It isn't a mandatory payment. It is a donation that comes with a reward. It is like donating to NPR and getting a mug. If you want a mug from NPR, then you have to give them money (and not just any amount, but some amount exceeding a minimum). You could also choose not to give them any money, and not get a mug. CS Lewis might argue that such a donation (i.e. one motivated by such an incentive) is not really a donation, and somehow diminishes the act of giving, but that is a rather extreme point of view.

Oi! I hadn't even thought about that. That said, the situation is still something like "Where the hell did the user drag-and-drop?" vs "Where the hell did the installer put the damn thing, and how many levels deep is it?" And most Mac apps come in a .dmg that contains (1) the app to be drag-and-dropped, and (2) an alias to the Applications/ directory. Still, your point is well-taken.

Two caveats: (1) I use Mac OS X 10.6, (2) I have not used Windows more than a handful of times since XP. That said, I think that you are largely correct, but that there are some mitigating factors in favor of the "Mac way."

First and foremost, Mac programs tend to come in application bundles. In principal, every Mac program is a single object from the point of view of the average user. Specifically, it is an object with a .app suffix (and even the suffix can be suppressed). This means that the average user's Application/ directory is basically flat: it is a folder containing every program that the user might want to use, with no subfolders to navigate. Contrast to Windows, where you might have to navigate the directory structure several levels deep to get what you want. In short, rarely used programs are (normally) pretty easily accessible.

Additionally, it is fairly easy to create an "Application Launcher" on the dock (and I believe that it is done by default): simply drag the Applications folder to the right (or lower) end of the dock. Finally, if you don't like the flat directory structure, there is nothing preventing the user from creating their own hierarchy.

In short, the Mac app launching process is not perfect, but the need for a dedicated app launcher is somewhat mitigated by a saner directory structure from the start, and there are some simple modifications that can be made to further ease the process.

Coraline.

I really can't stand 3D in general, but it was very well done in Coraline, and I continue to hold that film up as an exemplar of how 3D can be used effectively to create an immersive film.

By many, they are considered the same species. That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

I disagree with your statement that science is the overall method, exclusive of the ideas it generates. Science is both a method and a body of knowledge. At least, that is the definition that I had in mind in my original reply, and is clearly the understanding had by Coolhand2120 in his first comment. Perhaps the issue here is not one of philosophy, but one of ambiguous language.

I think to scientists, science is just that thing we do.

I like that. Mind if I steal it?

Yes, and? Are you arguing that plate tectonics was not science until a mechanism was discovered? If so, when did the theory of gravity become science? Or is it yet science, as, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus about the mechanism by which gravity operates?

Basically, you make my point for me. Plate tectonics was not accepted before a mechanism was discovered. Experts in geology did not believe the hypothesis because they didn't know about the semi-liquid interior of the Earth. Hence something that we now regard as scientific fact was excluded from the body of knowledge that we might call science on the basis of belief, in the fact of good observations and testable hypotheses (the very elements that most scientists would argue are essential to good science). Science changes all the time on the basis of belief.

Define "science." You say that science is "more than the successes and failings of individual scientists," but that does not mean that it does not include these successes and failures.

The original poster claimed that science is never changed by belief. Coolhand2120 responded by noting what scientists believe is central to science, hence science is always being changed by what people believe. Kenja argued that belief has no place in science, because science is built on observation and experiment. My response is that science includes more than just observation and experiment, but also how those observations and experiments are interpreted, which is a matter of belief. You say

Your argument is really a call to make the "ideal science" more of a reality, not bemoaning the fact that it isn't and therefore, we as individuals are fee to ignore the problem out of convenience.

First, this doesn't address the original poster in the slightest. However, that said, I made no such argument, and no such dichotomy exists. The fact that science (both method and knowledge) is influenced by human belief is relevant to science. This does not mean that we should toss out the baby with the bathwater, throw up our hands, and do whatever we like, but it does mean that when we make decisions, we are relying on scientific belief (i.e. scientific fact), rather than some notion of objective fact. The strength of the consensus should influence the decisions we make on the basis of that consensus.

For it to be science, it has to be based on observable evidence and not belief.

That is the ideal. In reality, scientists are human, are prone to error, and often become attached to bad ideas. For instance, it took decades for plate tectonics to become accepted scientific theory, even among experts, even in the face of solid predictions and observations.

I assume that the grandparent poster was using the term "paradigm shift" in the way that Thomas Kuhn used it in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. While there are many valid critiques of his work, Kuhn was a sociologist, and sought to describe the way that science is actually done, rather than how scientists feel it should be done---that is, the book should be read more as an ethnography of scientists than a manual for doing science. In that context, Kuhn's thesis is that the community of scientists gloms onto a particular paradigm or way of seeing the world. Once such a paradigm becomes entrenched, it is difficult to replace it, and an "old guard" may actively suppress new paradigms through selective publication. Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).

In this way, the ideal of science (i.e. science based on observation and experimentation) is ultimately born out, but the route is not as direct as many scientists might claim it to be.

I did not mean to say that one simply needs to master the material in order to teach it. One must have a passion for teaching, and the high level of skill required to teach. However, that simply is not enough: one must also be a master of the material that is being taught. In fact, you make my point for me:

The problem is that most teachers do not know anything about how the mind works. I have met scores of ESL/EFL teachers. I can count the number who had ever heard anything about language acquisition theory on one hand.

I would argue that knowledge of language acquisition theory is a huge part of the linguistic mastery required to teach a language. One shouldn't be trying to teach a language until one knows some theory about how languages work, part of which is understanding language acquisition. This represents a high level of specific knowledge about languages, and not a more general ability to teach. For instance, as a math teacher, I don't need to be a linguist, or have a deep knowledge of language acquisition (or, going the other way, understanding the cognitive basis of numbers is important for me to know, but not for you, a language teacher, to know). Moreover, I think that you would agree that one cannot really teach a language that one does not speak, read, or write. Three or four years of high school Russian does not qualify one to teach Russian.

On the other hand, a native Russian speaker is not qualified to teach Russian by default. As you say, he or she would also need extensive knowledge about developmental and cognitive psychology (which, as you say, is lacking in most teachers), as well as some training in classroom management, and other teaching skills.

Finally, you say

Standing up in front of the students and cajoling them through the textbook is *not* "knowing how to teach".

If you have not mastered the material that you are teaching---if you don't have a deep understanding of the knowledge that you are trying to convey---then how are you doing anything but cajoling your students through the textbook?

When you note that there are surprisingly few teachers who are any good, I agree. But this is a result of both a lack of teaching skills and a lack of subject area mastery. One needs both sets of skills in order to teach. Being a great teacher is important, but you could be the greatest teacher in the world and, if you don't know that you are trying to teach, you are sunk.

As others have pointed, one only needs a bachelor's degree to teach at the primary or secondary level (elementary, middle, and high school levels). What has not been pointed out is that the degree need not even be in the field taught. In the year that I got my secondary education credential, there were five or six other people in the math education program. Of those, I was the only one to earn a degree in mathematics---the others earned degrees in math education. They were not required to take any mathematics beyond two semesters of calculus.

This may be particular to Nevada, though I sincerely doubt it. There is a notion among people who train teachers that it is sufficient to know how to teach and have a passion for teaching. The assumption is that if you know how to teach, then you don't really have to have mastery over the material that you are teaching. You need to know it only well enough to follow lesson plans that are available on the internet.

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Start

As much as I would like to see the Bush tax cuts sunset, it wouldn't do much for schools. Most school funding comes from local property and sales taxes. What money does come from the feds is now largely tied to NCLB, which is just bad news for everyone.