[Doctor Stochastic]

Try the following (a graphing program is helpful.) Take an equilateral trangle (any one will do.) Pick a point at random (not one of the vertices); this is the moving point. Then continually LOOP: choose one of the vertices at random (has to be random), move the moving point halfway to the chosen vertex; draw a dot there; POOL (that's 1970s computerese for REPEAT).

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm tossing this quote in here for a little runimation because I've taken time to look into the question "What is science?"

"[T]he opposition and conflict between the 'natural scientific' and the more 'spiritual scientifically' oriented medical traditions in a deeper sense appears as an expression of the difference between the perspectives you come to when you develop a thought-sight experience or a will-touch experience in a too one-sided way."

-Sune Nordwall

It is no mystery to me that some assume a rigorous definition of science for themselves, and most likely practice science within a strict discipline. Hence we get statements like, "It is not dealing with proven facts, so it is not science." We need to deal with that, and we need to ask whether public schools can accomodate a wider definition of science.

I would also like to add the following questions which I would like to hear you out on:

1.) Can intelligence be quantified? If so, on what basis? If not, why not?

2.) Can design be quantified? If so, on what basis? If not, why not?