Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 10, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Invictus wrote:

I'm not sure, however, about secretarial science. Isn't that something the president of USM is reputed to know a lot about?

So, once again we're back to the BBT.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

and remember GUYS AND GALS...IN THE FINAL ANLAYSIS...THERE IS NO FINAL ANALYSIS!

ANALYZE THAT...

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Scientist wrote:

stephen judd wrote: By the way Invictus . . . . I'm amazed at the things you know . . .

Scientist wrote: Look who is talking. Last night we all learned how much Stephen knows about so many different subject. Wow! I was very impressed.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Speaking of "backscratching", does anyone else see John (Jack) Hanbury's recent letters to the editor as blatant pandering to a targeted conservative client base? Niche marketing, perhaps? I understand the guy's got to eat, but really, his efforts to distance himself from the university that shunned him seem so transparent.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Risky Management wrote:

Speaking of "backscratching", does anyone else see John (Jack) Hanbury's recent letters to the editor as blatant pandering to a targeted conservative client base? Niche marketing, perhaps? I understand the guy's got to eat, but really, his efforts to distance himself from the university that shunned him seem so transparent.

I noticed. His Op-Ed piece on the surpreme court and constitution and now the letter attacking evolution gives me the idea he is preparing to run for a public office.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Risky Management wrote: Speaking of "backscratching", does anyone else see John (Jack) Hanbury's recent letters to the editor as blatant pandering to a targeted conservative client base? Niche marketing, perhaps? I understand the guy's got to eat, but really, his efforts to distance himself from the university that shunned him seem so transparent. I noticed. His Op-Ed piece on the surpreme court and constitution and now the letter attacking evolution gives me the idea he is preparing to run for a public office.

Interesting...

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Have you been attentive to the news lately? TIME and USNews&World Report both have stories on the evolution I.D. debate. Here 3 Letters to the Editor in the H.A. in one week (after summer school at USM let out and Professors are out of town) attacking Evolution and promoting I.D.

Have you heard the Kansas School Board just recently approved the discussion of I.D. and other "theories" in against Evolution in Biology classes? The battle for rationalism is now full blown. The Taliban is taking over.

Someone asked why I was so argumentative. If you realized what is happening to science in this country while China and other nations are making great progress, you also would be very concerned. It's like watching the fall of the Roman Empire.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

And just to clarify my religious credentials . . . I was raised a Baptist, baptised in the blood of the lamb and fully immersed, preached from a Baptist pulpit and subsequently had a license to preach in the Baltimore Washngton conference of the Methodist church where I served for a short time as an assistant minister at a church in Rockville, Maryland.

You're being far too modest. Didn't you also complete an evangelical apprenticeship in New York City with the Rev. Al Sharpton? The similarities in rhetoric and cadence are surely more than coincidence.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

I noticed. His Op-Ed piece on the surpreme court and constitution and now the letter attacking evolution gives me the idea he is preparing to run for a public office.

My thoughts exactly, Left. Shudder.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Have you heard the Kansas School Board just recently approved the discussion of I.D. and other "theories" against Evolution in Biology classes?

Kansas is definitely not a Southern state. So don't blame it on Southern people or on Southern culture as sometimes seems to be the practice on this board.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Third Witch wrote:

My thoughts exactly, Left. Shudder.

Same impression here. And it would appear that the HA is giving him its tacit endorsement.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Have you been attentive to the news lately? TIME and USNews&World Report both have stories on the evolution I.D. debate. Here 3 Letters to the Editor in the H.A. in one week (after summer school at USM let out and Professors are out of town) attacking Evolution and promoting I.D. Have you heard the Kansas School Board just recently approved the discussion of I.D. and other "theories" in against Evolution in Biology classes? The battle for rationalism is now full blown. The Taliban is taking over. Someone asked why I was so argumentative. If you realized what is happening to science in this country while China and other nations are making great progress, you also would be very concerned. It's like watching the fall of the Roman Empire.

Take a look at the biographies of some of the early scientists who made very significant and enduring contributions. You will note that a very large number of them were deeply religious. Some were even members of the clergy. Some of today's leading scientists at some of this nation's leading universities have relgious convictions, attend church regularly, teach Sunday School classes, pray, and are still card carrying scientific evolutionists.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Scientist wrote: Have you been attentive to the news lately? TIME and USNews&World Report both have stories on the evolution I.D. debate. Here 3 Letters to the Editor in the H.A. in one week (after summer school at USM let out and Professors are out of town) attacking Evolution and promoting I.D. Have you heard the Kansas School Board just recently approved the discussion of I.D. and other "theories" in against Evolution in Biology classes? The battle for rationalism is now full blown. The Taliban is taking over. Someone asked why I was so argumentative. If you realized what is happening to science in this country while China and other nations are making great progress, you also would be very concerned. It's like watching the fall of the Roman Empire.

First Tier wrote:Take a look at the biographies of some of the early scientists who made very significant and enduring contributions. You will note that a very large number of them were deeply religious. Some were even members of the clergy. Some of today's leading scientists at some of this nation's leading universities have relgious convictions, attend church regularly, teach Sunday School classes, pray, and are still card carrying scientific evolutionists.

True, First Tier. The public doesn't realize this. The debate is not among scientists. The debate is a public debate conducted by people who are ignorant of the methods of science. They think, "If a scientist says I.D. is a theory it is". They don't realize that science is not what scientists say, but rather what they say in a peer reviewed scientific journal. The statements must be evaluated. The public operates on the premise "everyone is entitled to their opinions". This doesn't hold for science. All opinions are not valid unless peered reviewed. The saying is, "research is not science research unless published in a science journal."

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Scientific wrote:
True, First Tier. The public doesn't realize this. The debate is not among scientists. The debate is a public debate conducted by people who are ignorant of the methods of science. They think, "If a scientist says I.D. is a theory it is". They don't realize that science is not what scientists say, but rather what they say in a peer reviewed scientific journal. The statements must be evaluated. The public operates on the premise "everyone is entitled to their opinions". This doesn't hold for science. All opinions are not valid unless peered reviewed. The saying is, "research is not science research unless published in a science journal."

Excellent points, both First Tier & Scientist.

I don't think the debate is, however, "conducted by people who are ignorant of the methods of science." I believe that the debate is conducted by people who think they understand the methods of science & who ultimately distrust those methods very deeply. Check out that "Discovery Institute" & you'll see that their agenda is to overturn "materialistic science." Their "Wedge Strategy" aims to attack what they perceive as the weakest point to "topple the tree." And they've selected high school science curricula as the weakest point. I can't say that I disagree. The truly scary thing is that they are willing to invest several decades in their "culture war." If they can ensure that today's children are educated poorly, there's no telling what they can achieve when those children become voters, parents & policy makers.

"What time is it, boys & girls?
Time for the Dark Ages!"
- World Enterainment War ("Dark Ages")

The people at the forefront of the "intelligent design" movement have an agenda & ultimately that agenda isn't scientific nor is it particularly religious. It's political. And it's not that different from the agenda that the Ayatollah Khomeini rode to power in Iran almost 30 years ago. (The irony isn't lost on me.) So it's not surprising to me that GWB would endorse "intelligent design," especially seeing as how the Discovery Institute itself is headed up by a former Reagan administration staffer. It's part of the concessions that a particular political party made to corner the market on what used to be called the "moral majority." (At this point, I could do a two-step right over into Roe v Wade & stem cell research, but I won't.) Does GWB really care about whether "ID" is good science, or is he simply pandering to the ever-reliable "religious right?" Just MHO, but it's cyncism of the highest order.

On to more & bettter things...

As Robert Plant once warbled, "Sometimes words have two meanings." In his little polemic in the HA, Hanbury noted that The American Heritage Dictionary defines "theory" as "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." Now, the general public might think that "limited information" means "a limited amount of information" & that it implies that there is an equal amount of contradictory information. Hanbury knows this, which is why he used a plain vanilla dictionary definition of the term.

But that ain't how science works, sports fans.

A scientific theory is not based on a limited amount of information, nor is it merely "conjecture." A theory is supported by the great preponderance of available information. "Limited information" in science refers more to practical limits set by methodology. (I'm reminded of an old Far Side cartoon showing a fellow in a lab coat carrying a rectal thermometer toward the hindquarters of a dinosaur, with the caption "An instant later, both Professor Waxman and his time machine are obliterated, leaving the cold-blooded/warm-blooded dinosaur debate still unresolved." Had Professor Waxman not met his untimely end, perhaps we wouldn't be having so much fun on this thread!)

So... Does anybody have a time machine? I can stop by WalMart & get the rectal thermometer. Perhaps Mr. Hanbury will volunteer to resolve the debate once & for all!

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Scientific wrote:True, First Tier. The public doesn't realize this. The debate is not among scientists. The debate is a public debate conducted by people who are ignorant of the methods of science. They think, "If a scientist says I.D. is a theory it is". They don't realize that science is not what scientists say, but rather what they say in a peer reviewed scientific journal. The statements must be evaluated. The public operates on the premise "everyone is entitled to their opinions". This doesn't hold for science. All opinions are not valid unless peered reviewed. The saying is, "research is not science research unless published in a science journal." Excellent points, both First Tier & Scientist. I don't think the debate is, however, "conducted by people who are ignorant of the methods of science." I believe that the debate is conducted by people who think they understand the methods of science & who ultimately distrust those methods very deeply. Check out that "Discovery Institute" & you'll see that their agenda is to overturn "materialistic science." Their "Wedge Strategy" aims to attack what they perceive as the weakest point to "topple the tree." And they've selected high school science curricula as the weakest point. I can't say that I disagree. The truly scary thing is that they are willing to invest several decades in their "culture war." If they can ensure that today's children are educated poorly, there's no telling what they can achieve when those children become voters, parents & policy makers."What time is it, boys & girls? Time for the Dark Ages!" - World Enterainment War ("Dark Ages")The people at the forefront of the "intelligent design" movement have an agenda & ultimately that agenda isn't scientific nor is it particularly religious. It's political. And it's not that different from the agenda that the Ayatollah Khomeini rode to power in Iran almost 30 years ago. (The irony isn't lost on me.) So it's not surprising to me that GWB would endorse "intelligent design," especially seeing as how the Discovery Institute itself is headed up by a former Reagan administration staffer. It's part of the concessions that a particular political party made to corner the market on what used to be called the "moral majority." (At this point, I could do a two-step right over into Roe v Wade & stem cell research, but I won't.) Does GWB really care about whether "ID" is good science, or is he simply pandering to the ever-reliable "religious right?" Just MHO, but it's cyncism of the highest order. On to more & bettter things... As Robert Plant once warbled, "Sometimes words have two meanings." In his little polemic in the HA, Hanbury noted that The American Heritage Dictionary defines "theory" as "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." Now, the general public might think that "limited information" means "a limited amount of information" & that it implies that there is an equal amount of contradictory information. Hanbury knows this, which is why he used a plain vanilla dictionary definition of the term. But that ain't how science works, sports fans. A scientific theory is not based on a limited amount of information, nor is it merely "conjecture." A theory is supported by the great preponderance of available information. "Limited information" in science refers more to practical limits set by methodology. (I'm reminded of an old Far Side cartoon showing a fellow in a lab coat carrying a rectal thermometer toward the hindquarters of a dinosaur, with the caption "An instant later, both Professor Waxman and his time machine are obliterated, leaving the cold-blooded/warm-blooded dinosaur debate still unresolved." Had Professor Waxman not met his untimely end, perhaps we wouldn't be having so much fun on this thread!) So... Does anybody have a time machine? I can stop by WalMart & get the rectal thermometer. Perhaps Mr. Hanbury will volunteer to resolve the debate once & for all!

I'm still amazed that Invictus manages to make me chuckle on this topic when I'm all argument. Good post. I still think the ultimate goal is not just political, but to obtain power. Power for what? Power to put their religion into public schools. That power controls the long-term future, not just another 4 years.

Children are governed by emotion at the age this is being presented to them. Reason and logical thinking comes much later if it is ever gained. (If you watch some commercials you would think the majority of the population never achieves this level of objective thinking and clear reasoning.) You gave an excellent example of how easy it is to confuse people by switching definitions of "Theory". Just because I.D. is called a theory doesn't make it a theory. But that is too deep for high school kids reading what a scientist says in his non-refereed book. In fact it is worse than that. They are trying to change the very definition of science to include subjective opinion.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Invictus wrote:

As Robert Plant once warbled, "Sometimes words have two meanings."

Yes, and our own Bill Clinton later warbled something similar, perhaps inspired by Mr. Plant?

Date: Aug 11, 2005

I'm a little confused here.

If a scientific opinion must be peer reviewed to be valid, then...

Were Newton's Laws invalid before they were peer reviewed?

Were Galileo's hypotheses invalid before they were peer reviewed?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around...does it make a sound?

It seems like to me that if an argument is internally consistent and is supported by observational data then it is a valid argument. A valid argument is valid, regardless of whether or not it is peer reviewed.

If I get a flawed piece of research into a peer reviewed journal, does that make it valid?

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Confused Corruptor wrote:

I'm a little confused here. If a scientific opinion must be peer reviewed to be valid, then... Were Newton's Laws invalid before they were peer reviewed? Were Galileo's hypotheses invalid before they were peer reviewed? If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around...does it make a sound? It seems like to me that if an argument is internally consistent and is supported by observational data then it is a valid argument. A valid argument is valid, regardless of whether or not it is peer reviewed. If I get a flawed piece of research into a peer reviewed journal, does that make it valid?

This goes to show that the philosophy of science trumps science.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

Confused Corruptor wrote:

Were Newton's Laws invalid before they were peer reviewed?

Were Galileo's hypotheses invalid before they were peer reviewed?

If Newton's laws and Galileo's hypotheses hadn't been independently validated by peers, do you think you would know their names?

Date: Aug 11, 2005

not a scientist wrote:

If Newton's laws and Galileo's hypotheses hadn't been independently validated by peers, do you think you would know their names?

Newton and Galileo aside, there have been many "scientists" whose names are common household words but whose work was not validated by peer. Pop science and pop medicine are full of those names. Science is only a method and nothing more. It is not a religion although some scientists would have us believe that it is.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

not a scientist wrote:

Confused Corruptor wrote:

Were Newton's Laws invalid before they were peer reviewed?

Were Galileo's hypotheses invalid before they were peer reviewed?

If Newton's laws and Galileo's hypotheses hadn't been independently validated by peers, do you think you would know their names?

Is it the peer review that makes the argument valid, or is it the peer review that confirms the argument's validity?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Confused Corruptor wrote:

I'm a little confused here. If a scientific opinion must be peer reviewed to be valid, then... Were Newton's Laws invalid before they were peer reviewed?

Good morning Confused Corruptor, You ask interesting questions. I was speaking of science and you seem to be speaking of philosophy. Let's see if this can be straighten out some.

Most say Physics started with Newton. I don't know what "journals" were available then. But he knew he had to satisfy "peer review" in some form for his ideas to be accepted. Don't forget "scientific opinions" must agree with experiment. The experimental results were already known (Kepler, Galileo & others). Newton did his work in his twenties, but didn't publish until he was about sixty (66?) (He had to invent calculus and work out the theory of gravitation before his 3 laws would not be contradicted by experimental observation.)

Philosophical arguments can be valid (not break rules of logic) and still not be true (conform to observation). Scientific theories (you used opinion) must be both valid and agree with experiment. Peer review is the mechanism to check on this.

Were Galileo's hypotheses invalid before they were peer reviewed?

Again we must be very careful. Galileo performed experiments and his "hypotheses", as you called it, was really "empirical law" summarizing many experimental observations. This is really different from "theory" or "opinion".

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around...does it make a sound?

If "sound" is defined as vibrations of the air, the tree does make a sound and disturbs leaves. This can be recorded without the presence of a person. However, it doesn't make "noise" because that is a subjective interpretation of a sound perceived by a human.

It seems like to me that if an argument is internally consistent and is supported by observational data then it is a valid argument. A valid argument is valid, regardless of whether or not it is peer reviewed.

I agree with this. But the determination of the "internally consistency" and "support by observational data" must be done by peers (the jury). What you are leaving out is the actual process that provides these properties to the work.

If I get a flawed piece of research into a peer reviewed journal, does that make it valid?

I very important point. Science progresses and corrects itself. Even the peer review isn't infallible; so all of science is tentative. According to the operational definitions the "flaw" doesn't exist until it is discovered, peer reviewed and pointed out in the literature.

Thanks for pointing this out, C.C., so that it can be explained more clearly

Date: Aug 12, 2005

I forgot to add that although Newton's Laws were valid and agreed with experiment back then, they do not agree with the very precise measurements that can be made today. They are still valid for large (macroscopic) objects traveling slowly compared to the speed of light. But they are not in agreement with experiments on microscopic objects or objects traveling very fast, like 0.8 c (c= speed of light).

So a picky person could say "flawed" science got into the science literature. In that sense all science is "flawed" in that it isn't the ultimate answer. If we had the ultimate, absolute answer, we wouldn't have or need science. As another poster pointed out, "Science is a method."

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Invictus wrote:

... The people at the forefront of the "intelligent design" movement have an agenda & ultimately that agenda isn't scientific nor is it particularly religious. It's political...

Organized religion is just one of many social systems that administer reinforcers and punishers contingent on an organism's behavioral activities. As do scientific professional societies and political organizations. The people who administer these stimuli (the clergy, politicians, and leaders in professional guilds) are themselves the recipients of reinforcers that increase the probability of their own behaviors being repeated. GWB and the ID folks will continue on this path not for rational reasons, but because they are subject to powerful variable ratio reinforcement schedules (as well as fixed interval schedules such as elections). Until the reinforcement schedule becomes lean enough to lead to extinction, they will exhibit high rates of these behaviors.

BF Skinner. Prominent social scientist. I am deceased, so my writing is rusty.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

I hope I write as well when I'm in your condition.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

And the beat goes on...

Evolution is a 'faulty theory'
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050812/OPINION03/508120326/1014/OPINION

Date: Aug 12, 2005

If this is a debate (not on the website - in society) about teaching religion in schools then let's label it as such and have the debate. Meanwhile, let's not call "Intelligent Design" a competing theory with evolution and pretend that it's science. Evolution, as others have said, is a process that does not address "who" or "why".

Scientist, I'm with you. This societal shift is scary and, btw, I support your concerns about the resulting "brain drain".

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Reporter wrote:

And the beat goes on... Evolution is a 'faulty theory'http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050812/OPINION03/508120326/1014/OPINION

This makes 4 letters this week against evolution. All regurgitations of what people heard from the "Discovery Institute".

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

If this is a debate (not on the website - in society) about teaching religion in schools then let's label it as such and have the debate. Meanwhile, let's not call "Intelligent Design" a competing theory with evolution and pretend that it's science. Evolution, as others have said, is a process that does not address "who" or "why". Scientist, I'm with you. This societal shift is scary and, btw, I support your concerns about the resulting "brain drain".

Thanks Biology Teacher. If you want to look at the really big picture, religion has to get its act together. Using a "belief" system to replace "truth" is very dangerous. People who use this method of thinking are partly responsible for the irrationalism taking over this planet. How do you reason with a religious person that wants to "kill the infidel"? Howe can you prove them wrong?

I think it was USM Sympathizer (and then I) who asked the questions earlier: How do you tell which is the true religion? How do you tell if a philosophy is true? Right now and through all of history it appears to me to be the one that wins the war. Must one religion kill the others off to be the true religion? I would prefer a scientific experiment.

What can be done with a religion that can't tolerate diversity of belief or no belief?