

No argument here.

Without god or science we would all be walking around in an existentialist haze.

What is your objection to existentialism? The movement gave us plenty of brilliant writers (from Dostoyevsky to Kafka) and great philosophers. In my view, in its spirit existentialism is not that far removed from scientific skepticism. Existentialist thought began with examining and questioning the assertions and assumptions of proceeding philosophical movements. Skeptical thought questions the assumptions and the methodologies underlying scientific conclusions. In spirit the two are not so dissimilar. Thus, of all the hazes in which one can find herself, existential haze does not seem so bad… Hazy reasoning and hazily (or hastily?) assembled arguments seem to be a lot more dangerous.

Where was I going with this convoluted line of reasoning? Yes, the world needs skeptics and, one hopes, good science education would be able to produce a few more of them, but what the world needs even more is people of great ideas to be willing to voice those ideas eloquently and articulately and more importantly sign their names to them.

And finally (unrelated to science, but the question is eating at me) why post a comment on skepticism and pseudoscience under the name “Balzac…” I have read plenty of Balzac in my younger years and (unless I have missed something) there are plenty of other s-words I would associate with his writing (like satirical, sarcastic, sardonic) but skeptical certainly would not be one of them. Did the great French writer change his spots in the jaws of death? Or if the author refers to a (somewhat differently spelled) band, then again, I ask, why? What is the analogy/relevance?

And having responded to the last paragraph she rested…

Responding to anonymous Balzac. Deuxième partie

Proceeding to the second paragraph…

Thesis: a sprinkling of disjointed statements mirroring the opinions of Skeptic & of the James Randi Foundations does not a coherent argument make.

Again, I happen to agree with the spirit of the comment, but the skeptic in me demands clarifications…

I enjoy learning the stuff, and it's important to mentally stimulate the populace.

Is the importance "to mentally stimulate the populace” axiomatic? Why would this be important? I require clarification…

Science teaches people extremely important lessons that could potentially be learned elsewhere, but fit very nicely into the curriculum. The most important example being skepticism towards the world in which you live, and learning to reason properly using observeable evidence.

I would disagree… If skepticism and critical thinking lessons could be learned elsewhere, quite a few people (like self-proclaimed psychics, mentalists and astrologers to name a few) would have been long out of their respective jobs. Yet, people like Uri Geller and John Edward (of the “Crossing Over” fame) prosper.


Some skepticism lessons, it would seem, are not easily learned…

In response to Prometheus – bringing light to the world!!!

Copied from the original post:
While I agree on many of the reasons for which others say it is important for us to learn science there is one in particular that I believe is important: science teaches us analysis.

Now one could respond to that by saying that other subjects teach us analysis as well, and I am certainly not disputing that nor demeaning these subjects, but I think that sciences teach us a different type of analysis than subjects like history or english. I view sciences as teaching us a more observational method of analysis whereas other subjects may teach us to analyze thoughts and themes. The reason that this makes sciences so important is that the type of analysis they teach is needed in everyday life for such simple tasks as observing and considering our surroundings and reacting to what we see or learn(for example observing or learning that throwing a rock at a beehive can get you stung and thus reasoning that throwing a rock at a beehive is a bad idea.)

It is learning this sort of analysis and being able to apply it to our world that I think makes science important.

In the perfect world that is perhaps exactly the purpose of science education – teach students how to analyze data and draw conclusions from factual evidence. Science education should be about creating critical thinkers, capable to rationally analyzing evidence before them.

However, I wonder, is that what you are learning? Let’s assume that the content of the Regents Exams provides a summary of all the material and skills NY State expects you to learn. How much of the content of these tests is factual knowledge (which, given need and time, could easily be looked up books) and what percent of these exams are questions testing problem-solving and data analysis? Are you in fact learning critical thinking and analytical skills? Or perhaps the more dangerous (for me) question: Am I in fact teaching you those skills?

Pseudo-arguments of pseudo-dead-French-literary-figures. Première Partie.

...or in responce to Balzac the Jaws of Death

Let me begin by applauding the strength of conviction and seeming courage. I am especially impressed with willingness to take on Regents Physics curriculum (considering the profession of the person grading you…) This would have qualified as a rather bold and courageous act if not for one small hiccup – as of now I do not know the identity of mysterious Balzac… Thus, my interest was piqued. So, let’s grab a microscope and a dissecting kit and closely examine the above-mentioned argument.

Thesis: what superficially appears to be a reasonable argument upon closer examinations is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry. “Why?” – You ask. Read on…

I don't see much functional use to teaching kids pseudo-science that doesn't fully take into account any factors that would be prevalent outside of the classroom.

Bravo, egregio Signore (or is it "cher monsieur"?)! Well said -- big words and all... But is this statement true? Let’s start with the term pseudo-science. Oxford English Dictionary defines prefix “pseudo-” as (this is a direct quote)

Pseudo -- false, counterfeit, pretended, spurious
(1) Prefix to any noun as adjective forming combinations, …, with the sense ‘false, pretended, counterfeit, spurious, sham, falsely so called or represented; falsely, spuriously, apparently but not in reality’
(2) Special combinations: nearly all terms of modern science, (a) indicating close or deceptive resemblance to the thing denoted by the second element, without real identity or affinity with it; or sometimes simply denoting an abnormal or erratic from or kind of thing; (b) denoting something which does not correspond with the reality, or to which no reality corresponds, as false perceptions, errors of judgment or statement.


So, let’s assume the author used the term “pseudo-science” in the (2) sense of the word… I would further postulate that the intended definition was not described by the (2a) statement. Thus, let’s infer (and the remainder of the sentence appears to support this assumption) that the term was used in (2b) context.


I wonder where our writer goes upon leaving the Physics classroom since it is clearly different from the outside of the classroom I experience daily. When I step outside of my classroom things continue to fall due to gravity as predicted by the laws I teach. Granted: Paper, feathers and other light and small items fall considerably slower than our classroom calculations would predict, but these inconsistencies are addressed by conceptual explanations and examples. Does the author claim that all knowledge learned in the absence of mathematical equation supporting it is pseudo-science?

When I step outside of my classroom unbalanced forces still produce accelerated motion and balanced forces produce motion at constant velocity. No exceptions here… When I step outside of my classroom gravity still acts, planets still rotate, charges still attract and repel according to the physical laws.

Thus, I require an explanation: which part of what I teach can be classified as “pseudo”? Perhaps the author refers to the teaching style..?

More to follow as soon as I catch my breath…

Pre-destiny... or the Greeks were here...

Copied from the comment thread:

------------------------------------
Reva-T said...
in responce to geppetto:
Its true that with science, we could solve certain problems. But if you think about it, science is what created most of those problems. With out science, there would have been no industry. With no industry, there would have been no use of greenhouse gases. And no greenhouse gases means no global warming. But science is different because everything that has been discovered, was bound to happen. And anything that hasnt been discovered, is bound to be discovered (for the most part).

-------------------------------------

Italics are added by me...
I find myself wondering: is the highlighted statement accurate? Am I alone in this?

Is learning science important/valuable?

Write a response to some of the questions below:

Why do we learn science? Is there a value in learning science? If you are not going into a scientific field, is there still a value in taking science classes?
or
Is all science relevant to everyday life? If it is not, does it matter? Do we still need to learn it?

Remember: you are expected to write one response and reply to 2 responses of your classmates.