Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What planet do you live on, to never have heard of Carl Sagan (1934-1996)? His long-running series about science, "Cosmos," was the most-watched program of all time on U.S. public television--seen by half a billion people in sixty countries. So popular that it's been revived with Neil Degrasse Tyson as the new narrator--another of the very rare breed of scientists who can actually communicate well with laymen.
He referred to the Rule of Laplace (the translation I use is "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect") on "Cosmos" so often that it is now known in the USA as Sagan's Law. (Condensed for the American attention span into "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence.")
security force assistance ?
ms is probably branch or section.
which may mean military sales.
stephen f. austin state university
just a thought.
If we don't know how life originated, it's probably not a good idea to pretend that we do.
If we are talking about natural science though, if natural science is characterized by methodological naturalism, and if we are suggesting a research program for natural science to investigate the outstanding question of life's origins, then we are going to be looking for natural explanations for life's appearance pretty much by definition. Scientists will be seeking some explanation for the origin of life that accounts for it in accordance with how human beings understand the universe to operate.
The expectation that whatever the unknown answer turns out to be, that it will ultimately be an answer of that sort, is a working hypothesis. It isn't something that we actually know, rather it's something that we assume, it's an expectation that governs the nature and scope of our inquiries.
Why would you think that I "never have heard of Carl Sagan (1934-1996)?"
We're dating ourselves, Fraggle.
I remember my parents watching Cosmos and liking it very much, and they were both dead by 1996. So the show must have been back in the '80's. It probably didn't make a big impact on anyone younger then ten at the time, so that anyone who really remembers it ["billions and billions"] must have been born in the 70's or before. In other words, it probably isn't a living memory to people younger than 40.
What's an "extraordinary assertion"? That's kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Historically, and quite likely today as well, the majority of the world's population have felt that they are surrounded by no end of causal anomalies and supernatural forces. From that perspective, scientific naturalism would appear to be the extraordinary assertion. Of course, the extraordinary success of science, and of engineering and medicine that put science to work, arguably comprises whatever extraordinary evidence is called for.
I believe that what Laplace actually wrote was "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness". I don't recall that Laplace says anything about respect. Laplace seems to have gotten his idea from David Hume, who earlier wrote something very similar.
So the short-attention-span American version might actually be the more accurate one.
So? When looking for the beginnings of life one must be looking for the first steps, the simplest difference between non-life and life, not how life is 3 1/2 billion years later. That simplest difference is replication, including mutation. We have fossil evidence of stromatolites over 3 1/2 billion years old, that's hardly unevidenced speculation.
I guess that depends on whether viruses and prions are included, they are not living cells, but they do replicate in the right conditions. And viruses EVOLVE.
Yep, Natural selection in action. ALL small populations tend to die out due to not enough beneficial mutation and too many non-helpful ones. Natural Selection kills many mutations off before a good one comes along. Give it a few billion years and almost all life will die before reproducing, but those that survive take over everywhere. Self replication is what everything life does is for. Self replication IS life.
GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would love to know what it meant also, particularly since the remark as far as I know, has only ever been addressed to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But for the sake of peace, I'm prepared to let it go, as long as it isn't mentioned again, without some sort of explanation.
yeah, i notice he conveniently side stepped it also.
C'mon Yazata! The remark
made was uncalled for, and we all know why it was used.
Carl Sagan would naturally be known by anyone that is half interested in science and cosmology, and especially by anyone that has reason to partake in the cosmology sections of a science forum.
His series Cosmos was an illustration of his great ability to connect with ordinary people, in explaining the mystery and awe of the Universe around us, so much so, that it has been redone with great fanfare by Neil De-Grasse Tyson with the assistance of Carl's wife Ann Druyan.
Fraggle's comments on such apparently derisive remarks were spot on!
" same for as "..
but that's as far as i got at this point.
or also MS means mainstream.
so, so far we would have,
same for as mainstream...............
stephen f. austin state university medical student...........
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! why am i so curious of this.
all in all,
it appears it involves genetic acronyms.
What does that mean?
It's been said a million times, we may not know the intricate details as to the whys and hows, but we can assume the most logical obvious answer that exists. That is Universally speaking, Life had to have arisen from non life.
I see nothing wrong in referring to Evolution as near factual.
I also see nothing wrong in concluding that life arising from non life is also near factual.
And if logically some prefer fact, that's OK also. It certainly does not violate any of the 12 points in the OP, when taken together.
The details are another story.
Science is based on logical assumptions in part. We form our cosmological principles on the assumptions of homogenity and Isotropy.
The are accepted as "fact"
Evolution and Abiogenesis are in a similar category.
Please do not ignore direct requests for clarification.
I didn't actually make a direct request to Fraggle Rocker for clarification. It was just a simple question.
I, however, made a direct request of you in post# 901 which you have so far ignored.
A "direct request" which I have "so far ignored"...???!!!
Below is a quote of your Post #901 :
One (1) word - "Elaborate" - followed by a Period (.)!!
No mention of any request.
Trippy, I honestly thought that you were Trolling - by making an inane remark about how "elaborate" my server file access tags were.
- definition of '"elaborate" :
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elaborate
I had composed a reply, stating that the SFA was not so "elaborate", and that it was actually pretty simple.
However, since my first honest inclination was that it was merely more Trolling, I opted to follow SciForums advice, and chose not to respond to what I perceived as "Trolling".
Trippy, one word, followed by a period (.), is more of a "statement", or possibly even, an "order".
Trippy, questions or "requests" are properly followed by a "question mark (?).
Trippy, I can not say anything to you about your Posting or editing skills - I would probably get "banned" for doing that!
Maybe you were "Posting" from work, again - and having problems with your "Stupid Phone" again...who knows...???
At any rate, I DID NOT "IGNORE" your Post #901,!
I thought long and hard about it - and decided that "Ignoring the Troll" - was my best "option".
With...whatever is going on...! Trippy, does my reply "mean anything"...does anything I Post "mean anything"...other than just something that a few Posters can "Malign", "Deride", "Intentionally Misquote", "Intentionally Misrepresent", "Make Fun Of", "Post Insulting and Rude Responses To"...seriously Trippy...???!!!
And yes Trippy, I have Utilized the "Report" button...repeatedly!!
Trippy, what follows is a "Statement", which is followed by a Period (.)!!!
- it is neither a "Request", followed by a Question Mark (?)!!!
- nor a "Question", followed by a Question Mark (?)!!!
Possibly, you Trippy, and a few other Posters could glean some pertinent information from the following "Statement", followed by a Period (.) . :
I am not as think as you Dumb I am.
From your own source:
It is the bolded context I expected you to infer and while a transitive verb usually requires another object in the sentence, the 'other object' was provided contextually (in the quote). Further, the use of the word by itself as a request to expand on something in detail is hardly unusual.
A request can also be formed as an imperative eg: Tidy your room. Or: Please leave.
From Merriam-Webster Online
A demand is also a request, just not neccessarily a polite one.
Probably wise, although not for the stated reasons.
So you didn't ignore it, but you ignored it? Got it.
Let me be clear: For the third time in two threads, and for the second time wearing my "Moderator hat" I wish you to elaborate upon what you mean by the following abbreviation: "SFA/MS:UPTABS?"
As demonstrated above, a request does not have to be phrased as an interrogative sentence, it can be phrased as an imperative as well.
Here's some more examples:
I'm not a moderator, but I'd like to know what it means too.
DMOE seems to think that it communicates something since he's written it more than once.
It kind of suggests a line of computer-code to me, and that's faintly worrying.
Or maybe some of those acronyms that high-school kinds use when they are texting.
I don't have a clue.
all this is an obvious diverting attempt.
why are you even still allowed to post here
Separate names with a comma.