Question for the Scientistshere...

[loinburger]

IOW, they'll fall for our crap and not the other guy's crap. Great argument for intelligent design in science classes, btw.

IOW, they learn the scientific method so they won't turn into you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Intelligent design isn't science. It is philosophy.

That's my point. Loin seems to want to insulate kids from philosophy that he dislikes.

[Ben Kenobi]

IOW, they learn the scientific method so they won't turn into you.

Seeing as I was the first to mention the scientific method, I can see how that works. Seriously, I usually hear those arguments from sociologists, not physicists.

[loinburger]

This is a thread about science education, I don't know why you're using it to draw conclusions about my opinions regarding philosophy education. (Well, I do know, it's because you're a troll, but I'm pretending that I don't know this for the sake of argument.) If people want to learn about intelligent design in a philosophy course or a religion course or whatever then that's fine by me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, explain to me why a physicist should care if you drive a humvee. That's totally philosophy.

[snoopy369]

Snoop, if you don't learn the concepts, or the rules, there is no way anyone ever exceeds a very basic level of understanding anyway. At least in chemistry or biology.

Not sure where you're going with that... if you are talking about memorization, I'd suggest that certain fields [take, Organic Chemistry] are far too focused on memorization in early level classes, where they should be teaching the concepts and not focusing on memorization. You'll memorize it eventually if you stay in the field simply by using it - no need to memorize everything up front. That's what reference manuals are for. There are people who can teach these subjects without memorization; it's just easier to teach it with memorization, so that's why it's done that way. Silly, IMO.

[loinburger]

Ok, explain to me why a physicist should care if you drive a humvee. That's totally philosophy.

Because it has low energy efficiency, as anybody with even a basic knowledge of physics would understand. If they then learn in their Philosophy of Intelligent Design course that energy efficiency is irrelevant then so be it, the scientists tried their best.

[duke o' york]

Ok, explain to me why a physicist should care if you drive a humvee. That's totally philosophy.

The greater weight of a humvee destroys the road surface quicker than ordinary vehicles. This means that the roads need to be replaced more often. The physicist ends up paying higher taxes.

[Theben]

Because science is taught as something to be memorized, not something to be understood. Memorizing the entire periodic table is a ****ing waste of time for 99.9% of students of chemistry, and boring on top of it. Science is overly focused on memorizing (at ALL levels, up to and including PhD programs from what I've seen) and at the grammar/high school level is inadequately focused on actually experiencing science and furthering the understanding of WHY processes work as they do.

You've adequately described the problem with HS biology and history as well ...

[loinburger]

My history courses were pretty good at avoiding the memorization trap, but biology was horrible. "Memorize the parts of a cell." "Poop in your mouth." "*sigh* I'm afraid that's another detention, loinburger..." "You're lucky you're hot or I'd drop this worthless class."

[Ben Kenobi]

Because it has low energy efficiency, as anybody with even a basic knowledge of physics would understand.

Now that is a physics problem. Why don't you design a more fuel-efficient humvee? Isn't the point of physics to develop a better breadbox rather than telling people to stop using something? I love it how scientists who will argue for their pet projects are puritanical at telling people to stop using stuff they don't like.

[loinburger]

Now that is a physics problem. Why don't you design a more fuel-efficient humvee? Isn't the point of physics to develop a better breadbox rather than telling people to stop using something? I love it how scientists who will argue for their pet projects are puritanical at telling people to stop using stuff they don't like.

You are a horrible poster.

"Why would you tell people to stop eating poison when you could just spend billions of dollars making the poison marginally less deadly instead? Scientists " Scientists also tell us not to smoke cigarettes, why don't you start a pro-smoking crusade to spite them.

To directly address your headache-inducingly-idiotic question: why would scientists spend billions of dollars developing a more efficient humvee when consumers could just do the rational thing and buy a Toyota instead? The most efficient solution is for people to stop being so ignorant. You seem to think that scientists' job is to aid and abet peoples' ignorance rather than reducing it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The greater weight of a humvee destroys the road surface quicker than ordinary vehicles. This means that the roads need to be replaced more often. The physicist ends up paying higher taxes.

The hardon collector is a gigantic waste of time, money, and energy. Why isn't the physicist up in arms about that rather than telling people to stop doing things he doesn't like anyways?

[loinburger]

The hardon collector is a gigantic waste of time, money, and energy. Why isn't the physicist up in arms about that rather than telling people to stop doing things he doesn't like anyways?

Yeah man, **** all those jerks over the past several thousand years who conducted scientific research, what good has any of it done anyway?

[Ben Kenobi]

Look, it's the logical consequence of your argument.

Scientists used to be about doing cool stuff just for the sake of doing cool stuff. They went to the moon, why? Just because it was there. They built big gigantic instruments to study the sky, why? Because they could.

You're telling me that the kids of tomorrow who dream of flying in rocket ships to the stars are going to give a **** about Humvees?