"..the scientific method is anecdotal"
? Should religion be taught in schools?
* maybe comparative religion should be?
Eric
_____
From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 28, 2004 10:20 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here we go again....
>Okay, that didn't make sense. Calculus is calculus is calculus. It
>gets a little bit more advanced every day, but the basics haven't
>changed since Newton and Liebnitz laid them down. Newton's Limit Method
>for determining the slope of a curve at a given point is still perfectly
>accurate, if tedious and extremely difficult to use under certain
>circumstances. What does Eienstein have to do with this?
1) I shouldn't have put those two sentences together. I didn't mean that
there is a relationship between them. I actually never should have
included it in the first place. I was just trying to make a point that
everything they teach in class isn't 100% correct either. That doesn't
mean that we shouldn't teach it in class though. Because what we are
really teaching is a way to think and try to inspire new ideas and possible
new answers. The best part is that new answers create new problems. Which
is great. Again this is just my opinion. But if one's argument is, let's
not teach creation in school because it's wrong then it would be
irresponsible to teach anything that isn't 100% proven to be correct.
2)
http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/newton.html
Some of Newton's discoveries were later refuted by Albert Einstein in
reference to his theories of gravitational pull. However, Einstein and
others still contend that Newton was indeed a very important force in man's
quest for knowledge and is highly regarded for his contributions in many
different areas of science.
I shouldn't have taken it at face value but my calc prof did say that
Einstein refuted Newton's physics by proving some of this integral calculus
to be incorrect or incomplete.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
