It's not just to fuck with darkies and commies any more.
Also, Olympus E-1 pro digital camera (just 5 megapixels, but weather sealed and with 160,000 shutter actuations and counting).
Oh, and printing stuff.
Yep. There's no inherent conflict, and the conflicts that did take place, are usually portrayed in a way that would make historians cry.
For example -
Galileo was opposed by other scientists (if we can use the term), who basically took Aristotle to be an indisputable authority. Galileo's model of the world required there to be only one tide a day, and when he measured two tides a day, he forged the data so that there'd only be one. It was what Einstein called his "greatest mistake" - forging data to match a mathematical model, instead of matching a model to the data.
But he wasn't prohibited from researching or teaching his model at first. The result of his first trial was simply to rule that he couldn't hold it out as indisputable fact, since the evidence was in appearance and reality against his model.
It was only when he deliberately flaunted that ruling and called the Pope an idiot that he really got into trouble. Good luck saying that to any ruler in Europe at the time - it had nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with Galileo being an asshole to a (former) friend of his who happened to also be the temporal authority in the area he was in.
But when this gets spun by Conflict Thesisers to be "The Church hates science! They threw him in jail and tortured him because he disagreed with the Bible!" (He wasn't thrown in jail, or tortured, incidentally.)
>Finally most religions require one to accept truths on faith, that is without objective reproducible proof. That's the anti-thesis of the scientific method.
That's not a proper definition of faith, which means trust, but in any event, no it is not the antithesis of the scientific method. The opposite of science is pseudoscience, or believing in things despite empirical evidence to the contrary (which no mainstream Christian church I'm aware of does). Science is simply one method of finding truth. (For a definition of truth that doesn't actually mean truth.) It does not have a monopoly on it. To claim such is the case would make you guilty of the fallacy of Scientism.
Does the sun go around the earth or does the earth go around the sun?
I'm guessing you're Canadian by your name.
The fact that neither you nor the authors of the study know that in a relativistic framework this question is meaningless, makes their conclusion not just meaningless but paradoxical.
I strongly suspect the science museum "scientist" who wrote the study never got past Newtonian physics.
It's like giving all the OECD a math test, and then only marking right the students who define Pi to be exactly 3. And then announcing that fundamentalist Christians "Rank #1 in mathematical literacy!"
Bwahaha you slackjawed imbecile, you realise you've just described the actual outcomes of everything marxist?
Bwa-ha-ha you slack-jawed imbecile, you realize there are more possible ways to structure an economy than capitalist so-called "free markets", and Marxism-degraded-into-Stalinism-or-Maoism, right?
On maybe, like most Americans brought up on a century of Red Scares, you don't.
>Is when he misrepresented a stastic favorable to the authors point by not providing context, then following it with a fully qualified negative statistic in context.
I didn't misrepresent any statistic. 58% of people not being able to understand science out of a fucking newspaper (which is written for 5th graders) does not make Canada a, quote, "Nation of Science Geeks".
The fact that this terrible number is not more terrible than other countries still doesn't let you claim it's a country of geeks when the stats show the majority of the population are scientifically illiterate.
The fact that the authors of the study don't even understand relativity - when they ask the question of which object rotates around the other as if there was a right answer - in conjunction with a highly biased study with terrible methodology tells us all we need to know about them.
Actually, I do, which is why I find the screenshot questionable - the only way to get such as screen in that exact format would be to deliberately try and hide your tracks (logging out, clearing the search bar before taking the screenshot, etc). Deliberation implies intent.
Or someone that opened the profile of the person sending the tweets (no search needed) who opened a "private window" to see it without revealing their personal info. Yes, it takes "forethought" but took me about 2 seconds to do (two clicks, once you are looking at an "offending" tweet).
>>For the purposes of the study, science-literate is a new term which means tops in those criteria studied.
Actually I work in education. Scientific literacy is a concept that has been around for a long time, and is generally defined to mean scientific concepts that everyone should understand.
>For the matter of however it correlates to whatever way you define literacy is not the author's problem. They collected the data and Canada is at the top in the data they collected. Science-literacy is not laid out, well defined term so you go
It is, actually.
So now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
The report says nothing of the kind. Did you read it? GMOs and nuclear power are mentioned as divisive issues, but there is no data on the ranking of people against them.
Did you read the PDF? They're ranked #1.
but they have far less influence than you might think despite the vast amounts of noise (and I do mean "noise" in the information theoretic sense) they generate.
It's not what *I* think. It's their data. I'm just criticizing the report for being sloppy and biased.
And yes, you are the first person I've seen who asserted that speech is force.