Was I not supposed to notice?
"Science in science class, science in science class." Sorta sounds like a myopic parrot routine rivaling the lefties chanting slogans on campus.
Almost an acknowledgement. Almost a display of integrity. Well, I exaggerate in the latter instance.
Yes, I repeatedly make a point because 1) you were and are wrong on it and, 2) you dance and dodge. You have nothing to put in science class. Do some research, teach us something new, then get back to me.
If we're talking Greeks, Socrates let us know that ultimate wisdom lie in the acceptance of how little one actually knew in the bigger picture.
Who's talking "Greeks?" Greek is a nationality. I was talking Archimedes, father of the law of the lever and the science of statics. A scientist, in other words.
I have never stated that science shouldn't only be taught in science class as far as my own viewpoint was concerned.
You have got really lost here. If someone wants to read science outside of science class, fine and dandy. Wouldn't hurt you to try it, for example.
But please feel free to fire back another 10 paragraphs of blah blah blah acknowledging nothing and obfuscating everything.
Thanks for the gracious invite, indulge me if you can since I would like to learn:
Yes, I repeatedly make a point because 1) you were and are wrong on it and, 2) you dance and dodge. You have nothing to put in science class. Do some research, teach us something new, then get back to me.
You have got really lost here. If someone wants to read science outside of science class, fine and dandy. Wouldn't hurt you to try it, for example
I don't think you are really being intellectually honest here or either I lost you in my long-windedness and you missed some of the references I made to science and posed questions in simple black-and-white. Speaking of dancing, I asked you three times over the course of this thread when science would present us with the HOLY GRAIL promised by so many and referred to here:
The term unified field theory was coined by Einstein, who was attempting to prove that electromagnetism and gravity were different manifestations of a single fundamental field. When quantum theory entered the picture, the puzzle became more complex. The theory of relativity explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the macroscopic level (things that are visible to the naked eye); quantum theory explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the microscopic (atomic and subatomic) level. Perplexingly, however (science is perplexed here? hmm...), the two theories are incompatible. Unconvinced that nature would prescribe totally different modes of behavior for phenomena that were simply scaled differently, Einstein sought a theory that would reconcile the two apparently irreconcilable theories that form the basis of modern physics.
Am I behind the times? Did I miss the announcement?
I know I sound like a dumb-ass hick, but I also read Archimedes in about 4th grade-boorrring. I'll take Aristotle for a greater understanding of the world. I think I had s**t in the tub a few years earlier as a lad and didn't think an observation and understanding of displacement took a lotta brains. I also referenced Planck, not through an oracle, not through a google, and had previously read (shock!) parts of his work during discussions over the nature of reality with people I considered bright. You say I have nothing to put in science class (don't really need to) and I say you have nothing to put in the understanding of reality or man's search for meaning. Doesn't necessarily make anyone superior, or am I mistaken? I don't appreciate the contempt Dawkins and his ilk display towards those whose life experience and education might have them understandthings in a different light.
You have got really lost here
And my assertion that you might be lost in a different sense is just as valid. No hard feelings I hope.