Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'

LiveScience.com ^ | 9/22/05 | Ker Than

[orionblamblam]

> Many are Naval Academy science graduates chosen by Hyman Rickover.

... who has been dead for, what, twenty years?

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 3, states that experience for an instant Senior Reactor Operator is three years of responsible nuclear-plant experience, of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training. In addition, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, requires four years of power-plant experience of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training.

Also, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) document ACAD 00-03 Revision 1 requires three years of responsible nuclear plant experience of which a maximum of two years can be achieved via training.

And nary a word in there about science training. Just plant operations. One does not need to understand the physics behind a machine to know how to run it. Do the guys flying B-2's *necessarily* understand complex aerodynamics, nuclear physics, the internal ballistics of solid propellant rocket motors, the quantum mechanics of electromagentic phenomena, solid-state laser physics?

[orionblamblam]

> the faith of the non believers in id...they cannot find it in themselves to be able to believe in an eternal god who required no maker

Thank you for confirming, yet again, that ID is not about science, but is merely the latest zombie-like resurection of the intellectual evil that is Creationism.

[orionblamblam]

> And miracles never explain how something works, but it can explain why somethings happened.

Why did Chernobyl happen? It was a MIRACLE!!!!!

Prove me wrong.

[Dustbunny]

Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'

Why is 'Intelligent Design' being called 'Supernatural'? When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

[orionblamblam]

> My friends are going to be laughing for HOURS.

You keep bringing up your "friends." Why do I keep hearing "They agree with me on e-mail!" every time you post that?

[orionblamblam]

> When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

[Dimensio]

When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Argument from incredulity.

[js1138]

#3 What happens when you restrict your information sources to creationist sources rather than science sources?

You get nothing but spin?

[Dark Knight]

Science invented and perfected a method of gaining knowledge that is truly independent of formal logic. That does not mean that scientists are illogical or that they do not use formal logic in their work, but it does mean they have added a new and effective technique.<<

And they used Epistemology to do it.

I'm sorry if you are out of arguments, but quite frankly, you have not a clue what you know, or what you don't know. Without using epistemology, in whatever form that might be, scientific method, logic, reason, you will never know what it is that is true (or adequate knowledge).

Without it, there is just mush in your brain.

Sorry.

DK

[Doctor Stochastic]

So why do you take cheap shots?

Because you don't deserve the very best.

[js1138]

Why is 'Intelligent Design' being called 'Supernatural'? When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

Sometimes people answer their own questions.

[RunningWolf]

When you look at the complexity of the anatomy of humans there is no way we were evolved from the sludge/slime what ever you want to call it.

orionblamblam: Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

Non Sequitur

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Wolf

[Dustbunny]

Yes, and there's no way that humans could have invented the transistor or the laser or stealth technology without help from the Aliens. They're just too complex.

Aw, yes, I keep forgetting about those 'Twilight Zone' episodes.

[js1138]

Epistemology is a formal system, and the formal system is not necessary in science.

Sports are full of applied physics, and great coaches sometimes ask for help from scientists to optimize performance. But you are conflating the application of principles with the application of a formal system. they are not the same activity. There is a difference between speaking a language and studying a language. There is a difference between writing and editing. A difference between the production of ideas and the judgment of ideas.


Science can continue in the absence of formal philosophy, just as athletes can continue without physics.

[Dark Knight]

So why do you take cheap shots? DK

Because you don't deserve the very best. Doctor Stochastic<<

And I got you!

LOL

DK

It is a technique for shutting down discourse, free thinking, ideas, etc. The antithesis of scientific progress of course.

[Dark Knight]

Epistemology is a formal system, and the formal system is not necessary in science.<<

That will come as a surprise to Epistemologists. ALL modern science is about how to convince other scientists you are right. How do you know something is CENTRAL to that cause. If you choose to say, believe me, I'm right, you will get little traction. If you say, here is my PROOF (and it stems from both logic and reason even if it does use the scientific method) you may get some traction.

Arguments and defense of theses are in order. A robust theory will survive. One that has not even thought through "how do I know it is true", will be laughed out of committee appropriately.

The scientific method is a philosophy (rooted in Epistemology).

DK

[Alamo-Girl]

Why not use Bayesian Probability to determine the likelyhood that it is truly random.

For Lurkers: Bayesian Probability historically results in a subjective assessment of likelihood.

You could of course stipulate your assessment (opinion) about the likelihood that randomness actually exists in space/time. But opinions are not dispositive.

My statement, OTOH, could be subjected to proof: "because we as yet do not have a full explanation for space/time and energy/matter – it is impossible to say that what we presume is randomness (for instance at the quantum level) is actually random in the system. Until the “system” is known, randomness is a misleading and false presumption."

[Alamo-Girl]

A "gut feeling" is not a scientific observation...

So very true!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to your great post!

While most religions accept the premise that God created the universe, some do not.

Indeed. That distinction is lost most of time around here...

[Dark Knight]

Randomness on the fringe:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

DK