Negative Impacts on Society

..."abstractions not really literal"...THE BEST QUESTION SO FAR!Adminosy asks:Re: Can you explain?It was the "abstractions, not really literal" that I didn't understand.YEs!There is a mathematical "lattice" which we, man, superimpose upon the world external in order to think about it. This Lattice aids understanding, and allows a beneficial relationship to exist. It is intangible, an abstraction, a mental construct. We would say it was merely a tool except it is our mind, in its quintessence.Collectively, we men have now (as Dwakins pointed out) sort of come to the "end" of Science. The "Lattice" stretches from the tiny reality of the Quantum World to the extremes of the material Universe. This "thingee" in our head, this mathematical abstraction, this "Lattice" is a model of what is outside our head.The Homo Sapiens mind, then, is the Schemata of the Universe, meaning, literally, the reflection of everything and, abstractly, the analogy of everything.Another way of making the point, between literal and abstract, is in a semantical way. Read the two verses below and decide, is this literally true or, is this an abstraction?Or, if true, is it both?Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.

I agree with many who have been amazed that we can use our mathematics to model the universe. Was it Einstein who said that whatever else, God must be a mathematician?We recognize that what we have is, at best, a model.So what? That's what we've got. It works darn well (so far).

quote:

---

So is black skincolor or ugly or beautiful mr scientist? You have abdicated your honesty and integrity because you denounced your personal responsibility in accepting or rejecting beliefs.

---

You just don't understand yet, do you. There is no way to scientifically measure beauty, so it is a question that science can not address. It comes down to personal preference. My responsibility is honestly reporting data and interpreting this data for the furthering of science, and hopefully an improvement in people's health. If I twisted the data or tried to interpret it wrongly only to fit in with current social climes, how honest would I be then? Where is the integrity in that? You sir are a blowhard that has been shown to be dishonest, egomaniacal, and dogmatic to the point of telling scientists that they don't know how to study something they have worked with for years. Perhaps you should start listening a little closer to those with actual experience with science, you are making yourself out as a fool.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-26-2004]

This is off-topic, but believe it or not, the field of psychology *does* perform scientific studies in this area, and they've identified a number of characteristics and their contributions to how people in general perceive the overall effect as beautiful, intelligent, homely, etc.--Percy

Although they also show enormous variability between regions and populations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have aleays been amazed with some of Einstien's statements.How do we understand him to say both that "God must be a mathematician," (with which I totally agree,...
... and I add that: He made man in His own image, capable of abstracting God, Himself, (which I interpret to mean "all that is beyond the inner mind I call me.")But, then Einstien said, "God doesn't play dice."This seems to deny the Kinetic Theory and Law of Probability, doesn't it?

You ask:
"Where did your strange misconceptions about the origin of Avogadro's number come from?"First, you posted that you were shocked at my statement that Avogadro's Number was 6.22 x 10 ^23.Then you offered a site that said nothing about the number, neither my 6.22 or the correct number.1) Do you have a correct number for Avogadro's Number, Na?
2) Do you have a list of the stange misconceptions, so that I might direct you to the various sources peetaining to them?(Please advise since I am at the disadvantage of not understanding your criticism in specifics beyond the contempt you seem to have regarding their audacity.)

I won't comment here. This is all off topic.

Yes.
The topic concerns education.The secular furor over Creationism being taught in the schools in Ga. and Ohio ignors that most Christians accept evolution. Only a small part of the Protestant half of the Christian world are Fundamentalist, Creationists.Teaching, as opposed to indoctrinating, translates into presenting various views held by our society as regards this subject. An even handed, fair, complete, and honest presentation of all views seems easily enough to accommodate into the curriculum.I would insist on at least three views, though. The Darwinist, Creationist, and the "both."Both Genesis and evolution is acceptable to the catholic, as per the Pope's address 1992.With this in mind, my reading of the text of Genesis would be close to this synopsis:And the evening and the morning were the Azoic Era. (1)And the evening and the morning were the Archeozoic Era. (2)And the evening and the morning were the Proterozoic Era. (3)And the evening and the morning were the Paleozoic Era. (4)And the evening and the morning were the Mesozoic Era. (5)And the evening and the morning were the Cenozoic Era. (6)Gen. 2:3 And The Universal Force blessed this Novus Ordo Seclorum,
(7), and sanctified it: because that it had rested from all the work which the initial energy transformation converted into matter, and had evolved a micro-cosmos in a consciousness, the human mind.

Dear Kofh2u,I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or if your reading comprehension is merely as tenuous as your grasp of science.You said in the original post i Objected to Pretty much all of which is completely wrong in every respect. If you can provide some support for any of the things you said in what you gave as an example of the 'good' sort of history of science that should be taught then I would be grateful.The initial site I linked to was the text of Avogadro's own paper in which he put forward his hypothesis that there would be equal numbers of molecules in the same volume of any gas under the same conditions. Since this was Avogadro's hypothesis for which his name is attached to the value known as Avogadro's number it was directly relevant to your contention that Avogadro derived the value known as Avogadro's number, which he did not. Unless you believe that your initial misstatement of the number was in fact correct I don't see why a link to a site stating the correct value is neccessary, anyone with a phtsics or chemistry textbook should be able to find out at least an acceptable aproximate value.I then subsequently provided a link to a page with more general information on Avogadro's number and Loschmidt's number which gave one of the most recent values derived by experimentation. I would suggest that this value derived by repeated direct experimentation would be the most 'correct' compared to the 60+ year old values derived mathematically by Einstein and others.cheers,WK

You keep going back and rewriting the Bible (not that that hasn't been done on several ocassions before) when IMHO it just isn't needed.To really allow for both in the classroom all that is needed is to spend the time to fully teach evolution. Then, once the students have a good grasp of what happened, say, the day before matriculation, the teacher could add, "Or maybe not".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You make my point in the assumption that the present erroneous number of 6.0221 is correct.Avogadro's number ks still wrong because his hypthesis has been applied to amu mole weights, al. of which are averaged weights among the isotlpes \ontained in any sample.If we undErstand what Avogadro said we woulc now have his number not Planck's, Einstein's, of the x-ray experiments from 1970.Your shock at 6.22 that I mentioned oought magnified in that all thd best guess are wrong.I ask yoj whether you are certain in yojr faith in science as reported is so strong that your mind is closed to my comments on this, that they prrsent number, 6.0221 is not Avogadro's for he said equal volumes of all gases (STP) contain the same head count, and that at one mole the volume would occupy 22.4 liters. In this, 22.4l of Protonium contains the correct unit head count, and that number is a little less than 6.000.See what I mean?

Dear Kofh2u,Unless you start sourcing some of the rubbish you come up with, or at leat putting it forward in a clear way, I don't see any point discussing things with you.Are you claiming that Avogadro himself said those things about 22.4 liter volumes of gas? Or is this you formulating your new definition of the AMU? Is your only contribution to suggest that we should swap one arbitrary unit for another, this time using protonium as a baseline?No number is Avogadro's own number, it isn't Fermat's last theorem, no matter what you believe he didn't come up with the 'correct' number which has subsequently been lost to posterity and which we now have to try and guess.I am not going to say that the number derived from direct observation is less 'correct' than a number you have come up with by choosing a new arbitrary starting point using protonium, nor am I saying that the number cannot be refined and better ascertained as our understanding and technology improves.Have you been counting the molecules in 22.4 L of protonium or is this a theoretical estimate you have com up with? Why should your number be better than one experimentally derived? How will your alternative number in anyway obviate the problem of many isotopes being present in a sample?Please be prepared to provide something more than bland assertions of your own superiority and everyone elses close mindedness if you wish to continue discussing things.TTFN,WK

Unless you take a different attitude you will continue to help me make my point. Which is that you are not thinking science, merely quoting from things written down.That my point is, first, that teaching science is not telling it, as if a history, or the rote insistence that students accept, at face value, what is in text books.Second, that this example here, where a number of people reexamine such matters as this Avogadro's Number.He created the number (1) one as his number.One mole, or one molecule weight, represents the number of atoms in 22.4 l. That is to say, that multiples and fractions of this mole number, the same number that appears before each atomic or molecular symbol in an equation, represents, is representative of the Avogadro "number" of atoms. Yes. He said one mole is analogous to a unit. It is analogous to the idea of a zillion invisible atoms, acting as if they were just one unit.Now, others have attempted to discover beyond this abstraction, more in the realm of Physical Chemistry, just how many atoms are in one gram-molecular weight of a gas. They have all failed to date.The reason is, they did not properly read nor understand Avogadro's paper which you presented to me.Now, why am I taking the time and trouble to post the way I am, and by such means, obviously, raising your ire?Because this is all about attutude.I do have a very simple and most reasonable deduction of the correct number, faulting the very best people in science. Einstein, Planck,... Loschimdt, and even Perrin who had a number way off, 7.0 x 10^23. Would they have told us their number if treated to the ready and awaiting ridicule of "Shocking?"However, such a pearl as I have here to bring to your attention, a trained science person as you seem to be, requires that I submit to you, bow down to you, (and perhaps the other two sycophants who have disappeared). Do you all forget the true history of science?As do you, in this matter of attitude, my third point, science people forget their own complaints against the persecution by the Catholic Church at the time of Galilleo, for instance, and as do you, now perferring that a ready arrogance and impatience be practiced, by the science community, upon itself.Yes, indeed.We really teach Science History, and teach it poorly.Science is about understanding the arguments that convince us that we know something to be more true than before those arguments augmented our understanding up that moment.So, here we are. The number 6.0221 is merely more democratically accepted, not particularly any closer or more truthful than even my statement of 6.22 x...Now, to put the foot on the other shoe, if YOU will acknowledge your ill-mannered behavior, then, whether I prove to be correct, or not, I shall delivery my argument.For that is what it is supposed to be, Scientific Method, quite different from the conceit of ridicule and assumption of authority by which good men and good ideas are repressed by any priesthood, particularly this one now, of elitism,... am I correct?

Yes. We could teach evolution and ignor the people who pay us.The parents who insist we should not present evolution exclusively, while they and their church preach the opposite, are in the same boat as other parents on other issues.Take health ed. Do we just teach birth control, or do give time to abstinence too?
Is Capitalism the "good" economic system and the other eleven inherently bad?
My country, right or wrong in history is not wise patriotism.My point is, though we ought not teach Creationism, or the synergism I recommend, we ought inform. And, that goes for evolution, too. Inform, not indoctrinate.High School does not "teach" evolution anyway. The subject is too diverse and too large. At best, school informs students about the existence of that theory.What we really see is the teacher recommending the theory of evolution as opposed to the bible story, when it can be complementary to the theory.School is a community, one that, at its best, reflects the larger community which it serves. In this, instruction which is comprehensive and as free of biasis as possible is its goal. The purpose is not to pre-set the students' thoughts, but to create a foundation for later thinking.Such a goal as mentioned above seems to suggest that the view of the teacher is unnecessary, out of place, and immaterial to a full expose' of all the facts, beliefs, and thoughts to be found in the larger community.