Newsweek: Dumb things American's believe

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The scary question is that of these people, how many of them vote?

Odds are most of them are still eligible to vote. I lol'd and shuttered at their part on witchcraft and the supernatural.


It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common in Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half a decade would make much difference.

[Platapus]

I work as an Election Official during the elections. I get to meet an "interesting" cross section of our citizens at the polling location. After the election, I often question the logic of universal suffrage.

It is a great concept, but do we really really really want every one to be able to vote?. In a democratically elected government, alas, the answer is, unfortunately yes.

There should not be a poll tax, but a poll test.

[Platapus]

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder if the 21% of the people who believe in witches are associated with the religion of Wicca in which the subscribers believe in good witches?

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I have a Coworker who's a wiccan. Before i knew that, my thought was wiccan's were some group you'd hear about, but would probably never bump into. The fact that I have makes me think their more common then one might think. The thing here is, we say "witch" and we think of green skin, black pointy hats, a broom, and a bubbling caudrlon. To a wiccan, the word "witch" probably has an entirely different context. I really don't know, just giving it the bennfit of the doubt.

I went to school with a girl who was a Wiccan, so people still believing in witchcraft isn't surprising to me.

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

I cannot refute this as intelligently so I will just have to quote another source...

From: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

[Skybird]

I have just explained the scientific procedure to somebody just days ago, in another thread, and I do not repeat it all again. A good explanation what science
is doing and why it necessarily leads not to claims of penultimate truiths, but theories "only", I found in this book. the later chapter on Astrology as a
pseudoscience you can still use when replacing the word "Astrology" with for example "believing" or "religion" or "miracle and wonder", something like that.
the general remarks on astrology would be valid for these as well. All this stuff I set up should already be known to everybody who has done time at
university, it really is very basic and fundamental stuff.

The layout and small font is the way it is because I cannot change it and also cannot paste and copy the text.









from: CWS Mastering Astronomy online e-book version of Bennet/Donahue/Schneider/Voit: The Cosmic
Perspective, 5th edition, Pearson Education (highly recommended book, worth every penny).

[tater]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Did anyone of the Newsweek folks ask if theory is the same as proven fact? Yet to Newsweek theory and truth are one in the same.

I have never heard of Darwin's proven fact.

This post shows that you don't know what a scientific theory actually is. Theory has one meaning in English, and a very specific meaning as scientific jargon.

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

The theory merely attempt to explain WHY the balance of species has changed over time. Natural selection simply means that the animals that are more reproductively successful increase in number at the expense of those who are not successful. If you think this is absurd, apparently you think that animals that have more offspring don't end up being a higher % of a given population (something that is self-evident).

It's been demonstrated in the laboratory of agriculture, where animals have been artificially selected by man for ages, and now dominate (horses, for example).

[Tchocky]

The amount of people who don't believe evolution to be real may be a strong argument against it.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The amount of people who don't believe evolution to be real may be a strong argument against it.

Facts don't get approved by popular vote.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

Also, while Dawin's theory (natural selection) is a mechanism up for debate (there are a few minor variants out there), the FACT of evolution is different. Evolution is the OBSERVED change in species over time. It is fact (unless you have dinosaurs, etc running around in your yard).

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts. Lest someone think I'm even remotely dismissing it, I say that while it is "only" theory, it is the best one going.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

[razark]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The fact: Populations change over time. This has been observed in the wild, as well as under laboratory conditions.

The theory: Populations change over time due to selection, either by natural means, or by conditions imposed by humans.

The fact of evolution is what is observed. The theory is the model built to explain why the fact is observed. As more facts are observed, the theory is modified to account for the facts.

The same with gravity. The fact of gravity, I drop something, it falls down. The theory of gravity explains why it happens. The theory may be wrong, but it is the best explanation for the observed facts.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it.

Humans have used evolution as well. Different breeds of dogs, cows, wheat, corn, and any other kind of livestock or crop. That's human imposed selection, as opposed to natural selection. Even before it was understood, humans were using it to shape their world.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I disagree, but only mildly, and admit that my background in science is sketchy, to put it mildly. What I believe is that the concept of THEORY admits to the possibility that said theory may be flawed, or even wrong. I've seen people reply to the challenge "Evolution is only a theory" with "So is gravity." Gravity, like electricity, is an observed phenomenon, and is so well understood that we can use it. That said, its actual nature - why it is the way it is - is still the subject of much debate, hence the Theory part.

Gravity is a theory as well. First we had newton, than einstein. The fact of an observation alone does not make something a theory. You observe something, form a hypothesis on it, test the hypothesis by predicting an outcome, and then compare the result with the prediction, and if the test fails, you give up or correct the hypothesis and test again, and if the results confirm the prediction often enough, then you slowly raise the hypthesis to the state of a theory. A theory is a model for the purpose of explanation and detailed prediction. But every theory, always, is just temporary, even gravity. A theory is the way in which we, at present, can make best sense of observations, can explain them best and make best predictions. A hypothesis as long as it is a hypothesis can be chnaged and altered anyway you want, it only needs to base on a former observation that serves as an ignition point. without that, it just is fantasy and speculation that is not triggered by reality (an observation for example). A theory you cannot chnage so easily, in the scientific process you can only give it up if you can explain it's content in a simplier and/or more economic and/or more fact-including way.

So evolution is an observed phenomenon, but one with missing parts.

Sorry, no, it is not. Nobody ever has observed "evolution". It is the name of a theory that explains how and why species evolve and change. What we have observed are samples of species, and similiarities between them (or differences). The theory of evolution so far explains these similiarities and differences and the changes in species better than any other model that was tried on the task. That, and due to it's wide meaning in our understanding of life, are the reaosns why the theory of evolution even serves in the role of a paradigm currently.

But all that is my roundabout way of getting to this: There may be scientists in the field who change the shape of that theory tomorrow, and scientests who subscribe to it will say something along the lines of "Well, back to square one."

All theories are no absolute and final statements but just a description of the best model that so far we could have come up with. So yes, it can change indeed. But hardly "just en passant". In the light of what I said above you see that it needs a bit more to chnage a theory or paradigm. you need an alternative model that delivers the same value in explanation, but in a simplier way, or you need a model that includes all what the theory of evolution can explain - and then some more. Theoreticall spoken, in practice these things probably are more interacting. theories can be known to include contradictions, or to be not complete. solving these issues also can lead to greater adjustements of theories.

But the problem is that people who challenge evolution don't do so because they have another theory. They do so because they have a preconcieved idea that becomes unworkable should evolution be accepted. If new evidence turns up tomorrow in support of evolution, their response won't be to say "Well, maybe we'd better rethink this." Their response will be to challenge the new evidence any way they can, because the idea that it might be true would destroy their most cherished beliefs.

Well, that is the clash between science and non-science. But to change a scientific statement, the reason must be found by scientific methodology, and explained in scientific terminology. that's why I said in the past in various debates that it makes no sense to bring religious dogma and sciences together. It are two totally incompatible modi operandi.

Their problem is that they think everybody on the "opposite" side thinks exactly the same way, and most scientists don't think that way at all.

Science always makes temporary statements only, even if temporary may mean, in case of paradigms, several centuries. Religious people often accuse science to make absolute statements that stand forever, and that science claism to have found the last, the final, the ultimate last answers. that is not only wrong an accusation, but also ironic. If you look at it, science, as i said, makes temporary statements, but it is the religious dogma that claims to know the final, the eternal truths, and makes according absolute statements that claim valdiity until the end of time. A superb example of "psychoanalytical "projection".