| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Did you hear about the dyslexic who wondered what was so great about annual sex?
The dyslexic who thought Nairobi was the capital of Kanye West?
The dyslexic homeless person? Has a sign that said, "Will fuck for wood."
Why was the water in the dyslexic's toilet bowl bright blue?
His girlfriend wrote him a note telling him to eat shit and die.
_______________
Interesting phenomenon.
I have trouble with p/q, r/f, b/d, and reversing letters when I hand write...like c,z,n,j,k....but when I write something for someone else to read and I diagram or write "upside down" so it reads correctly for them, it is a breeze. Typing is easier than handwriting because I know the location of the proper letters and they are harder to transpose.
I am a converted lefty, so no telling what Sister Henry and her yardstick hath wrought!
Did you go to Pielke's site ? Did you read anything there ?
He is not a skeptic, he doesn't deny Co2s effect. He doesn't claim it is not significant. In no way does he deny the obvious.
He outlines 3 major ACFs:
1) Well mixed greenhouse gasses
2) Land use
3) Aerosol emissions.
And of course there are different points of view among scientists.
The interesting area and point of contention among scientists now seems to be the feedbacks both positive and negative.
If you haven't read his site, give it a try, you might find it interesting.
Some people can write upside down easily. Just for the fun, can you also read upside down as easily?
My church....
And backwards.
The question you might want to consider is whether the sun has such a profound effect on earth's temperature cycles that nothing you and I might do will have any more than a trivial effect on them. On the other hand, if you consider that heresy, don't bother.
Don't make the mistake of believing that I endorse irresponsible behavior with regard to our environment, I'm just not fool enough to be badgered by the true believers into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons .
J_J will likely, with good reason, point out that global warming from the sun should heat the highest layers of the atmopshere, as well, but that layer has not warmed, making the warming more likely to be from another cause.
I'm a warming agnostic, myself.
Quote> Any conservative here who can list the science the far right does believe in? <Quote
You really need to offer a little help with this one, Buddha. What do you consider "far right"? Is that anyone to the right of Bill Clinton?
Start all the way to the right and then start moving left until you come across the first bit of science.
I knew I must have it wrong, I started at the left and have been trying, to no avail, to find the point where something mattered besides feelings.
I like that word
In the AGW debate it seems to me the following categories could apply:
Skeptic
Agnostic
Lukewarmist
Warmist
Alarmist
I am closer to agnostic as well.
Scientists like Spencer, Christie, Lindzen appear to me to be in the skeptic camp.
Alarmists would be Hansen, Gavin Schmit, Mann.
Pielke Sr. seems to be a lukewarmist.
I used to love to listen to Carl Sagan on Johnny Carson tell us all of what he KNEW about the planets, and then when we had the technology to get there we found out something different. Conjecture is something totally different. I still have not see "intelligent design" debunked by anyone.
I also like the arguments of Stephen Hawking and his colleagues debating back and forth in major conferences when they cannot prove what they believe, but I do enjoy their debates that, I will admit, are often beyond my feable brain. I am glad that people have the time and the means to continue those discussions as I do believe it is a worthwhile academic pursuit. Their debates about black holes is facinating to me.
As far as the likes of Al Gore...I do not waste my time with dillusional thinking. Father of the Internet my rear end. I do worry about the planet and our atmosphere, but I am not going to be influenced by the lunatic fringe and chicken little.
What does anger me is what is happening in the Gulf and how the science that should matter to us is either not being applied or was totally overlooked by very educated people we HAVE entrusted our environment to and paid them damn good money to be the watchdogs for it.
Here we sit with tens of thousands of barrels of oil leaking and moving to our shore and BP tells us that "some time next week" we are going to try "something else"! Really! It is hard for me to believe that all that can be done is being done. How in the world do we not have a major plan in place when we have been discussing MORE off shore drilling? With record profits for years you would think some money could have been spent on safety and containment strategies. It clearly has not been even considered.
As a conservative I do believe that our future and economic footing is tied to solar and wind technology, and moving closer to all cars being at least hybrid, and funding battery technology to really lessen our dependence on fossil fuel. We might have something if we did that as much as we worry about the space programs. IMHO.
Jim,
we are agreing on too many things, we need to start arguing. :grin
A 500,000 dollar remote shutoff could have prevented the BP spill tragedy.
If we had the regs requiring this like they do in the North Sea and South America we wouldn't have this problem.
The past 3 administrations and congress all share the blame on this one.
So how does that make you feel?
So, you are unable to complete your assignment regarding science.
Well said my good man!
Good one, Buddha!
ID is easily shown not to be science but merely reworked creationism. Each of the claimed "scientific" arguments propounded by ID's proponents are readily defeated.
In fact, these issues were tried in 2005 before federal court judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush.
Judge Jones concluded, among other things:
"The religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child."
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are:
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand . . . The goal of the [Iintelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
All 139 pages of the decision: Kitzmiller v. Dover
ID is absolute nonsense on a scientific basis.
Of course, one is free to believe in creationism or ID as a religious tenant. But it is not science and should not be taught in public schools.
Well said, Elk.
Um, as Buddha knows full well, the errors in atmospheric measurement due to a change in areosonde paint refute the whole of this particular bit, ESpecially when one realizes the fact that CO2 capturing IR actually makes the outer atmosphere COLDER at the same time the planet gets warmer.
Hey, not-big, go yank Dixie's chain, ok?
I told this joke back in the eight grade and was promptly smacked upside my head with a yard stick, by the nun who was standing directly behind me. Thank you Sister Agetha for your direction in life.
This is even worse than the airline attendent who threw the vulture and his two dead racoons off the plane.
After all, it's one carrion per passenger.
I guess the changing of the beaks of birds on the Galapagos Islands that was viewed upon as proof of evolution, which has now been proven to be the birds
Quote:
"So, you reject evolution based on a nearly 200 year old observation"?
This was just one, but I haven't seen one from you, just idle generalizations. I am quite content to believe what I believe. Many of us think of those 200 years as scientific BS. You are more than welcome to believe what you want, you certainly do not require anything from me. On judgement day I would warn you not to be behind me as I am going to be a while, accounting for every idle word I have spoken. Don't say I didn't warn you.
The last time I checked our court systems rendered "opinions" not the truth. I would not expect science to "correct itself" either. Could the real answer be, "We just don't know". Has science really been on the hunt for God? Hardly. That is generally not a postion science wants to take. This is precisely why our forefathers wanted government out of religion.
With all our science and all our government are we really better off? That is almost laughable, except it is so sad. Are we really that "evolved"? It may be that it is just me that isn't.
Unwilling is closer, Buddha. I'm just an old version of those unruly kids who make the lives of classroom teachers difficult. Given that your terms "far right" and "all the way to the right" were about equally vague, I've stayed with my journey which began at what I think of as the far left and I've moved almost to where the middle ought to be. From here, it looks as though no one is there. Hmmm..
Proof of gravity?
None.
Proof of conservation of energy or momentum?
None.
Systems act as if those things are true. Sciences decsribes and theorizes that things behave 'as if.'
Evolution stands about where gravity does on the 'theory' scale.
On the intelligent design front, in all seriousness, Jim, how did you determine who the intelligent designer was? What definitive method did you use and how amazing is the coincidence that you were born into the right theory of creation?
I mean, is there a gene for this?
Something like 98% of people who have a religion 'inherited' it from their parents.
That's pretty amazing.
So, Jim, it seems safe to say that like Einstein you find it hard to attribute all we know about and think we know about, to a roll of the dice. Good for you.
Jim,
do you think there is a conflict between evolution and a belief in a god ?
The Jesuits adressed that for us in high school. Evolution was the tool god used
to create life on earth.
Conflict solved. you can believe in god and accept evolution at the same time
To put it another way: Science is the attempt to explain and understand the physical world relying only on the empirical data we can apprehend.
Religion attempts to explain and understand the physical and metaphysical world through faith and the spiritual and or mystical apprehension of the world.
There need be no conflict between the two.
I have many religious friends who have no problem accepting evolution.
Your kid was predestined to be a good Presbyterian.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Trey
This quote is often taken out of context, as in this instance. Einstein did not believe in a personal god.
Rather, Einstein was a classical physicist, trained in Newtonian cause and effect. However quantum radiation theory demonstrates that regardless of the amount of information available, there is no way to predict the direction and instance of photon radiation.
That is, Einstein's concept of the universe depended on predictable order. Neils Bohr however demonstrated that certain aspects of the quantum universe depended on chance.
This ongoing debate led to Einstein's argument that God does not roll dice. It was a statement of his scientific viewpoint, not of a belief in a Christian God.
Einstein had no problem with evolution, although this was not his area of study.
Exactly!
Evolution is not anti-religion in any fashion. Many scientists are religious.
This is the sad part of the public dialog on the issue. Evolution is not intended to disprove the existence of a any god. Rather it explains the physical world. It is not an attack on religious belief.
In fact the Catholic church, under John Paul, II, specifically embraced evolution as not in conflict with the teachings of the Church. Keep in mind that J2P2 was extremely conservative.
My son once did a paper for a class that compared the 'evolutionary' view contrasted with the Book of Genesis.
With a few minor quibbles, those brionze age mythologists got things in order not too badly!
Flip days three and four, and the science timeline is eerily similar to the Genesis timeline...
First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]
Nice job, Buddha.
Yes, including the sound and fury of God. Almost every religion refers to sound and light as a way of experiencing a supreme being.
No, he was PREDESTINED to be a Methodist, but he CHOSE of his own FREE WILL to be Presbyterian.
(you may now choke on your coffee if you get the wrongess of this)
When I was younger, I told the Determinist Club that I had chosen to join their group, but they threw me out. So, I went over to the Free Choice Society and told them I had no choice but to join their group, and they threw me out, too.
Elk, I never suggested that Einstein's remark indicated that he subscribed to Christianity's personal God, merely that the nature of the universe as he understood it made it difficult for him to ascribe the current state of things to a series of random events. Likewise, I find it easy to believe (though I can cite no source) that he could, as I do, accept evolution as a tool used by a creator.
I understand your response, though. You had your jar of pomposity open and decided to drop a dollop of it on me. You're so darned predictable.
Perhaps you, given your scorn for obvious things like evolution, do not realize the difference between randomness and randomness WITH SELECTION.
As to QM, well, in fact when you get down to it, Bell's Theorem makes it pretty clear that as far as our visibility into our own universe is concerned, "god" does play dice.
So if you can accept evolution as a tool used by a "creator" would you agree that ID is religious not scientific, and therefore should not be taught as science in school ?
Remember that science, by definition, does not concern itself with the metaphysical.
If science and religion could have worked side by side, we would all be closer to the answers....
You say "won't," I say "can't."
Same result.
No far right science discussion, I guess.
I would be happy if schools accepted the responsibility to steer pupils toward the habits of thinking for themselves, of questioning the "settled science" - in short of developing their individual abilities to think and to learn. To that end, I think students should be led to ponder such questions as whether the existence of a watch indicates the presence (at some time) of a watchmaker. In the name of humor, I can even see value in the question whether an all powerful God could create a stone that he could not lift.
The list of complaints I have about the curricula and the activities of individual teachers and administrators in American public schools today is a long one. At some point, not near the top of the list, I'd come to the issue of ID being included in any curriculum. ID has no place in our schools, anymore than does the performance by a student chorus of a song praising candidate Obama or students being sanction for wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo or students being required to view "An Inconvenient Truth" or the "correct" anwers on quizes being those in agreement with the teachers' political preferences, or school sponsored clubs for homosexuals.
Of course ID is religious and has nothing to do with "science". Science, however, is a word which, like gay, has departed so far from its original meaning that condemning ID on those grounds is a pretty weak argument. Do you have problems with the teaching of so-called Political Science?
Schools today are involved in social indoctrination to an extent which is criminal. There are larger problems to be addressed. To focus on the attempts to include ID is like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic, but if you think that is worth your time, have at it.
You say tomahto and I say tomato. See my answer to tomjtx above.
With regard to your vaguely worded original question, I offer an equivalent one to you: Are you feeling better now since you've stopped beating your wife?
As George Patton is reputed to have said, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book."
Dixieland,
Well at least it's clear where you stand now.
It appears you have some prejudices which are beginning to show.
Do you support the Tea Party ?
tomjtx,
I'm pleased that you thought the opinions I stated in my answer to your question were clear. To continue an effort at clarity, you should understand that the words opinion and prejudice are not synonyms. A good working definition of prejudice is, I think, " An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of pertinent facts."
Clearly, some of my opinions are not in agreement with some of yours, but to suggest out of hand, that they reveal prejudice is both unjustified and cowardly. In fact, you know very little about me and even less about the basis of my opinions. Be specific in your charge and I'll be happy to provide the basis for a particular opinion.
Regards what you refer to as "The Tea Party" I'm not convinced that the label correctly describes a single organization or movement. Those who attend so-called Tea Party rallys seem to me to be a loose confederation of people drawn together by some shared opinions. Some of the opinions attributed to those groups, are ones that I share. One example would be that I believe a larger and more powerful federal government is neither the answer to our country's current problems nor the path to a better America in the future. Would you, in some simplistic way, consider that support for what you call "The Tea Party"?
Perhaps bias would have been a better choice of word.
You imply you would be opposed to students forming a gay support club.
Is that correct ?
This is entirely inconsistent with your statement equating Jim's support of ID to that of Einstein's claimed belief: "hard to attribute all we know about and think we know about, to a roll of the dice."
Once again, I am sorry I offended you. I am surprised however that your are so thin-skinned when you readily post strong statements of opinion and belief.
This is not an insult, just an explanation for my assumption that one who presents strong opinions can handle an opposing viewpoint - and to learn.
Back to our regular programming.
The phrase, "political science," is indeed an oxymoron. However, even poly sci does not think of itself as science in the classic sense - knowledge of the physical world obtained and tested through scientific method.
Do you believe that the sciences themselves (biology, chemistry,physics, etc.) have themselves been watered down in some fashion?
Schools, churches, a family's home - all are places of indoctrination and always will be.
What specifically is taught in public schools to which you object?
Pages