About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once again, Teresa, you flatter me. I rashly expanded that sentence in a second revision, which can be seen here. I don't think I've said anything in this sentence that is particularly unique to me, and I largely agree with what others have said in the thread from which you excerpted it. But it is nice to be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ted

Post 1

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted is so smart! Ted is so smart! S-M-R-T I mean S-M-*A*-R-T... ^_^

-- Bridget

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great capsulation, Ted.

Post 3

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aghl, Flattercakes

Post 4

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted is so smart! Ted is so smart! S-M-R-T I mean S-M-*A*-R-T... ^_^
Great Simpsons reference! I can picture Homer dancing around the living room as it goes up in flames.


Post 5

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 3:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In his boxers? 

Post 6

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In his boxers?
Fortunately not, or else he'd have some seriously singed blubber.

Sadly, I cannot find that clip on youtube. It's a classic.


Post 7

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing that Ted said which I found profound, is that science can be an activity that's not always based on the marriage of observation and reason (i.e., that it can be done "poorly").

Now, Ted might have meant this or not, but that's what his words say -- and I think that that's an accurate thing to say about the field known as "science."

Ed


Post 8

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 9:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The important thing about science is, as Ted said, it's self correcting. Anything can be done poorly.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, I do not disagree.

If science weren't self-correcting, then it would be next to useless (a million, competing, crack-pot theories -- mixed in with some of the correct ones). What I'm saying is that there's a philosophy to science, and that it's objective -- and that the work of scientists, when they've failed to adopt correct philosophy, can be like knitting wool over the eyes, instead of being like drawn curtains allowing in the light. A thankfully-extreme example of this is the existence of creation science and creation scientists.

It has usually taken several decades for science to correct itself when "science" has been wrong. Another way to say this is that, beyond the obviously-insane and immediately-dismissible theories (things you'd have to strain yourself to even try to believe in), crack-pot theories can flourish for approximately an adult's life-time (likely because it is then when incorrigible, but entrenched, crack-pots die off -- and are replaced by active minds).

It usually takes several decades for science to correct itself, but it only takes several minutes for a competent philosopher to correct a wrong-thinking scientist. I know this because I've done it.

;-)

Ed
[someone not willing to wait decades for some things]


Post 10

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed is the science posting king.  And not just any ol' science, either. But good, positive science. Optimistic, and glowing reports over how great it is to be a human being.

Interestingly, one of Ed's science announcements was also being played on an over head screen at the bank: "Pregnant women who eat fish have kids that do better..."   with a short blip about the study. 

Good science usually means good news, unless you want to dwell on meteors crashing into Earth, or the Sun burning out in about a billion years.  


Post 11

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
wow owweee wawow!  Ted, you're my next American Idol.  ...who's the baby?

Post 12

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The avatar, Audrey, is my nephew Alexander who will be two in May.  He began speaking at 15 months and now at 22 mo. speaks in short multi-word sentences, while many of his cohorts don't yet talk.  (I expect him to be the smartest member of my extended family.)  I never did understand until now why people want to show off baby pictures.  I'm expecting another nieble in July, my sister's second child - sex is in a sealed envelope, which I am sure she will not open. 

Be aware that I can't whistle, let alone carry a tune outside of a three-note baritone range, and then only when inebriated.  But I appreciate the American Idol vote anyway.

To learn more, please click here.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer on 3/29, 12:54pm)


Post 13

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I object, Ed, to the use of the term "creation science."  It's as bad as "paying for tax cuts" or "comes with available steering wheel." It is a lie that grants the terms of the debate to those who could, in effect, said to be "stealing" a concept to which they are not entitled.  Someone ought to write an essay about that fallacy...

I'd use the term "so-called creation scientists" to make clear the distinction.

Ted Keer


Post 14

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Agreed.

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.