packsaddle

I guess my point is that even the 'laws' are open to examination, test, and modification if sufficient evidence is discovered. Perhaps there is something to the historical artifact explanation and today's 'theories' just never made it to 'law' status. If you make a list of all the so-called 'laws' of those past centuries you might find quite a few that have been rejected. For me, it isn't all that important, this distinction. Likewise for 'cell theory', whether it is called 'theory' or 'law' is less important than the ideas and understanding that we have and are discovering. What IS important is that all of it, regardless of what we call it, remains subject to review and critical examination...perhaps modification or rejection. That's the 'falsifiability' part of the original question. I'm hoping the 'proof' part is clear enough already. If we perform a test of some kind and discover evidence that conflicts with the idea, then we can say that there is a problem to be resolved some way, or else the idea must be set aside or rejected. I like to pick on the 'cold fusion' guys, Pons and Fleischman, for this. They thought they had a great, revolutionary idea. Tests failed to support their claims. Was it disproven? They are still working on it. I would say it is unsupported by independent tests. However, if the tests had confirmed the effect. And if it led to a revolutionary new source of nearly unlimited energy, I'd have to put my money on the proof side. I hope they're right but my money is still in the bank. Regarding GPS: OK, I buy the argument. Don't understand it - but I know how to use the technology and that's good enough for me. I'll add that to the practical list. That's one example, you know of any more?

Third attempt. I have identified an immutable law: if you run Windows, you will frequently see the 'blue screen of death'. I can hardly wait to get back to the Mac. Thanks, epalmer, for clipping in those definitions. Beavah, sorry about the confusion. I guess the confusion IS the reason for my attempt. I can't speak for Merlyn - only for myself. I see a spectrum of ideas that differ in degrees of confidence. Those that have withstood tests most successfully have the greatest confidence. We might categorize them as 'laws'. Ideas which can generate testable hypotheses and which have withstood those tests so far, but whose underlying mechanisms are still being discovered, might fall into the category of 'theory' or 'body of theory'. Ideas that are still being subjected to tests, experimental or otherwise, might be categorized as 'hypotheses'. Some examples: I think the 'Law of Uniformitarianism' has great confidence. It is one element of the foundation of science. Anything that shakes that 'law' will shake all of science. 'Cell Theory' is the foundation of biology. After almost 170 years of existence, it has attained great confidence although the underlying processes and mechanisms of biology are in great flux. Cell theory originally had three elements. The last of the three was subsequently rejected as false, thus modifying the 'theory'. I greatly enjoy arguing about the 'Diversity/Stability' hypothesis in ecology. We are still grasping for ways to further test this hypothesis - and in the meantime I can have fun poking an epistemological stick in the eyes of ecologists who defend the idea. Would you please explain how the GPS is related to Einstein's gravitational theory? As I understand it, the GPS is a cluster of satellites that emit very precisely-timed signals that allow a receiver to detect their position and distance...and subsequently calculate the position of the detector. This I think, involves geometry and computational power (and some really precise clocks) but aside from keeping the satellites in orbit (Newtonian motions), I'm not sure what gravity has to do with it. Your web link was with respect to Einstein's theory of 'relativity', not gravitation, or are they the same thing?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

GAD, Beavah! I had intentionally ignored that other thread and now you did THIS to us. FireKat, I am interested in what you think the differences are. I know what I have in mind but you were so forceful in your rejection of Merlyn's assertion that I am wondering what your thoughts are. The term 'falsifiability' is often used interchangeably with 'testability' or that sort of idea. The application of this concept has been in practice for as long as there have been experiments but Karl Popper (a philosopher) was responsible for some of the strongest statements on science and testability. I recommend his book, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" to anyone who is sincerely interested in the concept of 'falsifiability'. Or to anyone interested in science in general for that matter. There is a rich variety of ways that we 'know' things. Pragmatically, regardless of which method we choose, if it works, it works...and we tend to accept that until it doesn't work, or until a better way is discovered. In essence this accounts for the development of many current ideas in science, as well as technology, economics, political systems, etc. You get the idea. We change and adapt many of these things depending on needs and evidence. So it is with Newton's 'laws'. At one time we 'knew' that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything started about 7 thousand years ago, give or take a few thousand. This worked fine and was incorporated into some of the world's great religions in various ways. Later, when navigation became more important and when better observations were made of celestial objects, geocentrism became rejected by most of us...because of good evidence to the contrary. Likewise, evidence also supports a much older earth and universe. Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton and others set the stage for much of what we now recognize as modern science. With further investigation and better observations, we now understand that Newton's 'laws' still work within limits of temporal and spatial scale. For those of us interested in marksmanship, they still work fine. If we are interested in nuclear physics we must rely on another level of physics that Newton may have not imagined. There are similar lines of advancement in biology as well. But within this vast range of means of 'knowing', we have constructed descriptive terms that categorize those means in ways that are useful for communication. Such typographical conveniences are described in various dictionaries and I see that Wikipedia also has a version. I'm OK with most of them as long as we don't get preoccupied with the terms rather than the ideas. For example, while we still employ Galileo's and Newton's 'laws' of gravity, we also understand that there is, in addition, Einstein's 'gravitational theory'. I'm fairly certain that the 'theory' hasn't been put to very much practical use outside of the fields of astronomy or astrophysics. The concept of 'proof' is troublesome. Strictly speaking, we can't 'prove' anything absolutely in science. For that matter we can't 'disprove' absolutely either and this leads to the conclusion that we never possess 'absolute' knowledge. I tend to think along these lines. What we DO have is a system that, in time, tends to correct erroneous ideas. Every 'fact', every 'theory', every 'law' is open to criticism and potential rejection if sufficiently good evidence to the contrary is discovered. This could go on at great length so I'll stop there. Beavah, I hope you're proud of yourself!

The SM for this unit does all such conferences. But he always has me (ASM/Eagle coordinator) present. I haven't done anything but take notes so far. I always try to discuss potential problems with the SM before the conference.

Well the Santa suit is packed away til next year. And I guess we'll be passing Dan in the opposite direction on our way to NYC for Christmas (I love NY) and driving right past OGE on the way (we go up I81 and then across on I78, connecting to the Outerbridge). So I'll be signing off for a while. Merry Christmas to all on the forums. Y'all play nice now, you hear?

Hey, I 'heard' that. I am riding to the defence of the blue card. It is a great thing, to be able to fill out one card, then divide it so that everyone involved gets the appropriate official record. And...I can attest to the fact that they preserve well, especially if kept in pile of other things your wife thinks you should have thrown out decades ago.

Ed, what do you know about the "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti"?

I just spent yesterday going through a title 1 school with a lot of underprivileged kids. I was Santa Claus...and I said "Merry Christmas" to each and every one of them. And, you know, not a single child objected. Nor did any of the faculty nor administration. I think the 'war' is being grossly exaggerated.

Scan. Paste. Print. back to normal.

I'm pinching myself now. First, I take some time off to play Santa for some underprivileged kids - and I come back to a whole new thread. Second, I find myself agreeing with Beavah! For the second time! On two different topics! Holy Toledo! One thing I think Beavah and I share in these threads is a fairly thick skin. I can't speak for him but I know I sometimes forget how thin it is for some others but really, I do follow the golden rule. I expect people to give it back just same as I dish it out. The thing is, as long as this doesn't involve personal attacks but rather attacks on ideas, I don't see the problem. If someone thinks one of my ideas is the dumbest thing ever to walk the planet, that's great. I'd kind of like to understand where I went wrong though, so I might ask for the reasoning or evidence. Fair enough? Thick skin. The problem occurs when we hold our ideas so close as to be part of ourselves. Then we perceive the attacks to be on both. Thin skin. Fortunately I can still run pretty fast so on those occasions where Beavah and I disagree, I'm fairly certain I can outrun him if he comes after me. Yeah, it's a sad little fantasy...but it's mine. But beyond that, I don't see that Beavah has written anything he needs to apologize for. (except maybe for reading that liberal press rag, The Economist;)) If you think he's wrong, then present your counter arguments and evidence. Whining about hurt feelings might get some comforting words but it doesn't advance the arguments for either side.

James, You really need to meet with your Scoutmaster immediately to discuss this problem. Under normal circumstances, all the requirements must be completed by the age of 18.

Yep, on review I see that you're correct. Thanks. "I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends"

Heh, heh, because back on page one, as I mentioned, Krauthammer had written this interesting opinion piece on the fact that Huckabee was now in the lead in Iowa, perhaps because of having contrasted his own Christianity against Romney's Mormonism. At least that's my feeble, red-herringed attempt at getting the thread back on topic. I agree with you, of course, that the candidate's faith should be irrelevant. But having played the faith card with apparent success, Huckabee against Romney has made it the question du jour, at least for Iowa. The larger issue is whether or not a person's faith matters anywhere else in the country. As point of argument, I submit that it does. Care to argue that faith doesn't matter? If not, then the question is: Christian or Mormon?

Theoretically, following the ideas regarding mitochondrial DNA, we''re all related ultimately to a single female primate about 4.4 million years ago. Her name was Eve but at the time she was unable to say that name and she looked a little like this: http://escaut.portail-svt.com/images/toumai.jpg Adam was a brute, like most men, but again like most men, he didn''t count for much. If you view Giuliani''s face at certain angles...... Edited part: Heh, heh, here''s a better photo: http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2006/04/science-saturday-ii-another-missing.html "Come Hither" (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Good point TheScout, Powell did it to himself on behalf of his superiors. Fact is, he's lost it and he knows it. He's done. OGE, it's over. Nothing you say can change the predicament that Bush is going to leave for someone else. Someone from RBB&B, I guess. The important questions aren't about the past, or the war, or the debt, or the economy, or civil liberties, or education, or energy policy. The ONLY important question is: do we want that person to be a Christian or a Mormon?

Regarding the national debt, this graph supports Beavah's message: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html When I think back to the disclosures that David Stockman made regarding the Reagan budget policy and the analysis that Alan Greenspan recently revealed in his book, I am disappointed at the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans and not very optimistic about our future. But we, the people, did it to ourselves. We elected these guys and we demanded goods and services today, promising to pay for them long after we're gone. The Republicans have only mirrored what we as a nation have demanded. And we as a nation (at least our children, anyway) will get what we deserve for it.

Bush/Cheney poured Powell's personal integrity out on Iraqi sands years ago. And Powell knows it.

Scoutldr, it may be scary but that was what I meant about market corrections. If we collectively make the wrong decisions for whatever reasons, we will be 'selected' against (in the Darwinian sense) and outcompeted by superior competitors. Now that may be a rough consequence for our children but that's reality. This country is a continuous uncontrolled experiment and the outcome is forever in doubt. Which why I so enjoy informing complacent persons that 'security' is an illusion...is and always has been. Beavah, if you will please read the Krauthammer opinion piece your question regarding the origin of the 'religion in politics' issue will be answered. In essence, Huckabee is the one who has raised the question by his own 'playing' of the religion card in order to best Romney. Romney knows his faith is a potential issue so he delivered the 'Kennedy' speech. And Huckabee took advantage of the same vulnerability and successfully contrasted his Christianity with Romney's faith. Huckabee's claim to be 'conservative' is not the origin. His claim to be Christian in contrast to being Mormon is. Whether or not this IS a special issue is a good question but that question has been called by people who can hardly be considered anything but 'conservative'. At least I think most people consider Krauthammer to be conservative, I could be wrong. I am merely interested in the answer.

Annielope, Welcome to the forums! I tend to side with Beavah on this one. There are many ways for boys to show leadership and I would not dampen a boy's enthusiasm if I could avoid it. Another point though, after years of being required by the district to clear project proposals with the DAC FIRST, before the troop people sign off, we now have a complete reversal of that policy. Me, I just go with the flow...you know, just following orders - as mercurial as they may be at times.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Yes, welcome to the forums. The length is mostly for the boy to decide. I've never seen anything longer than two pages nor shorter than 1/2 page. The statement is useful to engage the boy in later discussions about his life interests. I've never seen a wrong or insufficient answer to this requirement.

It's an interesting question: how WOULD Teddy Roosevelt fare in today's political process? Beavah, the question is about whether or not a faith test exists in today's political environment. The concern is whether it goes beyond being an issue and becomes a qualification for being a viable candidate. You seem to say yes, and then equate the test to any other issue. But your characterization of it as somehow being worse than other issues tests is interesting. Do you think it is 'worse'? In what way? On the assumption that some kind of faith test exists in the minds of some candidates, when they respond to it they must think it is a good thing to do...or at least somehow advantageous. I agree with you about the Democratic process. I have advocated this often...that the people be allowed to elect the best or the worst that they choose to. I don't necesarily see this is somehow bad, though, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you or the majority of people want to elect a sort of theocracy to lead the government, go for it. Me, I am confident that, short of divine intervention, the Darwinian processes exacted by the marketplace would provide any needed corrections given sufficient time.

Brent, our senior patrol leader was overheard last week lecturing the boys about the candidates. He explained that Hillary and Obama were communists. Then he quickly followed up saying the Republicans were just as bad, just in different ways. Heh, heh, we leaders all just shook our heads. Ed, the words were his. But I have heard (and I am sure you must have as well) persons say things along the lines of, "...he's a Baptist minister, that's all I need to know to vote for him." However, I interpret the 'test' to be one in which a candidate feels that he or she must provide sufficient evidence of his or her Christianity that voters who are devoutly religious will, at least, not reject him or her for religious reasons. Or better yet, that those voters will seriously consider him or her as a candidate because of their demonstrated Christianity. If this is, in fact, something that is influencing our political process, candidates of faiths that are not at least related to the majority Christian faiths probably 'need not apply'. Under what conditions, for example, could a Wiccan stand a chance for the Presidency? One way to judge the degree to which this might be happening might be to ask oneself if you could seriously consider a candidate whose faith is strongly different from yours or perhaps opposed by it. As long as one's decision regarding any candidate is influenced to any extent by knowledge of the candidate's religion, then what is the difference between that effect and such a test?

Gern, your definition might work. I try not to apply labels but I have known quite a few people who applied the 'fundamentalist' label to themselves. The common characteristic that I can identify is more general than rejection of certain scientific ideas. They all seemed to think they possessed the ONLY and the ABSOLUTE truth. Which, I'm sure you understand, automatically puts them at odds with much of science. So if I had to identify defining characteristics, those would be mine. To everyone in this thread in general, one of my colleagues today noted that with the rise of religious identity as an issue in this election and the general increase of its prominence in recent years, he thought that there might just be a sort of Christianity test, now, that candidates think they must pass. Any thoughts?

Perhaps not...on ours. But I did very much like the dark humor.

Ours was one long and two short. If I want, I can think and remember the sound as if it was yesterday.