24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::: Yes, your wording is 100% correct. And if you said that "Some claim that the world is flat" you would also be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that we should put such statements in articles.
::: Yes, your wording is 100% correct. And if you said that "Some claim that the world is flat" you would also be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that we should put such statements in articles.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::I haven't forgotten about this or left it [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parasite] , I'll be back later when I don't have so many essays to write --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)
== Scope of scientific study ==
Science covers more than the physical and natural world. Psychology is also a science, and the [[human mind]] has not been shown to be a purely physical or natural phenomenon. Created by God, the human mind is more likely to be an aspect of our eternal [[soul]] than merely a function of the [[brain]].
We must '''not''' let liberal contributors (probably spillovers from Wikipedia) dictate their liberal agenda here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:14, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
==Aspects of science==
I've been thinking this over a lot, and I'd like our article to say:
#Science is a set of descriptions of our world
#Science is a way of studying the world and thinking about it to create these descriptions
#Science is the people and institutions involved in all of this
Science books for children largely consist of the first aspect. Only a very tiny minority of academics gets involved in the second aspect, and the news media largely ignores it. We do hear about prominent leaders (in the third aspect), especially if they make a breakthrough or get an award or if they fall from grace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)
:Ed, your distinctions are great, but my own view is that politics transcends all categories and all disciplines. Every profession is affected by political bias, so why not scientists also? George Orwell was right, I feel, when he said "all issues are political." It's only recently that the public has woken up to the political distortions in science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)
== Can this be looked at seriously? ==
This article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. The fact that in the first paragraph it minimizes women's contribution to science shows this was written by someone who took a few mandatory science classes in high school but never grasped it importance. Reading over the whole thing I cannot figure out if the author is saying science is trying to minimize Christianity or it is the child of Christianity. Science basis itself on hypotheses, experimentation and evaluation of results.
:Do this: Create a [[User:NorthernSights/Science article proposal]], re-write the article as you think it should be, and offer it as a proposed change. It's possible that some or all of what you write could be included in the current article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:11, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
== Women's influence on science ==
I would like to propose a small change to the second sentence to reflect the growing role of women in the scientific community. Instead of "''Second, there are the men (and a few rare women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''", how about: "''Second, there are the men and women of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''
While I am not a politically correctness nut, I do believe everyone is equal, and I think the current sentence portrays most women as not being capable of furthering science. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this matter instead of just changing the article without asking. --[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]
: I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)
::On the other hand, don't go overboard and insinuate the idea that women have been contributing as much to science as men. Even if we'd like to start offering them [[equal opportunity]], the fact is that their contributions have been minuscule. The great exception is [[Madame Curie]], who justly gets a unit of radiation named after her (the [[curie]]), plus one radioactive element ([[curium]]).
::I don't see anything in that sentence or any other here, implying that women are less capable. The question is whether their significantly lower work output is due lack of opportunity (i.e., sex discrimination) or lack of motivation (wouldn't most women rather stay home and raise their kids?).
::It's difficult to discuss these matters, because the last time a prominent academic tried to do so, he was set up for a fall (see [[Lawrence Summers]]). If you want to help write honestly about women's influence on science, I'm happy to help. But please don't waste my time by trying to inject feminist propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:::[http://www.factmonster.com/spot/whmbios2.html These] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/women-in-science-pioneers-blaze-path-for-others-1924794.html links] may be of interest. The only one I had heard of, aside from Curie, was [[Rosalind Franklin]], who featured prominently in ''[[The Double Helix]]''. [[User:Tisane|Tisane]] 17:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
::I'm all in favor of finding out more about the obscure, the overlooked, and the downtrodden. For example, in classical music, if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. And in literature, I finally discovered [[Jane Austen]] (women have made further inroads in fiction writing than in music, it seems).
::There's even a woman whose work is prominent in the [[global warming]] field. She's a Harvard astrophysicist. [http://www.uwo.ca/sci/publications/images/Baliunas.jpg]
::But it's '''because''' their contributions are so rare that one is interested; the last thing I'd want to do is pretend that their contributions have been commensurate. That would sweep under the rug any actual differences due to inclination or opportunity. Let's keep it real, baby. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:::<i>if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music.</i> As for the romantics, I'd recommend Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (Hensel), and Amy Beach. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:51, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
:::Hi team. It's true that women, for whatever reason, have historically made less contribution to physics than have men. Exactly how much less is difficult to pinpoint, as women were historically not allowed to present science except through men and so forth; I'm sure you're all familiar with this unfortunate bit of history. Anyways, if you're looking for prominent pre-feminism female scientists, check out Emily Noether, who is responsible for my favourite theorem in physics. Noether's theorem (as it is called) proves that all symmetries in physics have an associated conservation law. For example, time symmetry implies conservation of energy; in other words, the fact that a ball will fall exactly the same way whether dropped now or next Thursday implies that energy is conserved. I think this is a deep insight. Noether's theorem generalizes to quantum mechanics and has been a key tool in the advance of high energy theory. --[[User:JStone|JStone]] 12:19, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, how about this revision: "''Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.''".
I think this portrays the increased influence women have had, without sounding all feminazish.--[[User:Jaddriscoll|Jaddriscoll]]
:Nice compromise. Thanks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:03, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
==Article assumes huge bias that are irrelevant to content==
They state that "Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, believed in God" despite the fact that
:this has nothing to do with science as
::science is a process, not people
::Christianity is mundane enough to irrelevant regardless
It says "and many were creationists although the ideas of evolutionism or Darwinism were not yet popular", despite the fact that evolution wasn't formally theorized until the time they were popular.
I'd also like to point out, since Conservatives apparently love quotemining and playing the game of picking names:
'''DARWIN WAS A CHRISTIAN.'''.
There have been many statements that Science and Christianity don't need to be conflicting (and yet you're portraying Science as an atheistic canker). These statements have been made both by Churches and Scientific Institution.
Science isn't Atheistic- Scientists tend to be Atheistic (because for the purpose of science, which needs testable, disprovable, observable results, there is no God. That's faith, not science.)
Two consecutive sentences are completely flawed in any accuracy that is helpful to the reader. I think this article should be reevaluated.
[[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 21:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)