Posted on 11/17/2005 6:17:33 PM PST by KevinDavis
Science education is a profession, and as such, professional development is imperative to the practice, just as in the medical, dental and other professions. Professional development occurs in many settings and structures. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and state affiliates sponsor multi-disciplinary education conferences both nationally and regionally. Discipline specific education conferences are sponsored by organizations such as the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the National Earth Science Teachers Association (NESTA) and American Chemical Society (ACS). Conferences last from one to five days, and offer college credit, continuing education units or verified contact hours in response to the differing state methods of certifying teacher professional development. All have in common the National Research Council (NRC) National Science Education Standards (NSES) for Professional Development (PD). The PD standards are summarized as learning about science, learning about science pedagogy, learning about inquiry-based learning, and life long integrated and coordinated professional development. Science education conferences held across the country consistently address the first three; the last standard is a challenge to address. National, state and local conferences provide science content delivered by nationally recognized scientists and pedagogists to large groups of educators, as well as networking opportunities and exposure to new curriculum and other science classroom products.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
So how can you be sure that non-random data sequences from space can be from an intelligent source?
You aren't. You find it, and then start trying to determine what created the signal. Even if it doesn't turn out to be intelligent, it should be a new phenomena. Pulsars were discovered this way.
Really? You should get an excellent effective receiver area out of them.
So, if we discover a non-random data sequence in something like DNA, for instance, would we be justified in begin the search for a possible intelligent source?
Same thing happens when I watch a movie that contains computer programming. Still, us non-RadioAstronomers thought Contact was fun.
Well, if it's statistically significant, then you should begin a search for why it is there.
If it's a repeating sequence of 5 base pairs, it's probably natural, but interesting. We would know a lot more about biology if we can find out why.
If it's an ASCII version of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, then I'd say it's intelligent.
If it's a copy of the New Testament in DNA that is clearly from before 1950? I'm going to spend a lot more time in church.
Problem is that they are not designed to look for the really narrowband signals over billions of channels that would indicate a non-natural origin. The array is way cool however. :-) (been there)
Hey! Don't misunderstand. I thought it was fun and bought the DVD as well. :-)
LOL! You and me both. :-)
There are thousands and thousands of base pairs, controlling the entire human body (to say nothing of all the other life forms.) Why isn't an intellegent source plausible in this highly complex world when the mere broadcasting of a sequence of prime numbers is considered to be from an intelligent source? Just looking for some logic and consistency
Heading for bed - will pick up on this thread later.
The book was better but I actually didn't like either one.
> Why isn't an intellegent source plausible in this highly complex world when the mere broadcasting of a sequence of prime numbers is considered to be from an intelligent source?
Because complexity is not a good indicator of intelligence. Complexity is often an indicator or *chaos,* and complexity that functions is usually an example of unintelligent forces simply trimming off the bits that don't work.
Prime numbers are of interest because, at least so far, there are no known natural phenomena that produce them in ordered strings.
Actually, it has been theorized that that was what 2001 A Space Odyssey the Movie was all about.
We assume that monoliths which are 1x4x9 are created by intelligent beings, so what must the human fetus shown at the end be created by?
ROTFLMAO! I will bring it up at the next conference. :-)
According to the linked article, SETI is funded by NASA.
NASA is a US government agency.
The US government is funded by taxpayers.
Taxes are forced exactions.
Therefore, SETI is funded by forced exactions.
It's pretty simple, even for a RadioAstronomer.
To the extent that it doesn't waste taxpayers' dollars, I have no objection. Folks should be free to explore the worlds of extraterrestrial intelligence, UFOs, ESP, demons and angels to their hearts' content as long as they pay for themselves.
However, the article explicitly states that NASA indeed does fund SETI programs, and money is fungible.
Hmm, you are right, at least according to the article. While I support SETI, I do not support taxpayer funding of it. There is no compelling national interest.
Their funding was pulled quite some time ago. Evidently, NASA has experienced sufficient mission creep and reinstated it.
Frankly NASA has just been way too out there on some of it's stuff, such as the astrobiology work. Guys, we do not pay tax dollars to support speculation. Write a Sci-Fi novel like real speculators do. It's not like there isn't a market for it already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.