piclist 2005\05\20\105910a >
Thread: Whether school children will learn science <- Simple PIC-to-PIC communications options?
face BY : Russell McMahon email (remove spam text)

> Like Gerhard mentioned, there isn't a hard and fast line dividing
> science
> from non-science. It's a matter of degree for some topics, things
> like SETI

More anon maybe.
Quick comment.

I say there is a hard and fast dividing line [:-)].
Popper agrees (or, rather, of course, I agree with him).
Science is where you can model/predict/test and repeat ad infinitum
(or nauseum) and refine your model.
Everything else is where you can't. I'm calling that "religion" - it
of course doesn't HAVE to be religion BUT, when people find that their
favourite endeavour falls outside the balliwick of Popper's hard
science they often start to very stridently  demand that their
favourite past-time (or life's work) is-too! real science and if you
don't agree they will take their toys and go play somewhere else, AND
take away your funding grants, AND anyway your religious so what would
you know anyway? (and your mother wears army boots).

Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be handled by
Science as he knows it. It can of course be handled by religion of
whatever shape and form one wishes to create to defend it and explain
it. Puddles of primordial goop or young earth divine Creator are
equally good religious views as a starting point. One or the other is
more likely to correspond to what really happened, but that's not the

The point I started on was that Melott, in seeking to defend children
against religion, made a superb statement about science, but had
already when he made it fallen into the arms of an equally ardent and
un-Popperish religion which thinks itself to be "real-science".
Whether it's right or not about what it believes is not the issue.

If you reject the scientific method and Popper's postulates you are
awash on a sea of don't-know, and anything you wish to claim may be
justified by adjusting the rules. Popper followers can NEVER say "we
know", only that their model is getting better over time and they
don't THINK that it's going to break any time soon.

> I would put right in the middle of these two classifications. I
> disagree
> that Melott is pushing a religion though.

Not as he realises it, Jim.

> Anyway, it looks that in 15 years fewer bio-tech companies will be
> locating
> in Kanses than other states with better educated citizens.

beter educated? - maybe. But if better education is compelling
children to accept religion as science then this may be far more of a
phantasm than you might expect.

> "Creationists don't want equal time. They want all the time there
> is."
>                -- Isaac Asimov

Which of course they can't be allowed to have any of, as Asimov and co
*knew* that it all belonged to them.
I used to respect him until I got to know him* - or maybe it was just
that he got crankier as he got older ?
(from a vast distance)


<055a01c55d4c$7a896710$d201a8c0@y2k> 7bit

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) Whether school children will learn science <- Simple PIC-to-PIC communications options?

month overview.

new search...