 |
|
|
|
Next: Hollywood Mutual Assets
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 16, 2005
Posts: 137
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:21 am
Post subject: So when are proven facts no longer theory?
Archived from groups: alt>books>m-lackey (more info?)
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
about relativity:
"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
--
I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
That's what everybody calls me.
Hemidemisemideity of Anonymous Eponymity
Patron Saint of Hair Color Changing
Currently: Dark Intense Red - Hydrience 3RR.
Holder of a provisional pedant licens/ce
(limited to the area of physical sciens/ce)
Member of ABMLNCSC - Base singer, very base
"Mommy, make daddy stop singing".
I dye my hair so much my driver's license
has a color wheel. Nancy Mura |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:18 am
Post subject: Re: So when are proven facts no longer theory? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:21:02 GMT, Aaron <kemtek.1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
>
>My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
>about relativity:
>
>"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
>the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
>including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
>Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
>
>About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
Why are they teaching the Theory of Gravitation as fact is more to the
point.....
I think the important point missed here, is that they should be
teaching that Science (note capital) teaches that everything is open
to question and can be disproven, but nothing can be 100% proven (see
quantum mechanics for a brain twister) and therefore they word theory
does not hold the weight that disputers try to put on it.
Firesong |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 10, 2007
Posts: 52
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:43 am
Post subject: Re: So when are proven facts no longer theory? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:21:02 GMT, Aaron <kemtek.1.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
>
>My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
>about relativity:
>
>"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
>the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
>including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
>Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
>
>About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
More interesting to me is that Newton's law of gravity is known to be
incomplete. It fails near massive objects such as the sun. >> Stay informed about: So when are proven facts no longer theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
m_thomas[numBksInLastHrld
|
External
Since: Oct 03, 2007
Posts: 260
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:43 am
Post subject: Re: So when are proven facts no longer theory? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
John Oliver wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:21:02 GMT, Aaron <kemtek.1 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
>>
>>My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
>>about relativity:
>>
>>"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
>>the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
>>including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
>>Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
>>
>>About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
>
>
> More interesting to me is that Newton's law of gravity is known to be
> incomplete. It fails near massive objects such as the sun.
Gravity is a scientific theory, too. Drives me batty, how so many people
don't understand that by "theory" scientists mean something vastly stronger
than the casual, everyday use of the word implies.
I don't see people forming leagues to stop the teaching of the theory of
gravity in schools. Yet -- speaking casually, as I'm neither a physicist
nor a biologist -- it seems physicists are far less happy with the theory
of gravity than biologists are happy with the theory of evolution.
sigh.
Drove me utterly crazy in the movie "I, Robot", how the scriptwriters
*plainly* did not understand what Asimov meant by the "laws of robotics".
Asimov's laws were written as scientific laws. The scriptwriters
interpreted them as government-type laws and easy to break.
Darn movie seems to be on endless rotation on cable TV, and it drives me
crazy every time I see even a bit of it.
Must teach more science in schools. Must, must, must! (Says the science
teacher.)
--
Megan
Journeyperson Dancing Barbarian
Keeper o' the FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~m_thomas3/abml/ >> Stay informed about: So when are proven facts no longer theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:01 pm
Post subject: Re: So when are proven facts no longer theory? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:28 +0000, Firesong <firesong DeleteThis @firesong.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:21:02 GMT, Aaron <kemtek.1 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
>>
>>My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
>>about relativity:
>>
>>"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
>>the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
>>including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
>>Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
>>
>>About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
>
>Why are they teaching the Theory of Gravitation as fact is more to the
^^^^^^^ Aaaarrgghhh s/are/aren't/ - Firesong >> Stay informed about: So when are proven facts no longer theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 10, 2007
Posts: 52
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: So when are proven facts no longer theory? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:52:15 -0800, "m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"
<"m_thomas[numBksInLastHrldMage]"@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John Oliver wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:21:02 GMT, Aaron <kemtek.1.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1929595320080219
>>>
>>>My beef is not with the headline, evolution, but with the paragraph
>>>about relativity:
>>>
>>>"The panel includes the word "evolution" in state science standards for
>>>the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas,
>>>including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac
>>>Newton's law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact."
>>>
>>>About exactly which parts of relativity do they need experimental proof?
>>
>>
>> More interesting to me is that Newton's law of gravity is known to be
>> incomplete. It fails near massive objects such as the sun.
>
>Gravity is a scientific theory, too. Drives me batty, how so many people
>don't understand that by "theory" scientists mean something vastly stronger
>than the casual, everyday use of the word implies.
>
>I don't see people forming leagues to stop the teaching of the theory of
>gravity in schools. Yet -- speaking casually, as I'm neither a physicist
>nor a biologist -- it seems physicists are far less happy with the theory
>of gravity than biologists are happy with the theory of evolution.
>
Last I heard, the general theory of relativity (Einstein's theory of
gravity) was considered mathematically inconsistent with Quantum
Mechanics.
And I personally think biologists are too happy with the theory of
evolution. I keep remembering what happened to Classical Physics. >> Stay informed about: So when are proven facts no longer theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Time for my random check-in... [grumbly, rantish, longer t.. - It's been a few months since I've posted, and I've finally taken the time to get at least a little bit caught up (only 834 unread posts left to go, as opposed to the 3091 I had earlier today). Granted, I did a lot of my catching up by deleting posts I..
Another Phil Proctor phunny - 2002 Washington Post's Style Invitational winners from readers who take a word, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing only one letter and redefine it. +Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your..
And the Rollercoaster goes on.... - The latest efforts of the RL rollercoaster are that one of our two remaining cats appears to have vanished. Neither of us can remember seeing Minim anytime after Thursday evening (and it's now Sunday evening). We've driven round both the housing estate...
Another Legend Gone - R.I.P. Katherine Hepburn, age 96, at home today. <sigh> -- Purrt the ghatta Part-time gryphon Disciple to the Goddess of Chocolate Owner of a full Pedant's licenc/se Goddess of Impertinence Snikkrish the Tearer Carpe Bean
Harry Potter and the Academic Conference - From yesterday's (Sunday, 6/29) _Washington Post_ comes an article describing a conference on the subject of Harry Potter. The conference title is "Ninbus-2003: A Harry Potter Symposium". Among the papers to be presented: Philip Nel (Kansas ... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
