Dr. K Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 from http://fafblog.blogspot.com Tuesday, November 09, 2004 classroom activities Hello class! I'm Mr. Fafnir an this is Mr. Giblets. As required by your school board, we'll be your science teachers today! I'll be doin your physics lesson while Mr. Giblets sits in the back throwin dodgeballs. We make learning fun! Today we're gonna teach you about gravity. Now you've probably heard a lot from your moldy ol science teacher Mr. Mold bout the moldy ol "theory a relativity." Well the first thing you ought to know about the theory of relativity is that it is just a theory an not a fact. It's sorta like sayin "yknow I got this theory that my wife, insteada runnin off with a lesbian, was abducted by a sasquatch." It doesn't mean a sasquatch or sasqualogical processes really exist. The sasquatch theory is just that - a theory. An alternate theory would be to say for instance that the sasquatch's evolution was purposely guided over the course of millions of years by a divine intelligence just so it would abduct your wife! That's a theory too! Today we aren't gonna just talk to you about some "theory" a relativity. We're gonna talk to you about science. Leprechaun Science. General relativity says gravity is caused by the "curvature of space" which is crazy. Space isn't curved! It's big an black an empty an fulla spaceships! If it was curved how would spaceships fly in it? They would Rosen into the curves an blow up an stuff! Gravity isn't caused by any crazy "curved space"! It is caused by scientifical processes such as leprechauns. Leprechauns are all over the universe grabbin onto matter with their tiny leprechaun hands an holdin it together. When you walk down the street insteada plummeting into pace it is because leprechauns are holdin you down onto the earth. Of course leprechauns are pretty small so when you jump you break free for a little while until the leprechauns grab you again! Yes Harold, the earth is also held in place by leprechauns. A chain of tiny leprechauns standin on each others' shoulders is stretchin from the sun to the earth. Everything is held together by leprechauns! No Jenny you can't see leprechauns they are too small! That's the whole point a bein a leprechaun! Like all scientific theories, Leprechaun Science is completely unverifiable. Ralph do you want Mr. Giblets to hit you with the dodgeball again? Mr. Giblets has a lotta dodgeballs! Now naturally you will ask "Mr. Fafnir well where did all these leprechauns come from?" Well they were put there by a giant leprechaun, or macroleprechaun as leprechaun scientists say, on account of leprechology is too complex to have originated without giant leprechaun intelligence. The macroleprechaun controls all gravity through the universal leprechaun field, but we can't see im cause he is too big! Wow! No, Morton, the macroleprechaun is not held together by leprechauns himself. That would be silly. Yes, Moo Cow, the macroleprechaun IS all knowing an all powerful! How'd you guess that? No, Ogo, teachin this class is not a violation of the first amendment, at least not until the court challenge clears up. Ralph you're just beggin for another dodgeball! Mr. Giblets! Mr. Giblets! ¶ posted by Fafnir at 9:26 PM Comments (24) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Dr. K you don't also log onto this site as Wham Rocks do you??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 11, 2004 Author Share Posted November 11, 2004 Dr. K you don't also log onto this site as Wham Rocks do you??? 113499[/snapback] Nope, just Dr. K. I haven't been posting much for the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Actually...it is just a theory, not a fact. And considering some of the serious problems with it (quantization at one end of the scale, "missing mass/dark matter" at the other), I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's "debunked" in a few decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Actually...it is just a theory, not a fact. And considering some of the serious problems with it (quantization at one end of the scale, "missing mass/dark matter" at the other), I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's "debunked" in a few decades. 113639[/snapback] By Superstring theory? Probably not. We'll need some breakthrough technology to test some of the axioms of relativity so that it can be properly debunked. A superconducting supercollider would help to model the big bang so that we'll know what what the primordial particles were (if there really was a Big Bang as background radiation suggests). It's just that there are things that are more in need of tax dollars right now, I guess. Plus, a grand unification theory won't help us make cars that run on seawater, so there's no real finanacial incentive for the private sector. Maybe Ron Artest can work on it in the off season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 By Superstring theory? Probably not. We'll need some breakthrough technology to test some of the axioms of relativity so that it can be properly debunked. A superconducting supercollider would help to model the big bang so that we'll know what what the primordial particles were (if there really was a Big Bang as background radiation suggests). It's just that there are things that are more in need of tax dollars right now, I guess. Plus, a grand unification theory won't help us make cars that run on seawater, so there's no real finanacial incentive for the private sector. Maybe Ron Artest can work on it in the off season? 113652[/snapback] When did I say superstring theory? That's already been reduced to a neat mathematical trick. And condemning the practical application of a GUT before it's created is - pardon the observation - breathtakingly stupid. Right now, around me, I could probably identify an easy two-dozen things that wouldn't exist without a "useless" theory like quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Maybe Ron Artest can work on it in the off season? 113652[/snapback] That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Actually...it is just a theory, not a fact. And considering some of the serious problems with it (quantization at one end of the scale, "missing mass/dark matter" at the other), I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's "debunked" in a few decades. 113639[/snapback] Of course relativity theory has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. And relativity theory may be overthrown by some successor theory, just as relativity modified (or "overthrew") the understandings that came from classical mechanics. But the point of this satire is that relativity theory (and all other scientific theories) are subject to test by experimental verification, and must be in accord with observable data. General relativity, which postulates the curvature of space, must be born out by observation, as it has been in numerous astronomical tests such as the curving of light as it passes a gravitational field. The difference with "creation science" or "Intelligent design" theory is that those "theories" predict nothing and are therefore not subject to experimental verification. A real scientific theory, as differentiated from a pseudo science trumped up to rationalize the Bible, arises from observation and predicts outcomes. The yahoos who say that relativity or anything else is "just a theory" do not understand what a scientific theory is and are simply trying to push their theology. They have no interest in or commitment to science. This country is in danger of letting people who are scientifically illiterate and religiously motivated legislate what will be taught in our science classes because a majority of the citizens are "Christians." Let them believe whatever they want, let them preach whatever nonsense they wish in their churches--but let them keep their hands off the science classes in our schools. This is medieval BS, and deserves any mockery, and any resistance, that rational people can muster. You studied physics, you know this. Why do you obfuscate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Of course relativity theory has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. And relativity theory may be overthrown by some successor theory, just as relativity modified (or "overthrew") the understandings that came from classical mechanics. But the point of this satire is that relativity theory (and all other scientific theories) are subject to test by experimental verification, and must be in accord with observable data. General relativity, which postulates the curvature of space, must be born out by observation, as it has been in numerous astronomical tests such as the curving of light as it passes a gravitational field. The difference with "creation science" or "Intelligent design" theory is that those "theories" predict nothing and are therefore not subject to experimental verification. A real scientific theory, as differentiated from a pseudo science trumped up to rationalize the Bible, arises from observation and predicts outcomes. The yahoos who say that relativity or anything else is "just a theory" do not understand what a scientific theory is and are simply trying to push their theology. They have no interest in or commitment to science. This country is in danger of letting people who are scientifically illiterate and religiously motivated legislate what will be taught in our science classes because a majority of the citizens are "Christians." Let them believe whatever they want, let them preach whatever nonsense they wish in their churches--but let them keep their hands off the science classes in our schools. This is medieval BS, and deserves any mockery, and any resistance, that rational people can muster. You studied physics, you know this. Why do you obfuscate? 113898[/snapback] Or, we could get the Federal government completely out of schools - which is the way it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Of course relativity theory has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. And relativity theory may be overthrown by some successor theory, just as relativity modified (or "overthrew") the understandings that came from classical mechanics. But the point of this satire is that relativity theory (and all other scientific theories) are subject to test by experimental verification, and must be in accord with observable data. General relativity, which postulates the curvature of space, must be born out by observation, as it has been in numerous astronomical tests such as the curving of light as it passes a gravitational field. The difference with "creation science" or "Intelligent design" theory is that those "theories" predict nothing and are therefore not subject to experimental verification. A real scientific theory, as differentiated from a pseudo science trumped up to rationalize the Bible, arises from observation and predicts outcomes. The yahoos who say that relativity or anything else is "just a theory" do not understand what a scientific theory is and are simply trying to push their theology. They have no interest in or commitment to science. This country is in danger of letting people who are scientifically illiterate and religiously motivated legislate what will be taught in our science classes because a majority of the citizens are "Christians." Let them believe whatever they want, let them preach whatever nonsense they wish in their churches--but let them keep their hands off the science classes in our schools. This is medieval BS, and deserves any mockery, and any resistance, that rational people can muster. You studied physics, you know this. Why do you obfuscate? 113898[/snapback] Because... 1) It's fun. 2) Life's full of ambiguity. I embrace it. 3) All theories eventually are "debunked". A theory isn't fact, it's merely an explanation of how the world works to a certain level of accuracy. Personally...I could probably develop a Leprechaun Gravitational Theory. I could probably develop it to a decent level...and if I were allowed to include pots of gold and rainbows, there's an outside chance I could reconcile it with QCD, which would sure as hell "debunk" relativity. Using "leprechaun gravity" as an example for creationism is, therefore, misleading. The inherent property of creationism that doesn't raise it to the level of science isn't its inherent untestability or even its ability to describe things (in fact, I'd submit that it describes things better than evolution does). Its inherent flaw is that whitewashes over any issue that pops up with "God wanted it that way". As such, it clearly describes everything...while simultaneously explaining nothing. As such, it's not a theory, it's a complete abandonment of any intellectual responsibility...which was not even remotely clear in your Leprechaun theory of gravity. In short...I believe your post is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle obfuscating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Or, we could get the Federal government completely out of schools - which is the way it should be. 113916[/snapback] The efforts to shove "creation science" into the schools are not coming from the Federal government--despite Bush's sympathy with the religious right. The efforts come from state and local governments under pressure from religious nutjobs in the communities. It's possible the Bushies will get the Feds into pushing creationism in science classes. But so far the problem is not a federal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Because... 1) It's fun. 2) Life's full of ambiguity. I embrace it. 3) All theories eventually are "debunked". A theory isn't fact, it's merely an explanation of how the world works to a certain level of accuracy. Personally...I could probably develop a Leprechaun Gravitational Theory. I could probably develop it to a decent level...and if I were allowed to include pots of gold and rainbows, there's an outside chance I could reconcile it with QCD, which would sure as hell "debunk" relativity. Using "leprechaun gravity" as an example for creationism is, therefore, misleading. The inherent property of creationism that doesn't raise it to the level of science isn't its inherent untestability or even its ability to describe things (in fact, I'd submit that it describes things better than evolution does). Its inherent flaw is that whitewashes over any issue that pops up with "God wanted it that way". As such, it clearly describes everything...while simultaneously explaining nothing. As such, it's not a theory, it's a complete abandonment of any intellectual responsibility...which was not even remotely clear in your Leprechaun theory of gravity. In short...I believe your post is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle obfuscating. 113921[/snapback] When you say the inherent problem with creationism is that "it whitewashees over any issue that pops up with "God wanted it that way", and that it explains nothing, you are saying EXACTLY what I said, that it cannot stand the test of prediction and experiment. You accuse me obfuscation without showing me any obfuscation in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 Because... 1) It's fun. 2) Life's full of ambiguity. I embrace it. 113921[/snapback] PS: 1) You obfuscate because it's FUN? Great. I was in the habit of taking you seriously, but I see you aren't serious, or at least you don't take this issue seriously enough to give a damn. 2) Life IS full of ambiguity. But the teaching of creationism as science has nothing to do with that, and if you can't see the difference, then I can maybe you should go back to school and get your degree in Leprecaun Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Of course relativity theory has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics. And relativity theory may be overthrown by some successor theory, just as relativity modified (or "overthrew") the understandings that came from classical mechanics. But the point of this satire is that relativity theory (and all other scientific theories) are subject to test by experimental verification, and must be in accord with observable data. General relativity, which postulates the curvature of space, must be born out by observation, as it has been in numerous astronomical tests such as the curving of light as it passes a gravitational field. The difference with "creation science" or "Intelligent design" theory is that those "theories" predict nothing and are therefore not subject to experimental verification. A real scientific theory, as differentiated from a pseudo science trumped up to rationalize the Bible, arises from observation and predicts outcomes. The yahoos who say that relativity or anything else is "just a theory" do not understand what a scientific theory is and are simply trying to push their theology. They have no interest in or commitment to science. This country is in danger of letting people who are scientifically illiterate and religiously motivated legislate what will be taught in our science classes because a majority of the citizens are "Christians." Let them believe whatever they want, let them preach whatever nonsense they wish in their churches--but let them keep their hands off the science classes in our schools. This is medieval BS, and deserves any mockery, and any resistance, that rational people can muster. You studied physics, you know this. Why do you obfuscate? 113898[/snapback] You would have been great friends with Durkheim or Saint-Simon. Of COURSE lost in all of this is that maybe God can use science to create a universe? The Bible after all said he created life and the Earth, and so it didn't say HOW exactly. It was very general... and so, there is room for scientific explanation in religion. But of course, then goes the old fusspots who would rather thump the Good Book and argue rather than think things through logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 You would have been great friends with Durkheim or Saint-Simon. Of COURSE lost in all of this is that maybe God can use science to create a universe? The Bible after all said he created life and the Earth, and so it didn't say HOW exactly. It was very general... and so, there is room for scientific explanation in religion. But of course, then goes the old fusspots who would rather thump the Good Book and argue rather than think things through logically. 113989[/snapback] Sure. I don't think science is incompatible with a belief in God, even with the Bible. But that involves treating your Bible a little less literally than the fundies are willing to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 This certainly explains the the little yellow marshmallow moons and green stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 This certainly explains the the little yellow marshmallow moons and green stars. 114120[/snapback] I thought it was Yellow Moons & Green Clovers & Pink Hearts...etc.. I could be wrong, but I'm feeling "Lucky" on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 The "just a theory" notion is plain silly. It is a "theory" but not in the way that creationists and other anti-intellectuals mean it as implying tentativeness or a lack of reasonable certainty. As set forth more cleary than I could phrase it: "Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence." Origins The talk.origins web site, Tlak.Origins Archive has tons of information on this general debate for those interested in a more in depth look at these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Are we in the process of proving Everett's "Many Worlds" theory? I'll go back into my Klein bottle and wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Are we in the process of proving Everett's "Many Worlds" theory? I'll go back into my Klein bottle and wait. 114204[/snapback] How do you get out of a Klein bottle for Bills games, anyways??????? FRAUD!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts