needimprovement

The topic is not whether science works but what are its limitations - one of which is its inability to explain itself (which is hardly surprising!)

Yes - We should not be blinded by the results of an IQ test. For competence we need: abilities, skills and knowledge. Abilities come from recruiting or promoting the right people. Skills and knowledge come from effective learning. Training people with the wrong abilities is a waste of money. IQ is part of the abilities but incomplete. Psychometric testing determines how the person is wired and their natural abilities (aka gifts or talents).

Good point JohnB, I never really looked at it that way , but doesn't it also keep them from looking for the truths that science cant predict when science is everything to them?

Interesting DJBruce, but I have to disagree. It seems to me that most scientist are very rigid in their belief in the allmight scientism to be able to prove everything around them, but once you show them a miracle like the one that occurred at Fatima most either go blank or say that isn't enough to convince them. that isnt being honest or inquisitive. That is being stuck in a narrow box where they put roadblocks against belieing that are unreasonable. In short they almost become the ultimate conspiracy theorists.

Amazing!! I'd be very pleased if you could give me a specific journal or book reference that shows how "ethology" (whatever that might be) or psychology or neurology can show that the Symphony Fantastique is better than the Tocatta and Fugue in D minor or rap. Sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying here. What is a "magic q ball"? I assume that you know about Eugene Wigner and what he did in Science and Mathematics. Please confirm. I'm not sure how not knowing about the reproduction of any species relates to my comment. I assume that you know anything about quantum mechanics and its mysteries--quantum non-locality for example. Please confirm.

If what you state is true it is difficult to understand how God could be aware of Himself before He created anything! I grant that the Supreme Being is a special case but your argument suggests that we need a body to be aware of ourselves - unless we can communicate with others without words or physical gestures... Well said. Do I feel like I need proof that I exist? Not really- if I assume correctly that I exist, then I love my life appropriately. If I assume falsely that I exist, what do I loose? Is my nonexistence any less meaningful?

Is it evolution that drives to extinction, or unfitness?

My wife has the answer for everything and she is right all the time.

I was just referring to my personal experience (actually combined aptitude and intelligence) so I can’t show you any kind of peer-reviewed empirical data. Hence, it then does not prove that IQ tests are not useful. In the Philippines IQ tests are being used in schools and workplaces to determine eligibility and placement for many years now. Maybe they also have some weakness and some IQ tests are bogus.

Saint Thomas Aquinas - Summae, De Ente et Essentia, Commentaries on Aristotle Blessed Duns Scotus - Philosophical Writings Aristotle - Metaphysics, Politics, Nicomachean Ethics, Organon Plato - Timaeus, Republic, Laws Seneca - On the Brevity of Life Saint Augustine - Confessions Dostoevsky - Brothers Karamazov Jacques Maritain - Natural Law Etienne Gilson - Aristotle to Darwin and Back, Christian Philosophy series Mortimer J. Adler - How to Read a Book Frederick Copleston - Aquinas Alasdair Macintyre - After Virtue

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true? I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the "unproven truths" (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn't proven (rationally) does not mean it isn't true. I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can't faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

In 1996, Nature found 60.7% of scientists expressing disbelief or doubt. 72.2% of the "greater" scientists do no believe in God. About 20.8% are agnostic. The article in the link below calls the "greater" scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences (NAS). http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Let me start with my own response: 1) Values--what is good, what is beautiful. Science will never be able to tell us that the Brandenburg Concerto #3 is better than the Symphony Fantastique, or to go to the ridiculuous, dirty rap songs; 2) Science can not answer why questions, particularly why science works, or in the words of Eugene Wigner, explain "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences"; 3) There are other mysteries within the scientific project--to mention just one, quantum non-locality, which the French physicist/philosopher, Bernard D'Espagnat, is a manifestation of the veiled face of reality; 4) science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the mysteries of the Christian faith-the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Real Presence. What are your thoughts?

Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) said, "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

Hi everyone, This one is not very difficult, but I like it (I'm a Filipino, not a Russian ) Anyway, this is one of the (in)famous Microsoft's interview brain teasers that I think is actually quite good for an interview (assuming that the interviewee is expected to know the basics of logic and probability theory): Interviewer suggest to play imaginary Russian Roulette with you. Interviewer takes an imaginary revolver gun with 6 empty chambers, and loads 2 adjacent chambers with bullets. Interviewer has the first turn: rolls the cylinder, puts it to his head, and pulls the trigger... no shot. The lucky interviewer passes the gun to you and gives you two options before you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger: a.) to roll the cylinder again or b.) not to roll the cylinder Which option would you choose? Bonus questions: Which option would you choose if 2 bullets were placed into non-adjacent chambers? Which option would you choose if it was a classic Russian Roulette - that is, if only one chamber was loaded?

The concept may not be controversial, but my question may be. Who do you consider the - BEST - and the - WORST - example of Scientist that you are aware of? The answer may be from personal experience, scientific achievements/history, or today's headlines. That does not matter. Give a bit of background (e.g., personal and circumstance, or scientific achievements/historical) and why this is an example of the best Scientist or the opposite. If you had to follow that individual, would you? Or not? and why? Let us discuss, but everyone has a right to input, so let's make sure we respect that right and be nice.

Brad stared through the dirty soot-smeared window on the 22nd floor of the office tower. Overcome with depression he slid the window open and jumped through it. It was a sheer drop outside the building to the ground. Miraculously after he landed he was completely unhurt. Since there was nothing to cushion his fall or slow his descent, how could he have survived the fall?

Thank you for the excellent responses so far. I felt my next question needed its own thread. So I started one HERE.

Thank you. So technically, the meter is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second, defined at the 17th CGPM in 1983. So, my next question will likely be what is a second?

I challenge this assertion: Source: http://bosanchez.ph/are-negative-emotions-causing-you-to-get-sick/ While it is well known that one's emotional state has a profound effect on health, I am skeptical that 85% of all disease is caused by negative emotional states. I will appreciate if somebody can provide me with adequate, peer-reviewed proof to convince me that the vast majority of diseases are psychosomatic in origin. I do not challenge the existence of psychosomatic illnesses - their existence is well documented. While I'm not a medical doctor and I have no counter proof, my experience and reason tell me that this assertion is false. Otherwise "psychological" , "emotional" one and the same. I've read the following article, but did not see where the authors cited that most diseases are rooted in the emotions. At the beginning of the article, the authors stated that "somataform" disorders are "common," but do not say how common. "Common" could be 20% of disorders, or 90% of disorders. http://www.uwo.ca/fammed/ian/somatizationmain.htm I think the important parts of this article is that Western science needs to integrate the psychological aspects of care with the physical aspects of care. In other words, I don't think the authors believe that emotions are the cause of most diseases, but rather the most effective care integrates caring for biological as well as psychological aspects of patient care. If somebody can find adequate proof, then I will accept the premise.

IQ test are a very accurate predictor - of how well you do on IQ tests! Otherwise, not very useful.

So time has a constant velocity (minimum), like the speed of light , so there is a minimum 'speed of time'.

There’s such a close connection between psychology and emotion that the difference is hard to ascertain. I'm not sure, but I feel like there's a difference. Any ideas?

That was very quick! DJBruce is right - Place the first alphabet of each word as the last and you get Palindromes. Banana = anana B Dresser = resser D Grammar = rammar G Potato = otato P Revive = evive R Uneven = neven U Assess = ssess A

See if you can figure out what these words have in common. 1 Banana 2 Dresser 3 Grammar 4 Potato 5 Revive 6 Uneven 7 Assess Answer will be provided later.