PDA

View Full Version : Maybe we need some stickers



John Dlugosz
2005-Mar-14, 11:22 PM
Maybe bigsplit or Even (I can't be sure which :wink:) agrees with
Ellery Schempp (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm) who proposes:


All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

ToSeek
2005-Mar-14, 11:39 PM
A Scientific American columnist has a whole list here. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00022DE1-0C15-11E6-B75283414B7F0000)

Plat
2005-Mar-14, 11:47 PM
A Scientific American columnist has a whole list here. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00022DE1-0C15-11E6-B75283414B7F0000)

ToSeek check your inbox

8-[

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-15, 12:30 AM
I say, as soon as we find one of those "black holes" that these dablers in science keep going on about we should chuck Ellery Schempp into it and then he can argue his case directly with "gravity".
We'll see who gets shredded first.... :wink:

Jpax2003
2005-Mar-15, 03:11 AM
I think that's a good idea. But just add a disclaimer including the Scientific Method and how it is different from mythology and superstition and let the students figure it out for themselves.

pghnative
2005-Mar-15, 01:45 PM
I say, as soon as we find one of those "black holes" that these dablers in science keep going on about we should chuck Ellery Schempp into it and then he can argue his case directly with "gravity".
We'll see who gets shredded first.... :wink:
Um --- I presume the article is satire. (or maybe you knew that, based on the ":wink:", but it's hard to tell)

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-15, 02:32 PM
Does Ellery Schempp not think that gravity is in anyway local(I suppose that the inverse sqaure law might be a bit too much for him) or does he think that the astronaughts that went to the moon were held on with bluetac or velcro???

Kemal
2005-Mar-15, 02:40 PM
It says that electrons are "probability waves"; what does that mean?

ToSeek
2005-Mar-15, 02:44 PM
Does Ellery Schempp not think that gravity is in anyway local(I suppose that the inverse sqaure law might be a bit too much for him) or does he think that the astronaughts that went to the moon were held on with bluetac or velcro???

Schempp is satirizing the creationists who want to put stickers on biology textbooks. He is not being serious.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-15, 02:45 PM
It means that they only have a probability of existing in any one place, it is impossible to know the possition and the velocity of a particle at the same time, which is known as the uncertainty principal, so electrons in "orbit" around an atom only exist as a jelly like 'blob' of probabilities.

definition off the web


A quantum mechanical principle due to Werner Heisenberg (1927) that, in its most common form, states that it is not possible to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a particle. Moreover, the better position is known, the less well the momentum is known (and vice versa). The principle is sometimes known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-15, 02:46 PM
Schempp is satirizing the creationists who want to put stickers on biology textbooks. He is not being serious.
_________________

are you sure??

it is very difficult to tell sometimes.

I spent a while on the geocentric thread and i became used to all sorts of strange ways of looking at science.. 8-[

Doodler
2005-Mar-15, 02:59 PM
Sticker in Modern Optics: "CAUTION! Dark ages in mirror may be closer than they appear."

Priceless. :D

ToSeek
2005-Mar-15, 03:35 PM
Schempp is satirizing the creationists who want to put stickers on biology textbooks. He is not being serious.
_________________

are you sure??

it is very difficult to tell sometimes.

I spent a while on the geocentric thread and i became used to all sorts of strange ways of looking at science.. 8-[

This is obvious satire:


Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on “A Wing and a Prayer”), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

If I wanted to take the time, I think I could match that article line-for-line with stuff from creationist websites and postings to Usenet.

John Dlugosz
2005-Mar-15, 04:54 PM
Um --- I presume the article is satire. (or maybe you knew that, based on the ":wink:", but it's hard to tell)

Yes, it is. It mimics the "Intelligent Design" sticker argument, including the use of incorrect facts (one tide), and gets rather off the wall towards the end.

In the footer, he mentions his posting to the Creationist discussions, so I presume this was meant to satire that.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-15, 05:24 PM
He probably is some sort of creationist though, just not one of the mad ones.

ToSeek
2005-Mar-15, 06:25 PM
He probably is some sort of creationist though, just not one of the mad ones.

Not hardly: (http://www.uua.org/news/2002/civil/eschempp.html)


Issues of religion in the public schools and public displays of religiosity continue to arise. All across the country efforts are being made to substitute "creationism or creation science" for the teaching of evolution. This strikes at the heart of education, deciding "truth" not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of faith or "revealed truth".

Grey
2005-Mar-15, 07:07 PM
I was envisioning warning labels like these (http://quark.physics.uwo.ca/~harwood/humor14.html). :D

Jpax2003
2005-Mar-15, 08:33 PM
It means that they only have a probability of existing in any one place, it is impossible to know the possition and the velocity of a particle at the same time, which is known as the uncertainty principal, so electrons in "orbit" around an atom only exist as a jelly like 'blob' of probabilities.

definition off the web


A quantum mechanical principle due to Werner Heisenberg (1927) that, in its most common form, states that it is not possible to simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a particle. Moreover, the better position is known, the less well the momentum is known (and vice versa). The principle is sometimes known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.It's not impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle as you state. It is only impossible to determine such. This is because an observer interacts with the observed through the process of observation. If it is or becomes possible to know the position and momentum without observation then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will be circumvented, albeit still valid for those who must observe in order to know. :D

We don't know that electrons "exist as a jelly-like blob of probabilities," we only know that our observations limit our precision to a blob of probabilities. Maybe this would make more sense in 4th dimensional perspective.

As for creationism, I don't think it is on the rise per se. I think that the religious institutions that would normally teach this on their own grounds see smaller congregations and so are trying to reach those who have left their grasp. So while it may be on the rise in schools, that may be a reflection of a decline elsewhere. It may balance out.

Grey
2005-Mar-15, 09:56 PM
It's not impossible to know the position and momentum of a particle as you state. It is only impossible to determine such. This is because an observer interacts with the observed through the process of observation.
Actually, this isn't true. Although some of the people doing early work in quantum mechanics thought that such a disturbance model could explain things, and it's still used as a popular explanation, it doesn't actually work. Even the electron doesn't know both where it is and how fast it's moving at the same time. :)

eburacum45
2005-Mar-16, 03:56 AM
Even the electron doesn't know both where it is and how fast it's moving at the same time.

I get like that myself, sometimes.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-16, 04:20 AM
As for creationism, I don't think it is on the rise per se. I think that the religious institutions that would normally teach this on their own grounds see smaller congregations and so are trying to reach those who have left their grasp. So while it may be on the rise in schools, that may be a reflection of a decline elsewhere. It may balance out.
This would suggest that those religious groups are seeing a decline in membership, but are you sure that's true? My general impression has been the opposite.

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-16, 04:25 AM
a lot of people go to church, wave their hands around for a few weeks and then go back to getting drunk infront of the television..
This natural instinct is the only hope for man kind. :(

Jpax2003
2005-Mar-16, 05:24 AM
As for creationism, I don't think it is on the rise per se. I think that the religious institutions that would normally teach this on their own grounds see smaller congregations and so are trying to reach those who have left their grasp. So while it may be on the rise in schools, that may be a reflection of a decline elsewhere. It may balance out.
This would suggest that those religious groups are seeing a decline in membership, but are you sure that's true? My general impression has been the opposite.I think church membership is declining, however the loudness of those who are left may make up for it. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and the creationists seem to be squeaking much more than non-creationists.

badprof
2005-Mar-16, 01:46 PM
I think church membership is declining, however the loudness of those who are left may make up for it. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and the creationists seem to be squeaking much more than non-creationists.

While this may be the case for some of the more traditional protestant churches, I do not think it is the case for church attendance overall. I just have to look at the growth of my own church. Membership is skyrocketing.

And no, it is not a "handwaving" or "pentacostal" type church.

Regards,

WaxRubiks
2005-Mar-16, 03:01 PM
"do you make 'cookies' and sell them at fetes"?

(the true sign of brain washing at work) 8-[

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-16, 05:05 PM
I think church membership is declining, however the loudness of those who are left may make up for it. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and the creationists seem to be squeaking much more than non-creationists.

While this may be the case for some of the more traditional protestant churches, I do not think it is the case for church attendance overall. I just have to look at the growth of my own church. Membership is skyrocketing.
In the past few years it seems as if all the churches around where my family lives (in Maryland) have built giant additions, so I would assume their congregations are growing.

Anybody got any reliable statistics on this?