Математика и дарвинизм

[OlegRed]

Сформулировать то можно. Ну спишу я Вам с тетрадки про дарвинизм - дальше что? Небольшой курс общей биологии в свете теории эволюции? Потом будем разбирать челюстные аппараты рептилий, звероящеров и млекопитающих? Молочные железы утконоса? Определение вида в биологии и почему оно такое расплывчатое. Почему столь сложно обнаружить образование нового вида у бактерий и почему макроэволюцию сложно пронаблюдать в лаборатории?..
Я честно-то сказать не биолог - боюсь информация у меня неточная.
Для бесед на эти темы специалисты есть и они (специалисты) используют эволюционную теорию в своей работе. И тот факт, что специалисты проводя исследования в массе своей не отказываются от этой теории, как к примеру политики от марксизма-ленинизма, свидетельствует о том, что в теории этой есть здравое зерно.

Хотелось бы добавить - грустно видеть поведение OlegRedа в отношении Вас.

Мне самому грустно. Что поделаешь, естественный отбор.

[OlegRed]

аааа забыл добавить.... она ведь даже по поводу "дебилки" спорить не стала.... вот оно, настоящее христианское смирение.....

[Nabludatel']

Дебил - человек, который занят доказательствами того, что он не дебил, енто мол остальные дебилы. В споре нахрапист, до агрессивности. Иногда раскаиватся, потом оправдывается (толковый словарь, один из вариантов)

[OlegRed]

Дебил - человек, который занят доказательствами того, что он не дебил, енто мол остальные дебилы. В споре нахрапист, до агрессивности. Иногда раскаиватся, потом оправдывается (толковый словарь, один из вариантов)

Пасиба, батяня. Мне б твоей мудрости.

[CrazyDiamond]

Мой товарищ переслал мне этот e-mail одного из членов его 'discussion group'. Имя автора Chris Ettling. IMHO, это отлично сформулированная точка зрения, right to the point, и я лично с ней согласен. Хотел бы с вами поделится.
(Приводится дословно, на языке оригинала)

========================

This rant is directed at no one in particular, just my sad
observation about the dismal state of science knowledge in the
United States. Not among our scientists and engineers, for we
have arguably the best minds in the world working to further
advance human knowledge. No, the lament is for the general
population, the lack of understanding of the Scientific Method
and the processes involved in discovering the natural world.
After all, scientists do not operate in a vacuum, and if the
people don't support the advancement of science, scientific
understanding itself will begin to diminish.

The November, 2004 issue of the National Geographic has a very
fine article based on Darwin's theory of evolution, entitled
"Was Darwin Wrong?", by David Quammen. The author gives a
reasoned defense of the theory of evolution, but the underlying
thrust of the article is to defend the process of reasoning
itself, embodied in the Scientific Method. It starts out:

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of
the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a
theory about the origins of adaptation, complexity, and
diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are
skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of
science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you
might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory.
In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert
Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth
orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered
by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift
is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of
atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical
construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of
charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these
theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to
such a degree, by observation and experiment, that
knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what
scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a
dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory
statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such
an explanation confidently but provisionally -- taking
it as their best available view of reality, at least
until some severely conflicting data or some better
explanation might come along.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Let's review the Scientific Method. You try to explain some
phenomenon:

1. You devise a theory for how and why it happens.
2. You gather data, through observation or experimentation.
3. You analyze the data to see that it fits your theory.
4. If the data contradicts your theory, and you cannot
explain the contradiction within the theory, then you
revise the theory, then go back to step 2 and gather more
data. Repeat until consistent. ( Notice that you revise
the theory, not the data!)
5. You present the findings to others. If anyone can poke a
hole in your logic, data, or methods, revise theory and
return to step 2.
6. If a sufficient number of your colleagues can agree that
your theory holds up, it is accepted as fact. At least
until new data or new thinking can prove it wrong.

That's the Scientific Method in a nutshell. There's nothing
mysterious or complex about it. It can be applied to most any
aspect of daily life, from analyzing why your car stopped
running to determining why your infant is crying so much. It
is a powerful tool of analytical reasoning that, as far as we
know, is unique to humans. It is the major component of what
we call "Common sense"; we use our reasoning ability constantly
and without being aware of it.

For Western civilization, this reasoning ability was taken to
new heights first by the ancient Greeks, and later in the
eighteenth century during the Age of Enlightenment. Dogmas
that had been taught for centuries by the Christian church
were proven wrong and replaced by new models of the natural
world. Religion itself was not attacked, just religious
involvement in societal knowledge. People were free to believe
what they wanted as individuals, but civic policy was to be
based upon verifiable facts. This is the basic meaning of the
separation of church and state.

In 2001, in the 21st century, a Gallup poll found that 45% of
adult Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty
much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000
years or so." A CBS poll, in November 2004, found that 35%
say Darwin's theory is not supported by the evidence, while
45% also say God created Man in his present form. Various
school districts around the country have mandated that limits
be placed on the teaching of evolution as accepted by nearly all
scientists. Many districts have proposed that "creation science"
or "intelligent design" be taught alongside evolution, transparent
attempts to inject Christian dogma into the biology classroom.
Teachers and scientists are forced to fight like hell to defend
the principles of scientific inquiry against the forces of
fundamentalism.

How did we come to this? Why, 250 years after the Age of
Enlightenment, over 200 years since the establishment of a
country where all religions were tolerated and none were
supported, do citizens of that country try to inject their
particular religious dogma into the body politic? Why do so
many local communities support school prayer, the teaching of
creationism, the banning of sex education and stem cell
research? I suppose we should come up with a theory, test it
with available data, and revise it if necessary.

One major contender for our theory would be that reasoning is not
taught in schools as an integral part of our lives. I don't
remember any training in critical thinking or the Scientific
Method in the twelve years I went to public school. Science
itself was taught as a series of "givens" that we had to
memorize. It was not presented as a process that the original
scientist had to work through in order to find the truth.
Thus, for any student who wasn't interested in biology, or
chemistry, or physics, etc, etc, the subject quickly became
boring, and the truths that were learned to pass the test
quickly were forgotten with the next semester. How scientists
found the truth never stuck with most of us.

Religion can be an assuring comfort in an insecure world. The
natural world's processes, by their very nature, are chaotic
and uncertain. Being told that humans are at the center of the
universe, that we're God's chosen creatures, that we will live
on after we die, is much more comforting to hear than that we
are just a successful variation on the Earth's ever-changing
canvas of life forms.

I don't mind the reassurance and certainty that religion gives
to its believers. I do mind its intrusion into our civic life.
I want our children to enter their civic responsibilities with
a common platform of knowledge, through which they can make
informed decisions. This common platform includes the scientific
understanding of past generations, and the knowledge that those
truths could change, perhaps by they themselves, if they can
prove them false and they can present a better model to explain
reality. Religious dogma doesn't fulfill that requirement of
a common platform. It should not be a part of our nation's
political discussion.

Chris

[Moonlight Traveler]

Мой товарищ переслал мне этот e-mail одного из членов его 'discussion group'. ...

:good:

[AlphaMale]

Мой товарищ переслал мне этот e-mail одного из членов его 'discussion group'. Имя автора Chris Ettling. IMHO, это отлично сформулированная точка зрения, right to the point, и я лично с ней согласен. Хотел бы с вами поделится.
(Приводится дословно, на языке оригинала)...

ППКС!

[Лось]

А ответ на вопрос "Почему школы выпускают в основном серятину и быдлятину ?" весьма прост: " Такими легче управлять и они не приучены задумываться!"

[OlegRed]

очень умно и спокойно высказано. Аргументировано, стройно и веско. Жаль, только, до религиозных голов так просто не достучишься. Крайняя вера в бога это уже порог психического заболевания.

[вторжение]

Аргументировано, стройно и веско.

Мне тоже статья понравилась.
В статье нет аргументов.
Вообще.
Про религию есть (первый признак того, что про теорию скорее всего ничего интересного не жди).
Очень понравились 6 шагов развития теории. Хорошо, что люди осознают , как должна развиваться теория. Плохо, что не написано, почему она так не развивается.