For Prose

At least this I can wholeheartedly agree with over and over again.

That's a real stretch. When you are sick and pray to god, he actually asks me for medical advice. Don't believe me? Just ask me.

Mindlessness indeed. I am certainly not implying a revolution in teaching style (although I may secretly desire it). I only wish for the enthusiasm for the subjects taught increase to a point where you feel like your teacher is just as interested in the same stuff as you and not just at it for the paycheck.

Great article, thanks for sharing Bignose. Favorite line: “If you put them under enough stress, perfectly rational people will panic and start believing in science.” Don't wanna start them down that slippery slope eh?

Very good point studiot, and I concur and most certainly acknowledge swans on tea. Maybe what I really am getting at is that we should be teaching students what we know but always and most certainly reward thinking that might not fit into exactly what we believe. And by relinquishing along the way that there might be other ideas that better explain what we already think, then taking the small fraction of time to at least acknowledge it exists might be stimulating. I have only had one teacher throughout my 20 years in education that actually pushed us to ask questions. In fact, you could even relate asking questions (aside from questions that are only about the material itself) nowadays in school to the way asking questions in church about inconsistencies is frowned upon. An extreme comparison, I know. Maybe along the way, while teaching what we do know, or think we know, we should place a little more emphasis on what we do not know. I am certainly not implying that we spend lectures on what we fail to understand, but briefly touch on it, just as alternative theories should be. I guess a good question might be, where do you draw the line on what alternative theories or idea are briefly mentioned? It might not be a good idea to have students exposed to such radical ideas as the earth is a living reproducing organism. I can come up with some ideas on how you would prevent this or decide what additional ideas are taught, but I would rather hear your thoughts on the subject...

Of course I am capable. This thread would not exist if I weren't. The only reason I know half of the other possibilities is due to my own extensive research. And how can you actually make and believe the argument that teachers would get nothing done if they had to briefly mention other ideas that happen to conflict with what they are teaching? It literally takes seconds. "New research heavily suggests this may not be a static as long believed." Bam! Just like that, I now know there are other alternatives to what I am learning and, if I am interested, I can pursue the alternatives further.

I apologize. I have only been referring to colleges and universities, and should have stated so in the first post.

I think this may be the real underlying issue. But it diminishes my learning. If only they would give proficiency tests to the teachers in a roundabout way of making sure they stay current on the new things in the field they are teaching...

Absolutely. Our teacher made no point to mention that mitochondria are now believed to be more of an interconnected network, rather than discrete individual entities as long believed. I don't like finding out alternative information from my own researching, which means that I can miss things. While I agree that it makes sense to teach theories in schools (I made no argument against), I do take issue on teachers not making points while teaching about the possible alternatives. That ensures that as I go along in my studies and research, I can make sure that I know there are possible factors accounting for my results that need to be examined more closely. Now you might say, if I am doing research, I should know those possible alternatives inside and out. And I would agree. But what if it is the possible alternatives that inspires someone to do research in that particular field because of the enticement of the unknown.

And your thoughts on the many things taught that are currently under review due to research being taught as facts? I get upset when I learn that something I have been told in school is presented as fact but by and large may be under scrutiny by the scientific community.

Many years ago, I got myself in way over my head by taking an upper level philosophy course called "Philosophy of Science". I really enjoyed the course, but feel that I missed out by not taking the class later in my college career. We focused on paradigm shifts within the field of science. For those of you not familiar with a paradigm shift, think the shift in the idea of the sun revolving around the earth to what we know understand. At one point and time, it was absurd to believe the things which we now understand. Herein lies my question; how can we, as scientists and philosophers, make sure that we do not fall victim to the same traps that others before us have? What sorts of things do you do to try and prevent yourself from limitations due to not questioning things "taught" as true. As I progress with my education, I always ask myself what sorts of things am I being taught that is wrong? And once we know it is wrong or believe that it could be wrong, should we continue to teach convention until it is fully understood, or do we stop teaching the wrong concept and leave out the information altogether? What do you think SFN?

How can that be, when it is actually I who mow Jesus' lawn? Every week is how it likes it

Had I not previously read something about it, I would have agreed. Actually, scratch that. Just read where you state that it is a possibility but not likely. Of course, if you had a car that did not rely on electrical systems for getaway... The plot thickens

Phi, I believe that both are required, in somewhat different proportions. Most time should be spent with like-minded individuals, while a small portion should be designated to interacting with those who are not like-minded. If all your time is spent interacting with people who think differently than you, there is a tendency to consume that state of thinking for yourself, even if not completely. I fell victim to this in my younger years. Hanging around people who were not like me in many different ways, led to me doing and thinking in ways that I had never done so before, and not in a good way. I found myself caring about things I would have never normally shown any interest in, and abandoning the true values I have always held dear, such as logic, science, and the pursuit of connectedness with things around me. But now that I am back to my roots, I have also seen what happens when you spend too much time around those like-minded individuals for too long. I find myself not questioning everything, including proven science (which I think everyone should question, as many scientific paradigm shifts have been made through questioning), as I normally would, as MonDie hit on with groupthink. I find that if I try to evenly balance my time with people who are nothing like me in short bouts, with people who are very like-minded, it allows me to disconnect when I need to, and sometimes question things that I feel my like-minded brethren may tend to overlook or not question. Sometimes, when people say some ridiculous things, it actually cause me to think about something in a different way, even if it is not the way they are describing it, which is part of the reason I even spend any time at all browsing the Speculations or Religion Forums in this community. I rarely find anything that I agree with, but it still allows me to look at why I don't agree and maybe see some kind of flaws in my own thinking.

Oh dear, now I fully realize what I have gotten myself into...

Actually, if you notice that blue link I have provided where it says organism, I think you will find that I managed to actually provide you with the definition... And yes, there is no doubt in my mind.

If you mean as per the definition "a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being". Then, just maybe, does it fit one of many definitions given for organism. But even then, I don't think it fits organism in the biological use of the term.

Please explain further, unless your immediate remark of "take that!" means you have no intention of doing so. This makes absolutely no sense. No context into what you are referring to. I know it was in regards to my response but other than that...

From what you have said thus far, it is very possible that it is your "opinion" that the earth is indeed, blowing mountains into space. Now that you have explicitly stated that you do not believe this, it is clear. I am curious to what originally made you believe in such lunacy as the earth being a living thing by our definitions? A peer, website, or maybe even something you just happened to imagine? These are just two of the fatal fallacies I advised you to do a little researching into.

I removed nothing from the quote that would make one believe that it wasn't to be taken seriously Lance. You do see how a comment made like that sways someone to think you truly believe this? Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it standard to read an entire (or most of) thread before commenting? Posts from way earlier in the thread are to be taken just as serious as the rest of the progressing discussion.

You imply it my friend.

Then I can assume that Gly-4, Gly-5, and Gly-8 also do not require energy?

This raises an excellent question. Perhaps, if ol' Nessie or large foot were credited with the creation of everything past, present, and future, people might actually be more accepting. Of course, I was not aware that god Visions were accepted. From my past experience as a child attending many different churches, if someone were to have come forward and speak about either visions of god, people would be a bit skeptical, with the exception of it coming from a religious "authority". Hearing messages from prayer was more accepted but even then, many didn't claim this bit and I am from the deep south where there are wayyyyy more churches than schools. You can literally not travel more than a few miles without coming across some form of church. I have also found myself wondering why certain individuals, even some of the most logical and intellectual people I know, subscribe to ghosts or even the possibility.

Hey guys, I am curious about the step of glucose-6-phosphate (herein g6p) to fructose-6-phospahate (herein f6p). I know that from glucose to g6p, it requires a molecule of ATP, along with hexokinase. And I also know that phosphoglucoisomerase is the enzyme from g6p to f6p, but does this require an input of energy? And if it doesn't, can I assume that all the other steps through the glycolytic pathway that do not explicitly state the use of an energy intermediate is going to not require energy? Michael