Fishing - Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama? (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=24497)

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 14 Dec 2006 10:12:33 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
And why would you, Joe, or anyone else believe that he does?

Because he said:

IMO, what he said was that he thought that kids should be informed about
it as an alternative theory that some believe in, so as to have as full
an understanding as possible about the subject, and that he had no
problem with that information being disseminated in a "science" class.

HTH,

Oh, it does, it does...perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

On the edge of his seat,
him

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
ups.com:

From the web page I point you to, "As Stephen J. Gould has
said, a scientific fact is not 'absolute certainty', but simply a
theory that has been 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional consent'"....

Gould was wrong. Dead wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Scientific facts
ARE absolutely certain....just like any other facts. What is NOT
certain.....all too often.....is whether or not the assertion in
question is indeed a fact. That determination is what science is
about......and it does a damned fine job of it.

I might be going against the grain, but scientific facts are just facts
so long as they don't cause predictions that are so wrong that they tear
down the Kuhnian paradigm. We don't "know" a thing about reality with
100% certainty, we just have a pretty good model of what's going on. We
can only test hypothesis within that model.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fact.

Aristotle thought he was right using his physical model with the five
elements air, fire, earth, water, and aether. Indeed, using the tools
available to him at the time, there weren't any huge inconsistencies in
his model that caused him to throw the whole deal out.

Yeah, everybody thinks he or she is right. It is impossible not to. And
they're all right.....except when they're wrong. In the former instance,
what they have hold of is facts. In the latter, it is something else.
Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it is a
FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific certainty.....nicht wahr?

In some ways, to claim scientific certainty is an admission that there
are no earth-shaking technologies in our future that will help us shed
real light on the mysteries of the universe,

Nonsense, pure and simple. Claiming certainty ("scientific" or otherwise)
is not an admission of anything in any way.....and most definitely not of
anything that will or will not happen in the future. You are not only
suggesting that there is no such thing as a fact, you are also expressing a
fervent hope that there never will be. This is not merely anti-scientific,
it is also fundamentally anti-intellectual.

and I find that more
depressing then comforting--I'd rather give up on scientific certainty
then abandon hope on a major natural philosophical surprise.

I'd rather give up chocolate than have monsters come up out of the toilet at
night and pinch my toes......and you're prepared to accept this as proof
that there is no such thing as chocolate?

Those
physicists trying to develope a unification theory shouldn't pack it in
just yet!

And just a moment ago you were suggesting that they should, else they might
someday come up with a genuine scientific certainty and thus wreck
everything for you.

Of course, none of the above is in any way a suggestion that we should
begin teaching the paradigms of yesterday in pre-college curricula as if
they were cutting edge science, making believe they solve mysteries
which current science tells us are not mysteries.

Of course. But that's because none of it bears on that issue at all.

The other caveat worth discussing in this philosophical house of cards
I'm living in is that it gives bad scientists the opportunity to claim
that the wrong conclusions they reach are just the next logical Kuhnian
Revolution-- and that we must abandon our current "good" model and adopt
their replacement, even though nobody else sees the inconsistencies in
the good model.

Poor Thomas Kuhn; he writes a beautiful and powerful description and
everybody thinks it's prescription and prediction.

Bad scientists, like mountebanks and idiots of any stripe, will never lack
opportunities. Even the existence of facts doesn't slow them down.

I think there's alot of this going on in the
Intelligent Design debate

The existence of a debate about "intelligent design" is an indictment
against everyone who participates in it, regardless of stance.

(though I have trouble acknowledging it as a
debate).

And yet you engage dicklets.

Wolfgang
who is pretty certain that we know more about the nature of the universe
today than our ancestors did a few centuries ago......and is completely
bewildered as to how people think this is possible in the complete absence
of facts.

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it
is a FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific
certainty.....nicht wahr?

Yes, but keep in mind that Aristotle and his contemporaries did not know he
was wrong, and held many of his major assumptions as fact. So, where does
that leave us? Maybe there are facts, but we just can't verify them as
such, or some of them will prove wrong?

Push comes to shove, we don't really understand why mass is attracted to
mass, which really puts our model of just about everything floating on
quicksand.

Its somewhat likely that when the Unification theory really starts to gel,
some of what we currently hold as scientific fact will prove wrong as well.
Will the scientist of the fourth millenium AD be snickering while reading
our tomes espousing that light can behave as both a particle and a wave?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:

Aristotle was wrong. We KNOW that he was wrong. In other words, it
is a FACT that he was wrong......it is a scientific
certainty.....nicht wahr?

Yes, but keep in mind that Aristotle and his contemporaries did not know
he
was wrong, and held many of his major assumptions as fact. So, where does
that leave us?

That leaves us well ahead of Aristotle and his supporters......past and
present.

Maybe there are facts,

There are, and you know it. Epistomological gymnastics may be amusing for
their own sake but they really don't add much to discussions on other
matters.

but we just can't verify them as
such,

Fact: the book sitting on the desk in front of me is smaller than the
building it resides in. Exactly what sort of extraordinary verification do
you think we NEED here?

or some of them will prove wrong?

Facts cannot be proved wrong. Facts are right......by definition.

Push comes to shove, we don't really understand why mass is attracted to
mass,

That's a fact.

which really puts our model of just about everything floating on
quicksand.

That's bull****.

Its somewhat likely that when the Unification theory really starts to gel,
some of what we currently hold as scientific fact will prove wrong as
well.

Qualify that satement with "if" rather than "when" and it's a fact.

Will the scientist of the fourth millenium AD be snickering while reading
our tomes espousing that light can behave as both a particle and a wave?

Don't know......but she'll sure get a chuckle out of this "discussion" if
she runs across it. Would that I could say the same for myself; this is
getting boring real fast.

Wolfgang

Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

On 14 Dec 2006 11:07:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
perhaps you could continue to be helpful and
point out the part in the above that contains what you interpret as
saying that ID should be "taught as science" in public/private schools
or anywhere else.

"...kids should be informed about it as an alternative theory..."
"...that information being disseminated in a "science" class."

Of course, you're free pretend I have a reading disability, or that I
just don't understand your meaning;

Why would I need to pretend that you don't understand my meaning when
you repeatedly demonstrate it?

but "disseminating information"
about Creationism as an alternate theory in a science class doesn't
pass the Lemon test IMO.

IMO, you need to do a whole lot more study on and about US
Constitutional theory and the role of stare decisis in modern US
codified law. Lemon speaks to the prohibition of
Constitutionally-subordinate statutes that mandate or allow religious
instruction in or of a particular religion in taxpayer-funded schools.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with merely informing students about
topics with components that include broad "religious" aspects. It would
be Constitutionally permissible (in the US) to instruct students in such
schools that Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism. It would
not be Constitutionally permissible (in the US) to attempt to teach them
that whichever is the "correct" religion.

IAC, what in your model should happen if a student asks about it?

R