Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (246337)	8/17/2005 1:34:48 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1572033

it does

To: tejek who wrote (246337)	8/17/2005 1:45:52 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572033

"Do you mean that the human fetus does not develop gills at some point during the pre natal cycle?" Ok, I will include you with Z. No, they aren't gills, although they closely resemble them. This is something that has been recognized since the early 1900's, although it apparently is still taught in highschool. Like we were winning in Vietnam. emporium.turnpike.net This is something that you get in college, assuming you go into the right field or have an interest. For the regular public school, you get the same old story, however wrong. There is a lot wrong with public school education in the sciences. Which is why the pseudoscience of ID and creationism can get any traction at all. Ok, it is simpler than current theory, assuming the students have been educated what a theory is at all, but taking something that has been disproved over a century ago and teaching it as fact is a great disservice... Given the importance of science in our society, teaching vastly outdated science or the ability to evaluate theories is an extreme travesty on the public. Just dribbling "facts" is not enough, the ability to critically think is much more important. "Facts" change, as they should. I go around this topic with my wife all the time. She is aiming for a PhD. in the philosophy of science. Apparently there are many philosophers who take the models used in science as absolute truth. But the whole purpose of the models is not to directly explain reality but to, with in shouldn't be a huge surprise, model reality. We don't really know what the underpinnings actually are. Outside of something like the Bible, we can only approximate, at best, what is actually going on. As you take more variables into account that changes your reality. For example, Newtonian physics works quite well until you contemplate extremely large masses, high velocities or things of that ilk. Likewise with Einsteinian physics, there are limits beyond which it breaks down. The fact of the matter is that we are a long way from explaining the majority of what we can observe in the Universe. Now true, many including Stephen Hawkings, like to claim the opposite. But they are strictly theorists, who have a stake in elegant explanations. It doesn't mean they are correct.