On Marcelo Gleiser’s A Tear at the Edge of Creation BY WALTER R. HEARN, ON JANUARY 23, 2011

Marcelo Gleiser is described on the flap of his 2010 Free Press book as “Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy and professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College, where he runs an active cosmology group.” He is cited as author of two earlier books, The Dancing Universe and The Prophet and the Astronomer.

Despite use of the . . . → Read More: On Marcelo Gleiser’s A Tear at the Edge of Creation BY WALTER R. HEARN, ON JANUARY 23, 2011

Does taking tests help students learn science?

A New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/science/21memory.html?_r=1&ref=science) based upon a recent Purdue study by Jeffrey D. Karpicke and Janell R. Blunt shows that when students take tests they learn science better than when they use study aids such as concept maps and other learning devices.

Purdue study abstract:

Educators rely heavily on learning activities that encourage elaborative . . . → Read More: Does taking tests help students learn science?

Can “Intrinsic Randomness” Afford Divine Openness?

In his book A New Kind of Science, Stephen Wolfram describes what he calls “intrinsically-generated randomness” (pp. 315-326), and contrasts it with other sources of randomness, namely initial conditions and environmental effects. Could this idea, that randomness may be effectively generated via the simple computational rules governing the behavior of a system, offer anything new . . . → Read More: Can “Intrinsic Randomness” Afford Divine Openness?

ID not science, should it be called Natural Philosophy?

I read this over on UcD:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-response-to-stephen-barr/

One can argue that as an empirical matter ID has failed to demonstrate that living things bear indicia of design.  Many scientists would disagree, but competing interpretations of the data are what good science is all about.  May the best interpretation prevail.  But some scientists go further than advancing competing interpretations . . . → Read More: ID not science, should it be called Natural Philosophy?

Consensus Science

The term “consensus” has become a lightning rod in the public discussion of controversial areas of science. Scientists who were baffled that much of the public didn’t agree with scientific opinions on global warming and other controversial topics, began using the term as a means of ending all argument. By proclaiming the opinions to be . . . → Read More: Consensus Science

 

September 2014
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Email Notifications for Posts