NYC schools dispensing morning-after pill

[BSA24]

>> Life lives in my nose in my boogers.

 

> How do you expect others to take your scientific knowledge seriously when you assert that your boogers are alive? Mucus is a secretion and is no more alive than sweat or urine.

 

Read the sentence again carefully. "... in my boogers." Are there bacteria in my boogers? Did I say that my boogers were authoring the next guide to safe scouting without assistance? They are? That would explain a lot.

[Sentinel947]

I'd like to point out that religion does quite more than "happy feelings". While religion certainly provides mental comfort that science cannot, (Anybody read Darwins "On the Origin of Species" when their spouse passed away?) it also provides some tangible benefits, including strengthing community ties, providing a safe place for youth, and provides significant material benefits to the poor and sick. Furthermore, not all religious people are literalists.

 

Also BSA24, you assert your opinions as facts. Saying "consciousness of life is precious." That is YOUR opinion, and if people disagree with you, they are just as correct as you are.

 

Your assumption that the United States will fall into the Dark Ages like Iran is entirely baffling to me. Iran is making great strides in Science and technology, as evidenced by the fact they are about to acquire nuclear weaponry. Their religious beliefs do not seem to be blocking their technological quest. While Iran is in the Dark Ages in terms of personal freedom, in science and tech, they are far from the ignorant backwards religious fanatics you want them to be. If people in our government believe the view you articulated, we are going to be in serious trouble in the future.

 

To whom it may concern:

 

Religious extremism is dangerous. All extremism is dangerous. That is why it is EXTREME. Religion and Science are not the diametrically opposed forces that people in this thread make them out to be. Allow me to name some great scientists who were also men of great faith.

 

Galileo Galilei

Rene Descartes

Isaac Newton

Gregor Mendel

Max Planck

Albert Einstein

 

Food for thought perhaps?

 

Respectfully,

Sentinel947

[Peregrinator]

Albert Einstein may have mentioned God every now and then but he wasn't particularly religious.

[Sentinel947]

Perhaps I am mistaken. I have never claimed to not make mistakes from time to time. Einstein was believer in the Spinoza theory of God. It is a truely interesting theory.

[packsaddle]

Of course that's "only a theory".

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Sentinel947]

All scientific laws started as a theory until proven.

[Beavah]

Yah, Sentinel947, I don't reckon a "scientific theory" is ever proven, eh? It's merely decided to be more or less useful, until such a time as it is disproven.

 

Scientific "laws" like da Newton's "Laws" or da Ideal Gas "Law" are really just theories or models. Da only reason they are called "laws" is that they were developed during da period of time when natural philosophy talked a lot about phenomenon in terms of natural law.

 

So pretty much a "scientific law" is just a good theory that was developed between da 17th and late 19th centuries. Before that, it was a "principle" (as in Archimedes' Principle). After that, it was a theory (as in the Theory of Relativity). Da language is just an artifact of da prevailing philosophy of the time, eh?

 

Yah, hey, packsaddle, how'd I do with that, eh? See, old furry critters can learn.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Yep, you did a nice job, Beavah, my compliments. My comment, as you probably recognized, was a reference to the application of that quote to 'evolution'.

[CalicoPenn]

Scientific laws are not theories that have been proven. All scientific laws are is a description of how nature will behave under certain conditions. The Law of Gravity is very simple - In Earth's gravity, nothing falls from Earth, everything falls to Earth - or to simplify, what goes up, must come down. But the Law of Gravity, while describing what happens, doesn't explain how it happens. The explanation for how gravity works is a scientific Theory.

 

Scientific theories are well-confirmed explanations of how nature works.

 

Hypotheses are empirically testable conjectures - they may lead to a new Theory or they may work to verify or falsify an existing Theory.

 

Laws = what happens

Theory = how or why it happens

Hypotheses = tests of how or why

 

More than differing philosophies, it's language that hangs folks up. In the case of the word Theory, there are a few different meanings depending on the context.

 

The way we use the word Theory most of the time refers to philosophical theory, similar to the scientific hypotheses in that they are conjecture. But in scientific terms, hypothesis is conjecture, theory is beyond conjecture and is considered true.

 

The problem is that we are letting people get away with saying things like "The theory of evolution is just a theory" as if its just philosophical conjecture instead of scientific truth. Perhaps its time to come up with a new word to describe Scientific Theory. I'm thinking something like Scientific Maxim.