On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:14:34 +0000 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:50:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I would still suggest that scientific points of debate > > would be better validated with references, rather > > than opinion or recollections of fact. > > For publishing a scientific paper, or for presenting > a lecture, absolutely ! > > For a friendly discussion between listers, in my > view not much point. Very few of us are trained > scientists, let alone published scientists, so > supporting "proofs" may vary in quality and relevence. >
Even for a friendly discussion, references are a valid and easy way to share information. It gives everybody a point of reference. That's why the subject of this message starts with "Re:". I think references have great value for those who are trying to articulate a point of knowledge or opinion. Among other things, they allow the listeners to ascertain where fact stops and opinion begins. In reference <grin> to the recent global political debates (on this list and other places), one could say (if so inclined) that they allow the listener to ascertain where truth ends and the lies begin. With Arachne (and other digital media viewers), references are very handy because a wide variety of referenced sources can be viewed within the program. An interested viewer could even collect the various referenced source documents and create an learning module (perhaps storing everything on a CD, with cross references, indexes, etc.). References also help inform those who are trying to form an opinion, by providing background information that might (or might not) validate the opinion or conclusion of another. I would suggest that this is a major failure of the Bush administration concerning Iraq. Many Arachnids have already asked, "Where are the facts", just as Steve recently asked in another email, "What is the reference for that?". ------------ <snip> > > > Does the word "prevailing" mean that different > >scientists can reach different conclusions based > > on identical scientific calculations? > > Perfectly genuine scientists can differ on interpretation of > observed facts in small or fundamental ways. At any time. On any > subject. > > One (sometimes more than one) explanation becomes the "prevailing" > thought on any subject until experimental, or observed, data conflicts > with it. Then a new "prevailing" explanation(s) is developed. > > But while reported data and results fit neatly into the > "prevailing" theory/law/hypothesis, then it remains > generally accepted. I was pointing out that the data had led different people to form different conclusions. All of which makes a confusing mess in which every opinion is as equally valid as the other. One step toward a clearer understanding would be to include references. :-) ----------- > > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:33:22 -0500 "Samuel W. Heywood" > >> Many parents around here send their children to the private > >> Christian > >> schools instead of to the public schools because they disagree > >> with what > >> is being taught in the public schools, especially with regard to > >> science. > >> The Christian schools have developed their own kind of > "science". > > There are Christians and there are Christians. > Not all (or even a majority of) Christians have a > problem with evolution. > > >> They > >> call it "Creation Science". To me, Creation Science is a > >> religious belief system based on faith, not science. > > I think you have got that exactly right, but then I am not any > kind of Christian. My personal opinion is that both sides of the argument are going for a knockout blow, rather than trying to find small points of agreement. As a Christian myself, I argue that the Christian schools should do much more experiential science, and start at an earlier age. It matters not that some of the students' observations and conclusions would mirror those of an evolutionist. What matters is to teach a methodology of identifying factual information and a scientific method of testing conclusions. And, ultimately, using references. <grin> ----------------- > > As that great theological thinker, Robert Heinlein, said: "If > you can't measure it, it ain't science !". However, I'm convinced that my parents loved me. And, for every action that someone might claim PROVES the existence of that love, I can disprove their hypothesis by showing evidence of someone who has performed those actions for selfish reasons of personal benefit. The same goes for measuring brain waves, pulse rates, or any other means of observable measurement. Which means that love can't be proven by measurable observation. But (I hope), most of us would agree that love does exist. It just can't be measured. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. ----------------- > > My most sincere apologies to all list members I have now offended. > > Regards, Ron No offense taken, Ron. By the way, those are nice references you've added to your signature block. ;-) Bob -------------- > > Ron Clarke > http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html > http://tadpole.aus.as > -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - > http://arachne.cz/ > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
