Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Public Education Regarding Science

Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 3:50:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed there seems to be a disconnect between actual science and the public understanding of science. I would suggest the education system, however it seems this is merely a convenient excuse. Perhaps, it is because society is resistant to change and new ideas. Maybe, it is because the media tends to spin science in a way that removes the authors conclusions and substitutes their own.

What is your opinion on the matter?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 6:47:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 3:50:18 PM, Pem wrote:
I've noticed there seems to be a disconnect between actual science and the public understanding of science. I would suggest the education system, however it seems this is merely a convenient excuse. Perhaps, it is because society is resistant to change and new ideas. Maybe, it is because the media tends to spin science in a way that removes the authors conclusions and substitutes their own.

What is your opinion on the matter?

Depends on the science. Forensic science is awesome. Science that cures stuff, cool. Science that is usable and meaningful, I'm all over it.

Science that pushes political and social agendas? I have no use for it, I pay little attention to it. I don't even consider it real science.

I think scientists need to stay out of certain areas, they need to stick to fixing things that are broke and applying science to better our lives. I think there is a huge gulf between respect and trust in certain areas of "science". The general public doesn't have much use for science they can't see or use. Then add in the condensation and audacity of some of the most out spoken "scientists" you have a bad scenario that is destined to become what it is.

My 2 cents.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 8:35:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 3:50:18 PM, Pem wrote:
I've noticed there seems to be a disconnect between actual science and the public understanding of science. I would suggest the education system, however it seems this is merely a convenient excuse. Perhaps, it is because society is resistant to change and new ideas. Maybe, it is because the media tends to spin science in a way that removes the authors conclusions and substitutes their own.

What is your opinion on the matter?

In a society that does not value knowledge, it is inevitable that the masses will remain ignorant to the things about which they are most dogmatic.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 8:12:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Science education in the United States is sub par, plain and simple. Creationists and global warming deniers are not happy that science does not agree with them so they try to change it and downplay its significance, add origin of life into the mix and they go nuts.
Unfortunately, teachers are teaching ID as an alternative to the well supported science of evolution. The law be damned. They do this without regard to good education standards and we are looking at the results. The best way to handle this issue is for science teachers to stand up to parents and school boards who think their politics should determine what is science. Texas and the nonsense from that body is a painful example.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 8:28:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 8:12:47 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Science education in the United States is sub par, plain and simple. Creationists and global warming deniers are not happy that science does not agree with them so they try to change it and downplay its significance, add origin of life into the mix and they go nuts.
Unfortunately, teachers are teaching ID as an alternative to the well supported science of evolution. The law be damned. They do this without regard to good education standards and we are looking at the results. The best way to handle this issue is for science teachers to stand up to parents and school boards who think their politics should determine what is science. Texas and the nonsense from that body is a painful example.

Are you implying that science has been negatively affected in the US? Are there no good scientists in America because of the sub par education?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it; true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists. Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.
no comment
Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:09:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it; true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists. Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.

Actually, true scientists including myself, are greatly affected by it. Like anything research needs money. Unfortunately, the distribution of money is largely affected by politics. Companies and Government generally only want to fund applied research. This is research toward a certain goal, and often only yields short term results. This often means a quick payout.

However, science doesn't not function optimally in this fashion. The greatest achievements have resulted from pure research in which scientists are allowed to explore as they see fit. The problem with this method is that it often takes a long time before anything useful arises. Politicians want instant results and thus shun pure scientific research.

Thus, scientists are often restricted in their explorations.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is when science makes discoveries that politicians, or their electorate, don't like. The truth hurts sometimes. With the future of medicine lying in stem cell research, for example, politicians, trying to keep the vote, listen to the loudest people and hinder progress. This has created a very negative view of the scientist.

What can a person do? Scientists are the last great explorers and the public has it in their mind that some things should not be explored. Ignorance is rampant and the worst part is that many people, forcefully, want to keep it that way.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:09:18 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it; true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists. Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.

Actually, true scientists including myself, are greatly affected by it. Like anything research needs money. Unfortunately, the distribution of money is largely affected by politics. Companies and Government generally only want to fund applied research. This is research toward a certain goal, and often only yields short term results. This often means a quick payout.

However, science doesn't not function optimally in this fashion. The greatest achievements have resulted from pure research in which scientists are allowed to explore as they see fit. The problem with this method is that it often takes a long time before anything useful arises. Politicians want instant results and thus shun pure scientific research.

Thus, scientists are often restricted in their explorations.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is when science makes discoveries that politicians, or their electorate, don't like. The truth hurts sometimes. With the future of medicine lying in stem cell research, for example, politicians, trying to keep the vote, listen to the loudest people and hinder progress. This has created a very negative view of the scientist.

What can a person do? Scientists are the last great explorers and the public has it in their mind that some things should not be explored. Ignorance is rampant and the worst part is that many people, forcefully, want to keep it that way.

And that is exactly what I was talking about in my first post. I don't want my tax money being wasted on crap science. I don't want fetuses destroyed in the name of science or advancement. I don't want my money wasted on psuedo-science attempts to prove something.

And that is exactly why the gulf between us widens. That is why there is a shortage of money from the politicians. I'm looked down on and considered ignorant by scientists like you. And that is when I say "kiss my arse" go get your money somewhere else then. When you rely on the public you need to try and not bite the hand that feeds you. I'm sure that statement is considered illogical and ignorant, but the truth is, it don't matter. It is reality. And that is why I love this country, until the federal courts take over, where I'm free to elect who best represents me. I'm sure the scientific agenda would love to take that away from me, and the gap just keeps getting bigger.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:24:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it;

I agree. Fully.

true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists.

Again, 10/10

Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

I outlined why the perception is like it is in my first post. This is America, we don' like anyone telling us what we should believe. ANYONE.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.

I know. There is so much b/s and agenda out there no one knows what to believe. And I don't see any way it is going to get any better. Take stem cell research. You will have to remove a persons personal values before you can carry on with it. You can't do that by educating them in any certain way. I value life. Not science. You can call that ignorance but it will only make the gulf between us wider. I know some scientists are butt hurt because they aren't respected or allowed to do what they want, but it aint going to make it any better.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:30:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:24:18 PM, jharry wrote:
I know. There is so much b/s and agenda out there no one knows what to believe. And I don't see any way it is going to get any better. Take stem cell research. You will have to remove a persons personal values before you can carry on with it. You can't do that by educating them in any certain way. I value life. Not science. You can call that ignorance but it will only make the gulf between us wider. I know some scientists are butt hurt because they aren't respected or allowed to do what they want, but it aint going to make it any better.

Stem cell research can be done without embryos now, I believe. However, I don't actually see a problem with using embryos for stem cell research. The fact of the matter is that stem cell research leads to so many potentially life-saving possibilities that it just isn't practical to leave it alone.

I'm not really convinced by the bullsh-t arguments I hear going back and forth and back and forth about the use of embryos. Stem cell research aside, I feel the same way about abortion.

It's an issue of practicality. There's really no observable connection between an embryo and a human because they are too different. We don't see any visible signs that trigger our empathy centers. Why should we give particular reverence to something because of semantics?

The visible effect is that stem cell research is useful. To me, that takes precedence over something that we have to puzzle over, like ethics and the definition of murder, humanity, or life.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:38:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:30:12 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:24:18 PM, jharry wrote:
I know. There is so much b/s and agenda out there no one knows what to believe. And I don't see any way it is going to get any better. Take stem cell research. You will have to remove a persons personal values before you can carry on with it. You can't do that by educating them in any certain way. I value life. Not science. You can call that ignorance but it will only make the gulf between us wider. I know some scientists are butt hurt because they aren't respected or allowed to do what they want, but it aint going to make it any better.

Stem cell research can be done without embryos now, I believe. However, I don't actually see a problem with using embryos for stem cell research. The fact of the matter is that stem cell research leads to so many potentially life-saving possibilities that it just isn't practical to leave it alone.

I understand that. You don't have a problem with it but I do. It is my taxes and yours, but "MINE" is majority. It's pain I can see but it is the most practical way. For me personally killing a life to save a life is moot. Sometimes practical is not worth anything in situations like this.

I'm not really convinced by the bullsh-t arguments I hear going back and forth and back and forth about the use of embryos. Stem cell research aside, I feel the same way about abortion.

And you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. As of right now your vote is smaller then mine. Until a judge gets involved, but that is as impractical as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's an issue of practicality. There's really no observable connection between an embryo and a human because they are too different. We don't see any visible signs that trigger our empathy centers. Why should we give particular reverence to something because of semantics?

Because it is life. The fetus of my live stock are protected and so is my corn seed in the field. But a persons seed isn't protected from selfish person?

The visible effect is that stem cell research is useful. To me, that takes precedence over something that we have to puzzle over, like ethics and the definition of murder, humanity, or life.

I don't puzzle. Some may but I don't. So really there is no argument there.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Pem
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:58:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:18:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:09:18 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it; true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists. Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.

Actually, true scientists including myself, are greatly affected by it. Like anything research needs money. Unfortunately, the distribution of money is largely affected by politics. Companies and Government generally only want to fund applied research. This is research toward a certain goal, and often only yields short term results. This often means a quick payout.

However, science doesn't not function optimally in this fashion. The greatest achievements have resulted from pure research in which scientists are allowed to explore as they see fit. The problem with this method is that it often takes a long time before anything useful arises. Politicians want instant results and thus shun pure scientific research.

Thus, scientists are often restricted in their explorations.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is when science makes discoveries that politicians, or their electorate, don't like. The truth hurts sometimes. With the future of medicine lying in stem cell research, for example, politicians, trying to keep the vote, listen to the loudest people and hinder progress. This has created a very negative view of the scientist.

What can a person do? Scientists are the last great explorers and the public has it in their mind that some things should not be explored. Ignorance is rampant and the worst part is that many people, forcefully, want to keep it that way.

And that is exactly what I was talking about in my first post. I don't want my tax money being wasted on crap science. I don't want fetuses destroyed in the name of science or advancement. I don't want my money wasted on psuedo-science attempts to prove something.

I totally agree with you on money being wasted on pseudo-science. Psuedo-science tends to be things and ideas that only exist to make one person rich and many people happy while doing nothing at all. As for stem cells, Kleptin mentioned that stem cells can be generated from skin cells which is true. It is actually far more useful than embryos, now doctors can make use of YOUR stem cells, making rejection of generated tissue even less likely.

Therein lies the problem. Oddly enough, in Canada, research is allowed on embryonic stem cells, yet not on derived stem cells. We have to work with what we can get.

And that is exactly why the gulf between us widens. That is why there is a shortage of money from the politicians. I'm looked down on and considered ignorant by scientists like you. And that is when I say "kiss my arse" go get your money somewhere else then. When you rely on the public you need to try and not bite the hand that feeds you. I'm sure that statement is considered illogical and ignorant, but the truth is, it don't matter. It is reality. And that is why I love this country, until the federal courts take over, where I'm free to elect who best represents me. I'm sure the scientific agenda would love to take that away from me, and the gap just keeps getting bigger.

I had no idea science even had an agenda, please tell me what it is I'm quite curious. I always thought it was to just better understand nature (nature in the very broad sense of the word). That aside, you are right we do need public funding, and not all the results research produces is going to be something you like. Sometimes it has to hurt before it helps.

Unfortunately, you are right about the majority choosing what goes on. Sometimes, it is best to take a course that the majority doesn't agree with. America is very proud for it's part in the space race, Obama cutting funding to NASA must have really hurt. As you said however, everyone has to cut costs on things that aren't important (paraphrased). Exploring outer space is nice and all but spending like that can be wasteful in a hard time.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 8:19:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:58:02 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:18:49 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:09:18 PM, Pem wrote:
At 10/27/2010 8:45:50 PM, Caramel wrote:
No, what he is saying is that politics has infiltrated science and bastardized it; true scientists aren't really affected by this but unfortunately most people aren't scientists. Public perception of scientists is probably lower than at any point in history, as we are more likely to believe a media personality or politician before we will check with any reputable scientist.

Politicians, predominately right-wing, have also created a plethora of psuedo-science institutions to combat the classical ones. These institutions push agendas for industry and the like under very scientific sounding names. The public is just caught in a whirlpool of confusion.

Actually, true scientists including myself, are greatly affected by it. Like anything research needs money. Unfortunately, the distribution of money is largely affected by politics. Companies and Government generally only want to fund applied research. This is research toward a certain goal, and often only yields short term results. This often means a quick payout.

However, science doesn't not function optimally in this fashion. The greatest achievements have resulted from pure research in which scientists are allowed to explore as they see fit. The problem with this method is that it often takes a long time before anything useful arises. Politicians want instant results and thus shun pure scientific research.

Thus, scientists are often restricted in their explorations.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is when science makes discoveries that politicians, or their electorate, don't like. The truth hurts sometimes. With the future of medicine lying in stem cell research, for example, politicians, trying to keep the vote, listen to the loudest people and hinder progress. This has created a very negative view of the scientist.

What can a person do? Scientists are the last great explorers and the public has it in their mind that some things should not be explored. Ignorance is rampant and the worst part is that many people, forcefully, want to keep it that way.

And that is exactly what I was talking about in my first post. I don't want my tax money being wasted on crap science. I don't want fetuses destroyed in the name of science or advancement. I don't want my money wasted on psuedo-science attempts to prove something.

I totally agree with you on money being wasted on pseudo-science. Psuedo-science tends to be things and ideas that only exist to make one person rich and many people happy while doing nothing at all. As for stem cells, Kleptin mentioned that stem cells can be generated from skin cells which is true. It is actually far more useful than embryos, now doctors can make use of YOUR stem cells, making rejection of generated tissue even less likely.

Good, we agree. We (both sides)can now stop wasting money on useless attempts to try and prove one side wrong and focus on doing something worth while. Like stem cell research, it is awesome that they can do it without having to kill people to achieve great things. I'm fully behind that.

Therein lies the problem. Oddly enough, in Canada, research is allowed on embryonic stem cells, yet not on derived stem cells. We have to work with what we can get.

That is a shame.

And that is exactly why the gulf between us widens. That is why there is a shortage of money from the politicians. I'm looked down on and considered ignorant by scientists like you. And that is when I say "kiss my arse" go get your money somewhere else then. When you rely on the public you need to try and not bite the hand that feeds you. I'm sure that statement is considered illogical and ignorant, but the truth is, it don't matter. It is reality. And that is why I love this country, until the federal courts take over, where I'm free to elect who best represents me. I'm sure the scientific agenda would love to take that away from me, and the gap just keeps getting bigger.

I had no idea science even had an agenda, please tell me what it is I'm quite curious. I always thought it was to just better understand nature (nature in the very broad sense of the word). That aside, you are right we do need public funding, and not all the results research produces is going to be something you like. Sometimes it has to hurt before it helps.

And that is why there is so much flak on this issue. The agenda. This is what I hear from what you just said.

"Jharry , you don't know what is best for you. We do so just shut up and give us your money and we will decide what is best for you and your family."


Unfortunately, you are right about the majority choosing what goes on. Sometimes, it is best to take a course that the majority doesn't agree with. America is very proud for it's part in the space race, Obama cutting funding to NASA must have really hurt. As you said however, everyone has to cut costs on things that aren't important (paraphrased). Exploring outer space is nice and all but spending like that can be wasteful in a hard time.

Sometimes it can be more practical to trim a little fat when times get lean. It is easier to understand that if you have ever been really hungry. I have.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 8:31:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 9:38:01 PM, jharry wrote:
I understand that. You don't have a problem with it but I do. It is my taxes and yours, but "MINE" is majority. It's pain I can see but it is the most practical way. For me personally killing a life to save a life is moot. Sometimes practical is not worth anything in situations like this.

It's not really killing a life to save a life. It's sacrificing a life to save millions. Besides, we kill a life to save a life every day. We kill billions of lives. I just swallowed and digested thousands of bacteria typing this post.

And you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. As of right now your vote is smaller then mine. Until a judge gets involved, but that is as impractical as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't see what voting has to do with anything. Stem cell research doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to be a part of it.

Because it is life. The fetus of my live stock are protected and so is my corn seed in the field. But a persons seed isn't protected from selfish person?

The fetus of your livestock belong to you, don't they? Your corn in the field belongs to you, doesn't it? Shouldn't a person's own body belong to them?

Saying that we should prevent people from doing what they wish with their "seed" is like saying that someone should prevent you from doing what you want with your cows or your corn.

I don't puzzle. Some may but I don't. So really there is no argument there.

Okay, so you don't. That's perfectly okay, you don't have to contribute to stem cell research. But why interfere with people who wish to?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:30:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 8:31:09 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/27/2010 9:38:01 PM, jharry wrote:
I understand that. You don't have a problem with it but I do. It is my taxes and yours, but "MINE" is majority. It's pain I can see but it is the most practical way. For me personally killing a life to save a life is moot. Sometimes practical is not worth anything in situations like this.

It's not really killing a life to save a life. It's sacrificing a life to save millions. Besides, we kill a life to save a life every day. We kill billions of lives. I just swallowed and digested thousands of bacteria typing this post.

Come on now, I know you aint going there. Bacteria?

And I don't agree to the first sentence. But that ends up being a point at which we agree to disagree. :)

And you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. As of right now your vote is smaller then mine. Until a judge gets involved, but that is as impractical as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't see what voting has to do with anything. Stem cell research doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to be a part of it.

Huh? My tax money funding what I consider murder? That affects me whether you understand it or not.

Because it is life. The fetus of my live stock are protected and so is my corn seed in the field. But a persons seed isn't protected from selfish person?

The fetus of your livestock belong to you, don't they? Your corn in the field belongs to you, doesn't it? Shouldn't a person's own body belong to them?

Can I dump 20 tons of rotting corn on your front lawn? All of that is besides the point anyway. I find it very sad that secular society cares more about me letting my herd starve out in a field then protecting a life. Oh yeah, my herd belongs to me but I still have limits on what I can and can't do with it. That is why this is so sad in my eyes.

Saying that we should prevent people from doing what they wish with their "seed" is like saying that someone should prevent you from doing what you want with your cows or your corn.

I don't puzzle. Some may but I don't. So really there is no argument there.

Okay, so you don't. That's perfectly okay, you don't have to contribute to stem cell research. But why interfere with people who wish to?

I have a vote right? I vote on me, not others. They are entitled to vote as they chose also. When I go into a vote I don't think "I'm going to stop so and so from killing babies". I think. "Would I want a single life to be destroyed so I can live?" My answer is no and that is how I vote.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:36:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 6:47:12 PM, jharry wrote:
Forensic science is awesome.

Forensic science is some what of a misnomer. Forensic means 'to do with courts of law' and as such any field of science has the potential to be applicable and be considered forensic. There is no actual branch of science labelled 'forensic', it's simply an application of other fields of knowledge for a specific purpose.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 6:02:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 3:36:49 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/26/2010 6:47:12 PM, jharry wrote:
Forensic science is awesome.

Forensic science is some what of a misnomer. Forensic means 'to do with courts of law' and as such any field of science has the potential to be applicable and be considered forensic. There is no actual branch of science labeled 'forensic', it's simply an application of other fields of knowledge for a specific purpose.

Neat.

What ever kinda science it is I like it. It is practical and useful.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 9:33:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 3:36:49 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/26/2010 6:47:12 PM, jharry wrote:
Forensic science is awesome.

Forensic science is some what of a misnomer. Forensic means 'to do with courts of law' and as such any field of science has the potential to be applicable and be considered forensic. There is no actual branch of science labelled 'forensic', it's simply an application of other fields of knowledge for a specific purpose.

and yet many (sh*tty) schools offer degrees in forensic science. so it must mean something!

also yay i learned the meaning of a word (and finally realize why debate was called "forensics" in high school)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...