Given that technologies such as the internet, personal connectivity, and pervasive monitoring are still in a nearly malignant growth phase, it might be useful to review the positions of the presidential candidates on technology. Keep in mind that the future of America as a technological nation is also dependent on…
Yes, friends, it's true. But it's not accurate. Most of the times I've stayed in Cincinnati I have stayed at the house of one John McCain. He told me Dan, I thought you might get a kick from this. I was contacted by the Sandusky Register. They had been trying…
One sticking point I reach in certain discussions on this site is trying to pin down exactly what constitutes a fact in science. Let’s try a simple one as a test case.
The temperature is 68° Fahrenheit.
Is this measurement a fact, or a conclusion based on a tall tower of theories? I’ll bet that you forebode where I’m going with this.
First, let’s get legal and precise: The air temperature in the shade in my garden at the location of my thermometer at precisely this moment (as defined by some reading at GMT-6 on the radio-synchronized clock on my wall) is 68°F (292.0K). We cannot conclude (absent other information) what the temperature is elsewhere in the neighborhood, or the rate and direction of the change of temperature from this single reading.
Next, considered as an experiment: The incident radiant heat from reflecting sources is minimal, estimated as an error of increase of less than 0.1°F. The relative humidity and breeze are constant enough to ensure that the thermometer is dry, therefore evaporative cooling can be ignored. The temperature is safely too high for quantum effects, yet far too low for relativistic effects to be measurable. The instrument is viewed at eye level normal to its plane at teh reading height, reducing parallax effects to negligible.
Next, how well is this thermometer calibrated? Um. Well, it has numbers and marks. But those indicate only about one degree of precision, without indicating any accuracy in particular. It is not a laboratory …
This title is an incisive quote from our regular responder, Karl K. My personal and immediate response to this statement is, “Duh”. Naturalism, or the acceptance of the results and conclusions from the application of the Scientific Method, has created huge advances in the survival and comfort of all humanity. In the couple of centuries since the Enlightenment, more progress has been made toward that goal than in the previous 50 centuries under theistic ruling philosophies. There is great utility for society as a whole in following naturalistic views.
However, then Karl proceeds with the following non-sequitur:
Can I therefore assume that you would concede the point that if somebody has to die to solve some of the world’s problems it should be people like ERIK who preach religious dogma in a manner that offends you. In fact this would apply to anyone who says interpretive science needs to be knocked out of its prominent position in our secular society be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, […]
Actually, evolutionary theories (one subset of naturalistic conclusions) prove that variety (a wide bell curve in every characteristic) is necessary to the long term survival of societies, as well as species. Only people with narrow world views advocate eliminating non-aggressive adversaries. Genocide is practiced by theists, not naturalists. Usually by theists of the newly-formed personality-cult sort as with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. These cult leaders claim to be scientific to the world, yet the first thing they do is purge actual scientists and …
One has to admit that Gov. Palin is an awfully good sport. Yes, it's really her saying "Live from ..."