Reaper

If more Americans don't stand up, natural selection will bite them in the ass. One assurance I have is that this will not last forever.

At least he "references" his own work, by referencing himself:rolleyes:

Well, yes, but what I meant was that its gets a lot harder when a large part of the population isn't involved in any of that and allowing our current leaders to get away with anything they want. Not to say that I'm using that as an excuse, personally I try to stay well informed and avoid supporting the wrongdoers in anyway I can. In addition I'm taking part in an environmental club here at my college.

Congrats for explicitly revealing that you don't understand science. You can't prove anything until you have a mathematical basis for it. 1. Technically, a photon is a point like particle. I don't know where you got the idea that they were balls. In all the literature, even pop science, that I have read, there was never any mention of particles being like billiard balls. 2. A photon is both a particle and a wave. It's wavelength is defined by "Lambda" = h/p, where "p" is momentum and h is Plank's Constant. A wave function, however, is not necessarily geometry. 3. If a photon is really just "geometry", first what are the implications of this, and second you just contradicted yourself because your idea is very similar to, gasp! STRING THEORY. Those points were in response to your earlier statements right here: Thank you for showing me that you truly don't understand what you are talking about.

You nailed it. I just wish that every American was listening to you right now, because the few Americans who are active and well informed in politics are losing the fight here. I sometimes feel uneasy about this, because in a world where nobody cares and everyone is seemingly content in their ignorance, I sometimes have to ask myself what the hell can I possibly do?

Really? You are going to have to show me then. While memes and memetics and gene-centered evolution were popularized by Dawkins, most work in those fields were done by quite different people, at least my sources indicate this. Well, yeah, that's basically my point. A scientist in my opinion should be based on his work, not whether anybody likes him or not. Well, yes, he is successful in some aspects of his life, but again you are going to have to show me convincing proof that he does deserve the title of "great scientist". I've read a couple of his books, but not his peer reviewed scientific papers, for I have yet to find them. They might be more ground breaking than the average peer-reviewed paper, I have yet to evaluate, but I'm pretty sure that it is no Principia Mathematica. OMG I cannot believe I'm arguing about this. First of, I am aware that Galileo draws his ideas from Bruno. He also draws his ideas from Copernicus and to some extent Tycho as well. The only thing I am going to say, aside from his significant contributions to science and yes he did have some original ideas, was that he was the first to prove their ideas. In my opinion, Galileo is better, and if you don't agree, well, I don't care. I have facts to back my opinion up. That is certainly true. But that depends on what one would consider a "great scientist", which is the heart of the debate here. To my mind, a great scientist is someone who is either original, who made great strides in our understanding of a particular field or discipline, or, most importantly, a person who fundamentally changes the way we think about our universe. Galileo did that. Einstein did that. Feynman did that. Darwin did that. And so many other people that nobody ever hears about did that. Dawkins popularized many ideas in evolutionary biology, and he is certainly successful in promoting science and some sense of rational thinking among the general public, but to my mind, he fails in all three accounts for being a "great scientist". Alright, I'll concede to you on that point. He certainly does play a significant role in the evolution of altruism and other things contained in morality and ethics. But I never said that gene-centered evolution was not revolutionary, read the post more carefully. Yeah, no kidding. You know what, that gives me an idea, I'm actually going to email the Myth Busters to see if they are up to the task of showing how ridiculous those 26% who do believe in witches are..... As for creationist busters, well, you can never have too many of those, especially here in the U.S. where they are seriously considering teaching it along side evolution. Just the thought of it makes me cringe.

But, but, but, that's where I get my lucky lottery numbers . ------------------------------------------------------------------- *seriousness mode* Do you mind me by asking what the point of this thread is?

Be patient BenTheMan. We will knock him right out soon enough. Give him time to prepare.........

True. Here in America its a constant battle having to keep creationism out of the science classroom. And apparently 26% of American college students believe in witches.

Alright, that makes a lot more sense. As I said before, women tend to have more empathy than men. I notice this a lot in social groups and even in work groups, that they will tend to work better with people that they like then with people that they are either indifferent about or don't really like.

Maybe this is in response to our refusal to accept his so-called theories? Wait, actually I just goolged it and he posted this on a couple of other boards.

My mistake, I used it in reverse. Yeah, I know. But there are plenty of people like that. What I meant by overrated was his perceived importance as a scientist or his "great" contributions to scientific theory; they were not necessarily unique or revolutionary. As a scientist he really isn't all that great. But, to give him some slack, he did help to bring understanding of these ideas to the general public, which is good.

But then if the statement really is a lie, then the statement is true. I love this paradox. @Farsight: The only thing I'm going to say is "Inference to the Best Possible Solution". Belief in anything does not rely on the senses.

Well, that's debatable. Galileo is famous for both scientific contributions and squaring off against the Catholic Church. Bruno has his own merits though. You should probably read up on a little bit of history before you put him on such a high pedestal. What he did was to popularize the revolutionary work being done in biology with the books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" He is not the brain child of what we would call the "selfish gene", or the "meme" for that matter. The person who first seriously advocated gene-centered evolution was George C Williams, in his book "Adaptation and Natural Selection". The only thing the "Selfish Gene" does is expand on that earlier book. Before then, evidence for such came through with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 19th century who worked on hereditary. And in the early 20th century; J.B.S Haldane, Ronald Fischer, and Sewall Wright, who were the founders of population genetics. The person who was the brain child of what we now know as the meme was a German biologist by the name of Richard Wolfgang Semon back in 1904. The "meme" was coined by Dawkins. Other than that, I looked at Dawkins' biography and I don't see any Nobel Prizes for any scientific brilliances. I see some literary prizes, but not a whole lot of scientific ones. He is way overrated. And that I agree with. He is so popular because of his activity in publicity. The media was the one who gave him titles such as "great scientist", etc. In terms of scientific advancement, he helped to expand on the work of others and popularize the idea with the general public.

The problem with that statement now is that politeness is largely cultural. There are different expectations for both genders as to what is polite and what isn't, even in industrial cultures. The behaviors that characterize "politeness" in men are not necessarily the same for women. The same thing also applies to age. I know that some cultures in Southeast Asia forbid young people to look elders in the eye, for example.

I think CDarwin was talking about "Jackass", the movie and TV show.

I'm not so sure about that. I know quite a few women who are very outspoken and do not aim for politeness. And they do not by any means sidestep an issue unless it is more of a personal thing (Either with themselves or their close friends, families, etc), at least from my own observations. But there are differing ways of loving. Love toward a spouse will not be the same as love toward, say, a family member such as a parent or sibling. Love does not necessarily have to involve intimacy. For instance, if they were to hear "I will love you forever" from their brother, I'm pretty sure they would be happy to hear that, especially if they got along very well. I agree with this one. Women tend to have more empathy than men do. Also, there is a cultural component to this as well, as men are expected to "bottle up" their emotions. I don't agree. From what I remember, the term evolved initially as a way protect people, mainly minorities in the US, from discrimination. Nowadays I find that it is used as an excuse to impose censorship and fear, greatly enhanced by our now irresponsible media.

There are plenty of outspoken critics and scientists who speak out against creationism and other pseudosciences that we never hear about. In fact, there are plenty of scientists and mathematicians who do come up with ground breaking or revolutionary new theories that the general public never hears about. The only reason Richard Dawkins is so famous is because of his position, his books to some extent, and more importantly his influence in public affairs. Therefore he is more likely to get referenced more. It's the same with any other famous scientist today for that matter such as Hawking, Kaku, and Einstein. But fame does not necessarily make them the "greatest scientist(s) of all time" . IMO Newton, Galileo, Feynman, Curie, and Riemann were way better than those guys. I can list more, but I don't want to take this thread too off topic.

Yeah, and its a great example on how misinformed and stereotypical Americans are with differences between genders.

No, an electron is never at rest. They typically occupy the lowest possible energy state in an atomic orbital. Uncertainty principle doesn't allow it to have a definite speed or position. You can, however, deflect them or hit them, just as you do in a PV cell.

We also have to worry about witches too: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/24/pseudo Oh, ok, my misunderstanding. I was only acquainted with one definition. Visualizing that gets annoying though.

A mobius strip has one side and one edge. I don't know where he got the connection between speed and a mobius strip. I feel bad for his grandmother, she is probably being misinformed, or at the very least having to endure with this trash as we speak.

That's certainly true of some people, but that certainly isn't my view. Basically what we are seeing here is something similar to a dynasty if she is elected, where the power of presidency is concentrated in the hands of a couple of families (e.g. Bush, Clinton), or other special interest groups. The first Bush was the vice president of Ronald Reagan by the way. Plus, she was so quick to "forgive" Bill Clinton about the whole Monica Lewinsky incident, which makes me question her morals.

Talk about irony to me will you .