Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

They are asking their government to base their decision on facts. How rediculous!
1 posted on 11/29/2008 1:13:55 PM PST by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Soliton
They are asking their government to base their decision on facts. How rediculous!

There are many who think what you just said is heresy. They pick and choose which aspects of science are "valid" and which are not.

2 posted on 11/29/2008 1:17:04 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

A good way of looking at science is to compare it to the game of chess.

Both science and chess have a very precise set of rules. If you follow these rules, you either conduct a scientific experiment or you play a game of chess. Nothing more and nothing less.

Importantly, it is just as wrong to interpolate and extrapolate in science as it is to do so in chess. That is, if an experiment works, in very controlled conditions, to assume it will behave in exactly the same way in uncontrolled nature. That is as wrong as saying that because you consistently win against an intermediate level chess computer program, you will consistently win against an intermediate level human chess player.

Very few students can handle the rigors of a properly executed scientific experiment. It tends to go against typical psychology, except in a few people who are inclined to good science. However, by understanding the rules of science, students are greatly helped in telling the difference between good science and bad science.

And this has great value in its own right. But it has far greater value than that, because it teaches students the value of objectivity. And this can be life changing.

When someone is asked their opinion, often their response can be prefaced by either “I feel”, which is a subjective, or emotional response, or “I think”, which implies some understanding of the thing in itself, and its objective character. Subjectivity needs no justification to like or dislike something. Objectivity required open mindedness and a willingness to set aside feelings to divine deeper truths.

Our society, and civilization itself, is very dependent on objectivity to maintain order and reason. It is critical to the law, and large parts of government, to many businesses, to medicine, etc. And when objectivity is lacking, very bad things can happen.


3 posted on 11/29/2008 1:40:05 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.
Richard Feynman


11 posted on 11/29/2008 8:29:56 PM PST by razorback-bert (Save the planet...it is the only known one with beer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Soliton
Calculate the maximum volume of hydrogen, measured at rtp, that can be liberated by the action of 100cm3 of 0.5M hydrochloric acid on magnesium.*
The jerk who wrote this article left out this essential piece of information which was provided in the original question:
One mole of any ideal gas occupies 24 dm3 at r.t.p.
I never was good at remembering those constants. I had to look it up in order to solve the problem!
14 posted on 11/29/2008 9:37:16 PM PST by Zero Sum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson