No, it was a joke. About how some people aren't quantifiers like us slashdotters have a natural tendency towards.
It's the fallout from the "English Major? More like Fry Cook." response to how the economic crisis was screwing recent graduates. People see that and go "I don't want to be like that in 4 years"
There are two kinds of people, those that try to quantify everything, and an abstract, unclear bunch of other groups.
Yeah, but the amount of death, destruction, and long term economic cost was lower. This is like saying that the sun doesn't dwarf the earth because a lot of people don't know that.
If only that achieved anything.(not sarcasm)
I'm not trying to make the argument that there are huge biological or innate differences in people. This is intended to communicate a problem(that the education system has since gotten wise to).
When we were taught to multiply in elementary school, the teacher handed out peices of paper with a big grid of all the multiples from 1x1 to 12x12, and we were told to memorize them(and spend all class several days repeatedly, by rote regurgitating rows in the table with quizzes built to emphasize this). I didn't bother. I started seeing patterns in the numbers. Basic stuff. 5*x=half of x with a 5 on the end if x was odd. You know the patterns with 9 too, I'm sure. As a result, I never had trouble with any multiplication, even as multi-digit things started coming. But students who learned by rote, they really got stuck, right at the 3 digit multiplication.
The same problem crops up in middle school pre-algebra. They teach students a series of steps to get from mx+b=n to get to x=(n-b)/m, rather than explaining the goal, and the tools in your toolbox to get there. It was "do these things". So students who spent their study time doing those same steps over and over were simply not prepared for true algebra, and solving quadratic equations, and had to learn from the beginning again.
It's a failure of the teaching process to show that math is an elegant set of interactions of ideas, rather than a process, where the student is just a slow computer. Your or I could replace someone who's only skill is following those simple steps over and over with a simple shell script.
New use for the term "chip real estate".
Think of the foreclosures!
Goddammit, you stole the thunder out of so many potentially good posts, fast-acting AC.
Hypothetically, if this were a truly endemic problem, what would be a valid solution from waaaaaaay up at the policy level?
You seem to be confused, a law is ALL those things. Not any of the above.
1. doesn't apply to theory, in that a theory can have a great deal of unrelated predictions that do not have definitional relationship. Horizontal gene transfer, and say... punctuated equilibrium cannot be combined into a single sensible statement about evolution, but they're both components of the theory.
2. I'd love to see you state everything about orbital dynamics in this way. Or dark matter(as a theory).
3. The one that MOST applies to theories as well.
4. Pretty clearly doesn't apply to any theory.
Nothing after "evolution is a fact" that you said is actually a true statement.
No, incorrect. It's a particular way of stating a specific, simple idea that's well supported.
1. Summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.
4. are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts, e.g. "the laws of motion require that..."
I'd have to quietly disagree and re-assert the various definitions I proposed earlier as all having some use.
Yeah, laws are part of theories. Any theories that lacked laws that comprise it would be in a pretty sorry state(string theory, I'm kinda-sorta looking at you).
Now, "proof" is a dangerous word in science. It's vague, it's literally impossible to do in a truly strict sense within the scientific method, and people are quick to take the term to mean something it doesn't.
It can mean anything from basic empirical evidence of a contentious event occurring(like proof that flies lay eggs) to a theoretical framework so soundly tested and retested as to lack detectible flaws(like the law of attraction).
The philosophical or mathematical proof takes premises, and using absolute rules arrives at inescapable and undeniable conclusions. In a sense, this is possible with science: Assume an object is in motion at a certain velocity v. Assume it's position is x. Assume no force is applied. After t time, inescapably it's new position is x+v*t, by deduction. But science allows that to be wrong just as soon as someone comes forward with an experiment where it doesn't happen(though our first guess would be that one of the assumptions is untrue, given just how reliable laws of motion are). You can never have a proof that is just true.
Quick to confusion:
The various definitions here are easy for people to conflate or mistake. Just look at people expecting "proof" of evolution. They simultaneously want empirical evidence of a contentious hypothesis, like you'd test in a lab, and applying the concept to an entire branch of study, which has an entirely different idea of "proof". It all adds up to a scenario where people don't get what it is that they don't get.
And they have very high expectations from pop culture: person in lab coat gets item, "aha we know what this is now that we've run 'tests'". They see science as much the same.