Unimpressed

Comments

Troll bridges can be annoying with all the shouting and carrying-on about crossing the bridge.

January 07, 2013 1:19 pm on Nine Span Bridge demolition begins Monday
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

December 06, 2012 1:07 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
Alacran,

I believe that you may have failed to mark the distinction between a theory, in common usage and a "scientific theory" like those of gravity or evolution. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

December 06, 2012 12:48 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
Well stated, and as such, religion has no place in a science curriculum!

December 04, 2012 2:37 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
You are just trolling right?

December 04, 2012 2:33 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
Actually, people do not "believe" in science. Science is simple, it is the recording of demonstrable facts. For example, if you lower the temerature of water below 32 degrees Farenheit, it freezes. This is demonstrable and repeatable by anyone, and as such requires no "belief" to be true.

Religion in contrast, requires that its adherents have faith that unprovable things are indeed real or true. There is no test of religion, beyond the profession of adherents that they have faith. You can't test the claims of religion, it is neither demonstrable or repeatable in any measurable way that can be ascertained by living humans capable of documenting the results. This is not an indictment of religion, but hopefully a digestable clarification of the distinction between religion and science.

Scientific theories are hypotheses that can be proven or disproven by demonstrable facts that can be repeated. The appropriate contradiction to a scientific theory is evodemce im the form of a repeatable test that undermines or invalidates that theory. I would have no problem giving high marks to any Indiana student who undermines evolution in this manner, bearing in mind of course that many of the best minds in religion and science have been working at that task for 150 years and have yet to do so.

December 04, 2012 2:00 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and re-tard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made.

Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.

Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be “saved.”

- Hitchens

December 04, 2012 1:20 pm on Indiana senator's plan to teach creationism evolves
I am fine with oversight and ensuring that contractors are not taking advantage of the town, and being 21% over budget should raise concerns, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me. Can't this group come up with a solution that doesn't cost the kids another season? If there are no other capable contractors who can complete the project in a timely fashion within the budget, perhaps it is because the price accurately reflects the cost of the project. Maybe I am missing something, but all I can see here is obstructionism, not leadership or responsible management.

Moreover, isn't this the group that banned sporting structures in yards? This is beginning to look like a trend of opposition to kids sports.

September 05, 2012 7:05 am on Munster Little League, girls softball won't play at Community Park next spring
Agreed, this only adds to my distaste for the HOF in Cooperstown, making arbitrary judgments about some of the greats (Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose), waiting until Santo passed away, and what I am convinced will be a terrible showing when they wrestle with the Steroid Era. It seems to me that the market is there for an enterprising individual (with deep pockets) to open up a competing HOF.

July 23, 2012 7:22 am on Santo inducted into Baseball Hall of Fame
This article is terrible and it author should be embarassed. There is no helpful or substantive information regarding the candidate or what he supports. There is no information contrasting the candidate and his opponent's positions. Mr. Dolan seems to be trying to paint a picture of a candidate by describing his political associations, not his positions and that is irresponsible journalism. This article seems designed to be divisive rather than informative. Shame on you Mr. Dolan.

That said, I am glad that the vitriol reflected in these comments is not reflective of my interactions with my neighbors, including those with whom I disagree politically. It is possible to disagree about politics and policy questions without resorting to hyperbolic name calling.

July 10, 2012 7:36 am on Visclosky challenger likes his tea strong