[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dear holy war enthusiasts, on behalf of other PWI readers and posters who are incredibly tired and bored of your snit fight, please stop hijacking threads designed to discuss other topics with yet another religious fight/discussion.
While your social ineptitude and complete lack of tact has been educational for us to observe, we’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss other topics and not have threads irrelevant to your holy war derailed, sidetracked and otherwise ended because you lack basic common sense and respect for your fellow PWI posters.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dear holy war enthusiasts, on behalf of other PWI readers and posters who are incredibly tired and bored of your snit fight, please stop hijacking threads designed to discuss other topics with yet another religious fight/discussion.
While your social ineptitude and complete lack of tact has been educational for us to observe, we’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss other topics and not have threads irrelevant to your holy war derailed, sidetracked and otherwise ended because you lack basic common sense and respect for your fellow PWI posters.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
This thread really did just devolve into a ‘Religion vs Science’ thread despite overwhelming support of most of the religious people in this thread for the mars rover mission… Ain’t that something.[/quote]
That’s all some people know, so what else do you expect in PWI[/quote]
I think he’s talking to you…[/quote]
Hah… I think sufi was talking about himself… [/quote]
So which part is all I know?[/quote]
I don’t fully know what you meant by your original statement. But it seemed to me that it must be reflecting back upon yourself because you were the only one who popped in only for the sake of a religious debate
Read what you quoted Fletch on again. You were the only one who spoke in terms of ‘religion vs science’
Plus he posted it right after you made yours
Seems to me that you’ve become far more extreme than you’ve realized. It’s ok - its easily correctable once you’ve realized it. And if you do come to correct it, no one will hold it against you half as much as you do against yourself. I think that’s kinda awesome, and its up to you
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I don’t fully know what you meant by your original statement. But it seemed to me that it must be reflecting back upon yourself because you were the only one who popped in only for the sake of a religious debate
[/quote]
I posted in this thread prior to the religious comments so its not what caused me to pop in. I was just making an observation about their extremely religious discussion in a science thread so instead of commenting “hey go somewhere else with that” I posted a picture instead.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I don’t fully know what you meant by your original statement. But it seemed to me that it must be reflecting back upon yourself because you were the only one who popped in only for the sake of a religious debate
[/quote]
I posted in this thread prior to the religious comments so its not what caused me to pop in. I was just making an observation about their extremely religious discussion in a science thread so instead of commenting “hey go somewhere else with that” I posted a picture instead.[/quote]
Hhmmmm… well I missed that - apologies
That may be why you posted that picture, but how is anyone else supposed to know that? Looked to me like you were about to pick a fight - whereas they were just playin. Anyways - there’s no point in arguing about a nonexistent argument. Lets just squash it
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder if they’ll find anything of use to support the idea of terraforming Mars?[/quote]
I’ve seen grand ideas about putting an atmosphere on Mar through components in the crust, but even if you do that, you still don’t have a magnetosphere assuming the scientists are correct about Mars’s core being totally solidified.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think the problem here is trying to make the Public and Private contribution to scientific advancement an “either/or” proposition.
It’s both.
What’s interesting is that I can almost guarantee you that the SCIENTIST involved in both sectors would agree; it’s the “purist” and “ideologues” who disagree.
Mufasa[/quote]
The public and private sector do both play very important roles in scientific development. Private funding and research facilities actually account for the majority of funding for scientific research, something like 60-70%, but those funds mostly go towards applied scientific research that has a reasonable expectation of turning a profit, which also provides theoretical researchers like myself with the technology to continue with our research.
This makes sense since companies are, first and foremost, out to make money and theoretical research is just plain not profitable for the private sector to take over. This is why we have public funds (tax dollars) that are allocated to fund theoretical research, such as the kind that I do at my university, that way scientific research does not stagnate. Even though theoretical research is not usually profitable, at least not right away, without it we would not have the technology we have today.
For example, without research into quantum mechanics (which many in the early days and even today see it as useless) we would not have microprocessing technology, or the ability to make modern circuit boards which means no PCs, no digital cell phones, no internet, no TIVO, no GPS, no real way to predict and track weather patterns, the field of computer science may well not exist.
The public and private sector do both play very important roles in scientific development. Private funding and research facilities actually account for the majority of funding for scientific research, something like 60-70%, but those funds mostly go towards applied scientific research that has a reasonable expectation of turning a profit, which also provides theoretical researchers like myself with the technology to continue with our research.
This makes sense since companies are, first and foremost, out to make money and theoretical research is just plain not profitable for the private sector to take over. This is why we have public funds (tax dollars) that are allocated to fund theoretical research, such as the kind that I do at my university, that way scientific research does not stagnate. Even though theoretical research is not usually profitable, at least not right away, without it we would not have the technology we have today.
For example, without research into quantum mechanics (which many in the early days and even today see it as useless) we would not have microprocessing technology, or the ability to make modern circuit boards which means no PCs, no digital cell phones, no internet, no TIVO, no GPS, no real way to predict and track weather patterns, the field of computer science may well not exist.[/quote]
Good stuff, and that is the issue with purely market-driven research: much of the research (and its initial building blocks) can’t generate profits in the time frame that people would want to reap the profits. What investor would invest in research that may not turn a profit in his lifetime?
That doesn’t mean that the investor is being short-sighted by not providing capital for returns he will never see, but that also doesn’t mean we should forego useful research that will be (1) good generally and (2) profitable later.
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldn’t have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around one’s neck and against one’s chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]
[/quote]
K, bro.[/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but the scientific method was not “invented” by the Catholic Church, or in 1177 for that matter. The formulation of the modern scientific method is the result of thousands of years of development and involved many different cultures. The basic process of the modern scientific method involves using an observation of a phenomenon to form a hypothesis, using experimentation to test that hypothesis, and using the data collected through experimentation to confirm or disprove, or modify that hypothesis. There are also some other components of the modern scientific method that are worth noting, such as peer review, falsifiability, and the reliance on natural explanations instead of supernatural ones.
Let’s take a look at each of these ideas:
Observation of phenomena to form a hypothesis: This has been used for thousands of years in the medical field, and was used quite a bit by the ancient Greek philosophers.
The next major step to be added to the accepted scientific method was experimentation, and the first documented examples of this being used in the physical sciences was in the 11th century by a man named Alhazen in his Book of Optics, who was in fact cited by both Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon when they attempted to introduce experimentation to the Western world in the 13th century (experimentation was still not a widely accepted part of scientific research in the West and development until after the time of Galileo).
The idea of peer review for determining the validity of scientific research was introduced by The Royal Society, which was not affiliated with the Catholic Church.
Isaac Newton was among the first to popularize the idea of relying on natural, rather then supernatural explanations of phenomena, and he was not a catholic and did not work for the Catholic Church
Requiring a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable was first proposed by Karl Popper, an agnostic, in the 1930’s.
That being said, the Catholic Church did play an important role in the development of scientific knowledge in the West, if not the “invention” of the modern scientific method. After the fall of Rome, Catholic monks did do a lot to preserve what knowledge they could, at least the knowledge that did not contradict the teachings of the church and the Catholic Church did reestablish a system of education in the West once again, modeled after the academies of the ancient Greeks, and there have been many important scientific advances made by scientists who were Catholic and sometimes even directly funded by the Catholic church, such as the work of Mendel and Roger Bacon.
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldn’t have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around one’s neck and against one’s chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]
[/quote]
K, bro.[/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but the scientific method was not “invented” by the Catholic Church, or in 1177 for that matter. The formulation of the modern scientific method is the result of thousands of years of development and involved many different cultures. The basic process of the modern scientific method involves using an observation of a phenomenon to form a hypothesis, using experimentation to test that hypothesis, and using the data collected through experimentation to confirm or disprove, or modify that hypothesis. There are also some other components of the modern scientific method that are worth noting, such as peer review, falsifiability, and the reliance on natural explanations instead of supernatural ones.
Let’s take a look at each of these ideas:
Observation of phenomena to form a hypothesis: This has been used for thousands of years in the medical field, and was used quite a bit by the ancient Greek philosophers.
The next major step to be added to the accepted scientific method was experimentation, and the first documented examples of this being used in the physical sciences was in the 11th century by a man named Alhazen in his Book of Optics, who was in fact cited by both Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon when they attempted to introduce experimentation to the Western world in the 13th century (experimentation was still not a widely accepted part of scientific research in the West and development until after the time of Galileo).
The idea of peer review for determining the validity of scientific research was introduced by The Royal Society, which was not affiliated with the Catholic Church.
Isaac Newton was among the first to popularize the idea of relying on natural, rather then supernatural explanations of phenomena, and he was not a catholic and did not work for the Catholic Church
Requiring a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable was first proposed by Karl Popper, an agnostic, in the 1930’s.
That being said, the Catholic Church did play an important role in the development of scientific knowledge in the West, if not the “invention” of the modern scientific method. After the fall of Rome, Catholic monks did do a lot to preserve what knowledge they could, at least the knowledge that did not contradict the teachings of the church and the Catholic Church did reestablish a system of education in the West once again, modeled after the academies of the ancient Greeks, and there have been many important scientific advances made by scientists who were Catholic and sometimes even directly funded by the Catholic church, such as the work of Mendel and Roger Bacon.
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldn’t have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around one’s neck and against one’s chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]
[/quote]
K, bro.[/quote]
I hate to break this to you, but the scientific method was not “invented” by the Catholic Church, or in 1177 for that matter. The formulation of the modern scientific method is the result of thousands of years of development and involved many different cultures. The basic process of the modern scientific method involves using an observation of a phenomenon to form a hypothesis, using experimentation to test that hypothesis, and using the data collected through experimentation to confirm or disprove, or modify that hypothesis. There are also some other components of the modern scientific method that are worth noting, such as peer review, falsifiability, and the reliance on natural explanations instead of supernatural ones.
Let’s take a look at each of these ideas:
Observation of phenomena to form a hypothesis: This has been used for thousands of years in the medical field, and was used quite a bit by the ancient Greek philosophers.
The next major step to be added to the accepted scientific method was experimentation, and the first documented examples of this being used in the physical sciences was in the 11th century by a man named Alhazen in his Book of Optics, who was in fact cited by both Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon when they attempted to introduce experimentation to the Western world in the 13th century (experimentation was still not a widely accepted part of scientific research in the West and development until after the time of Galileo).
The idea of peer review for determining the validity of scientific research was introduced by The Royal Society, which was not affiliated with the Catholic Church.
Isaac Newton was among the first to popularize the idea of relying on natural, rather then supernatural explanations of phenomena, and he was not a catholic and did not work for the Catholic Church
Requiring a scientific hypothesis to be falsifiable was first proposed by Karl Popper, an agnostic, in the 1930’s.
That being said, the Catholic Church did play an important role in the development of scientific knowledge in the West, if not the “invention” of the modern scientific method. After the fall of Rome, Catholic monks did do a lot to preserve what knowledge they could, at least the knowledge that did not contradict the teachings of the church and the Catholic Church did reestablish a system of education in the West once again, modeled after the academies of the ancient Greeks, and there have been many important scientific advances made by scientists who were Catholic and sometimes even directly funded by the Catholic church, such as the work of Mendel and Roger Bacon.
[/quote]
If my hypothesis is correct we will observe him post that annoying picture yet again sometime in the near future.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder if they’ll find anything of use to support the idea of terraforming Mars?[/quote]
I’ve seen grand ideas about putting an atmosphere on Mar through components in the crust, but even if you do that, you still don’t have a magnetosphere assuming the scientists are correct about Mars’s core being totally solidified. [/quote]
It looked easy in total recall. Maybe we will have better luck terraforming earth once we make it non-habitable.
The public and private sector do both play very important roles in scientific development. Private funding and research facilities actually account for the majority of funding for scientific research, something like 60-70%, but those funds mostly go towards applied scientific research that has a reasonable expectation of turning a profit, which also provides theoretical researchers like myself with the technology to continue with our research.
This makes sense since companies are, first and foremost, out to make money and theoretical research is just plain not profitable for the private sector to take over. This is why we have public funds (tax dollars) that are allocated to fund theoretical research, such as the kind that I do at my university, that way scientific research does not stagnate. Even though theoretical research is not usually profitable, at least not right away, without it we would not have the technology we have today.
For example, without research into quantum mechanics (which many in the early days and even today see it as useless) we would not have microprocessing technology, or the ability to make modern circuit boards which means no PCs, no digital cell phones, no internet, no TIVO, no GPS, no real way to predict and track weather patterns, the field of computer science may well not exist.[/quote]
Good stuff, and that is the issue with purely market-driven research: much of the research (and its initial building blocks) can’t generate profits in the time frame that people would want to reap the profits. What investor would invest in research that may not turn a profit in his lifetime?
That doesn’t mean that the investor is being short-sighted by not providing capital for returns he will never see, but that also doesn’t mean we should forego useful research that will be (1) good generally and (2) profitable later. [/quote]
So if I get the reasoning - it’s to try and use the “tragedy of the commons” in a positive way by letting people research things that we can’t have an application for until we understand?
I’m asking for all of your guys’ thoughts on this if you could share
How about a constitutional amendment that put a cap on the funding for new programs / agencies?
Doesn’t touch old ones.
If more funding beyond the cap is necessary then it gets those through donations. Or not. That would depend on how popular the program is and how serious are the supporters.
So if I get the reasoning - it’s to try and use the “tragedy of the commons” in a positive way by letting people research things that we can’t have an application for until we understand?[/quote]
Well, no, it isn’t the “tragedy of the commons” because it doesn’t involve over-exploitation of a commonly-owned resource that everyone has equal access to.
It’s using public funding (and private, too, sometimes) to invest in research that otherwise would not be done because the costs are too larger too indefinite in the short run to make economic sense for private investors.
The benefits of such research will likely be intergenerational (and profitable in the future).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dear holy war enthusiasts, on behalf of other PWI readers and posters who are incredibly tired and bored of your snit fight, please stop hijacking threads designed to discuss other topics with yet another religious fight/discussion.
While your social ineptitude and complete lack of tact has been educational for us to observe, we’d appreciate the opportunity to discuss other topics and not have threads irrelevant to your holy war derailed, sidetracked and otherwise ended because you lack basic common sense and respect for your fellow PWI posters.
Thanks in advance.
[/quote]
This. This thread had nothing to do with religion vs religion. Religion vs. Atheism. Or, Religion vs. Science. There was/is an interesting discussion going on about the role of public and private space exploration. About which, my feeling are mixed. So, I don’t have much to add myself, but others’ input here has been excellent.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder if they’ll find anything of use to support the idea of terraforming Mars?[/quote]
I’ve seen grand ideas about putting an atmosphere on Mar through components in the crust, but even if you do that, you still don’t have a magnetosphere assuming the scientists are correct about Mars’s core being totally solidified. [/quote]
While this is true, surely there is a way to depend on (at least temporarily) man made structures to help overcome this?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I wonder if they’ll find anything of use to support the idea of terraforming Mars?[/quote]
I’ve seen grand ideas about putting an atmosphere on Mar through components in the crust, but even if you do that, you still don’t have a magnetosphere assuming the scientists are correct about Mars’s core being totally solidified. [/quote]
While this is true, surely there is a way to depend on (at least temporarily) man made structures to help overcome this?[/quote]
If you need domes or something like that to protect people from excess solar radiation, then I really don’t see the point in making the atmosphere okay for life. It would seem to me to be more practical to just use what’s on Mars for the individual domes than doing that for the whole atmosphere.
