Research Discussion: Bad Questions?

Bad Questions?
Posts: 26

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

HVAC
2010-04-12 06:59:21 EST
In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White
House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data
on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key
report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the
rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species
and that the universe began with a big bang.

They're not surprising findings, but the National Science Board, which
oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave
the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and
Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure
knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between
factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

"Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is
intellectual malpractice" that "downplays the controversy" over
teaching evolution in schools, says Joshua Rosenau of the National
Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought to keep
creationism out of the science classroom. The story appears in this
week's issue of Science.

Board members say the decision to drop the text was driven by a desire
for scientific accuracy. The survey questions that NSF has used for 25
years to measure knowledge of evolution and the big bang were "flawed
indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated
knowledge and beliefs," says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist at
the New Jersey Institute of Technology who chairs NSB's Science and
Engineering Indicators Committee.

The explanation doesn't appear to have soothed White House officials,
who say that the edit—made after the White House had reviewed a draft—
left them surprised and dismayed. "The Administration counts on the
National Science Board to provide the fairest and most complete
reporting of the facts they track," says Rick Weiss, a spokesperson
and analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.

The deleted text, obtained by ScienceInsider, does not differ
radically from what has appeared in previous Indicators. The section,
which was part of the unedited chapter on public attitudes toward
science and technology, notes that 45% of Americans in 2008 answered
true to the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed
from earlier species of animals." The figure is similar to previous
years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%),
and South Korea (64%). The same gap exists for the response to a
second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with
which only 33% of Americans agreed.

The board member who took the lead in removing the text was John
Bruer, a philosopher who heads the St. Louis, Missouri-based James S.
McDonnell Foundation. He told Science that his reservations about the
two survey questions dated back to 2007, when he was the lead reviewer
for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. He calls the survey
questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public
understanding" of the two topics.

"I think that is a nonsensical response" that reflects "the religious
right's point of view," says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher
at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3
decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. "Evolution and the
big bang are not a matter of opinion. If a person says that the earth
really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it
is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically
literate? Part of being literate is to both understand and accept
scientific constructs."

When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution
or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically
literate, he said: "There are many biologists and philosophers of
science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain
aspects of the theory of evolution," adding that such questioning has
led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he
expected those academics to answer "false" to the statement about
humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: "On that
particular point, no."

Lanzerotti told Science that even though the board had been aware of
concerns about the two questions since before the 2008 survey was
conducted, officials had not had a chance to alter the questions
because the volume of work that goes into producing the Indicators is
"vast," unlike "writing a 2000-word news article." However, both
Lanzerotti and Lynda Carlson, director of NSF's statistical office
that manages the survey and produces Indicators, say that it is time
to take a fresh look at the survey. Last week, less than 48 hours
after his interview with Science, Lanzerotti asked the head of NSF's
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate to conduct a
"thorough examination" of the questions through "workshops with
experts."

Miller, the scientific literacy researcher, believes that removing the
entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment.
"Nobody likes our infant death rate," he says by way of comparison,
"but it doesn't go away if you quit talking about it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
these
questions literally, I would say NO to each.

[SMF]
2010-04-12 07:57:49 EST
On 4/12/2010 5:59 AM, HVAC wrote:

<snip>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
> these
> questions literally, I would say NO to each.

Or, I don't know. Anyone that answers with certainty will most
likely do so based on faith, rather than knowledge.

JeffRelf.F-M.FM
2010-04-12 08:53:56 EST

In the “Science and Engineering Indicators” survey
by the “National Science Board”, 33 percent of Americans say:
“ The universe began with a big explosion ”.

No ! it wasn't like a chunk of dynamite going off,
with spray diminishing over distance.

The true/false question should've been:
“ Since the start of the known Unverse,
the cosmos has remained uniform but lost density. ”.

Or, more precisely:
“ Since the start of the known Unverse 13.75 giga·years ago,
the cosmos has remained uniform but is now 1,088 times less dense. ”.

Much eXergy was consumed ― forever lost ―
to create the Universe we see today.

Over “giga·parsec distances”, accrued entropy ( dissipation )
has straightened out space·time warpages, elongating then.

Our ALWAYS uniform Universe has dissipated ( thinned out )
over giga·years as entropy accrued.

HVAC
2010-04-12 09:01:10 EST

"[SMF]" <snbsmf@yahooligo.com> wrote in message
news:hpv1rq$89u$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 4/12/2010 5:59 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Harlow Speaks Thusly: These are bad questions. If I was to answer
>> these
>> questions literally, I would say NO to each.
>
> Or, I don't know. Anyone that answers with certainty will most
> likely do so based on faith, rather than knowledge.


To the question of did humans arise from lower forms of
animals, I would have to (strictly speaking) say 'no'. They
arose from lower forms of HUMANS.

The question regarding did the universe arise from
a big explosion (strictly speaking) I would have to say
'no', since there was no 'explosion' as we know them.



--
\ufffdIntelligent Design\ufffd Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987



Uncle Al
2010-04-12 10:38:22 EST
HVAC wrote:
>
> In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White
> House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data
> on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key
> report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the
> rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species
> and that the universe began with a big bang.
[snip]

There is no acceptable evidence for evolution and voluminous Scriptual
universal truth against. There is no acceptable evidence for the Big
Bang and voluminous Scriptual universal truth against. All the
claimed "support" for evolution and the Big Bang is scientific and
therefore invalid.

Look around you. Everything you see was made by God. No man should
be allowed to get off his knees praying for forgiveness and
deliverence. God will provide everything after the unworthy are
shriven.

First, we must exterminate all those who revere a false god. Pol Pot
was corect: Everybody wearing glasses or contact lenses bears the mark
of Satan. There must be revealed a Shining Path.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

JeffRelf.F-M.FM
2010-04-12 11:46:22 EST

Oops, the “more precise” true/false question should've been:

“ Since the start of the VISIBLE* Unverse 13.75 giga·years ago,
the cosmos has remained uniform but is now 1,088 times less dense. ”.
( *: at the origin of today's Cosmic Microwave Background )

HVAC
2010-04-12 12:38:55 EST

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4BC3305E.F8BE3812@hate.spam.net...
> HVAC wrote:
>>
>> In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White
>> House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data
>> on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key
>> report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the
>> rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species
>> and that the universe began with a big bang.
> [snip]
>
> There is no acceptable evidence for evolution and voluminous Scriptual
> universal truth against. There is no acceptable evidence for the Big
> Bang and voluminous Scriptual universal truth against. All the
> claimed "support" for evolution and the Big Bang is scientific and
> therefore invalid.


LOL! That's funny.










Michael Moroney
2010-04-12 19:14:12 EST
> Our ALWAYS uniform Universe has dissipated ( thinned out )
> over gigayears as entropy accrued.

Entropy has nothing to do with it. Mass-energy is conserved, but the
volume has increased, and since density is mass/volume, the density has
decreased.

Yes, the universe isn't expanding into a volume, however the volume of
it is still expanding.

Brad Guth
2010-04-12 19:52:34 EST
On Apr 12, 4:14 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> > Our ALWAYS uniform Universe has dissipated ( thinned out )
> > over gigayears as entropy accrued.
>
> Entropy has nothing to do with it.  Mass-energy is conserved, but the
> volume has increased, and since density is mass/volume, the density has
> decreased.
>
> Yes, the universe isn't expanding into a volume, however the volume of
> it is still expanding.

In order for anything to seemingly forever expand (even if it's in
places only worth one atom/km3), as such it has to have started from
somewhere as having been less expanded and at least conceivably a
whole lot more dense than anything imaginable. As such, when starting
this universe from whatever super-massive black/white hole(s) and then
going for broke at expanding near that supposed speed limit of light,
still has to represent a finite beginning or birth origin, and thereby
represents a volumetric area or zone of intense matter and energy
that's originally extremely compacted, as well as its having to exist
somewhere that such a given concentration of cosmic mass and energy
can safely coexist along with perhaps other similar concentrations of
mass and energy, and so on until God or whatever says enough is
enough.

Even the average cosmic density that's outside of our known universe,
if this medium were given an average value of no greater than a
thousand atoms or protons/m3 is seriously substantial mass when we're
talking about a 100e9 light year radii, as being worth 3.547e84 atoms
(including our universe). By somewhat recent standards of physics and
astronomy interpretation the IGM is supposedly worth on average 0.1
atom/cm3, or 1e5 protons(atoms)/m3 = 3.547e86 atoms, giving room for
3.547e2 coexisting (invisible to us) universes per 100 ly radii.

As some local basis of further appreciating how sparse this IGM is,
our moon supposedly offers 2e5 atoms/cm3, or 2e11/m3 (2e6 fold greater
molecular saturation than our specified IGM). Perhaps Selene L1
(Earth-moon L1) is worth as few as 2e5/m3 on a zero solar wind given
day, or roughly a million fold less populated than the lunar surface,
and therefore worth at least twice what the IGM has to offer.

Subtract the 1.6e60 kg or 1e84 atoms as representing the upper most
mass of our known universe, that’s so far only detectable out to
13.75e9 light years, which leaves elbow room for <355 similar
universes to coexist within that 100e9 light year radii, and all
except for a portion of our universe remains as undetectable.

At least I still agree with Alan Guth that our perception of this
universe has gotten substantially larger than we can possibly detect,
which isn't excluding or otherwise preventing the loop or recycling of
mass and energy that goes on.

This interpretation of the multiverse obviously needs further thought,
such as how large of radii should this multiverse or MBB(multiple big
bang) volume occupy, because ours seems observation limited as to 14e9
light years.

~ BG

Androcles
2010-04-12 22:50:07 EST

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:hq09g4$n0s$3@pcls6.std.com...
>> Our ALWAYS uniform Universe has dissipated ( thinned out )
>> over gigayears as entropy accrued.
>
> Entropy has nothing to do with it. Mass-energy is conserved, but the
> volume has increased, and since density is mass/volume, the density has
> decreased.
>
> Yes, the universe isn't expanding into a volume, however the volume of
> it is still expanding.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
You poor deranged psychotic bastard, Mickey Moron. Nothing expands...
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron