Thread: "Boring Science"

It seems now a days that only a small minority of people are interested in science, about 5% of people I know like science, 90% think it is boring and 5% dont really care.

This seems a bit ridiculous.

Is this brought on by the education system?
Do they not care because they do not understand it?

The attitude I encounter when I talk about the brilliance and wide spectrum of subjects under the heading of Science is:

"No one cares"
"Boring rubbish"
Etc...

This is also the attitude of people when they see science experiments.

What do you think about people you know?

Not many are scientifically stimulated. Also there is the stigma that one must be a clever person and seeing as science is full of clever people they avoid it. If you are naturally curious science will find you. Also there is the evolutionary point of view that says that women in particular are not interested in it as they communicate with feeling rather than logic therefore science is not an interest for them.

This is all dependant on of course whom you are talking to and what you are saying. If you are talking to someone about Mitosis and Meiosis then they are likely to get bored, but if you say something powerfully enticing people will be interested, which is why in particular astronomy is interesting to a lot of people who normally would not be interested in science. But as a whole it is our society, we do not value intelligence at all really and this is why science is 'boring'.

They want expanded knowledge from outside this cradle! Humanity can only stay in its craddle to long before we get bored! Teach them How to think not what to think! It might get us Further!

In the US there's also a concerted and well organized effort to erode science by fundamentalist religious groups because of the evolution and modern psychology which often contrast with conservative social values as well as cooperation with fossil fuel industry trying to side step serious political pressure to address climate change.

We have a task ahead of us to stop detrimental behavior and attitudes in society.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

It seems now a days that only a small minority of people are interested in science, about 5% of people I know like science, 90% think it is boring and 5% dont really care.

This seems a bit ridiculous.

Is this brought on by the education system?
Do they not care because they do not understand it?

The attitude I encounter when I talk about the brilliance and wide spectrum of subjects under the heading of Science is:

"No one cares"
"Boring rubbish"
Etc...

This is also the attitude of people when they see science experiments.

What do you think about people you know?

I think what we really need is more things like the Royal Society Christmas Lectures, these make science interesting for children and make understandable and accessable. This is what's needed imho, make science fun and let children be involved. This will help to give them the interest in later life. Because science is so wide ranging it effects peoples lives in so many different ways that there have to be some approaches that will surely work to generate that spark of interest in most people. Also what I would like to see, is something akin to a mobile science museum that can go round to schools and give them some fun science based things to get involved with.

We also see in other countries such as Japan and South Korea that they take science really seriously with competitions and projects where they really engage with students and get them to take part and really enjoy what they are doing, something we don't do nearly enough of. How many reality tv talent competitons do have on the go now?, it seems that everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame being able to sing or dance. How many reality tv competitions do we have for creativity or science though?
We have the talent and abilities out there, what we need to do is tap into it and harness this ingenuity and start to make science respected in own right.

I love science but my ADHD keeps me from completing study in anything. Rocket Science? Yup, just download that book to keep staring at the computer screen for 1 hour while you think about unicorns eating pizza and drinking tea!

I only talk science when it matters to the hearer(!). ie: why is zombie apocalypse not going to happen?, how to take care of your teeth?, what is fuel economy?

else do not say that you are worried about global energy supply, or ecosystem, or how your ancestor live, or why you read that "kitty" is no.1 cat name , or whatsoever. This is too much wandering mind.

some people likes do real stuff for fun, and do not find fact/thought as exciting.

Science isn't boring. It's just not important. Let the world accede its inevitable destruction.

The modern hedonistic American attitude (eg, sex, drugs and rock n roll {in other words, me, me, and me} ) does not harmonize with the pursuit of science (eg, speed of light, absolute zero, nanotechnology, etc {in other words, not me, not me, and not me} ).

Remember, there is no "me" in "science".

I mention the upcoming event where a gas cloud is descending into our galaxy's black hole and how it's the first time we get to observe such and event and I get met with blank stares. Tell someone Justin Bieber is pregnant and your Facebook lights up.

The majority of people I know outside my workplace have no interest whatsoever in the fringes of scientific discovery. If it doesn't apply to their iPhone, they just don't care.

Tragic.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I mention the upcoming event where a gas cloud is descending into our galaxy's black hole and how it's the first time we get to observe such and event and I get met with blank stares. Tell someone Justin Bieber is pregnant and your Facebook lights up.

The majority of people I know outside my workplace have no interest whatsoever in the fringes of scientific discovery. If it doesn't apply to their iPhone, they just don't care.

Tragic.

Quoted in a British newspaper today.
A comment overheard by Professor Richard Dawkins, on an Antarctic cruise.
"Is the moon here the same moon we have in Texas?"
I am assuming the quote is accurate, but I have to add I am pretty sure the U.S. is not the only country where a process "to erode science" is taking place.
I am aware this is only one example and it is just possible it could have been said simply to annoy Dawkins. Nevertheless, I do feel the status of science has, to some extent, been diminished in recent years.

Kids are watching that awful morning cartoon garbage. I grew up on Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye. Basically, I grew up thinking science was cool. And I still do!

At least here in America, it feels like there is an effort to shelter our kids from science. We're afraid they will turn their backs on religious teachings or, worse, become a nerd!

It's happening here in the UK, there's the 'we must respect religion and religious beliefs' in children and in doing so a lot of scientific curriculum is not taught, I remember my first and only evolution class back in 2003 in my last year of school and looking back it was terrfiyingly limited. The problem here is that there are a lot of faith schools and with many many more on the way to being opened, many science teachers are creationist - beleiving the world no older than 10,000 years and not to mention the muslim ones too whom from my experience have no education in science at all.

My girlfriends son is due to start school soon, and she is contemplating taking him to faith school (a roman-catholic school) because it has the best grades, which is due to their perhaps drilling of discipline and even the local area they live in which aren't far behind. But if he goes he will be getting lies fed to him.

This is evil, it is religious tyranny at its finest and it boils my blood. There needs to be a separation between education and religion, church and state or we are going to regress back into the darkness that we came from.

Originally Posted by Quantime

My girlfriends son is due to start school soon, and she is contemplating taking him to faith school (a roman-catholic school) because it has the best grades, which is due to their perhaps drilling of discipline and even the local area they live in which aren't far behind. But if he goes he will be getting lies fed to him.

Please specify what lies will be fed to him.
It cannot be lies about evolution which is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
It cannot be about the age of the universe, or the Big Bang Theory, both accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the latter having been introduced by a Jesuit Priest.
So which lies are you thinking about?

Originally Posted by Quantime

It's happening here in the UK, there's the 'we must respect religion and religious beliefs' in children and in doing so a lot of scientific curriculum is not taught, I remember my first and only evolution class back in 2003 in my last year of school and looking back it was terrfiyingly limited. The problem here is that there are a lot of faith schools and with many many more on the way to being opened, many science teachers are creationist - beleiving the world no older than 10,000 years and not to mention the muslim ones too whom from my experience have no education in science at all.

I think there's always justification for excluding any controversial subject into official curriculum (it is controversial as long as it cause tension and unrest among parent. The politic forbid it), but the alternative is to teach evolutions in extra-curricular class/society/meeting or off-school hours. But of course this can be bad thing, for one: it create more work for teacher & student, and second: it might not have funding.

Or government policy can have evolution as non-compulsory subject with its own grade on certificate!

EDIT: ops, I misread your comment. I thought you said they do not teach evolution at all because of controversy, but actually they teach everything! (even offering religious school as alternative!). But IMO it would be better if all school obey to same official curricula, because it helps government to regulate schools and measure effectiveness of education policy.

Fortunately science teaching in the US isn't that hampered by religion--though a survey a few years ago found an alarming number of teachers soft-peddle evolution as "just another 'theory', etc" despite state standards and professional science teaching organization recommendations. There are mixed results about some of the value related issues though...some states requiring teaching sex education though...while others leave it up to the parants for example.

Interesting, it is amazing the ignorance of people these days.

This is the reason I think that Asian countries will become the new Europe/America, as Europeans/Americans are forgetting what got them into this vantage point of wealth and technology over the rest of the world. You will commonly hear of the brilliant IQs of members of Asian countries and their new innovations (Japan)

The Western World will collapse if this is allowed to fester.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantime

My girlfriends son is due to start school soon, and she is contemplating taking him to faith school (a roman-catholic school) because it has the best grades, which is due to their perhaps drilling of discipline and even the local area they live in which aren't far behind. But if he goes he will be getting lies fed to him.

Please specify what lies will be fed to him.
It cannot be lies about evolution which is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
It cannot be about the age of the universe, or the Big Bang Theory, both accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the latter having been introduced by a Jesuit Priest.
So which lies are you thinking about?

The same lies, just because the roman catholic church officially accept them, does not mean the school's teachers will, or teach it. Also god in general, biblical stories, prayer. Its not needed in education only as part of learning about religion which I am all for, but not learning it from within religion. Learn religion the best way, in religious studies and teach all the sceintific facts without omitting them for fear of what parents might say etc.

So you are asserting that in defiance of their church's teaching and contrary to the legal basis upon which faith schools recieve government funds that these teachers are deliberately telling lies. What evidence do you have for this that is not anecdotal or the product of your latest mind crusade?

So you are asserting that in defiance of their church's teaching and contrary to the legal basis upon which faith schools recieve government funds that these teachers are deliberately telling lies.

People are challenging the governments funding of faith schools, simply because the government fund them does not give them an credibility in their existence, the government also fund non-faith schools. My point is why make a faith school? Whats the point? We don't make schools dedicated to certain political ideologies, religion in the educational sense as a school, is not needed. Also there are seats for the church of England's bishops in Parliament, now if that doesn't show a bias in political decision making I don't know what does.

Indeed I have no empirical evidence that teachers specifically may be twisting the truth on scientific matters, I'm not sure studies even exist but lets hypothesize:

If we take the logical stance that Belief A is educated to children alongside Belief B, when say belief B is evidential and substantial, then children are going to believe the one which is perpetuated and mostly exposed to them, say we pray to Belief A and follow it from age 4; and we also attend an out of school gathering (Sunday services at the local church) which again is telling Belief A, Belief B becomes the side issue and belief A takes a greater prevalence in the child's mind due to the over exposure not only in school to Belief A but also at home (as is worse if a child has a Belief A stance anyway); combine this with a child's suggestibility, we have an increase in chance of Belief A being accepted. THEN when the children grow old enough to grasp the formation of the universe and evolution, they already have been told Belief A is responsible and seeing as Belief B was nowhere near in the exposure of the two, they are more likely due to their childhood exposure based on their suggestibility to accept Belief A's stance regardless of the evidence because they have been exposed to Belief A 'being true' and not based on evidence... then when a representative of Belief B comes in (say Richard Dawkins in his documentary for instance, or a strongly minded Belief B person) along with the teenagers now irrationality and rebellious hormonal reaction to opposition of an authority in the opposite camp you again get resistance to Belief B due to the overwhelming exposure to Belief A. Do you see what I am saying? However if you exposed the teenager to the evidence and they still understood what rationality was (look in the documentary for how students came around to accepting evolution more) , then they are more likely to accept it, however still due to over exposure to Belief A they will try to bring Belief B (because it is irrefutable) into Belief A in which Belief A still explains Belief B when both were identical side by side, do you see the bias that can thus come from faith schools? I use 'belief' here to convey meaning, obviously belief A was faith and 'belief B' was scientific understanding, which isn't a belief literally, yet I used it as I say again to convey meaning.

Some studies (there are many) on the suggestibility of children:

http://www.forensicpsychology.it/num...rcolin_eng.PDF
The Teen Brain | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2008
The Suggestibility of Children: An Evaluation by Social Scientists
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/f...tives.2002.pdf

What is horrific is that parents who have no belief in religion are forced (by being too far from non-faith schools in some cases) to take their children to Roman Catholic schools, where they know full well they will be exposed to all above I have just mentioned. This is even if the parents begin practicing the religion of that school can then be allowed to send their children there. These faith schools actually have the right to not allow children attend if their parents are not practicing Roman Catholics, I mean how bigoted is that? It says "Follow our religion or your child cannot attend our school AND even if you do begin to practice, your child will be overly exposed to our religious practices to which they have never experienced and will have to follow". It is horrifying, how DARE they do that. How DARE the government allow this to happen.

With 1 in every 3 school in the UK being a faith school, I find this terrible. Why not have 1 in every 3 schools a political school? Religious schools make no sense and have no place in a 21st century educational system. Teach religion separate in a room in the school, not the entire school itself. This is a documentary with Richard Dawkins on faith schools in the UK:

Faith School Menace? - 4oD - Channel 4

One particular case I find very disturbing is this one within America's Educational system is that it is made into the curriculum:
Creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage, creationist textbooks are garbage


The more important question here John is are you ok with children being told to worship god, to pray to him and to teach him along side the curriculum in schools? Provided its parents are not happy with this? Are you ok with children being discriminated against because they don't hold that particular faith? And what is your angle on all of this, are you theist? Because that definitely biases you side of this argument if you are.

Finally you are correct, this is a mission, I refuse to see children be indoctrinated as such as they are being, even if not directly but indirectly through the suggestibility of the mind of a child. I in particular was taught to believe in God, pray to him and it led me to deny any science that came along that made me see God as not possible, false. Children are too young to understand and think about these issues, they are too young to understand logic, and follow the guidance of teachers and adults because that is what children do; they are highly susceptible to indoctrination at a young age due to that being an evolutionary advantage. This advantage to which would have stopped them from say walking too close to a cliff, walking up to the lions etc. This is stronger in younger ages (stronger tendency to follow what peers say when under 8 years old). Faith schools have children start at 4 and 5 years old, prayer and church at that age is most defiantly going to indoctrinate them). If with teenagers you usually get the rebellious side, this can manifest easily to those who take a stance against what they will then believe - God, religion etc. Which will then bias their receptivity to scientific information, it is human nature at that point.

If the government want to teach religion, which I am all for 100%, teach it when they are much older and keep it out of schools - in other words, get rid of faith schools, they bias children's minds. Is it not a coincidence that Roman Catholic faith schooled children grow up to be and self identify as Roman Catholics? As with Muslims? The child will follow whatever their parents believe, and what the school they are in teach. Fact.

If you deny that you are denying a mountain of evidence. Now at least provide evidence to the contrary. It is your turn to substanitate your argument.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The more important question here John is are you ok with children being told to worship god, to pray to him and to teach him along side the curriculum in schools?

I have absolutely no problem with that. My secondary school days each began with a prayer, a hymn and a bible reading. For several yeas I was a member of the school choir that led the singing. The only long term effect this had on my religious beliefs was to conclude that it had no long term effect on my religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Provided its parents are not happy with this?

I am unaware of parents having their children forced to participate in services they deem inappropriate. When our children started primary school we were given the option of them not paticipating in morning prayer, since my wife is Muslim. We elected not to take that option. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Quantime

Are you ok with children being discriminated against because they don't hold that particular faith?

What discrimination are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Quantime

And what is your angle on all of this, are you theist? Because that definitely biases you side of this argument if you are. .

And being an atheist doesn't bias your side of the argument? My angle is that you were talking crap and I called you on it. As it happens I am a devout agnostic.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Faith schools have children start at 4 and 5 years old, prayer and church at that age is most defiantly going to indoctrinate them). .

So how come I am not indoctrinated? You see you appear to be caught up in this reaction against the fact that you think you were conned. It comes across as emotional and illogical.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I am unaware of parents having their children forced to participate in services they deem inappropriate. When our children started primary school we were given the option of them not paticipating in morning prayer, since my wife is Muslim. We elected not to take that option. What's the problem?

That children have to go to faith schools in the first place, that's the problem. Opting out or not is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantime

Are you ok with children being discriminated against because they don't hold that particular faith?

What discrimination are you referring to?

About children's parents that have no belief in religion having to have their children attend a faith school and pray and be surrounded by those who pray, also surrounded by a religious environment which the parents are not happy with. As again, some faith schools are more prevalant in areas than others and simply 'going to a none faith school' is out of the option. The fact the government opted to build another 3000 faith schools doesn't help this problem and discriminates against those parents who do not want their children to go to faith school.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantime

And what is your angle on all of this, are you theist? Because that definitely biases you side of this argument if you are. .

And being an atheist doesn't bias your side of the argument?

Of course, you were making out that I was and I wanted to point out yours will be too to any other readers.

My angle is that you were talking crap and I called you on it.

After the evidence I gave, your angle is refuted.

As it happens I am a devout agnostic.

I am interested why you hold a stance of neutrality; I was on my way to atheism as well.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantime

Faith schools have children start at 4 and 5 years old, prayer and church at that age is most defiantly going to indoctrinate them). .

So how come I am not indoctrinated?

You were at the time, whatever your stance is now is besides the point not everyone comes to question their faith (as we both have) and even if your own personal indoctrination not happening were true, it again does not mean that millions of others across the planet are not either. I already provided evidence on how children are susceptible to indoctrination with a strong-positive correlation, your personal experience does not waver that.

You see you appear to be caught up in this reaction against the fact that you think you were conned. It comes across as emotional and illogical.

If you are referring to my emotional stance against the way I was treated with lies and religious propaganda and that other children are across the globe are as well you're damn right I feel passionate about it. Emotion is after all the motivation behind our behavior and drive based on our experiences. Personally I don't see how calling my directive illogical based on the fact I allow my emotions to motivate me has any credence. As you can tell from the post I gave you, I validated that claim that children under age 8 and above are susceptible to indoctrination, which is more evidential and substantial than your personal anecdote of your own experience.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The same lies, just because the roman catholic church officially accept them, does not mean the school's teachers will, or teach it. Also god in general, biblical stories, prayer. Its not needed in education only as part of learning about religion which I am all for, but not learning it from within religion. Learn religion the best way, in religious studies and teach all the scientific facts without omitting them for fear of what parents might say etc.

I don't think your fears are well founded. I'm an atheist going through a teachers training/certification program at a Catholic University (Saint Martin's University in Lacey WA). My endorsements will be teaching secondary school math and science. Last year I took two biology courses and evolution was, as expected in most biology courses, at the very center and never disputed at any point.

--

Indeed I have no empirical evidence that teachers specifically may be twisting the truth on scientific matters, I'm not sure studies even exist but lets hypothesize:

There actually is some evidence so I'll help here. A recent survey that suggested many biology teachers aren't teaching evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...nism.html?_r=0

"Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise."
Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Quantime

The same lies, just because the roman catholic church officially accept them, does not mean the school's teachers will, or teach it. Also god in general, biblical stories, prayer. Its not needed in education only as part of learning about religion which I am all for, but not learning it from within religion. Learn religion the best way, in religious studies and teach all the scientific facts without omitting them for fear of what parents might say etc.

I don't think your fears are well founded. I'm an atheist going through a teachers training/certification program at a Catholic University (Saint Martin's University in Lacey WA). My endorsements will be teaching secondary school math and science. Last year I took two biology courses and evolution was, as expected in most biology courses, at the very center and never disputed at any point.

This may well be the case in secondary school curriculum you are teaching in the university that you are in but in some parts of the world this is not the case, as the evidence of the American case I provided in a post above, you get this interference of fundamental religious organizations that somehow passed what was acceptable to be taught and what wasn't or simply misconstruing the evidence of evolution as was in that one example of the textbook.

My point is also of school children from ages 8 and below and their entry into faith school which was what the evidence I provided was in support of, how susceptible younger minds are to religious indoctrination so that when they reach an age where they can accept evolution and some may well and do, it increases the chance that it will not be accepted, as already mentioning from childhood in those studies due to their indoctrination at a young age due to that susceptibility. Along with the other argument I put across about Belief A and Belief B.

Surely you understand what is going to happen a lot of the time?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Quantime

Indeed I have no empirical evidence that teachers specifically may be twisting the truth on scientific matters, I'm not sure studies even exist but lets hypothesize:

There actually is some evidence so I'll help here. A recent survey that suggested many biology teachers aren't teaching evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...nism.html?_r=0

"Researchers found that only 28 percent of biology teachers consistently follow the recommendations of the National Research Council to describe straightforwardly the evidence for evolution and explain the ways in which it is a unifying theme in all of biology. At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism, and spend at least an hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.That leaves what the authors call “the cautious 60 percent,” who avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor its unscientific alternatives. In various ways, they compromise."
Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom

Thanks for that! It is concerning, it would be interesting to see what it is and the specific religious organizations that pass this through into practice. As I have said I am all for the education of religion, it just comes when it mixes in with science you have the problems and how it can influence minds to accept a more irrational view on science, which all students have the right to get an unbiased view on science. This is another issue as well (in the case I was presenting; combined) with young children and the over exposure to 'Belief A' as I put it will likely bias acceptance of 'Belief B', not neccisarly true in all cases but to be expected in correspondance with the evidence science has on how suggestible children are to indoctrination.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Thanks for that! It is concerning, it would be interesting to see what it is and the specific religious organizations that pass this through into practice. As I have said I am all for the education of religion, it just comes when it mixes in with science you have the problems and how it can influence minds to accept a more irrational view on science, which all students have the right to get an unbiased view on science. This is another issue as well (in the case I was presenting; combined) with young children and the over exposure to 'Belief A' as I put it will likely bias acceptance of 'Belief B', not neccisarly true in all cases but to be expected in correspondance with the evidence science has on how suggestible children are to indoctrination.

Here's another survey study which looked at what religious groups were primarily against evolution by denomination and membership.
What do Christians REALLY Believe about Evolution? | NCSE


As you can see the Catholics are probably the last group you should worry about--and science education in places with high concentrations such as Massachusetts rate among the best public school science education in the nation. In the US, the groups with Evangelical bring the most obstructions to teaching evolution particular though the bible belt, where there's been numerous attempts to water down science education with creationism, warnings on science text books and other tactics as well as active resistance to exposure through science IMAX films etc.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The more important question here John is are you ok with children being told to worship god, to pray to him and to teach him along side the curriculum in schools?

I'm not JG, but I would like to comment that I am not okay with my tax dollars being paid to teach religious views. I find that a violation of church and state and a waste of my money which was intended for education.

I don't have a problem with religion being taught for educational purposes (in fact, I very much support religious education in schools), but preaching on taxpayer money is out of the question.

EDIT: I should add that my taxpayer money doesn't seem to be going to either of these pursuits where I live, so the issue is probably moot.

Strange, I see all this talk about indoctrinating religious beliefs on children. I myself attended Bible class in elementary school, my pre-school was based almost completely around Christianity, I attended church twice every weekend "two separate churches on Sunday, about 2-4 hours every Sunday". Also attended a Thursday evening Sunday school class in middle school. All of these religious influences did not indoctrinate me, by the age of 13 I was agnostic, and now at the age of 17 I am still strongly agnostic. The early religious influences had little to no influence on my theology, perhaps it does on others, but I know plenty of atheists/agnostics that went through similar circumstances as mine.

Originally Posted by shlunka

Strange, I see all this talk about indoctrinating religious beliefs on children. I myself attended Bible class in elementary school, my pre-school was based almost completely around Christianity, I attended church twice every weekend "two separate churches on Sunday, about 2-4 hours every Sunday". Also attended a Thursday evening Sunday school class in middle school. All of these religious influences did not indoctrinate me, by the age of 13 I was agnostic, and now at the age of 17 I am still strongly agnostic. The early religious influences had little to no influence on my theology, perhaps it does on others, but I know plenty of atheists/agnostics that went through similar circumstances as mine.

There are always exceptions. I think it would be safe to assume that most people raised in a heavily religious environment become, themselves, religious. This board tends to attract an agnostic/atheist type so I wouldn't consider it an accurate sample.

I guess Quantime. that you think we should not lie to children about Santa Claus. I can understand your position, I just think it's rather silly. I don't know of any child who was on balance harmed by the perpetuation of the Santa Claus myth.

Flick, in the UK the State and the Church are one. The queen is both head of state and head of the Church. Despite this the UK has about five times as many atheists (%) as the US. Perhaps the cold weather imunnises us against indoctrination.

Science is boring, anyone who thinks it is not has not done any science. Science is also fequently dangerous, hard work. Requires rigorus use of language and quantification of results. To actully do science requires that you make numorous repetitions of experiments.
Science requries that you be willing to see your favorite ideas turned on there heads. This is why you will never find anything being discovered by "Creation science".

What is not boring is learning about what scientists have discovered. That is facinating.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Science is boring, anyone who thinks it is not has not done any science.

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

What is not boring is learning about what scientists have discovered. That is facinating.

There's a contradiction, here. Performing the scientific method can be tedious and excruciating and even boring at times- but the results are often exciting, seeing a hypthesis turned on its head can be quite exciting and frankly...
Performing the experiments can be very exciting.

Here:

Originally Should have been Posted by Sealeaf:
Anyone who thinks science is boring, has not done any science.

Fixed it for ya.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Flick, in the UK the State and the Church are one. The queen is both head of state and head of the Church. Despite this the UK has about five times as many atheists (%) as the US. Perhaps the cold weather imunnises us against indoctrination.

I'm aware of this and fascinated by it.

Given the cultural differences, though, I still believe the culture here in America requires a separation of church and state. It's sort of the same with things like the gun culture. Is it the legislation that lowers gun-related fatalities in the UK compared to the US or is it the culture of the UK?

My primary desire for the separation is not because I don't want more Christians, it's just that I don't trust the way my government allocates funding and adding another outlet for wasteful spending by a political Christian majority who would love nothing more than to funnel cash to churches would be a bad idea.

[QUOTE=Flick Montana;384081]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Is it the legislation that lowers gun-related fatalities in the UK compared to the US or is it the culture of the UK?

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

Requires more brain power.

Apologies in advance - I haven't had time to read everything in this thread, but it is a topic which interests me. I know several people who just change the subject whenever anything that is remotely scientific arises in conversation. A number of convictions appear to lie behind this behaviour. One is that people who talk about science are trying to be clever by delving into things which they know others in their company won't fully understand. Another is a perceived arrogance in some scientific pronouncements. Those who object are put down with statements such as "The scientific evidence suggests that ...etc " without specifying clearly in layman's terms what the evidence is.

Another problem is people's perception of the typical scientist. The word "geek" is unlikely to be applied to a lawyer, or an architect, or a truck driver .. and so on. However, I think most of us wouldn't be too surprised if it was applied to a scientist. I have spent my life working in science and I have met a few odd personalities. In many areas of science, it doesn't matter if someone has limited personal skills in dealing with others, so working in science is a safe refuge for those who lack these skills. Such personality traits aren't universal amongst scientists, of course, but they do exist.

Lastly, science isn't about money. Anyone who wants to end up very rich should avoid science. However, more people are now focused on personal wealth that at any other time I can remember. So scientists appear as losers in the money making game. Spending much of one's time on what one considers to be interesting is seen as eccentric of "geekish" amongst those whose only ambition is accumulate money.

To sum up, I think science is often seen as boring because there are so many negative images associated with science and scientists. How can that be corrected ? - I haven't a clue.

The people that are interested in science probably found it interesting and helpful, but the people that found science uninteresting and unnecessary are probably not aware of that how much science helped man kind. Or they just might found it too complicated.

is it some sort of joke

on this forum there is a thread which says "why so many nutters attracted on science forum"
and this thread nullify above thread.

poor science!!

Originally Posted by JonG

I know several people who just change the subject whenever anything that is remotely scientific arises in conversation. A number of convictions appear to lie behind this behavior. One is that people who talk about science are trying to be clever by delving into things which they know others in their company won't fully understand.

I don't think people are 'trying to be clever' even if we 'sense' they might, this is a subjective observation, if someone delves into what others do not know but they know very well and it is useful to the conversation then yes it is fully justified. Although yes some can come across trying to be clever, but you can't know that for sure.

Another is a perceived arrogance in some scientific pronouncements. Those who object are put down with statements such as "The scientific evidence 'suggests that ...etc " without specifying clearly in layman's terms what the evidence is.

Some people aren't willing to listen to the evidence, evolution for instance. Even then layman's terms may deter from the actual validity of that which is being made into layman's, over-simplification can make knowledge and facts seem vague, keep things as simple as you can but not any simpler, the fine line there is attributing how simple you can keep it and to whom. Discussions are based on considering both parties contributions, if there is lack of understanding it is best to renounce differences and not allow the discussion to descend into accusations or labeling. A stalemate occurs and this does not decrease the validity of any of the claimants. I do however subscribe to the idea that the world is best understood from a rational standpoint and evidence is a great foundation to rationality.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I guess Quantime. that you think we should not lie to children about Santa Claus.

This is totally different story all together but I do understand your concept.

I can understand your position, I just think it's rather silly. I don't know of any child who was on balance harmed by the perpetuation of the Santa Claus myth.

Again it is a different story, religion can lead to and support irrational beliefs and stances on the world, although this is fine in the privacy of ones own mind and parties who share the same beliefs, when it comes to imposing them on others it becomes a problem. I believe children should be offered consideration of multiple views on the world, normal schools do this, faith schools do not, they give bias.

People have lower attention spans now because of electronics (especially me.) With the internet, you can go from page to page and read five seconds of facts on each page. With books, arguments are much more in-depth. People use the internet more now, so our attention span is decreasing. We aren't as willing to read long, complex arguments, which is what science is. Science is very interesting if you understand it, but few people like to take the time to understand it (myself included.)
It's also becoming a bit of a stigma to read long things. Books aren't cool anymore.

Originally Posted by NNet

People have lower attention spans now because of electronics (especially me.)

And your objective evidence for this?

I think it's mostly a myth and really dislike it when I hear it among teachers. Past generations were often bored out of their minds, especially if they had sucky teachers--just as happens now--we just somehow choose to forget that.
--

And lets look some of the assumptions surrounding the OP, that it science interest is perhaps down. Is it?

It's not. In fact it's grown significantly from 32% going into science or engineering now compared to fewer than a third in 1995.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm

While I wish it was even higher, it's certainly not in freefall. We're much much better off in this and many other areas than most of us imagine.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by NNet

People have lower attention spans now because of electronics (especially me.)

And your objective evidence for this?

I think it's mostly a myth and really dislike it when I hear it among teachers. Past generations were often bored out of their minds, especially if they had sucky teachers--just as happens now--we just somehow choose to forget that.
--

And lets look some of the assumptions surrounding the OP, that it science interest is perhaps down. Is it?

It's not. In fact it's grown significantly from 32% going into science or engineering now compared to fewer than a third in 1995.
nsf.gov - S&E Indicators 2012 - Chapter 2. Higher Education in Science and Engineering - Undergraduate Education, Enrollment, and Degrees in the United States - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

While I wish it was even higher, it's certainly not in freefall. We're much much better off in this and many other areas than most of us imagine.

Some one told me they read it in a book. I guess that's not very objective. Most of my reasoning is from that book (I forgot to give credit.)
If science is becoming more popular, it could be because our lives are more dominated by science, or some other reason, such as more common ADD leading to more common asperger's. 60%-70% of aspies have attention deficit disorder. Adults with asperger's syndrome tend to prefer non-fiction (Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). More ADD means more scientists, and more specific focuses.
The OP might have meant that non-scientists in particular are less interested in science, so if people now have more specific focuses, fewer people would be interested in science in addition to their other interests.

The way I use electronics reduces my attention span, because I don't have to focus when I'm doing that. Instead, I need to rapidly click buttons. If someone used the internet to read full length articles, their attention span would be unaffected.

"Also there is the evolutionary point of view that says that women in particular are not interested in it as they communicate with feeling rather than logic therefore science is not an interest for them." Excuse me, Quantime, but have you heard of Quantum Physics?? How is that a logical form of science? And can you explain why there are plenty of women scientists who have done wonderful things for the field of science? As for your proof of evolutionary traits, look up male hyenas. You are ignorant and trying far too hard to prove your intelligence.

Originally Posted by sakuvrai

but have you heard of Quantum Physics?? How is that a logical form of science?

How is it not?
It is science: ergo logic is involved.

And can you explain why there are plenty of women scientists who have done wonderful things for the field of science?

That "plenty of women" tend to be, historically, rare and a very small minority.

As for your proof of evolutionary traits, look up male hyenas.

Your point here...? WHAT is it about male hyenas that supports your contention?

You are ignorant and trying far too hard to prove your intelligence.

Not shown so far.

Science. Boring? No. Huge? Yes.

I disagree with the OP. Without casting an absolute verifiable number, I would put the percentage of people interested in SOME aspects of science at 70% or so. And the majority of those interested, are interested on a hobby level, rather than a driving life goal.

Where the science-inclined fail is clearly exampled by looking at most of dywyddyr responses to the science hobbyists. Condescending. I took the time to do a quick google search on male hyenas and it seems to me to be clear what this new poster was pointing to. I kinda figured it was, but decided to take the time to refresh my memory.

I dont mean to pick on you dywyddyr, but then I figure your big enough to take it.

And I don't understand why people who are smart enough to understand various aspects of 'the science' don't feel a sense of accomplishment when taking the time to explain to someone less informed, in a way that opens up a piece of that universe sized puzzle that 'the science' attempts to represent.

Before the last crash I had posted a question in astronomy regarding the approach of a comet that would be a near miss. I explained math was not my strong suite but posted my calculations in miles away from the earth and asked for a simple "did I get it right".

Not one of you know-it-alls could be bothered to answer a simple question from an astronomy hobbyist. What I am saying is If people are not interested in science, it is the fault of those who are.

Originally Posted by JaneD

Where the science-inclined fail is clearly exampled by looking at most of dywyddyr responses to the science hobbyists. Condescending.

Nope.
I am, however, condescending to the science cranks.
Those who ask get an entirely different response from those who spout drivel.

I took the time to do a quick google search on male hyenas and it seems to me to be clear what this new poster was pointing to.

Well enlighten us!

Not one of you know-it-alls could be bothered to answer a simple question from an astronomy hobbyist. What I am saying is If people are not interested in science, it is the fault of those who are.

There are numerous possibilities for no response besides "not being bothered".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

Where the science-inclined fail is clearly exampled by looking at most of dywyddyr responses to the science hobbyists. Condescending.

Nope.
I am, however, condescending to the science cranks.
Those who ask get an entirely different response from those who spout drivel.

And you determined this via 1 post by sakuvrai. You have no idea what this persons history is; but it is easier to be condescending than helpful.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

I took the time to do a quick google search on male hyenas and it seems to me to be clear what this new poster was pointing to.

Well enlighten us!

Do your own google search. Your not stupid, just a prick. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

Not one of you know-it-alls could be bothered to answer a simple question from an astronomy hobbyist. What I am saying is If people are not interested in science, it is the fault of those who are.

There are numerous possibilities for no response besides "not being bothered".

And those are what; in a forum supposedly about science and those interested in it, asking a question and showing how they had tried to figure it out on their own, only asking for a simple Yes you got it right, no you didnt?

So list these numerous possibilities I apparently missed. Lemme guess, you don't even remember the question cuz you never bothered reading it? Not your area of interest?

"[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon

Nope, I dont think the lack of science interest has anything to do with science.

Just another whinger :sigh:

Originally Posted by JaneD

And you determined this via 1 post by sakuvrai.

Oh wait.
I was condescending to sakuvrai? I don't see any condescension there.
I do, however see HIS insults of Quantime. And his intimation that quantum physics is illogical which sorta hints that he at least had a ticket for the drivel train.
I had assumed that you were talking in general, as opposed to the response to someone who felt it was okay to log in as a new user and insult a long-time poster in his first post.

You have no idea what this persons history is; but it is easier to be condescending than helpful.

Likewise, sakuvrai has no idea of Quantime's history, but it's okay for him to throw insults?

Do your own google search. Your not stupid, just a prick. There is a difference.

Given that I have no idea what sakuvrai was alluding to the search I have already conducted (it gave nothing about male hyenas expressing more - or less - interest in science than female ones) leaves me at a loss. But, evidently, you know how his reference to male hyenas relates to Quantime's post, so that's okay.

And those are what; in a forum supposedly about science and those interested in it, asking a question and showing how they had tried to figure it out on their own, only asking for a simple Yes you got it right, no you didnt?

Well for one thing: people don't (unreasonably you may feel) always have YOU at the top of their priority list.

So list these numerous possibilities I apparently missed.

Apart from the aforementioned "where are you on other people's priority list", there's "the question is more involved than that, I'll wait until I've got the time to give a full explanation" (possibly followed by "oh sh!t the forum's gone down") and (as you said) "not my area of interest" ...

Lemme guess, you don't even remember the question cuz you never bothered reading it? Not your area of interest?

TBH I don't remember the question, but it was some time ago. On the other hand I did read it (since I consider that to be part of my duties as a mod: keeping an eye on what's posted as far as I can).

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Just another whinger :sigh:

a ph.d in chemistry != a ph.d in communication.

But a whinging twat = a whinging twat...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

And you determined this via 1 post by sakuvrai.

Oh wait.
I was condescending to sakuvrai? I don't see any condescension there.
I do, however see HIS insults of Quantime. And his intimation that quantum physics is illogical which sorta hints that he at least had a ticket for the drivel train.
I had assumed that you were talking in general, as opposed to the response to someone who felt it was okay to log in as a new user and insult a long-time poster in his first post.

Dw.... That "plenty of women" tend to be, historically, rare and a very small minority...
Dw... Your point here...? WHAT is it about male hyenas that supports your contention?

This poster is 27 years old. His/her point of reference ISNT historically. In his lifetime women have played an important role in science and were recognized for it.

Furthermore, it was a 1st post. A newbie.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

You have no idea what this persons history is; but it is easier to be condescending than helpful.

Likewise, sakuvrai has no idea of Quantime's history, but it's okay for him to throw insults?

What is your excuse? It never occurred to you to just say something about the one sentence that bothered you, as a moderator. Nope, you chose to attempt to humiliate this person via the mix up between male/female spotted hyena.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

Do your own google search. Your not stupid, just a prick. There is a difference.

Given that I have no idea what sakuvrai was alluding to the search I have already conducted (it gave nothing about male hyenas expressing more - or less - interest in science than female ones) leaves me at a loss. But, evidently, you know how his reference to male hyenas relates to Quantime's post, so that's okay.

Nope, I understood right away sakuvrai mixed up male/female hyena, which indicates sakuvrai had spent at least SOME time reading Something about hyenas and related this to [disproving] evolution.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

And those are what; in a forum supposedly about science and those interested in it, asking a question and showing how they had tried to figure it out on their own, only asking for a simple Yes you got it right, no you didnt?

Well for one thing: people don't (unreasonably you may feel) always have YOU at the top of their priority list.

No, they dont. But that example fit in well to the topic of the thread. I am not the only one this happens to, and I was genuinely interested in seeing if my lack of math skills was on for this attempt to understand 'the science' just a bit more. But you (in your condescending manner) prefers to twist this example into a self centered motive.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

So list these numerous possibilities I apparently missed.

Apart from the aforementioned "where are you on other people's priority list", there's "the question is more involved than that, I'll wait until I've got the time to give a full explanation" (possibly followed by "oh sh!t the forum's gone down") and (as you said) "not my area of interest" ...

The forum was up for months with this question hanging out there. I dont expect you to answer for all of the possibilities as to why, but the answer boils down to this; a lack of response to an honest question, with evidence the poster (me) was honestly attempting to get the math right, was ignored. And we can only guess, and its a fair assumption, there were other people reading this that wanted to know if I got the miles from earth right. it was something like 0.04LD.

An answer that may have helped some 12 year old kid learn something. Some kid who was intimdated by a 'science forum'.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

On the other hand I did read it (since I consider that to be part of my duties as a mod: keeping an eye on what's posted as far as I can).

scoff. I dont even think YOU believe this. Just an excuse to justify your behavior.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

But a whinging twat = a whinging twat...

When I was in college and dropping a math class, the lady at the counter said "lots of people drop his algebra class. He usually teaches Honors students. Cant be very hard to teach honors students..."

Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by JaneD

This poster is 27 years old. His/her point of reference ISNT historically. In his lifetime women have played an important role in science and were recognized for it.

And yet there was A) no hint that Quantime's post was confined to his lifetime and B) no hint in sakuvrai's post that he was talking about just his lifetime.
Regardless, women still tend to be a minority in science, especially recognised ones.

What is your excuse? It never occurred to you to just say something about the one sentence that bothered you, as a moderator.

If you'd bothered to read my posts it should be clear that there was more than one sentence that "bothered me".

Nope, you chose to attempt to humiliate this person via the mix up between male/female spotted hyena.

What?
I saw no "humiliation", nor do I understand what the "mix up between male/female spotted hyena" refers to.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Nope, I understood right away sakuvrai mixed up male/female hyena, which indicates sakuvrai had spent at least SOME time reading Something about hyenas and related this to [disproving] evolution.

Disproving evolution?
Obviously he (and, apparently, you) didn't read enough.
Edit: if that genuinely was his contention (i.e. that there's something about hyenas that "disproves evolution" - a new argument to me) then he's definitely a crank.

But you (in your condescending manner) prefers to twist this example into a self centered motive.

Wrong. It was - and remains - a genuine reason for there not having been a reply: your post (and by association you) simply didn't attract sufficient attention to be answered.

scoff. I dont even think YOU believe this. Just an excuse to justify your behavior.

I don't need to believe it: it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If you'd bothered to read my posts it should be clear that there was more than one sentence that "bothered me".

As a moderator? That is what my response said. ....bothered you, as a moderator...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

What?
I saw no "humiliation", nor do I understand what the "mix up between male/female spotted hyena" refers to.
Disproving evolution?
Obviously he (and, apparently, you) didn't read enough.

sure you do. Its evident in your tagline. you are proud of being an insufferable prick.

Quote from sakuvrai

As for your proof of evolutionary traits, look up male hyenas.

Again, I understood the reference as did you. Spotted hyena is the source of his reference. Not 'hyena' in general. And it wasnt male he was referencing, it was the female with pseudo-penis. He/she mixed it up is all and you took great pride in leaping upon that mistake to humiliate the poster, after all, you were standing up for Quantime... the justification for your behavior.

Too bad you didn't just give Quantime a chance to speak for himself... bah, I don't believe your excuse making. You enjoy attacking people you think are lesser. You are convinced you are better than x and something happens each day to reinforce this self-centered delusion.

It was - and remains - a genuine reason for there not having been a reply: your post (and by association you) simply didn't attract sufficient attention to be answered.

Yeah, because a lack of interest in science is directly related to the people who ARE interested in science. And I used you as an example because you are soooo consistent. Your only contribution to this thread before today:

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

And then they walk away, learning nothing good about the people who are interested in science.

Originally Posted by JaneD

As a moderator? That is what my response said. ....bothered you, as a moderator...

Again, there was more than one sentence that did so.

sure you do. Its evident in your tagline. you are proud of being an insufferable prick.

This isn't a response to what you quoted.

Quote from sakuvrai
As for your proof of evolutionary traits, look up male hyenas.
Again, I understood the reference as did you. Spotted hyena is the source of his reference. Not 'hyena' in general. And it wasnt male he was referencing, it was the female with pseudo-penis. He/she mixed it up is all and you took great pride in leaping upon that mistake to humiliate the poster

1) I had no idea what he was talking about AT ALL. (Like I said earlier "hyenas as a disproof of evolution" is a new argument to me).
2) There's nothing about hyenas (spotted or otherwise) that refutes evolution.

And then they walk away, learning nothing good about the people who are interested in science.

Well you don't appear to be that interested since you still haven't explained how hyenas (spotted, either sex) go about "disproving" evolution.

But keep up the insults...

When I was in college and dropping a math class, the lady at the counter said "lots of people drop his algebra class. He usually teaches Honors students. Cant be very hard to teach honors students..."

Sound familiar?

Nope, in my life I've taught all levels from 11 year olds with special needs up to PhD students... As it is clear it is not science that is boring but you I don't think I'll waste any more time on you.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

As a moderator? That is what my response said. ....bothered you, as a moderator...

Again, there was more than one sentence that did so.

Really? I thought you said it was the insult to Quantime:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Oh wait.
I was condescending to sakuvrai? I don't see any condescension there.
I do, however see HIS insults of Quantime. And his intimation that quantum physics is illogical which sorta hints that he at least had a ticket for the drivel train.
I had assumed that you were talking in general, as opposed to the response to someone who felt it was okay to log in as a new user and insult a long-time poster in his first post.

quantum physics is illogical to someone who doesnt understand it. I dont understand enough of it to even begin to explain it to someone, just like a majority of people. However, that is not an insult. There was ONE sentence that could be considered an insult, but could also be considered NORMAL posting behavior in this forum.

And as a moderator, you did not indicate anything sakuvrai said was a problem.

Originally Posted by JaneD

Quote from sakuvrai
As for your proof of evolutionary traits, look up male hyenas.

Again, I understood the reference as did you. Spotted hyena is the source of his reference. Not 'hyena' in general. And it wasnt male he was referencing, it was the female with pseudo-penis. He/she mixed it up is all and you took great pride in leaping upon that mistake to humiliate the poster

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

1) I had no idea what he was talking about AT ALL. (Like I said earlier "hyenas as a disproof of evolution" is a new argument to me).
2) There's nothing about hyenas (spotted or otherwise) that refutes evolution.

1. ... But providing the extra hormones takes a toll on the mother. The dose of androgen that she received from her own alpha mother damages her ovaries, making it difficult to conceive...

...The clitoris' birth canal is only an inch in diameter, and the tissue often tears as a 2-pound cub squeezes through the narrow opening. The rip can be fatal, as evidenced by the high death rate for first-time mothers...

https://www.livescience.com/699-pain...hyena-sex.html

This seems counter-intuitive to evolution and the passing along of genes.

2. No it does not refute evolution but it does cause one to wonder about the benefit to the species.

Originally Posted by JaneD

And then they walk away, learning nothing good about the people who are interested in science.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Well you don't appear to be that interested since you still haven't explained how hyenas (spotted, either sex) go about "disproving" evolution.

But keep up the insults...

I don't think spotted hyena reproduction disproves evolution. But I have spent enough time around people who don't understand evolution to be able to comprehend their point of view without thinking they are stupid. Something you appear to have given up on, if you even had the talent to begin with.

Insults? surely you jest. Your only contribution to this thread before this exchange:

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

Maybe should have been, Why bother with a legitimate answer when you can.....

But that is your modus operandi. And that is why people dont want to be bothered with 'the science'.

Now I have to go for the day, exploring moraines and outwashes, bird watching, and hopefully ending the day with a wolf howl.

Originally Posted by JaneD

Really? I thought you said it was the insult to Quantime:

If you bother to read what was written I didn't mention the insult until YOU stated complaining about me showing "condescension". I.e. your double standard: condescension from me is bad but insults from someone else is okay.

quantum physics is illogical to someone who doesnt understand it.

Then, surely, if someone doesn't understand something they should refrain from commenting?
The fact that it appears illogical when you don't understand it isn't a good reason to conclude that it is illogical.

And as a moderator, you did not indicate anything sakuvrai said was a problem.

Correct.
As a poster, however, I pointed out several flaws in his clams...

I don't think spotted hyena reproduction disproves evolution. But I have spent enough time around people who don't understand evolution to be able to comprehend their point of view without thinking they are stupid.

If someone doesn't understand evolution then why do they feel qualified to comment on what it shows or doesn't show?
If they think there's a problem then why not actually state what that "problem" is, rather than vaguely allude to it?

Insults? surely you jest. Your only contribution to this thread before this exchange:

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

1) Humour on my part.
2) Repeated use of the word "prick" on yours.

See what happens when you allow dead threads to be resurrected?

*Slap*.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If you bother to read what was written I didn't mention the insult until YOU stated complaining about me showing "condescension". I.e. your double standard: condescension from me is bad but insults from someone else is okay.

It is worse from you than a newbie poster. You are a 'moderator' and in a position of power. Not only that, this exchange wasnt between you and the newbie. I would have liked to see how Quantime would have handled the post. From what I have read of quantime vs dywyddyr posting style, it would have been more measured and insightful than your attempt.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

quantum physics is illogical to someone who doesnt understand it.

Then, surely, if someone doesn't understand something they should refrain from commenting?
The fact that it appears illogical when you don't understand it isn't a good reason to conclude that it is illogical.

Here is the specifics with your response:

S:but have you heard of Quantum Physics?? How is that a logical form of science?

D:How is it not?
D:It is science: ergo logic is involved.

How about you stick to twitter to communicate the complexity of science, as that seems to be the extent of your attention span. Took me about 5 minutes to come up with this, and I have exactly ~zero~ skills in QM:

Lots of people struggle to understand QM.

<!-- From Wiki -->

Quantum mechanics [physics] is the science of the very small. It explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.

By contrast, classical physics only explains matter and energy on a scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies such as the Moon. Classical physics is still used in much of modern science and technology. However, towards the end of the 19th century, scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. Coming to terms with these limitations led to two major revolutions in physics which created a shift in the original scientific paradigm: the theory of relativity and the development of quantum mechanics.

Many aspects of quantum mechanics are counterintuitive and can seem paradoxical, because they describe behavior quite different from that seen at larger length scales.

<!-- END wiki -->

A rough analogy: Classical physics is like general practice medicine (bigger picture of the body) and QM is like cellular biology (looking for the why/how between cells/functions).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introd...ntum_mechanics

and another article that explains some of the benefits QM has provided.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...antum-physics/

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

And as a moderator, you did not indicate anything sakuvrai said was a problem.

Correct.
As a poster, however, I pointed out several flaws in his clams...

Big deal. You didn't do ANYTHING to advance the [or his/her] understanding of science. YOU didnt make it interesting for someone who doesnt understand. This attitude towards those who do not understand is the problem. YOU have raised the bar for YOURSELF by being 1. a moderator and 2. interested in 'theScience'.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

I don't think spotted hyena reproduction disproves evolution. But I have spent enough time around people who don't understand evolution to be able to comprehend their point of view without thinking they are stupid.

If someone doesn't understand evolution then why do they feel qualified to comment on what it shows or doesn't show?
If they think there's a problem then why not actually state what that "problem" is, rather than vaguely allude to it?

Are you ignorant? Are you lacking empathy? Could it be they don't understand evolution because they have been surrounded by 'grumpy bastards' like yourself? Do you not understand the difference between someone with 10K posts and 1 post? Even if 9K of those posts are flippant 5th grade social level responses, you still have the POWER ADVANTAGE of 1K vs 1. And your pissy attitude towards those who don't understand creates defense mechanism walls that further REDUCE the potential for a greater understanding.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

Insults? surely you jest. Your only contribution to this thread before this exchange:

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

1) Humour on my part.
2) Repeated use of the word "prick" on yours.

1. So you do not take the FACT that people are not interested in joining the discussions on science forums in general as a problem to be addressed? Preferring to psychologically de-evolve back to a 5th grader level of exchange, when you could do oh so much better?
2. Would you be happier if I changed the word prick to 'grumpy Bastard' like your sig? Is there really a difference in the communication offered by prick vs bastard? Or are you just a crybaby trying to justify every action like 13 year old in the throes of puberty?

Side note:
The wolf howl was semi-successful. An advantage to the quest was the heavy rains the night before. Any clear tracks we found were less than 24 hours old. We found two packs with pups, but the first would not respond. From the 2nd pack, we only had one adult wolf respond, but were treated to the puppies exploding in a chorus of howls, whines and growls, no more than 300 feet from where we stood. And the gentleman who we were treating to this first experience with wild wolves, was able to capture the sounds on his phone (albeit low grade), for a life memory he will be able to share with others.

Deleted.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Deleted.

"

Good. It was another twitter quality post.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by JaneD

And you determined this via 1 post by sakuvrai.

Oh wait.
I was condescending to sakuvrai? I don't see any condescension there.

Perhaps because condescension is such a standard part of your modus operandi you are no longer aware of it. I wonder how many potentially good members have been turned off and away by your attitude. Still it seems to be supported, even admired by several regular members, so I should probably shut up while I await your scathing retort.

Originally Posted by Melancholy Tim

Perhaps because condescension is such a standard part of your modus operandi you are no longer aware of it.

Care to show where the condescension was? Or just make vague accusations (as per JaneD)?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

It's the culture: why bother with a gun when you can totally devastate someone with a well-timed sneer and a cutting quip?

Zinman said that you could take a punch. *snicker

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If you bother to read what was written I didn't mention the insult until YOU stated started complaining about me showing "condescension". I.e. your double standard: condescension from me is bad but insults from someone else is okay.

You might want to use both hands while brandishing your wit.

Give yourself some time. Control your emotions and then your little claymore won’t quiver with typos.

Good grief.

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan

See what happens when you allow dead threads to be resurrected?

You nailed it!