alt.education

On Sep 7, 10:40 am, Jd wrote:
> Martin Phipps wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 12:48 pm, Jd wrote:
> >> Jd wrote:
> >> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> >> >>Jd wrote:
> >> >>>>In the first place, it isn't a 'law', it is a principle or hypothesis,
> >> >>>>despite what people may have put into print. Secondly, I would need much
> >> >>>>more detail before I would consider this a refutation.
>
> >> >>>>In general, Dollo's Principle is that evolution is not reversible, ., you
> >> >>>>cannot use the same path twice. It does NOT state you cannot have the same
> >> >>>>features, just that you need to arrive at them in a different fashion. Since
> >> >>>>this study appears to be at a DNA level, I am not sure if the pathways have
> >> >>>>been properly mapped.
>
> >> >>>>Even if this shows a repeat of the exact pathway, it does not overturn the
> >> >>>>principle. It simply means it must be looked at again and refined. I don't
> >> >>>>need any 'faith' for this, just sound scientific principles.
>
> >> >>>According to the article, it does indeed overturn the principle...
>
> >> >>No. It appears to violate the generalization. That merely means that
> >> >>the generalization is not universal. Similarly, Einsteinian
> >> >>relativity did not "overturn the principles" expressed in Newton's
> >> >>Laws; it found conditions where they were not accurate. Scientists
> >> >>still use Newton for most of mechanics that does not deal with
> >> >>relativistic speeds.
>
> >> >Einsteinian relativity is in error. It breaks down on the Planc scale. Maxwell and Farrady
> >> >pointed out that Newtons work was insufficient wrt background space. Einstein and Newtons
> >> >theories were in error.
>
> >> >>>>> And the intelligence of pytoplankton has recently astounded scientists
> >> >>>>> also:
>
> >> >>>>Are you really that stupid? This is nothing special, just new to a species
> >> >>>>this small. And it is not 'intelligence'! Talk about an inability to think
> >> >>>>critically! Again, how is my 'faith' challenged?
>
> >> >>>Again, the article explaines that scientists were surprised at the aforementioned finding..
>
> >> >>Scientists WANT and EXPECT to be surprised by new information. If
> >> >>everything happens as predicted, then we don't learn as much (or at
> >> >>least as interesting information).
>
> >> >>>You Mr. Powell are exhibiting cultic behavior by which the "status quo" cannot be challenged.
>
> >> >>Clearly in each of those examples, the status quo IS challenged.
> >> >>However the status quo is NOT "overturned".
>
> >> >Wrong. The status quo is overturned. It may be years before you hear about it since they want to
> >> >break the news slowly so as not to cause you to lose your "faith" in science.
>
> >> >The "Big Bang" is history (and error at that).
>
> >> I couldn't help but notice Bob, that you failed to reply to my post.
>
> >He's not obligated to reply to you because you failed to reply to his
> >points. Newton's theories are still taught in high school. They are
> >not "wrong". They were never "overturned". Einstein's theories are
> >still taught in university. They are not "wrong". They were never
> >"overturned".
>
> >You have to understand that Einstein's theories merely built on top of
> >Newton's theories. And any future theories would have to be
> >consistent with Newton's and Einstein's theories. And the people to
> >develop these new theories will be scientists, specifically
> >physicists.
>
> Not true. If Newton and Einstein were incorrect in their "theories", newer and
> more correct theories would prove it. And physicists have done just that.

Incorrect. Read what I wrote. The new theories didn't make the old
theories wrong. Rather they just extended them to situations in which
the old theories alone weren't valid.

> Nevertheless and since no alternative voices are allowed at the introductory educational levels of
> teaching, Darwinism and Einsteinian relativity along with ancient Newtonian physics are still taught
> in classrooms all across America......... as TRUTH.

It's because no alternative theories exist. We don't teach
Einsteinian relativity when we are describing classical mechanics.
Nor has Darwin _ever_ been shown to be wrong.

> String theory proves anything and nothing at the same time, and is constructed merely for the
> romantic hopes of keeping Einsteinian relativity alive. However, thinking physicists readily
> acknowledge that quantum gravity theory says otherwise.

String theory is a theory that describes the universe we see but which
also requires seven other spatial dimensions. Occam's Razor demands
that we consider simpler alternatives. You seem to think that Quantum
mechanics and Einsteinian realtivity are somehow mutually
contradictory. This is not the case: Dirac developed Quantum Field
Theory decades ago.

> So the question is "why have we allowed education to become a cult"?
>
> And the answer is "because if TRUTH is allowed, kids will soon discover God in school".
>
> Really, it's just that simple.

Truth is allowed in school. You would apparently prefer to teach
lies.

Martin